Politico reports some news that will undoubtedly be disturbing to conservatives who want to do away with Medicare and are always railing against “big government.” Newt Gingrich was a big part of convincing Congress to pass the Medicare prescription drug coverage plan in 2003 at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Newt Gingrich played the role of political godfather in pushing the Medicare prescription drug benefit into law, returning to Capitol Hill in November 2003 to deliver a pivotal speech that turned some conservative skeptics into believers.
Three days before the clock started on what would be an excruciating and historic three-hour floor vote, Republicans huddled in a House office building committee room to hear their former speaker’s vision of a modernized Medicare plan that would offer prescription drugs for seniors while subsidizing Medicare Advantage and introducing health savings accounts aimed at giving conservatives a reason — any reason — to expand the bastion of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society…
But it was the hard-right element in the Republican Party that Gingrich focused on in his speech that day, arguing that a handful of reform-minded provisions in the bill would create an opportunity to rewrite the whole Medicare program later. Gingrich, by then an elder statesman, turned out to be the ideal cleanup hitter.
“Newt was critical to the passage of Medicare Part D,” recalls John Feehery, who was Speaker Dennis Hastert’s chief spokesman at the time. The speech “was very powerful,” Feehery said.
Those who sat in the room that day say it was classic Newt — his best and worst all in the same moment. The bill’s backers applaud him for lending his imprimatur and intellectualism to a cause they say was well worth the effort, while critics believe he walked a number of conservative true believers into heresy: the Pied Piper of Part D.
Newt’s background is filled with many such conservative heresies. Those who are looking at him to be an alternative to Mitt Romney are fooling themselves; he is Mitt Romney in all the important ways. He’s just more combative. And has more need of proving his social conservative credentials.
8 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
holytape
December 16, 2011 at 10:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A friend and I were talking about Newt, and we were arguing how conservative he really was. The conclusion was he is as conservative as long as the price is right.
Modusoperandi
December 16, 2011 at 11:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
On a side note, some people use a calendar with years. Mine goes by which wife Newt was cheating on at the time. Hence, it’s currently Callista (I’m assuming he hasn’t been caught with next one yet).
d cwilson
December 16, 2011 at 11:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oddly enough, once you step outside the reality-based world, he actually doesn’t. Yes, he dumped his first wife for his mistress while the former was recovering from cancer. And yes, he dumped his second wife for his new mistress when she got sick as well. But none of that truly matters in the world of “social conservatives”. All that really matters is that you hate gays and abortion. Anything else can be forgiven.
Utlimately, even the prescription drug plan is acceptable to social (but perhaps not fiscal) conservatives, since it is primarily about funneling tax dollars into the coffers of the drug companies and other “job creators”.
The main reason why Romney is the one who has a greater need to prove his social conservative credentials is his own plastic manner. He just isn’t as good as Newt at selling his conversion story. Romney always comes across as saying whatever people want to hear, but Newt, by dripping with bile, is much more convincing.
There also appears to a hierarchy in faux Christianity in wingnut world. While evangelicals are the only “true” Christians, Catholics are apparently less fake than Mormons.
Modusoperandi
December 16, 2011 at 11:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
d cwilson “While evangelicals are the only ‘true’ Christians, Catholics are apparently less fake than Mormons.”
Roman Catholics are Christian hipsters. They hated abortion back before that was cool. And Mormonism is too recent to not sound hippy-dippy and out there, even to people who enjoy reading the personal letters of a former prosecuting attorney who fell off a horse and changed his mind.
naturalcynic
December 16, 2011 at 12:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And has more need of proving his social conservative credentials.
I don’t think so. Check your pander-o-meter. Betcha’ Mitt scores higher.
On a side note, some people use a calendar with years. Mine goes by which wife Newt was cheating on at the time. Hence, it’s currently Callista (I’m assuming he hasn’t been caught with next one yet).
Maybe Callista keeps the Viagra under lock and key.
Area Man
December 16, 2011 at 1:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s not like Gingrich was somehow a lone Republican voice in the wilderness calling for Medicare Part D back when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Medicare Part D was Karl Rove’s plan to shore up the senior vote and hand out goodies to the drug industry. If it doesn’t appear to align especially well with “small government conservatism”, that’s because the Republicans aren’t really about “small government”, they’re about consolidating power and quid pro quo with powerful business interests.
Pinky
December 17, 2011 at 2:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Part “D” is a lifeline I could not live without. I would have to pay slightly less than $2000 a month out-of-pocket for my drugs without Part “D”.
Surviving the $4200 doughnut hole that is part of Part “D” is a severe hardship every year.
Paying for all my drugs out of pocket would be impossible.
Least any conservative reading this think I am a lazy welfare queen who lives to suck off the tit of society; you should know this: I am you. Yes, except for an assetless idiot with no car insurance who chose to drive drunk, I am you.
Until this crime happened (I refuse to call it an ‘accident’) I was making $70,000+ annually, was very well insured, was building a splendid retirement for my wife and I and even had a decent savings account.
In the blink of an eye, My wife and I went from a comfortable life with the ability to pay the university costs for my children – to the out of pocket medical costs (even with good medical insurance) draining our nest eggs, leaving our children with a decision to be in debt a long time or do without an education.
I am thankful my opinions have not changed drastically since my medical/financial downsize. I never had the attitude I find in many conservatives of: “I got mine, fuck you.” I grew up poor which has made me appreciate what I have, now and prior to being struck by a car. Even in my high school years I remember wondering just how much money does a person need?
By the by; I stand chagrined for mentioning my salary before my mambo with moving metal. My father taught me talking about your own salary or asking another their salary was almost as bad as questioning a person about their private sex life.
I am happy to (civilly) discuss this with any body, but before you criticize me about my financial situation, please re-read paragraph three and explain what you think I was doing wrong. I believed I was acting in the best manor possible (considering my economic status) for my family and myself and that I was almost bullet proof against financial calamity, but obviously I was wrong.
Back on topic – I get angry when do anything/say anything Republicans who would take action harming millions of people so they could what; gain a few more votes; so the rich people who own them can have platinum fixtures on their golden toilets?
Michael Heath
December 17, 2011 at 9:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Pinky,
Thanks for sharing.
I think when non-conservatives criticize Medicare Part D they aren’t criticizing the program but instead our not adequately funding the program. We could easily fund this program if Republican obstructionism ended, their sanity returned, and they prioritized national interests over conservatism. The odds this will happen soon are near-nil.
Newt Gingrich: Big Government Welfare Queen | Dispatches from … « Feeds « Newt Gingrich For President- News Watch
December 16, 2011 at 11:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] From News Source : http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/12/16/newt-gingrich-big-government-welfare-queen/ [...]