The Hypocrisy of Paul Ryan, Part II

Stimulus? What stimulus?

On Friday, August 17, The New York Times ran a short article entitled “Ryan Said He Erred In Seeking Stimulus Money.” It related that Ryan now considers it a mistake to have asked for Federal stimulus funds in 2009. The article reports that Ryan had earlier denied asking for money from the $787 billion bill on behalf of companies in his district in Wisconsin. But the Boston Globe confirmed that he had written to the Federal Energy Department requesting financing for two companies to develop so-called “green jobs.”
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in an interview with WCPO-TV in Cincinnati . He and Mitt Romney have both denounced the stimulus as an example of Obama’s failure to restore the economy. The Congressional Budget Office said the stimulus created 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs. In a more recent television interview, Ryan said that he did not recall writing the letters. Later his office issued a statement that he had since checked the letters.
“They were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security and Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said in the statement. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently and I take responsibility for that. Regardless, it’s clear that the Obama stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy, and now the president is asking to do it all over again.”
In other words, Ryan was for the stimulus before he was against it. What chutzpah! If Obama lets him get away with this, it will be a pity because it show Ryan to be the total hypocrite that he is. It is astonishing that the media is letting him get away with stuff like this. This guy speaks out of both sides of his mouth just as Romney does. They are quite a pair. When Romney saw Ryan, he knew he had found a kindred spirit in deviousness and deception..

The Hypocrisy of Paul Ryan

Jesus used the word “hypocrite” with great effect. And it is a word perfectly suited to describing Paul Ryan, much as Jesus used it against the false piety of the Pharisees. The sanctimonious Paul Ryan wraps himself in his Catholicism even as he advocates policies that will be devastating to the poor, the old, and the young–the latter who would be deprived of their much-needed Pell Grants.
Until only recently Ryan spoke of how he required members of his staff to read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand, the book that is the basis for his free market, anti-governent philosophy. Mercilessly attacked by the Catholic Bishops of America for the cruelty of his budget as well as by a prominent priest at Georgetown, who let him have it in no uncertain terms, Ryan turned around by 180 degrees. Now he says that he read Rand’s novels when he was young and found them to be “entertaining” but that the inspiration for his values is Thomas Aquinas. He argues that Aquinas favored local, community-based solutions over those offered by the state. He is now going around the country preaching about the difficult life of the poor. A lot he cares about them. This hypocrite bows and scrapes before Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire who plans to spend 100 million dollars to defeat Obama. Ryan went to a fund-raiser at the Sands in Las Vegas to kiss the ring of the man who pulls the strings of the Republican Party. After the now-convicted businessman, Denis Troha, contributed $60,000 to Ryan, Ryan phoned up the Bureau of Indian affairs to tell them that the people in his district supported the casino Troha wanted to build there. Troha now says that Ryan told him personally that he considered the project “inappropriate” for the district. LOL.
Troha pleaded guilty to making unlawful contributions to Bush and to some Democratic office-holders to get support for another casino project. Ryan was not charged with wrongdoing but it is clear that his phone call to the BIA was a quid pro quo for that sixty grand he got from Troha. Is this the kind of guy you want to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? I can hardly imagine that Saint Thomas Aquinas would have endorsed this kind of behavior.

 

Ryan is not what he appears to be. He is no clean-as-a-whistle boy scout who is great with figures and

... if you're a gazillionaire.

a terrific policy wonk. That is a myth concocted by the media and the Republicans. He is a calculating, ambitious character who schemes with Eric Cantor to bring down John Boehner so Cantor can become Speaker and Ryan can ultimately be president. Should Romney lose, Ryan will hit the campaign trail for the Republican nomination in 2016. Ryan really is a snake in the grass posing as a statesman. Beware.

Romney’s Choice

Snake oil, anyone?

The Rasmussen poll indicated that only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Paul Ryan, so one might think that this was a suicidal choice. The Democrats are licking their chops. But all of this could well be premature. Ryan will energize the campaign and if he makes a terrific speech at the convention, which I am certain he will, Romnney’s poll numbers will go up the way John McCain’s did after Sarah Palin’s speech. But whereas Palin proved to be a liability, Ryan should be able to handle himself quite well. This could sustain the momentum.

