Diana Raabe from Minnesota asks: Mid-term turnovers like this past one have historically moved sitting presidents more toward the center. What advice would you give Mr. Bush in order to establish a successful working relationship with Nancy Pelosi that is reminiscent of yours with Bill Clinton, and Tip O'Neill's with Ronald Reagan?
The President has two different models of bipartisanship from which to choose. The first is the one preferred by the Washington, DC establishment and will be the greatest temptation to the White House, which has only a two-year time horizon with which to work. The impulse will be for the President to forge grand compromises with the liberal democratic leadership to pass liberal legislation under the rubric of a desire to “get things done,” even if they are bad. This would be a disaster. It would lead to an enormous uprising in the conservative base, splitting the Republican Party from day one.
However, there is a second model of bipartisanship that will allow for constructive, center-right legislation to be passed that is overwhelmingly supported not only by the conservative base, but by the majority of the American people. (Examples include: making the cap gains tax cut permanent; controlling set-asides and discretionary spending; oversight on failing bureaucracies and waste; English as the language of government; and biofuels as part of an energy policy) This model makes the center of power in Washington the 50 plus conservative or “blue-dog” democrats instead of the White House and Democratic leadership. The White House and Republican minority in Congress should reach out to these conservative Democrats and cooperate them to pass center-right alternatives to the legislation put forth by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. This was the model used by Ronald Reagan with Tip O’Neil.
For more on these two models of bipartisanship, please read my 11/16 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3793
Elizabeth L. from Virginia asks: With a Republican president, and very slim Congressional majorities, the Democrats are going to find it very challenging to get any of their agenda passed into law. Do you think that the Democratic majorities in Congress will be an advantage or disadvantage for Democratic presidential candidates in 2008?
It depends almost entirely on the actions of President Bush and the Republican caucus in Congress. If they succeed in working with conservative Democrats to pass center-right legislation, than the Republican brand will enter 2008 reinvigorated. If the President instead chooses to make compromises with the House Leadership on liberal legislation, than it will infuriate the conservative base and weaken the cohesiveness of the Republican Party, hurting the Party’s chances in 2008.
Craig Sprout from Montana asks: Many people are blaming the GOP's loss on conservatives who feel that the party has abandoned the principles of Reagan conservatives. Do you believe this to be the case?
I disagree with the underlying premise of these questions because it places the blame for the GOP defeat on the voters instead of the performance of the leaders they elect. In truth the Republican defeat was due to four C’s: competence, corruption, candor, and consultants.
Competence – Iraq, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and the failure to secure the border are the three most obvious examples. But there was also record federal spending, the unbalanced budget, the failure of the social security reform initiative (which was so complex and confusing that it collapsed) and little progress made combating rising health care costs that threaten to bankrupt families and the government.
Corruption – Several high-profile Republican scandals like that involving Jack Abramoff hurt Republicans this year, but these were symptomatic of a larger moral corruption of Congress using taxpayer money – our money – to get them reelected. In 1994 we campaigned against this behavior. The American people expected Republicans to put an end to this incumbency protection racket, not take it to new heights.
Candor – These are serious time and the American people deserve candor from their leaders. Instead we get overly politicized, oversimplified rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. Iraq is a perfect example. If the White House was honest and up-front about the mistakes we had made in Iraq but also presented a way forward to victory, than Republicans would still be in control of both Houses. Instead we got ‘stay the course’ vs. ‘cut and run.’ The news every day made it obvious that ‘stay the course’ wasn’t working, so they punished the Party in charge of ‘stay the course.’
Consultants – A generation of political consultants have emerged that specialize in a cheap, nasty, and trivial campaign style that is at odds with the enormous challenges America faces today. The American people are sick of it. Since Republicans were the Party in charge, they bore the brunt of that dissatisfaction.
Bob Parks from Massachusetts asks: With all the talk of this last election being one that marked the people's call for moderation, do you think the extreme partisanship will ever subside? Everyone will be investigating everyone once the sides change. Will it ever end?
Yes. I touched on this above when I described the problem inherent in the negative, trivial campaigning style preferred by political consultants, one that ultimately hurt the GOP this election. My sense from traveling throughout the country giving speeches is that the country today is 20% Democrat, 20% Republican, and 60% disgusted. The differences between the parties will remain stark and the debate will remain intense in the coming decades, but I believe we are near the end of this cycle of nasty, shallow discourse.
The American people are aware of the historic challenges we face as a people, so they will demand more solutions and less attacks. Their tolerance for the current level of negativity is very low and will simply keep firing their leaders until the level of political discourse rises to meet these challenges.
