Gingrich’s Advice For Obama: 5 Big Changes
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, History, McCain, Newt, RepublicansIt’s pretty short and sweet: be about something.
But between the new health care proposal, heavy investment in green-collar jobs and renewed investment in our infrastructure and national education system, Obama seems like he has plenty of ideas that Americans could get behind. So it feels like Gingrich is trying to position Obama as the guy without ideas. But this has been Newt’s message since long ago: the Republican party is the party of ideas and the Democrats aren’t.
Still, Newt’s historical perspective is always an interesting read…
Your campaign has been brilliant. It has given you more support and more momentum than most analysts expected a year ago. Keeping things simple and vague has worked so far, and it might work all the way to the White House. “Change you can believe in” is a great all-purpose slogan. It allows every person to fill in his or her own interpretation of what it means. In some ways, it’s reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s 1976 promise to run “a government as good as the American people.”The challenge you will face in the next few months is stark. Do you want to remain vague? You might win—but you might find that, in winning, you have a “victory of personality” with no real policy consequences. Or do you want to provide specifics? If so, your victory could be a clarion call from the American people to Congress to join you in achieving your goals. [...]
Can you find five big changes that are substantive, popular—and can rally Democrats from the House and Senate to join you on the Capitol steps in September or October? If you cannot, you should question if you’ll be able to deliver on your “change” slogan. Your campaign advisers may not care about that. Their instinct will be to win the election and leave the difficulties of governing up to you. But if you want to be a genuine historic agent of change “we can believe in,” then you have to look beyond Election Day.
Well, I think I named 4 changes above. Whether they fall into Newt’s definition of “big” is a completely different conversation. But what would be a 5th? A completely new foreign policy philosophy? Is that enough? My guess is yes.
What do you think?
This entry was posted on Sunday, May 11th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, History, McCain, Newt, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Justin — I have been saying this for months. He has no “new” ideas. Simply saying, I am going to “invest” in this and “invest” in that means absolutely nothing other than centralized control, big-government programs and increased taxes. That is not a “new” idea — it is very old idea. Dating back to the early 19th century and guy named Marx. BHO has just put a shiny smile to it and soothing rhetoric — the package is NEW, but the gift inside is decidedly old.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I’ll file Gingrich’s advice for Obama away with my list of his and Tom DeLay’s achievements in ethical and constructive political behavior.
I’ll file Dos’ assessment of Obama’s vision and goals away with Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush’s list of achievements in fiscal responsibility — and have plenty of room left over for $2 trillion to $3 trillion wasted, squandered and unaccounted for current and future taxpayers’ dollars.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I saw a speech Gingrich made about how we can move on from the industrial jobs that we’re loosing to a new economy. Anyway, towards the end, he started talking about how we’re going to be able to implement these changes and whether President Obama is going to live up to his promise to work on programs republicans would support. The speech had nothing to do with the presidential race and he mentioned nobody else.
Despite his somewhat scolding tone, I think Gingrich is going to make an honest effort to work with him and it even seems like he’s looking forward to it. Now that the only candidate who had real plans to fundamentally change our government has no chance of winning, I’m looking forward to seeing how Obama tries to handle his promise of post-partisanship.
All that aside, I’m going to have to agree with Dos and Gingrich on this one. The only new idea I’ve heard from him is the google-for-government thing that will allow us to see where our tax money is being spent. Investing in “Health Care” “Jobs” “Education”, and ending the war in ____ are not new or novel ideas; they’re spit out every campaign cycle. “Change” is nothing new either - both Clinton I and Bush II ran on change and it has proven to be a very stupid thing to vote for.
What Obama is bringing to the table is just a new attitude. That’s it. Whether or not he’s going to actually follow through and fill up any of his hollow rhetoric on the job is something we’ll just have to wait and see about but there’s more than enough precedent to show that it’s not very likely.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
S.W. - I’m quite in agreement on the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush’s. Government needs to take a smaller role in people’s lives. Many of the problems we currently have were created by the involvement of government. As Justin regularly, and correctly states, we haven’t operated as a “free market” in 80 years. (Cue Jim S. sarcastic comment re FM, in 3…2…1). An addiction to rent-seeking and subsidization are the corporate norm now days, particularly in some industries. That addiction retards the market and creates boondoggles like corn ethanol. On health care, regulation kills, or aleast drives up the cost which kills. On public eduction, we don’t even need to go into the social injustice that the public schools have perpetuated against poor, minority neighborhoods. On financial markets, it the TBTF (too big to fail) and the moral hazard created by government intervention which causes irrational risk taking - leave it to the government to come heroically to the rescue for behavior that it help to encourage.
