‘If you guys are going to do anything, you better do it now.”
Rep. Tom DeLay (R., Texas) had buttonholed Rep. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) on the floor of the House of Representatives, and he was warning his younger colleague to move quickly.
“There’s going to be a story breaking. If you’re going to act, you better act now.”
“I’ll get some guys together if you want to talk to us,” Graham replied.
Advertisement
Twenty members crowded into Graham’s office the night of July 10, 1997. Less than three years earlier, they had won a majority in the House for the first time in 40 years. Now, they were plotting to oust from the speakership the man who had led their victory, Newt Gingrich.
Since Gingrich had taken control in January 1995, Republicans in the House had held together. Focused on fulfilling the Contract with America, they passed a flurry of legislation, which kept them occupied — and their divisions concealed — for the first two years.
By July 1997, however, the contract was finished, and conservatives, particularly those elected in the Revolution of ’94, were growing frustrated with Gingrich’s leadership.
The speaker was disorganized. “He knew nothing about running meetings and nothing about driving an agenda,” DeLay writes in his memoir, No Retreat, No Surrender.
He was erratic. “On Monday, we would say we’re not going to give a $500 child tax credit to people who don’t have tax liabilities,” Graham tells National Review Online. “On Wednesday, he’d meet with President Clinton, and that position would change.”
“In May 1997 . . . Newt declared the GOP willing to separate tax cuts from other items in a balanced-budget deal that we were negotiating with Bill Clinton,” writes former speaker Denny Hastert (R., Ill.) in his memoir, Speaker. “That was news to us and represented a huge change in policy in less than twenty-four hours.”
He was hyperbolic. “He’d call something ‘the single most corrupt act in the history of Western civilization’ . . . always these Armageddon-type announcements,” says Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.).
The congressman still remembers that fateful trip on Air Force One in November 1995, when Clinton made Gingrich sit in the back. Miffed, the speaker later asked the press, “You just wonder, where is their sense of manners? Where is their sense of courtesy?”
“I still think it’s the main reason we lost [the government-shutdown] debate,” King says.
He was not, some felt, equal to the task. When Gingrich agreed to reopen the government, conservatives felt betrayed. They had hoped Gingrich would wring at least one concession out of Clinton: a balanced budget.
“Before the government shutdown we thought Newt Gingrich was invincible,” writes Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) in his memoir, Breach of Trust. “After the shutdown, however, he was like a whipped dog who still barked, yet cowered, in Clinton’s presence.”
"Graham adds. “If he has matured as a person and is, for lack of a better word, calmed down, I think he could really motivate the country to do big things.”"
That's the problem. I don't want the government to do big things, just to get the heck out of the way.
"Getting out of the way" means dismantling a lot of the bureaucracy and cutting entitlement spending. By any definition that's a pretty big thing. And to carry that out it's going to take someone who is organized and can control his temper.
...while at the same time selling the public (with demeanor, credibility, good arguments and clever sound bites) on why it's in their interest for these things to happen. Not an easy thing to convey to the brainwashed--but vital.
But "country" is not the same thing as "government." If he can motivate the people to use their power to push the government out of their way, that would be a big thing.
Lindsay Graham undercut Newt in the House - just like he undercuts the Republican Party today in so much of what he does. While the criticisms themselves cause me concern, it's still clear to me that Graham, whether Senator or Congressman, is a problem for conservatives.
Lindsey Graham, the rump calf to the white RINO McCain was a "leader" in the failed coup? Ha! The fact he was in the mix is a key reason it FAILED. He is good at doing wrong things.
And DeLay? Good grief...the House losses in '98 seem tiny compared to the ear marks, corruption and tone-deafness that DeLay et al ushered in to give Princess Nancy the House in O6...and turned Bush into a wild-eyed spender and an irrelevant POTUS.
FYI, no one considered Lindsey Graham a "moderate" at that time. He was viewed as one of the most conservative new members of the House.