One idea to accelerate this transition would be to make bipartisan all Presidential primary events in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The simple act of putting all the candidates from both parties on the same stage and all their supporters in the same room would take half the poison out of the system. Here is an op-ed I wrote on the topic for more info: http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2739
Diana Raabe from Minnesota asks: In 1994, President Clinton borrowed a page from his newly elected Republican Congress and took ownership of welfare reform. Do you see President George W. Bush being able to save his presidency by similarly borrowing a current Democratic initiative such as the minimum wage, education reform, etc.? If so, which initiative would best serve the Bush presidency? Which would best serve the people of the U.S.?
At the time President Clinton (reluctantly) signed welfare reform, a reported poll showed that reform was favored by 92% of the country, including 88% of those on welfare. The only way President Bush would be able to adopt this model is to find a liberal proposal with that level of support. I do not believe such an issue exists at this time. Remember, it took twenty-five years to win the argument on welfare reform. I can’t think of a liberal position that has been talked-out and resolved in the country to this extent.
Elizabeth L. from Virginia asks: Are you running for President, as some commentators have suggested?
I am considering it and will decide sometime later in 2007. However, it is not my main focus at the moment. What this country needs far more than another narrowly focused, partisan campaign for President is a national bipartisan movement for real change focused on all 511,000 elected offices in the country. That is the only way to achieve the level of ‘real change’ needed for America to remain the safest, healthiest, most prosperous and most free country in the world. My focus is building the momentum for this scale of a movement.
Troy Stouffer from Maryland asks: Since you led the Republican takeover in 1994 with conservative ideals and principles, who will be the rising Republican star in the Congress who will lead the Republicans not only back to their conservative roots, but also back into power?
I sincerely hope that we are not in another 40 year cycle in which Republicans do not return to the majority. I would rather that this be a wake-up call perceived by the majority of the Republican caucus that we must return to our conservative principles and only a temporary interruption in the process of consolidating a center-right governing majority. Think of it as a necessary correction, like you would get in the stock market.
A successful leader in this scenario would be focused on reaching out to conservative Democrats to forge a conservative majority in Congress as a whole. John Boehner has been elected as the Minority Leader in the House, Trent Lott in the Senate, and if they focus on this task for the next two years, they will have both helped the country and restored the health of the Republican Party.
Andrew R. from Massachusetts asks: How do you see the '08 elections shaping up on both sides? Who will each major party nominate and what does it say about the direction that party is going in for the future?
This is the most open election since 1928, when no sitting President or Vice President ran for the nomination. I really have no idea – nobody does. I will say that due to the enormous challenges facing the country and how rapidly technology is changing our lives, the winning candidates will be solution-oriented and run campaigns that reach out to voters using these new technologies.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51
Isn't it just as likely that the newly-energized Democratic-controlled Congress is going to bring along a number of "liberal" (to use the opposite of your assumption - I don't really seem the centrist Democrats or Republicans as "liberal" or "conservative") Republicans to enact parts of the Democrats' agenda? Why would you be opposed to that?
Should your answer to Elizabeth L's question regarding a Presidential run lean toward "yes," we would welcome the opportunity to host a group of Gingrich advocates here on Gather. In either case, I hope and trust that you will find the conversation here informed and insightful. I look forward to learning through your dialog here with Gather members.
--------
Tom Gerace is founder and CEO of Gather
Over the years you've had the opportunity to meet with a lot of influential people. Did you ever have a moment when meeting a celebrity, head of state or some other distinguished individual where you thought to yourself, "wow, this is really cool!"?
As one successful political strategist, how do you rate Howard Dean's performance as Chair of the Democratic party and his 50 state strategy? And can you comment on James Carville's coup attempt?
I have a question that follows from your response to Elizabeth L's first question. You state above that, "If they [Bush admin] succeeds in working with conservative Democrats to pass center-right legislation, than the Republican brand will enter 2008 reinvigorated. If the President instead chooses to make compromises with the House Leadership on liberal legislation, than it will infuriate the conservative base and weaken the cohesiveness of the Republican Party, hurting the Party's chances in 2008." I know that you clarify above what you define as center-right legislation but can you please comment on where the Iraq war fits into this definition? Would you consider a timetable for withdrawal to be center-right or liberal? What type of compromise or action by the Bush administration regarding the Iraq War would you consider to be helpful or hurtful to the Republican brand in 2008?
When your party won in 1994 I was quite upset. I thought you arrogant and somewhat smug. What a difference a terrorist act can make. Ever since 9-11
I have become a staunch Republican. I feel you are the only one that can bring
Conservative values back where they belong. I watch you all the time on Fox News
and I hope sincerely that you run for President. God Bless you and good luck in 2008.
With regards to Iraq, the issue is not one of compromise but instead, of a new direction. The Bush administration must explain a new, compelling vision for how to win the war in Iraq that specifically acknowledges previous mistakes and assumption and shows how they will be corrected. The American people overwhelmingly still want victory in Iraq, but they have shown they will not support 'stay the course.'
