Aw, HW Bush Doesn’t Like Gingrich for Opposing Tax Hike
According to article in The Street HW Bush said:
“I had a conflict with [Gingrich] at one point,” Bush told the Chronicle. “I’m not his biggest advocate.”
Bush said he had trouble with Gingrich in 1990 when a recession hit the United States that forced the former president to raise taxes, a move that went against his now infamous promise of “no new taxes.” (Remember at his nominating convention he said ”
R E A D___M Y___L I P S.__N O__N E W__T A X E S “)
Aw, but the recession forced him to do it.
But isn’t this the way of “moderates”– They are always “Forced” into Taking Actions they don’t want to do.
Nixon had no desire for price controls, but was “forced” into it.
Dole did not know whether to be a Democrat or a Republican until he was “forced” into it by the fact that there were more Republicans than Democrats in his district.
Romney did not mean to create socialized medicine in Mass. until he was “forced” into it by increasing Medicaid standards and the Democratic legislature–even though he still points to RomneyCare as one of his “Great Achievements”
Gee, no wonder Bob Dole endorsed Romney–A man after his own way of thinking.
Bush, et. al. complain that they thought Gingrich was going to go along with them and yet according to Sununu just “Twelve hours later, 15 hours later, he found it to be to his advantage to oppose it,”
Can’t you just see it? W Bush, John Sununu, and Bob Dole pressuring Gingrich to accept tax increases and Gingrich coming back 12 hours later (after thinking about it) and refusing! How dare he?
They were surprised. Gingrich didn’t play the nice Washington Establishment game.
It confuses “Moderates” when someone believes in keeping their word and standing on principle.
Here is what Gingrich had to say:
“I have a very consistent record of opposing tax increases, and I don’t think that people should break their word to raise taxes,”
Of course, “moderates” and liberals are always seeming to get ”forced” into decisions.
Obama really meant it when he said the only thing he wanted to do was use computers to reduce the cost of medicine (as he said during the campaign) And he really meant what he said when he said “if you like your current plan, you can keep it” Well, he meant it until he was “forced” by Congress to not mean it.
This does not mean that one does not have to compromise, but I admire how Gingrich stood up as a leader to say “No”
This is also why I admire Governor Perry. During the financial crisis when tax revenues fell across every state, Perry was pressured to raise taxes. Not only did Perry refuse to raise taxes, he refused to tap into the state’s “Rainy Day” fund. Opting instead to cut government spending. Boy this must have really confused the moderates! Perry could have easily said he was “forced” to raise taxes or drain the “Rainy Day” fund. Instead, he stood on principle.
Candidates for President should show that they can stand against the pressure. Gingrich and Perry have, and Senator Santorum deserves credit for standing his ground when it might cost him is job (and it did). Bachman has stood her ground but against no pressure because no one cared how she voted–Sorry Bachman fans.
Reagan walked away from the negotiating table when he felt Russia’s deal was not good for America. That took courage even though he took a hit politically, it was the right thing to do. The same when the state department didn’t want him to call Russia the “evil Empire” or when they opposed him calling for Russia to “Tear down this wall!”
Standing for what one believe is right is an essential Presidential characteristic. If you doubt this, ask yourself: where would this country be if Kennedy did not stand his ground against Russian missiles in Cuba? Or Reagan had refused to fight the cold war?