-
Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd
June 18, 2013 | 14 comments
-
Hannity: Secure the Border First
June 17, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Charles Krauthammer and The Limbaugh Theorem
June 14, 2013 | 27 comments
-
GI Told He Can’t Read Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh
June 7, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Will Christie Appoint a Conservative?
June 6, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In cutely merging the first and last names of her two major competitors for the nomination — Newt Romney — Michele Bachmann has a much more interesting point than she is getting credit for. In the latest back and forth between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, Romney smacked at Newt for taking Freddie Mac bucks.
OK. Fair enough.
But the fastball Newt sent in response — an attack on Bain Capital — was deceptively clever.
Yes, on the surface, as has been pointed out elsewhere here by Robert Kirchhoefer, Newt Gingrich is appallingly wrong in his response to Romney, the latter now saying Newt should give back his Fannie Mae bucks. Our colleague Joe Lawler took after Newt, quite correctly, on the same point. But there’s an elephant in the room here which is being missed.
In fact, both Romney and Gingrich are really communicating — not that one would ever get this from the media — that both of them have zero intention of dismantling the Washington lobbyist establishment.
Yes — Romney is right. Gingrich took the money. But the not-so-dirty little secret is that Romney is taking precisely the same money — in the form of campaign contributions. Campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists who earn the money they use to fund Romney’s campaign from, to use Kirchhoefer’s wonderful term, boils on the backside of the federal government.
So if Gingrich should give back the money he has taken in the form of a fee — so too should Romney have his campaign give back any contributions earned in precisely the same way Gingrich earned his fees. But curiously, Gingrich refused to smack Romney for taking all manner of money from the very kind of sources that compose the guts of the dragon that Newt Gingrich milked for bucks.
Why? Because, to use the Bachmann formulation, “Newt Romney” is utterly dependent for campaign dollars and support on exactly the same institution — the Washington Republican Lobby Establishment. The real question Gingrich should have posed to Romney is not about money from Bain Capital…but whether he, Romney, considers, say, ex-Washington lobbyist, ex-RNC Chair and now Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to somehow be tainted because Barbour’s wealth…like Gingrich’s…comes from lobbying. Romney is quiet as a church mouse on the subject.
Why? Because he wants Barbour’s support. The last thing Romney would want to do is antagonize a popular and well-connected ex-RNC chair and governor. But more to the point: Mitt Romney has zero intention….none…of changing a thing in Washington. Why? Like Newt Gingrich, he takes Washington lobby money. Big time. He would no more smack the GOP Washington Lobby Establishment than he would divorce wife Ann. Why? Because Mitt Romney is politically married to these good folks. To the institution. To the concept of the whole big deal.
The only problem for him is that Newt is not some billionaire’s son from Utah — but a card carrying member of the same group which Romney has to pretend to disdain. If Mitt Romney really feels this way, when will he attack Haley Barbour? Will he dismiss anyone connected with his own campaign who has made a living doing precisely the same thing as Newt — and everybody else in Washington? Hmm. Don’t wait up. But maybe there really is a serious discussion to be had here…yes? Can you say: Clark Clifford Republicans?
View all comments (4) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/13/newt-romney-and-the-clark-clif
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dan| 12.13.11 @ 11:51AM
In what way is what has come to be known as "lobbying" supposed to stop?
Lobbying is but another form of the people right to petition. As the citizens are able to petition for the government to do certain things, they are also able to petition for the government to do certain commercial things, or when the government is already using certain commercial products, the people {or in this case, the people means a small group of the people} are able to ask that the government use their particular product.
For instance, everybody knows the Postal Service uses vehicles. So say you and some of your business partners made a vehicle that you thought was better suited for that purpose. Aren't you able to "petition" so to speak that the government cease using the vehicle presently in use and adopt your new proposed vehicle.
What has come to be known as lobbying per se isn't something wrong, but what is wrong and should be something addressed is the ability of politicians to extract political favours, such as campaign donations for instance, in quid pro quo transactions.
Even a politician leaving office who uses the knowledge he learned while in office isn't something necessarily wrong. While nepotism is something that needs to be addressed, a politician earning big money leaving office isn't something to categorically decry. When a group gets together to ask Washington legislators to adopt something, to pass something, or when people get together to request some rule making agency to adopt or to alter some rule, IT MAKES SENSE for that group to retain somebody who knows the ins and the outs of Capitol Hill. Those with such knowledge, those with that kind of influence have come to be called "lobbyists," but the term itself as well as the profession is morally neutral.
Culpability depends on the particulars of the case.
I'm not privy to what advice Gingrich offered.
Nor am I privy to the previous consultation fees that others charged Fanny and Freddie, so I don't know whether his fees were par for the course or outlandish.
If you want to see an instance of influence peddling that SHOULD be decried, take a good look at how many had their hands in the cookie jar in the deal that was supposed to go down during the Bush administration, id est, the DUBAI PORTS DEAL.
Both sides of the aisle were feeding from that trough.
Take a gander at who gets the petrodollars swirling around inside the Beltway. THAT's something to go after if you're looking for change.
As for Romney, he was one of those, like "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap, who believed "turnaround" consisted of taking a chainsaw to a workforce, something ALL of us are going to learn a great deal more of, particularly the painful particulars for those who saw their livelihoods obliterated while Romney was pocketing huge amounts in compensation.
Furthermore, as a legal matter, I don't see how the profession can be altered much. Nepotism can be tackled to be sure, what's allowed can be looked. But no outright prohibition is possible, NOR DESIRABLE for that matter.
Dai Alanye | 12.13.11 @ 3:31PM
I'm afraid Mr Lord's misplaced ardor for the new Newt Gingrich has led him astray in part of his analysis. He writes, "But curiously, Gingrich refused to smack Romney for..."
Not "curious" at all. Newt simply uttered the first snarky comment he thought of. Although "thought," as we usually conceive of the term, hardly played a part. Instead, out of the multitudes which make up the personality we call Newton Leroy Gingrich, ebullience from his recent electoral prosperity called to the fore Old Bad Newt -- the reptillian (or amphibian, if you will) Newt -- who reacted to a type of stimulus with an automatic attack. Had New Newt been in control he might have made a considered and wiser response.
Newt is likely to regret this attempt to equate risking one's own money with accepting taxpayer money from a corrupt source. Conservatives, at least, can hardly accept the comparison. Had he given some thought (there we go again) to his response he could perhaps have come up with something like Mr Lord's suggestion, a far more deft defense against Romney's slap.
But that's Newt, and that's also why I'm in the process of abandoning him.
Dai Alanye | 12.13.11 @ 3:35PM
As for Bachmann, BTW, being "cute" is part of what's killing her appeal.
Caleb Boone| 12.14.11 @ 5:36AM
Gentlemen:
I assume this is an allusion to Knute Rockne.
However, no one has used any football terms.
I have read "cute," "slap," "church mouse" and "chainsaw" but these do not appear to be football plays to me.
The problem with this entire debate is that it is being waged over two who, by any objective measure, have no hope of winning against Obama.
One wonders whether all of you expect the Automobile Club to come to their aid.
Have a Dovely.
Sincerely yours,
CALEB BOONE.