I don't know if a timetable for withdrawal is center-right or liberal; it is simply a bad idea. Leaving Iraq before the country is able to defend itself would leave an enormous power vacuum in the region that Iran and Syria would gladly fill and would create an Afghanistan-like safe harbor for terrorists
What issues do you consider possible to forge some sort of bipartisanship? What issues seem highly unlikely? Is there a possibility of Congress actually doing something without it being loaded with pork and differential add-ons? Is Congress really that ready to do something, or will not Bush and Pelosi stalemate each other?
-John Calvignome
Do the Republicans need an updated version of your "Contract with America" dealing with immigration, corruption, taxes, spending, and healthcare?
The three examples you gave do not demonstrate a Democratic vision accepted by most Americans. Instead, they demonstrate my point – Democrats had to run against Republicans and Republican proposals. That is very different than offering a positive vision of their own.
Social Security – The Democrats did not lead a campaign to prevent privatization. They led a campaign to prevent the White House's confusing, disjointed, social security plan that was never effectively explained beyond the fact that it might cut benefits and raise taxes. That's the political equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. In contrast, the Ryan-Sununu plan would have established voluntary personal accounts with much higher returns than would be received under the current social security structure and done so without raising taxes or cutting benefits. That is a privatization plan that would appeal to a vast number of Americans – one Democrats would have had a very difficult time derailing.
Where is the Democrats positive vision for solving social security's funding crisis? That was absent during the social security debate. In fact, their success in defeating the White House on the social security issue was likely a template for their election victory.
South Dakota – This abortion ban in question did not include exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the pregnant woman. As such, it was successfully characterized as extreme. That's why it lost. The defeat of this measure was hardly a validation of a constitutional right to abortion on demand.
Iraq timetable for withdrawal – Rather than a vote for withdrawal, the election results made it clear that the American people do not support the current strategy in Iraq. This is unsurprising because what repeated polling has shown is that the American people fundamentally want is not withdrawal, but victory. A late September poll by Fox News showed a breakdown of 19-33-20-25. 19 percent were the number of American who said they supported the current strategy. 33 percent want to support the war but think we need a new strategy. 20 percent said they oppose the war but could support it with a new strategy. 25 percent say they oppose the war no matter what the strategy. That is a 75-25 majority for victory in Iraq. These numbers have not changed significantly.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Don't you think that Mr. Bush's "change of direction" could be defined as his personal compromise? "Stay the course" was his original mantra, after all.
One more question for you:
During the campaign season, Senator Obama liked to quote you as having said that if you were running for office this year, you would simply ask "Had enough?" Was this an accurate quote, and does this mean that you think the American people made the right choice in voting out the Republican majority?
My one disagreement with your comments is that confusing complexity is not why the social security iniative failed!
1. Exit polls showed that the country still believes in limited government, wants taxes low, the budget balanced, the border secured, a government that works, and responsible spending. Democrats did a good job of recruiting conservative candidates to win in conservative districts. Republicans lost this election. Conservatism did not.
2. At the risk of coming across as too self-promoting, I proposed just this in Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596980079?ie=UTF8&tag=maxtax&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1596980079]. So the answer to your question is "yes."
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich will return to the article throughout the day and continue to answer as many questions as time permits before the holidays. Please join me in thanking Mr. Gingrich for participating in this conversation on Gather.
You can find this article in http://Politics.Gather.com
-John Calvignome
It's my opinion that we don't really need new laws but rather need to enforce the ones we have, and tell Federal agencies to stop blocking states and municipalities when they try to deal with the problem by themselves in the absence of Federal will. Congress can vote funding for stronger enforcement of existing laws and the President can order those laws against hiring illegals be enforced. Neither is happening to any degree. Why?
And why, in the face of Reagan's failed amnesty attempt, is amnesty the only thing the President can think of as a solution to this problem? Why not establish strong enforcement of our laws, border security, etc. then deal with such things as guest workers (we already have at least two guest worker programs, one of which (H1-B) is so corrupt it is disgusting), and rewriting the 14th Amendment so it clarifies exactly to whom it actually applies?
I have made no secret of my disappointment with the performance of our government under Republican leadership. But the point I was raising when I suggested that the Democrats use that catch-phrase was that since the Democrats have no compelling vision of their own that would be accepted by a majority of the American people, than their only alternative was to be anti-Republican. This strategy only works if the American people are intensely unhappy with Washington. Unfortunately, Republicans were unable to get their act together and "had enough" turned out to be more than enough for a Democratic win.
