A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes to Newt

David Weigel | November 20, 2006

Newton "Newt" Gingrich, on his plans for 2008:

"I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

Ridiculous? Maybe.* But why can I imagine a national movement centered around Gingrichism more easily than I can imagine a push for Romneyism, Giulianism, Hillaryism, or even Obamagraphy?

*Apologies to Messr. Bill O'Reilly.

Comments

|11.20.06 @ 4:18PM|#

The "center" does not go "around" anything. The center is the center. Now something can "revolve around" something.

|11.20.06 @ 4:22PM|#

Zeno, wha? and huh?

Dan T.|11.20.06 @ 4:28PM|#

Didn't Newt's last set of compelling solutions (the Contract With America) go mostly unfulfilled?

|11.20.06 @ 4:37PM|#

No, I believe they went 9 for 10, then self-destructed on the 10th -- shutting down the federal government to get a balance budget passed.

Most of the contract with america dealt with House rules which they changed almost immediately on taking power in 1994.

|11.20.06 @ 4:42PM|#

Didn't Newt's last set of compelling solutions (the Contract With America) go mostly unfulfilled?

Yes, but not for Newt's lack of effort. Entrenched bureaucracies are very hard to uproot. Especially without a filibuster proof majority in the senate.

|11.20.06 @ 4:45PM|#

Contract with America - http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

|11.20.06 @ 4:45PM|#

"I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

Oh snap! He's running for Messiah!

|11.20.06 @ 4:46PM|#

"I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

Wow. If you said that John Kerry had said it, I wouldn't have even thought to question you on it.

|11.20.06 @ 4:51PM|#

Newt is not a likable guy. However, he is, in my opinion, sincere and more intelligent than your average congressperson.

I know, a gerbil fills that "more intelligent than your average congressperson" description as well.

Dan T.|11.20.06 @ 4:55PM|#

Newt is not a likable guy. However, he is, in my opinion, sincere and more intelligent than your average congressperson.


He was against "big government" but his district at the time was #2 in Federal pork, behind only Arlington, Va...

|11.20.06 @ 4:59PM|#

The points of the CWA:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Is it just me, or could the Democrats have probably won by even more this year if they had run on this exact same platform. I tend to agree with J sub D that its not really the fault of Newt though.

|11.20.06 @ 5:06PM|#

Ridiculous? Maybe.*
*Apologies to Messr. Bill O'Reilly.

Sorry that I'm not "hip" to all the "cool lingo," but can someone explain the relevance of this little aside?

David Weigel|11.20.06 @ 5:12PM|#

O'Reilly ends his shows with "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day." Although he increasingly uses the time to boost some dumb project he's working on, it's intended to spotlight a goofy news item from somwhere in the world. O'Reilly reports the item and says "Ridiculous? You be the judge/Maybe/Looks like it might be," etc.

Paul|11.20.06 @ 5:25PM|#

Bryan, glad you posted it first, 'cause I was already cutting and getting ready to paste.

But since it's up there, can anyone believe-- I ask again-- can you believe how much ire and anger came from the Democrats on this? To think that their stupid little attack-moniker, "The Contract On America" was pointed at the idea that Congress would be subjected to the same laws as us regular folks?

|11.20.06 @ 5:27PM|#

"But why can I imagine a national movement centered around Gingrichism more easily than I can imagine a push for Romneyism, Giulianism, Hillaryism, or even Obamagraphy?"

Yeah, but Onanism still beats 'em all.

Jammer|11.20.06 @ 6:32PM|#

But since it's up there, can anyone believe-- I ask again-- can you believe how much ire and anger came from the Democrats on this? To think that their stupid little attack-moniker, "The Contract On America" was pointed at the idea that Congress would be subjected to the same laws as us regular folks?

Paul, that wasn't the whole contract. It was more like the preamble. Click on that link above and you'll see what the Dem's were *reall* screaming about. Starving children and grandparents tossed out into the freezing cold streets, if I recall the opposition rhetoric of the times.