 

Ryan’s job is to keep attacking spending, something designed to appeal to independent voters who could start to like him more. And no question, spending will be a big issue as the Republicans will assert that it’s the spending and the deficit that are causing the sluggish economy and the eight percent unemployment. Ryan will also keep up the mantra that there should be no tax increases because tax increases hurt the economy. By cutting taxes, he will argue, the economy will grow and there will be more revenue to balance the budget and pay down the debt.

 

Americans have short memories so the Democrats are going to have to remind the voters that this is

Something D-O-O economics? Voo-Doo economics?

what George H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics.” Reagan’s budget director David Stockman now blames the Republicans from the time of Reagan until today for the economic mess the country is in.

There is no question that many will buy into Ryan’s argument since very few even remember the Laffer Curve, which predicted that a cut in taxes would bring in more revenue. It was false then and it is false now. As for an austerity budget, you have only to look at Britain to see that this doesn’t work. British growth has actually decreased and they are heading towards another recession. If you’re going to cut spending, you have to do it, as Terry Sanford used to say, “under the supervision of a physician.” What he meant by that was that drastic cuts were like a crash diet–you will end up putting all the weight back on. Drastic cuts will hurt growth and lead to a bigger deficit.

 

But more than this, Ryan is not sincere in saying that Romney and the Republicans will be able to tackle the deficit. He actually favors a dramatic increase in defense spending, which shows him to be nothing but a typical congressman who plays the same old Washington game–give Lockhheed Martin whatever it wants and cozy up to its hordes of lobbyists and the generals who are capable of undermining their own Secretary of Defense. They and the hacks in the Defense Department will go through the revolving door and end up working for Lockheed even as Lockheed executives will end up with important positions in the Defense Department. The lobbyists will assure the flow of campaign contributions to congressmen who, like Ryan, do their bidding. Ryan is not a breath of fresh air. He gives off the same old stench of the Iron Triangle that runs Washington.

 

Ryan is often praised for his courage in taking on entitlements. But that is also untrue. His plan to privatize Medicare (a terrible idea in any event) will, he admits, not kick in for another ten years. Where is the savings in that? And cutting back on benefits from Social Security and extending the retirement age will for certain be met with considerable hostility. Ryan has given every indication that he is backing away from that position.

 

Paul Ryan is a phony and if the voters buy his snake oil, they will get what they deserve. The only question is who is the bigger phony, Ryan or Romney? There is a wonderful line from Preston Sturgess’s “Hail the Conquering Hero.” ”The phony aways wins until a bigger phony comes along and then he wins.” But I don’t believe Obama is a phony.  He has made mistakes and has his faults. He is a politician, with all that entails but he has done his best to represent all of the people, not special interests. The American people better wise up or they will end up in a worse condition than they are in now.

America’s Future

I don't want to do my part! I just want to poop in the tub.

America could have a really great future if it could figure out what it wanted to be when it grew up. Its biggest problem is emotional immaturity. Why so many Americans are so infantile is a mystery. It takes longer and longer for people to become adults and even then many never make it. When a person grows old and doesn’t grow up, he becomes a grotesque and the country is filled with them.

The entire debate over health care is not unlike a fourth-grade food fight. If you look at the players, you can find America’s greatest grotesque, Mitch McConnell, leading the attack. This has nothing to do with politics and economics and everything to do with an infant posing as an adult. Mitt Romney is totally high school. Obama’s problem is that he is the only mature adult in a war of babies. Whatever he does, the kids just keep throwing pieces of their lunch at him. What should be dismissed as laughable childish behavior is treated by the media as serious discourse.

 

 

This is not to excuse many liberals who are capable of behaving as hysterical second graders without adult supervision. Challenge any of their assumptions and they go bananas. There IS a Santa Claus and don’t tell us differently. When I outed liberal hero Allard Lowenstein as CIA they became totally hysterical. They have no understanding of the seriousness of the debt and the bloated nature of the government. It’s like telling them the cookie jar is empty when they want more. The ultimate infantile reaction is the refusal to accept the crisis of climate change. The mass hysteria this has engendered on the right is the best evidence of how many babies there are posing as adults. The same is really true about the financial types who can’t make enough money. They will do anything, including wrecking the country, to keep getting the goodies. Out where I live in the Hamptons, the snooty WASPs won’t let blacks and Jews into their clubs. We don’t like you and we won’t let you play with us! The obsession with guns (bang! bang!) is another symptom of infancy.