Coming from the border State of Arizona, I too am disgusted with the empty promises over the years of securing the borders, with Mexico especially. I just don't understand the Republican failure to get something done with this while they were in power. We want the border fixed first from illegals, drug smuggling, crime gangs, etc. before anymore talk of amnesty or what have you. We are warned against hunting or hiking in our own backyard because of these thugs, let alone the obvious national impacts.
Do you see a change in the enforcement commitment by the Republicans leading into the '08 elections? It sure isn't there now.
Thank you.
Again, it depends on the actions of the Republican caucus and White House. If they rally to pass center-right legislation, the Republicans will enter 2008 very strong. If not, they will see a schism in their base. See my earlier answer on two forms of bipartisanship for a more detailed answer.
anti-war (Murtha) and ethically-challenged (Alcee Hastings), do you
think this will give the GOP leverage in '08?
I'm not sure if what you say is true about the difference in consultant contracts between the parties. If it is true, than I don't think it is making a difference. Both parties engage in this negative, trivial campaigning style. My suggestions are not aimed at consultants, who are paid to offer advice, but instead at candidates and parties. They're the ones who make the final decisions. If there was a conscious effort by candidates and Party leaders to focus on a solutions-oriented, bold-contrast style of campaigning about critical issues, than all the bad advice from consultants wouldn't matter.
-John Calvignome
My advice to Republicans has been not to worry about what the Democrats are doing and instead focus on reclaiming our core conservative principles and values. They should work with conservative Democrats to pass center-right legislation (see my earlier answer). Drawing contrasts is an important part of campaigning. However, it is incumbent to first know what a party believes in before describing what they are against. Otherwise, political victories come with no political capital and are ultimately unstable (this is partly why things went so badly for the Republicans this year after the victories in 2004).
Why don't you just run for president. You would definately be one of my top choices.
Mister Gingrich, with your negatives nearly as high as those of Hillary Clinton, do you really think you could get the republican nomination in 08, and if you did, do you really think you could win ??
Then there was Newt saying "Don't worry about it, maintain your conservative values do what's right for the people and the people will respond. The thing about it is that his message has never changed it has been constant since day one.
Thanks for you service Mr. Speaker. (and when you run I'll help vote you into office)
I was curious to know if you believe that the Libertarian Party will ever stand a chance in US Politics, or if it will always exist on the fringes. Do you agree with only a two-party system, or do you think we should open the field to more parties?
Thanks in advance for your time.
Do you believe America should keep permanent bases in Iraq, with or without Iraqi government consent?
If an Iraqi government should ask the US to leave should we and how quickly?
Current polling reveals most Iraqis beleive America brings less security than more and a disturbing percentage consider it OK to attack and kill Americans. Should all these dissenters be consider "enemy combatants" and treated as such?
Do you support the ultimate authority of the US Supreme Court as the final interpreter of law?
Do you support unlimited Presidential signing statements?
Do you support the Military Commissions Act?
You write that America needs a new vision and that Americans wish a victory in Iraq. I note that John McCain and Hillary Clinton, two potential Presidential candidates have proposed increasing our forces in Iraq but offered no real change in policy. Have you any specific policy change suggestions?
I note that respected generals have commented in some detail on the logistics of increasing our forces, and determined it would not be possible to put into the field 50,000 troops for many months and that would not be enough to "clear and contain" Baghdad alone.
I know politics has a public side and a "getting things done" side. While most of the public attention is placed on the public side ( elections,debates,campaign commercials, etc.), I have a question that centers on the "getting things done" side. So here goes.
"As one Ameican to another, are the majority of national politicians self-centered or are they motivated to do what's best for our country even if it doesn't benefit their careers ?"
The reason I ask this question is because I am 56 years old and have grown up watching national politicians from both parties divide us as a country far more often then they have brought us together.
I have worked with many people in my life, and every single time a group of people I was associated with were unified, the amount we accomplished was off the chart. By the same token, whenever the group was dominated by self-centered individuals, no matter how big the budget was, nothing lasting was ever accomplished.
O.K., So, I need to ask another question:
"Why don't politicians put "developing national unity " in their job descriptions ?
No matter where "national unity" comes from it is not a luxury item in a society. Something must unite people in order for them to want to exist as a group. It may be money, it my be security, it may be a sense of purpose, ( my personal belief that all three are essential ), but in any case, if there is not a common bond there simply is no bond.
Therfore, since politicians are the maintenence crew of our society, how could they not be responsible for uniting us rather than diving us. If a politican's job is not to unite through legislation, then what is their job ?
Mr. Gingrich,
On September 5, 2006, you appeared on FOX News' Hannity & Colmes. On this program, you compared those who disagree with the Bush administration's policies to "those who enabled Hitler." Furthermore, you claimed that "it's not an insulting comment" to compare it as such.
Have you or would you like to retract this statement? If not, how do you substantiate and justify it?
Thanks.