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?