There was a time in America when fourteen-year-old boys went to sea and became captains. They started businesses and ran farms. Grow up, America! Or you’re toast.

 

The Contradiction of Paul Ryan

Help for ordinary Americans? Ryan Shrugged.

Republican Congressman Paul Ryan worships Ayn Rand and makes any new staff member read “Atlas Shrugged.” His campaign to abolish safety net programs has little to do with a desire to balance the budget and everything to do with his political philosophy based on Rand’s hatred of the state. How his plan to privatize Medicare will go over in the election remains to be seen. He also wants to abolish Social Security in gradual steps.

 

Yet Ryan, who comes from a wealthy family, received his college education at Miami University in Ohio, a state research institution. He benefitted from the low tuition that a state-run university was able to provide him. Would he abolish Miami University? Someone should put that question to him. In this respect he is not unlike the Tea Partiers who demand that the government keep its hands off their Medicare.

 

In a larger context, the underlying issue is what does “smaller government” mean? Does it mean creating a much more efficient government that makes better use of taxpayers’ money or does it mean abolishing the safety net. Libertarian hero Noble Prize-winning economist F.A.Hayek supported Social Security. What he opposed was a centrally planned economy, which is quite different from abolishing Medicare and Social Security. There are ways to increase funding for these programs without gutting them, such as extending upward the income level at which Social Security taxes are collected making those who make their money from buying and selling securities pay Social Security taxes and raising the Medicare taxes on those who can afford to pay more.

 

Ryan’s position is untenable. He would cut back or abolish essential programs while keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The

Supply side plans via Paul Ryan.

argument for his position is the old Republican “supply side” economics that was tried and failed. This is all Ryan has to offer and it will not work. Under Reagan and Bush this approach created huge deficits and this will be the result once again. Obama’s deficits have been designed to prevent a depression and he is amenable to cuts to the budget to bring it under control. Instead of working with him, Ryan advocates policies that will harm average Americans. That, of course, doesn’t mean they won’t vote for it. As Churchill once remarked, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

What Young Lawyers Should Do

A bird? A plane? No, it's a lawyer!

Many years ago I was seated at a table next to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas at a Columbia Law School luncheon in Washington, D.C. He was an impressive man and looked not unlike Spencer Tracy. At some point, I asked him what a young lawyer should do. His answer came back in a short. “Practice law and go into politics.”

 

There are numerous young law grads in search of work who also owe thousands in student loans. They have no idea what to do or how to pay back the loans. They need to use some imagination to get out of their predicament. They should search Martindale-Hubbell and find single practitioners in small towns around the country and contact them and ask them if they could work for them, without pay if necessary, to learn the ropes. The older the single practitioners, the better because that would give you a chance to take over their practice when they retire. Get involved in the community and join a church. When you are ready, register in one of the two major political parties. If you are in a red state, register Democratic because there are always people in those communities who want to change things and upset the status quo. Get around, join Rotary and the like.

Then get into politics on the local level where ideology is not important. Learn the issues and appear practical. Go to as many meetings

Either or if you're running local.

and community luncheons and dinners as possible. Be sure to have lots of cards to hand out. If the lawyer you are working for still doesn’t pay you, open your own practice with your own clients. Don’t worry about your student loans. You can start repaying them as soon as you start to make money, which you will. People say there are too many lawyers but there is always room for a good one. Small-town lawyers tend to be lazy so be anything but. They will resent you, but so what? Take any kind of case and get to know the assistant DAs so you can plead out speeding tickets.

 

Get married to a local girl whose family knows lots of people. Be terribly nice to everyone and get elected to some local body. Keep at it and keep your eye set on higher targets, like the state legislature and even Congress. Don’t be surprised is you find yourself nominated for higher office. And laugh at all those so-called successful grads from the top law schools toiling nights at the big firms in the big cities. Most of them won’t make partner and the ones who do will be stressed and depressed. And don’t ever forget that the world is your oyster.

 

You will need some money to start so ask your parents or other relatives. Don’t be shy. They will be making a good investment.

The Decline Of The Unions

Why doesn't anyone like us anymore?

The loss of the recall vote against Scott Walker in Wisconsin gives further evidence of the decline of the unions in America. After the Second World War, the unions were all-powerful, with American blue-collar workers reaching a standard of living previously unimaginable. But that was at a time when America had no competition from the rest of the world, emerging as it did from the conflict unscathed and unchallenged. With Europe and Japan in ruins and China still a backwater, American companies faced little or no competition in the American market. The unions had reached an understanding with industry in America. They got rid of the radicals in exchange for which the workers got what Samuel Gompers, founder of the AFL, said they wanted, in one word, “more.”

