Newt was on Greta's show last night. They talked about whether Obama should veto the earmark-loaded budget bill.
Greta said that since last week Obama reiterated that he wouldn't accept bills with earmarks, then he should veto this bill.
Newt said that if he did, it would be an act of "incredible courage", which would engender lots of good will in the country for Obama. Further, it could even make Republicans more willing to work with Obama on health care and climate issues.
Greta asked "What's so courageous about doing what you said that you would do?"
Newt,smiling knowingly (and smugly), told her that to stand up to powerful appropriators takes a lot of courage.
My response to Newt- get a life! Even though you long ago left Congress, last night showed that you're still way too much a part of the Washington game. Out here in the real world, we would like politicians a lot more if they actually would (1) do what they say they'll do with regard to important issues; and (2) stand, especially when it counts, on principle.
But in Newt's world, it's OK if Obama lies, because, in Washington, not to lie is a real act of courage, above and beyond what should be expected.
And I won't even go into Newt's comments about working with Obama on health care if Obama vetoes this bill. The statement was at best a non sequitur. It was also another disturbing demonstration of lack of principle.
Where's the old Newt, who shook up Washington in 1994? Whose leadership resulted in a balanced budget? Almost resulted in term limits? Changed Congressional rules in tremendously positive ways? That Newt would have tweaked the Democrats without mercy on this issue of fiscal responsibility. That Newt would now be leading Republicans to major gains in the House and Senate in 2010.
The Newt I saw last night is a fat, happy, inconsequential insider.
I wonder if Newt, deep inside, still believes in what he stood for in 1994? He's sure not showing it.