So S.W. stop filing for a second and explain what “new ideas” BHO has? Regarding education, a truly new approach would be the support of school vouchers and parental choice. That would be NEW. Regarding health care, how about trying to get away from third party payers. That would be NEW. Regarding building the green-economy, the government should not subsidize — it should directly tax or regulate the negative externality, if it must, and try to foster environmentally-based voluntary exchanges. Thereby putting most of the economic decisions in the hands of people with the most information. BHO should not try to build the “green economy” from the top down by sinking untold billions into pilot projects and what not. That would be NEW.
Barrack Obama offers nothing new on the domestic front. And I am actually sympathetic with his position on Iraq. But as for the rest of his policies, it’s just not change that I can believe in.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Dos says he doesn’ support big govenment but the people he votes for ALWAYS grow government way more than the alternative that he vilifies. There are only two possible explainations as to why Dos and all the other “small government” supporters continue to vote republican… they are either liars or idiots.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Given the tone and name-calling in djthedj’s comment, he is obviously one of these transformative, post-partisan Obamamites. Again, I look forward to this new attitude fixing everything in Washington. I have since 18 voted for the candidate that I believed was the lesser of two evils. I would have gladly voted for Ron Paul had it worked out for him, but it didn’t. In part RP failed because he threatened the rent-seeking and subsidization of the last 80 years. I believe John McCain, as do many other conservatives, is the lesser of 2 evils. I would vote for the someone else if I didn’t live in a swing state.
BTW, anyone who doesn’t think BHO isn’t going to vast increase the role of government is people’s lives is either a liar or an idiot. djthedj - I’ll credit you with being both.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Gee, here’s a shock, you’re completely wrong Dos. I am a real conservative, unlike a brainwashed little toad like you that constantly parrots the moroinc party line then pretends he would vote for Paul. I’ve read enough of your posts to know you’re lying, but then, that’s what republicans do best now isn’t it? For you to cop an attitude about the tone of a post is truly laughable you arrogant little hypocrite. I may end up voting for Obama but only because I think there is a slightly better chance that he will stop bankrupting America than the lying scum you always vote for. BTW, how dare you call yourself a conservative! Guess what, conservatives don’t grow government to record size, police the world, run up trillions in debt or shred the constitution, you are just a plain old every day liar, like everyone you blindly worship and vote for.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I remember so well when Gingrich, with much evening-news fanfare, buried the hatchet with Bill Clinton, vowing to seek common ground and work together on a range of serious, longterm problems.
In no time, Gingrich was perpetrating another government shutdown — an unconstitutional move, BTW — and all that kumbaya was revealed as the deceitful tactical grab for good PR it was from the beginning.
If you really think Gingrich is capable of an honest effort, talk to those who’ve gone in with him on something in the past.
As for Gingrich working with Obama, Gingrich is last decade’s bad news, discredited, untrustworthy and not trusted even in his own party, and with no platform or constituency to bring to any such dealing.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Dos, if you want to learn more about Obama’s plans and proposals, go to his Web site, read interviews with him and watch C-SPAN.
The school vouchers idea has been around for at least three decades. It’s more about right-wing Republicans’ hatred of and desire to destroy unions than about reforming education. Right wingers especially hate teachers’ unions because those organizations are still strong, have political clout and are unalterably opposed to about 99.5 percent of the GOP agenda and way of doing things at any given time.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
More positive vibes from the Obamamites.
You are correct that conservatives have no affinity for the NEA. (How could any rational person, they suck at their jobs and are constantly asking for more money)
No, conservatives actually care about the education of children, not the survival of an educational system that has consistantly failed the most vulnerable children for decades. But think what you want and keep spreading that Obama-vibe of assuming good-faith motivation by those that disagree with you on policy.
I have and I was fairly certain that I’d stubbled across the love-child of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter.