If You Knew What Sununu
If you knew what he knew, former New Hampshire governor and chief of staff to the first President Bush seems to believe, you'd support anybody but Newt. “Listen to just about anyone who worked alongside Gingrich," Sununu, who is now stumping in New Hampshire on behalf of Mitt Romney, said last week, "and you will hear that he's inconsistent, erratic, untrustworthy and unprincipled.”
Hm, I found myself thinking. And John Sununu's own record? Well, John Sununu was one of the principal advocates of the tax hike that cost Bush re-election--and handed the White House to Bill Clinton. Sununu proudly and ringingly supported the nomination to the Supreme Court of his fellow New Hamshireman David Souter, who would prove the most liberal justice since William O. Douglas. And Sununu resigned as White House chief of staff after it became known that he had used government aircraft and limousines for personal travel, notably riding from Washington to New York in a government limousine to attend an auction at Christie's.
But Tony Blankley was able to call to mind more vivid memories than was I.
"I was amused," Tony Blankley writes in the column I quoted in a post below, "to see Gov. John Sununu...criticize Gingrich last week.
I remember back in 1990, just after Gingrich had become the GOP whip, President Bush, urged on by Gov. Sununu, was about to break his campaign pledge and raise taxes, which eventually cost him his re-election bid against Bill Clinton. It was Gingrich who opposed it. In fact, Marlin Fitzwater (Bush and Sununu's loyal, shrewd White House press secretary -- and no fan of Gingrich's at the time) later wrote in his memoirs, "As it turned out, one of the few people on the Republican team who understood this trap (the Democrats demanded Bush raise taxes as the political price to reduce the deficit) was Newt Gingrich. ... Newt had ... recommended a different course of action: Abandon the budget negotiations (with the Democrats), keep the tax pledge, insist that Congress cut spending, and make a political fight out of it. It's clear now that we should have followed his advice."
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
You're really trying to get a lot of mileage out of one Tony Blankley article, Peter.
Jun '10
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
What makes a person a political genius is knowing when to compromise (because otherwise you can't get there from here) and when to firmly hold your ground. Nobody ever does it perfectly, but both Clinton and Gingrich were pretty darn good at it. They probably raised each other's game just by sharing the same spotlight.
Edited on Dec 14, 2011 at 12:52pmRe: If You Knew What Sununu
Wow, that's pretty incredible. I had not realized.
Jul '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
Does Sununu really have much credibility?
Jan '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
Demonize the messenger all you want, how about taking up the actual criticism. It's not like Sununu is the only one saying this. What about Tom Coburn? What about the house republicans that tried to stage a coup to remove Newt? What about the fact that his own house members basically forced Newt to resign? Did that not actually happen because Sununu supporter David Souter (BTW Souter lied to Bush when Bush was vetting him)? And what about Newt's poor judgement regarding Supreme Court nominations? Harriet Miers anyone? Or what about Newt getting behind Dede Scozzafava, who eventually endorsed a Democrat to take the seat she was running for?
Edited on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:10pmDec '10
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
BThompson: Demonize the messenger all you want, how about taking up the actual criticism. It's not like Sununu is the only one saying this. What about Tom Coburn? What about the house republicans that tried to stage a coup to remove Newt? What about the fact that his own house members basically forced Newt to resign? Did that not actually happen because Sununu supporter David Souter (BTW Souter lied to Bush when Bush was vetting him)? And what about Newt's poor judgement regarding Supreme Court nominations? Harriet Miers anyone? Or what about Newt getting behind Dede Scozzafava, who eventually endorsed a Democrat to take the seat she was running for? · Dec 14 at 1:09pm
Edited on Dec 14 at 01:10 pm
How about accepting that many of us will vote for a syphilitic camel over Obama...or Romney?
Mar '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
"he's inconsistent, erratic, untrustworthy and unprincipled"
Finally, a Republican with some political chops!
Jan '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
That's great KP, but I just want to understand the standard we're using to assess candidates. It seems to me that I've seen all too much dismissing of arguments based on the messenger on this site recently. People saying that Charles Krauthammer and George Will shouldn't be listened to because they're "Washington insiders" and part of the "establishment". I thought Ricochet was a place for smart discussion, where bad arguments were taken down on the merits, not by trashing the messenger.
Edited on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:16pmDec '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
BThompson, we all get that you're a Romney partisan. And we all know why. But why not make your arguments on the basis of Romney's merits, rather than putting up dyspeptic comments every time anyone defends one of Romney's competitors?
There's no reason to attack Peter Robinson for this post. Give it a rest.
Dec '10
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
BThompson
That's great KP, but I just want to understand the standard we're using to assess candidates. It seems to me that I've seen all too much dismissing of arguments based on the messenger on this site recently. People saying that Charles Krauthammer and George Will shouldn't be listened to because they're "Washington insiders" and part of the "establishment". I thought Ricochet was a place for smart discussion, where bad arguments were taken down on the merits, not by trashing the messenger. · Dec 14 at 1:15pm
Edited on Dec 14 at 01:16 pm
I've not seen such arguments. Krauthammer and Will give many of us pause when we disagree with them, but we can still be in disagreement after the pause. Those of you for Romney seem incapable of acknowledging his weaknesses, at least that is the impression received by others.
Jan '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
I don't think I'm "attacking" Peter. Besides, he's a big boy, he can respond if he thinks I'm being unfair, or just ignore me. And I don't think he would support you telling me to keep quiet. This place is for discussion, if one doesn't want to have their point discussed, it ought not be posted.
By the way NP, do you think that trashing the messenger is an acceptable way to knock down an argument? Yes or no?
Also, I'll concede Sununu may just be a squish in the bag for Romney. But he's not the only one saying these things. Wouldn't it be more effective to take down the actual argument, rather than the person making it. It would save people the trouble of having to attack the credentials and integrity of every person who is calling Newt "inconsistent, erratic, untrustworthy and unprincipled.”
After all, there are a lot of them.
Edited on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:30pmApr '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
Gingrich balanced the budget on the back of Sunnunu's tax hike, which achievement forms his primary claim to conservatism. The act also instituted PAYGO. While it was a political disaster for the President, it solidified the base for tax cuts, to the point where Clinton was driven to apologize for tax hikes in 1993, and forms an important part of the basis of support for the 1994 win in Congress.
Indeed, the tax priorities of the act were confirmed by Gingrich, both in power and in support of Bush's tax cuts. The hike was to 31% from 28%. No serious effort has been made since 1990 to go below a 31% top rate (even the proposed flat taxes have generally had an estimate higher effective rate than the 1990 rates). 1990 cut Capital Gains, though. Gingrich followed.
The act did not eliminate deficit spending, although it did do more to cut it than anything else since the WWII peace dividend. The only substantive, non-political, attack on the hike, then, assuming no one believes that a substantially greater spending cut was on the table without the hike, is that further Keynesian deficit spending was what was called for.
Edited on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:32pmDec '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
And there are a lot of people calling Romney and unprincipled, flip-flopping squish without the political skills to do the job that needs to be done to save this country.
But at least Newt has a record of political accomplishment. You don't achieve what he achieved without making enemies. Romney seems to have very few enemies - perhaps that's because he has very few accomplishments.
Mar '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
Is Peter Robinson defending Newt Gingrich? I always suspected he was a populist know-nothing.
Dec '10
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
BT, I think you've missed the big picture on this one. We already know all of this about Gingrich and yet remain unmoved. Trotting out yet another nay sayer, especially one we would disagree with on many things other than Newt, is unlikely to sway anyone. I'm certain there are things that could come out that might move some of us into the Romney camp, but we still have hope that it will not happen. The sign over the door leading to Romney reads "Abandon all hope ye who enter here" in the minds of many of us. Gringrich + baggage (or anyone else for that matter) > Romney in many minds.
Jan '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
Really? Check out this thread, you'll see lots of them. I can find lots more if you want.
I agree 100%, unfortunately all too often people never get around to explaining why they still disagree after being given pause. Instead they just reflexively call Will, Krauthammer, and others "insiders," "elitists," and "squishes" without ever taking up the points they make at all.
Au Countraire, I concede all of his weaknesses. I just see more weaknesses in his opponents.
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
That one Tony Blankley article is worth special pondering, B.
And neither Tony nor I is attacking Sununu for the sheer sake of attacking the man. We're doing so in the interest of putting his remarks into some historical perspective. When in the White House, Sununu showed his own judgement to be suspect--those airplane and limo rides--and demonstrated that he was to the left of Newt Gingrich, two facts that bear directly on anything Sununu says about Gingrich today.
Jan '11
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
I'll concede all that, Peter. But Sununu is hardly the only one making these comments. Also, just because Sununu may be to the left of Gingrich, doesn't say anything about whether Newt is "inconsistent, erratic, untrustworthy and unprincipled.”
Those criticisms of Sununu don't bear on Newt's conservative bona fides. They bear on his character. Perhaps Sununu is an imperfect vessel for delivering such an assessment, but his imperfections don't disprove the accusations by any means.
Edited on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:54pmDec '10
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
BThompson
Au Countraire, I concede all of his weaknesses. I just see more weaknesses in his opponents. · Dec 14 at 1:37pm
Then make that case instead of making belittling comments.
Re: If You Knew What Sununu
James Of England:
The act did not eliminate deficit spending, although it did do more to cut it than anything else since the WWII peace dividend. The only substantive, non-political, attack on the hike, then, assuming no one believes that a substantially greater spending cut was on the table without the hike, is that further Keynesian deficit spending was what was called for. · Dec 14 at 1:31pm
Oh, but James of E, as I understand the economic history of the period, you'd be hard put to demonstrate that.
What enabled Clinton and Gringrich to elminate the deficit was, a) the continued rapid growth in the economy that began under Ronald Reagan and, b) the Cold War dividend, which enabled us to cut defense spending by about a third.
Bush's tax hike may have helped--but it may also have hurt, somewhat dampening economic growth. It's nigh unto impossible to say.
That's what all the studies I've seen indicate, anyway. (You're certainly correct, of course, that neither party has ever suggested taking the top rate all the way back down to 28 percent. In my judgement, that just demonstrates the absence of political will, not the dawning of fiscal wisdom.)
Edited on Dec 14, 2011 at 2:01pm