<i/>Franker than ever as he announced plans to retire from Congress, Barney Frank told Abby Goodnough in The Times that Gingrich was “the single biggest factor” in destroying a Washington culture where the two parties respected each other’s differing views yet still worked together.
The thing I remember best is that when the Republicans took over after the '94 election and the "contract on america", the first thing Newt did was scrap the old orientation all new congressmen went through together so he could keep the new Republicans separate from Democrats, lest they happen to notice that their political opponents were human beings.
Romney is a mundane opportunist who reverses himself on core issues. Gingrich is a megalomaniacal opportunist who brazenly indulges in the same sins that he rails about to tear down political rivals.
I wonder if Karl Rove will sign on with Newt. Same tactics, but the clash of megalomaniacs might be difficult. Rove was pretty good at keeping a low profile, though, so it might work.
Republicans have a far greater talent for hypocrisy than easily cowed Democrats do — and no doubt appreciate that in a leader.
I really wish that somehow, someday, when they're out of power, the national Democrats would learn from Republicans how to be at least a little obstructionist. They always, always cave. I hate that. Republicans are going to demonize them, regardless. Give them something to bitch about for a change.
I was listening to Ed Schulz briefly today, he expressed something I've been thinking- If the Democrats just held together, let the debt/deficit sequestration deal stand and don't cave on the Bush tax cuts expiring, the budget wouldn't look very bad at all. Hey, it could happen, even if the Democrats only held 41 seats in the Senate. Practically speaking, 41 or 49 or even a slim majority of Democratic Senators holding together on that seems improbable. Even if Obama is reelected, I'm not sure he'd hold out for that. He ought to, though. |