Paul|11.20.06 @ 6:47PM|#

Jammer, fear not, I know all about the contract. I still have a copy on my PC... pdf form, natch.

You've simply made my point. You'd think that the Contract was suggesting that someone couldn't say anything about a political candidate 60 days before an election. Or the president himself had the sole authority to declare someone an 'enemy combatant'. You know, really crazy shit like that.

|11.20.06 @ 6:52PM|#

Yeah, but Onanism still beats 'em all.

Mediageek,
I really have to hand it to you for that one and I'm not jerking you around either.

|11.20.06 @ 6:54PM|#

I would vote for a Gingrich/Armey ticket even if they ate puppies and small children at every campaign stop. Other than that, no major party name that's been tossed out there for 2008 looks like they are worth a damn. I think Newt has learned from the missteps he made in Congress (would that all our elected leaders could do the same).

|11.20.06 @ 7:19PM|#

"I would vote for a Gingrich/Armey ticket even if they ate puppies and small children at every campaign stop."

Hell, I'd pay to be in the audience for that one.

|11.20.06 @ 8:04PM|#

"SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public"

Bwah hah hah hah hah!!!!!

I was a "Congressional placeholder" when I was in college in DC during the mid-90s. Our job was to stand in line outside of meeting rooms on Capitol Hill, so that the people who hired us could get a seat in the audience of Congressional committee hearings.

When the Republicans took over, everything got weird. They began holding meetings in these tiny little rooms in the Capitol basement that could only seat about 5 members of the public. They'd schedule their meetings for before the buildings were open to the public. There would be all of these secretive, last-minute changes in location and time that we could sniff out because we knew what we were doing, but that were clearly designed to keep people from knowing what was going on.

This is why I don't buy this "Republican Revolution Betrayed" crap. These dirty bastards were doing this right from the beginning.

|11.20.06 @ 8:17PM|#

"THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;"

None of these are actual reforms; they're just efforts to concentrate power in the majority party leadership, and reduce the power of committee chairs vis-a-vis the Speaker and Majority Leader.

Which sounds an awful lot like the last two Congresses to me.

Mike Laursen|11.20.06 @ 8:51PM|#

Can anyone here offer up a sampling of some solutions from his "series of solutions so compelling"? The article was pretty darn sparse on details.

|11.20.06 @ 9:01PM|#

NoStar | November 20, 2006, 6:52pm | #

Yeah, but Onanism still beats 'em all.

Mediageek,
I really have to hand it to you for that one and I'm not jerking you around either.

Wow, that's why I love you wacky kids here at H&R.

|11.21.06 @ 1:58PM|#

Newts just playin to the cheap seats. As pointed out above, while he made a platform out of out of control, Gvt spending, he was second only to Robert Friggin Byrd in looting the treasury on pork - something not at all hard to find out at the time, and ignored by the boobs who thought him the Promised One!!! Christ, I can remember the Newt Worship even now. Family values Newt, yessirree. And Open Gvt Newt, who closed down public access, & oppo access, from jump street. Maybe some future Mrs Newt will finally tame his manly needs....
Now he haunts Fox News & Chickenhawk Radio, whose devotees have very, very short memories.His once and future base.
No, no breath of fresh air there. For a country of relativly boundless opportunity, we really seem to have a very small pool of , um, "talent" to draw from. Aint a one either party, Id hire to rake my yard.....

James Anderson Merritt|11.21.06 @ 2:21PM|#

Indeed. Newt seems to me to be the prototype -- given the subject material in this thread, one might even say the Avatar -- of the pol who talks a good game about small government during the campaign, but pulls out all the stops to rev-up the big government machine after being elected. He's an authoritarian with a "sense of destiny." How scary is THAT?

If all laws are supposed to apply to congress as well, then we probably need to sue Newt for breach of contract.

Sadly, voters in TX-10 did not give Michael Badnarik's real, enforceable performance contract much weight. I was hoping that would have played better this year, but if what happened to Badnarik is any indication that people are skeptical of political "contracts," that at least bodes well for keeping Newt on the sidelines.