He was also one of, if not the most effective prosecutors during the Clinton impeachment. His migration to the middle began after his election to the senate.
As for Delay, he was seen as to the right of Attila the Hun, and I mean that as a compliment.
Please...you are better than that. Much better.
Delay
Grahamn
Hastert
King
Armey
Paxon
Common thread? Moderate Republican establishment types. Who each feel or felt they could have done better. But they didn't did they? In an organization as large as the House, and with the massive ego's involved, finding some critical commentary of Gingrich is easy peasy. Listen, I share your opinion that Perry remains the "best" candidate all things considered. But short of Newt choking on a turkey leg over Christmas holiday, Gingrich is going to win Iowa, SC and Florida. I have tried for two months to create a scenario where Perry returns to a competitive position, but it just isn't going to happen given the time line. But I admire your persistence. Hope you prove me wrong!
If you think Dick Armey and Tom Delay were "moderate Republican establishment types" then you've got a whole different measure of what constitutes the spectrum than me.
Incentally, Delay was railroaded by one of the most viciously partisan Democratic prosecutors who ever lived and convicted by a Travis County grand jury, which would share about the same philosophy as the average Bostonian. The "violation" was both novel and ludicrous, and actually involved Delay trying to help "de-Gerrymander" the congressional map. It will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. If not, he will qualify as a genuine political prisoner.
As for Perry, voters will determine that. As I noted in another Post, Newt currently occupies the same position Rudy did at exactly this same time last time around, and Romney is sitting in the Thompson position. Paul and Perry occupy the spots -- and possess about the same numbers -- as McCain and Huckabee did. Huckabee was fourth and finished first in Iowa. This time, Paul and Perry have, by ever account and every report, by far the best organizations in Iowa, and both have the money to get actual voters to the caucus sites. Newt just opened an office there and has, at last report, four people working for him.
A whole lot of things can happen in the next 4 1/2 weeks, and almost certainly will. Don't be surprised if neither of the two people atop the national polls fail to even place once the snow settles in Iowa.
Just one correction to my post above. Huckabee actually held the fifth position in the polls (Real Politics average) on Dec. 2, 2007. He won Iowa handily.
As for being "fooled" by Graham, as one of the people below claims, there was nothing to be fooled about. Unlike some of the people throwing their opinions around on this board, I was actually in Washington at the time of the Clinton impeachment, working at the RNC, and had fairly frequent occasion to run across Graham. He was about as conservative then as you can get, and he was also one of the most impressive young congressman I'd ever come across in terms of his communication skills. No one was more disappointed than me when he started emulating and following McCain.
Judging by some of the other comments I've seen here about the 1998 insurrection, I would hazard a guess that some of the most vehement statements in Newt's defense are being made by people barely old enough to vote, much less remember what was actually going on at the time. As I've said several times, there are a lot of things I like about Newt and a lot of things to admire about him, but if you know him and you've actually followed his career all these years you also know that there are things about him that should make you wary as Hell. The warts are every bit as big as the gifts and as high as he sometimes soars the crashes are just as spectacular. Maybe he's grown up and wised up, but I see little indication of it so far. You may love him now, but the one thing you can almost guarantee is that he will, eventually, break your heart. Newt's only real love is Newt. Don't say you haven't been warned.
It takes a lot of discipline to stay on message and run a successful presidential campaign. That weighs a lot more than some article quoting political rivals from the 1990's.
Remember back to the debate where Romney got in a tiff with Perry and walked over and touched him on the shoulder. Romney was acting like an over-emotional teenager. Think of the recent interview with Bret Baier where Romney got rattled and lost his cool. These issues of Romney's seem most undisciplined to me. It makes me think that head to head, Obama is going to have Romney for lunch. Maybe Romney can get it together. I don't know.
Why hasn't Jon Huntsman gotten a fair look? He's as smart as any of them, with business AND governing experience, foreign policy experience as ambassador to China, and in 100% pro-life. He seems great on paper anyway!
Follow