 

Even before the foreign auto industry began to invade the American market, hostility to the unions rose in a most unlikely quarter–among young Americans. The union-backed Students for a Democratic Society turned against their benefactors over the Vietnam War that George Meany and Lane Kirkland of the AFL-CIO steadfastly supported, as did their candidate, Hubert Humphrey. Construction workers attacked anti-war demonstrators in New York, increasing the growing anti-union sentiment amongst the young.

 

In the summer of 1972, I was attending a party at the East Hampton home of prominent labor lawyer Ted Kheel whose son was, like myself, working in the McGovern campaign that the unions opposed. I was wearing a McGovern button and I found myself confronted by AFL-CIO second-in- command, Lane Kirkland, who would rise to the top position following Meany’s retirement, and his wife Irena, both Vietnam War hawks. They raved and ranted at me, the two of them red in the face, until Kirkland finally stopped. When Irena continued, he told her it was “enough.” I had remained silent. It was a lovely party and a beautiful day and I did not want to start an altercation. But I remember what I was going to say to Kirkland before I decided to hold my tongue. “One day your union will need the support of people like me and you won’t get it,and it will fade away.” Later, after reading Ted Morgan’s “A Covert Life, his biography of labor leader Jay Lovestone, I learned how Lovestone, head of the AFL-CIO’s international division, was a CIA operative whose case officer was James Jesus Angelton, head of counter-intelligence at CIA. That made sense.

 

The rising new libertarianism amongst young Americans, many of whom supported Ron Paul, comes directly from this experience.

Cops: the Goldman Sachs of the public sector.

Libertarians are decidedly anti-war and they see in the power of the state the instrument that perpetuates the wars that have produced such uncontrolled federal debt. Many of the anti-war baby boomers came of age resenting the unions for their hawkishness. Across the country, Americans came to see the state and municipal workers’ unions as the reason for the threat of bankruptcy state and local governments face. Salaries of the county police in both Suffolk and Nassau Counties on Long Island where I live are over the top. Property taxes keep rising to keep up with the rising costs of local government. So it should come as no surprise that the unions lost the recall vote in Wisconsin. If the unions want to make a comeback, they need not only to remake themselves but to deal with their pasts. Unless they do, they will become increasingly insignificant, which will lead to the increasing income gap that threatens the stability of the country.

1972 And Now

This Convention is for the dogs.

It was the summer of 1972 (incredible to accept) and I had been elected as a delegate supporting George McGovern for president at the Democratic National Convention to be held in Miami. There was a party going on in East Hampton to celebrate our slate’s victory over the Muskie candidates who were backed by the regular organization. Suddenly, someone rushed in and called the festivities to a halt. There was an emergency. The AFL-CIO and the other Humphrey supporters were packing the credentials committee in Washington in order to overturn the results of the California primary in which, in a winner-take-all contest, McGovern had narrowly won all the delegates. Now, the pro-war unions wanted to change the rules after the fact and divide the California delegates proportionally. Were they to succeed, they would be able to stop McGovern from winning the nomination on the first ballot and would be in a position to nominate Humphrey.

The crowd nominated me to fly down to Washington to fill a vacant seat on the credentials committee from New York. Another seat was taken by Tom Bernstein, son of the publisher of Random House. But our two votes were meaningless. After a lengthy and heated debate, the unions prevailed and were able to split the California delegation. The only hope was that this might be reversed at the convention.

On the day that Lawrence O’Brien, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was to rule on the credential committee’s resolution, the atmosphere was tense. The Establishment had told the kids to play by the rules and they had but now that Establishment didn’t like the results. They had changed the rules to create a different result and deny McGovern the nomination. The question on which O’Brien had to rule was whether the original all-McGovern California delegation could vote on whether to overturn the credentials committee resolution.

To this day, I don’t know what got into me but I rose from my front row seat, shook my fist at the podium and started shouting  “Give us back the delegation!” in a very loud and angry voice. Before I knew it, I was not alone and more and more McGovern delegates began to do the same thing. Suddenly, they began to surge toward the podium where O’Brien was standing with a look of horror on his face. He banged the gavel and ruled in favor of the McGovern California delegation and they joined in the vote that gave the delegation in its entirety back to McGovern. It put him over the top and he won the nomination.

