Yesterday's L.A. Times had an interesting article with a funny headline: "Newt Gingrich, serious this time, mulls a bid for president." As the piece notes, Newt has "mulled" a bid multiple times before, always pulling away at the point where he'd actually have to start putting together a campaign. But is this year different?
Party professionals were impressed with the extent of his 2010 midterm election efforts. He traveled extensively to key states and donated to candidates through his political action committee. In the leadoff state of Iowa alone, he gave more than $100,000.
Residents of the Culpepper Garden Assisted Living Center attend a 2006 news conference about Medicare. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
When Congress was debating health care reform in 1993, conservative strategist Bill Kristol wrote a now-famous memo counseling Republicans that they must prevent the passage of reform, lest it "relegitimize middle-class dependence for 'security' on government spending and regulation … revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests … [and] strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government." The problem Kristol foresaw -- and today's Republicans saw with Barack Obama's health care reform -- was not merely that America
One of the common sentiments I'm seeing around today is, "Enjoy this last gasp of success, Democrats, because your life is about to get hellish." Which is true, in a way. But we should remember that the next two years will be uncomfortable politically, but far less so substantively. Yes, it's possible that Republicans could shut down the government, which will have some very bad effects. And they might be able to force cuts in vital programs, which would be bad. But I'll believe those things when I see them. More likely is that the bulk of their efforts will be on things that will embarrass President Obama and make it more difficult for him to win re-election.
Jonathan Bernstein makes an excellent point about the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell:
[T]his issue will now promptly go away, entirely. Oh, we'll have a bit of reporting on implementation, but seriously: does anyone think that Republicans are going to run in 2012 on re-instating DADT? Or, even less plausibly, on re-instating the ban that DADT replaced? Forget it. It's possible to believe that a DADT vote could be used in a GOP primary down the road, but it's utterly implausible to believe that the policy would ever be revived, no matter what happens in the 2012 (or any future cycle) elections.
As the lame-duck session of Congress nears its end, there are a few big agenda items looming. The House has to approve the tax compromise, and the Senate has the new START treaty with Russia and the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning gays from serving honestly. Members of the Senate are now beating their breasts about whether there's "enough time" to do both. This is despite the fact that it has already been established that both the treaty and DADT repeal have enough votes to pass.