His choice for vice president,Thomas Eagleton, turned out to have had shock treatments for depression and the campaign collapsed, with Sargent Shriver replacing him on the ticket. Nixon won in a landslide. But during the convention, a small article in the Miami Herald caught my eye–five men had been arrested breaking into Lawrence O’Brien’s headquarters in the Watergate. I don’t know why but I felt that it was going to be Nixon’s downfall, which it was. The war ended ignominiously and the last Americans flew out on helicopters from the roof of the American embassy as the Vietnamese stormed it.

As I write this, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, is visiting Vietnam to announce that the United States plans to dock its fleet at Cam

We're back, Baby.

Ranh Bay, which had been an American navy base during the Vietnam War–a sign of support for Vietnam against the threat of Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Not long after America had withdrawn from Vietnam, Vietnam fought a bloody war against China in which thousands were killed. After all those years, a united Vietnam is now an American ally in containing China and a major trading partner.

What was that all about? Can someone possibly explain it?

I think I can. It was about stupidity, ignorance and arrogance, of which there is never a shortage. The American journalist Angus Mackenzie wrote a book called “Secrets,” published before his death, in which he revealed how CIA disrupted and suppressed anti-war publications as it violated the basic constitutional rights of American people. When one thinks of the damage imposed by these jerks, it is hard not to still be furious

Afghans At War

The more things change...

A million years ago when I was a lawyer at the United States Agency for International Development, I was in charge of the aid program in Afghanistan, which consisted in paying fortunes of money to a now-defunct company called Morrison Knudsen to build roads. None of those roads survive the countless wars that have occurred since then.

There was a kindly king who was much beloved, including by the Soviet Union which was perfectly happy to have him on the throne. I was a good friend of the son of the Afghan ambassador to the Court of St. James, dined at the embassy with him and also celebrated Ramadan with him. In all the turmoil that followed, I lost track of him. One of my closest friends at Cambridge was the late Peter Avery, an Iran and Farsi expert who periodically went off into the wilds of the Hindu Kush to dine outdoors with tribesmen on lamb roasted over an open fire. Kabul became the destination of choice of the hippies who could get cheap hash and smoke it to their hearts delight without fear of narcs.

 

But there was something lurking beneath all that bliss that would blow it all up. It was the national character. After participants in a Communist coup overthrew the king they split into two warring factions that tore the country apart. Out of a sense of obligation, the Soviets intervened to end the civil war. They managed to create a government that was soon challenged by tribesmen who, with help from the Americans and their ally Osama bin Laden, started yet another civil war. They defeated the communist government and drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, which led to the next civil war, which the Taliban won. As long as they went along with the pipeline the Americans wanted built, everything was fine even though they were religious fanatics and made life for women perfectly miserable. After 9/11, the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden, whose Al Qaeda was now an enemy of America. Bin Laden hated that America had troops on Saudi soil and was angry because the Saudis had not let him fight against Saddam Hussein when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. America invaded and the next Afghan civil war took place, with Taliban troops escaping to Afghanistan and Mullah Omar and Bin Laden escaping with them..

 

Instead of securing Afghanistan, the Americans invaded Iraq because, as a Lockheed Martin executive explained it, there weren’t

... the more things stay the same.

enough contracts in Afghanistan, leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban who had returned and started the next civil war. The Americans went back in with NATO allies. That war has been going on ever since. Dressed as Afghan troops, terrorists have attacked and killed Americans twho are there to fight beside them and train them. With American and NATO troops scheduled to depart in 2014, the likely outcome will be yet another civil war. But not the one most experts expect. Now a new, more violent group, a spinoff of the less violent Taliban, if one can imagine that, has taken up arms. It has committed massive acts of violence killing not only Americans and civilians, but members of the Taliban itself, with which it is increasingly at odds.

 

I have concluded that it is in the Afghan national character to keep fighting. If there is no reason to fight, they will find one. I used to frequent an Afghan restaurant on the Upper East Side that was perfectly wonderful. I sampled the sumptuous cuisine, particularly the fragrant rice dishes. Periodically, the place would close, only to reopen months later until it finally closed for good. The reason it kept closing was that it was owned by an Afghan family that was involved in endless fights amongst themselves , which they were ultimately unable to resolve. I see Afghanistan as a gigantic version of that restaurant. For all the beauty and elegance, the country cannot stop fighting. After the Americans leave, the fighting will continue unabated until the journalists depart and coverage all but ceases. That is, until the next terrorist attack comes from there to American soil. Bin Laden has come and gone but nothing has changed.

Eye Of Newt

Why NOT me? These other guys are nuts.

It seems like a century ago when Newt Gingrich led the charge to overthrow decades of Democratic rule in the House of Representatives using his Contract for America as the blueprint for an agenda that included balancing the budget and term limits. At the time, the Democrats were stale and liberalism an obsolete political philosophy that had hardened into political correctness. What Gingrich did was nothing less than to revolutionize American politics, turning Tim O’Neil’s maxim that all politics was local on its head. Thanks to Gingrich, all politics was now national and he ran the Congressional campaign as if it were a British parliamentary election. The Republicans won and America has never been the same.

But no sooner had he been sworn in as Speaker, he opted to accept a book deal from Rupert Murdock for millions of dollars, violating the rules of the House. Term limits vanished from the agenda. Dick Morris, Bill Clinton’s close advisor, told Clinton to adopt the Republican agenda by balancing the budget and changing the welfare system to end permanent dependence. It worked and Clinton won reelection.

Then Gingrich blew it by closing down the government. The Republicans lost numerous seats in Congress and he resigned. His legacy was his censure by Congress for ethics violations and his party’s defeat. Most wrote him off as finished in politics and it appeared as if he wrote himself off as well. His extramarital conduct became the stuff of legend and he vanished from the political scene, starting a consulting business and authoring countless books, including works of fiction. He married his last mistress and became a Catholic.

When he announced his candidacy for president, most dismissed him off as a has-been with absolutely no chance of winning. As if to confirm this, he took his wife on a cruise in the Greek Islands and most of his staff quit. He announced his intention of staying in the race but this was counted as bravado. He had no money and no organization, yet he had sufficient numbers in the polls to get into the debates, during which he actually sounded sane and he began to attract attention. The radical right, in its quest to stop Mitt Romney, first went with Michele Bachmann, whose over-the-top comments made her seem loony. Then they supported Rick Perry, who turned out to be an idiot. There was the flirtation with Herman Cain, whose campaign imploded in the wake of allegations by women of sexual misconduct. Because Ron Paul opposed aid to Israel, he was anathema to the Evangelicals so his poll numbers have remained in the low teens. Finally there was Newt, who espoused conservative values with sufficient clarity during the debates that he began to pick up support. No one was more surprised by this than Newt himself, who was running in order to keep charging thousands for speaking engagements, receive lucrative book contracts and increase the clientele of his consulting business. It came out that he has made millions as a consultant to the health-care industry and to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, but none of this halted his sudden rise.

This was a “new” Newt, observers said, more mature and stable, whose new-found religious faith made his past personal transgressions fade into insignificance; he had gone to confession and been forgiven.

So far, his poll numbers have not been affected by the negative ads attacking him in Iowa since most people are concerned about the economy and think Romney is a Wall Street insider, a representative of the old GOP Establishment, which the Tea Party despises. In their search for a candidate of their own, they settled on Newt, with his unadulterated support for capitalism.

But is this really a new Newt? Remember Richard Nixon’s comeback, when commentators described him as the “new Nixon”?

No, that's the old Newt. I'm the new Newt.

He was more self-assured and less strident and looked comfortable in his skin. He bested both Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination and won a close election against Hubert Humphrey. In the wake of the disastrous McGovern campaign, he won his long-sought landslide and seemed to have more power than any president in the past, including Lyndon Johnson, who had self-destructed.

But this was no new Nixon at all. It was the same old Nixon, devious, dishonest and vicious. Under pressure, he cracked and became the first president in American history to resign. Gingrich is made of the same stuff and the Republicans will nominate him at their peril. But what he’s got is an ability to throw the base raw meat the way no other candidate can. His remarks on the Palestinians show he knows how to appeal to key constituencies of the GOP in a powerful way. It would be a mistake to count him out because, like Nixon, he has a subterranean connection to the worst impulses of many Americans and is unafraid to exploit that connection. Democrats, gleeful at the idea that Newt could be the Republican nominee, should remember that they could get what they wish for and come to regret it.