« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Play By Play On Newt’s Transgressions

By: wonkish1 (Diary)  |  October 19th, 2011 at 02:29 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

As I’ve said before on here I have not picked a horse in this race. Several of the candidates have different benefits and drawbacks making most acceptable to me. The only exceptions to that in my mind are Paul and Bachmann.

 

But the topic of Newt is coming up a lot more on Redstate as well as his previous personal and political mistakes. Well I am probably one of the very few that was closely following Newt back when those mistakes occurred. Why was I following Newt? Because during off years I have a habit of watching the speeches and comments of conservatives that are on the “cutting edge” of policy and argument. For example: I listen to all of Christie’s speeches because he has some very innovative ways of explaining things to people to get them on his side of issues. I listen to and read everything Paul Ryan puts out there because his innovative ways of approaching policy. Well this also meant that over the last 8 years I’ve listened to/watched about 120 speeches from Newt, read dozens of articles about different topics, read 3 books, watched 2 debates(before this cycle), etc.

So I’m in a unique spot to tell you exactly what was going on with Newt when he made each of these mistakes. Now in practically all of the cases, I wholeheartedly did not agree with Newt’s decisions, but at least I understood why he did them.

 

The Affairs

He had them in the late 90s. There is no question about it. And he’s admitted to them. The engaging in them does show a weakness in his character and everybody that brings that up is correct in pointing that out.

I can say that from sources close to the family he does really love Callista, and that she is a big part of his life today. Apparently at least in the case of his first marriage many of Newt’s relatives, friends, and even parents were rooting for the marriage fail because they really didn’t like her. In the case of Callista the opposite is true.

Also, I haven’t been able to track it down lately, but about 2-3 years ago Newt came on Dobson’s Focus on the Family program. James asked him about the affairs. Newt had a moment where instead of being the confident focused man he usually is, his voice became broken and sounded like he was almost on the verge of crying and said something like “There have been times in my life where I had no choice, but to get down on my knees and beg God to forgive the things I’ve done that I have trouble forgiving myself for.” Based on how that went, I find it extremely doubtful that anybody could fake that.

Still though he should have never had an affair on his wife. He should have broke it off before ever thinking of engaging in that behavior. And it is a real sign of his weakness in character.

 

The 1998 House Losses

The common story of what happened that year is so far off the mark I have no idea how it continues to be peddled today. In 1998 after Lewinsky broke a few in the house leadership had come to find out about Newt’s own infidelity. And that didn’t work real well considering they(including the NRCC chair) wanted to run on the Lewinsky scandal for the upcoming midterms.

Newt didn’t agree with the approach. He went to the rest of the leadership and said that the GOP couldn’t only run on Lewinsky and instead had to develop an even bolder reform package for that years elections. The rest of leadership(including the NRCC chair) told him to sit down and shut up because they wanted to run only on Lewinsky and they didn’t want him ruining it for them.

In 1998 the house lost seats and those same people that told Newt to “shut up” turned around and said that it was all Newt’s idea to run solely on Lewinsky. The republicans in the house believed them and then installed the people that just screwed up into leadership. Today the story is still told that it was Newt’s fault they lost in 98.

 

The Hospital Bed Divorce Papers

Just a flat out lie. Newt’s daughter who was their that day has said that the divorce was never brought up. Newt’s wife went in for minor surgery to remove, I believe, a tiny amount of malignant cancer. Newt and the family came to be supportive even though Newt’s wife had asked for the divorce a couple months prior when Newt told her about the affair.

 

The Couch

I had probably heard at least 15 speeches and a debate from Newt about the environment before he decided to appear on that couch. I didn’t agree with his thinking in the speeches and I didn’t agree with the decision to join Pelosi on the couch.

But this was Newt’s rationale that he had delivered numerous times before that commercial ever aired: Newt believed that best course of action of the GOP was to not completely cede environmental issues to the Dems and use the issue to make progress on what we cared about. So he floated two proposals. One is that companies would get 100% expensing of all factories, plants, equipment, etc. if it was a replacement of one that was less energy efficient(which is practically always true) and that is a pretty decent proposal. The other was to wipe out the EPA as a litigating and regulating body and convert its budget to one that issues “prizes” for technology that is an improvement environmentally. I agreed with the first part, but not the 2nd. But even I would agree that the whole solution was better than the current mess.

Either way, Newt was wrong to try to use global warming to get more conservative proposals through because it only gives moral support to those that believe in man made global warming. He was wrong to show up on that couch because he should have known that it would only benefit the left, and not lead to anybody reading his ideas anyway. It was a complete mistake, and today he would agree it was mistake and that he was naive to think that showing up on a couch in a commercial would lead people to looking at his conservative proposals.

 

The Endorsement

I’m pretty sure Newt’s endorsement of Scozzafava was because of a phone call he received from Chairman Steele(the two are friends). Newt came out and endorsed Dede and said something along the lines of this as his reason why: “Since I believe in individual districts right to choose their own candidate I don’t support national organizations coming in trying to over power the will of the people within a district”(or something like that). Well if that argument was actually true I would agree with Newt, but it wasn’t.

I believe it was Dick Armey that tracked down Newt about 4 days later and showed him Dede’s record and the method that was used to select her(not even remotely close to a primary, nor the will of the people). Newt came out and said oops, I’m really sorry. I didn’t realize that this liberal women was selected by a few GOP country chairs pretty much behind closed doors. I retract my endorsement. But people remember the mistake not the reason nor the apology.

 

“Right-Wing Social Engineering”

Now that was just stupid on his part. I really, really like Paul Ryan and I almost wanted to punch him for what he said. Now Newt would tell you over the last decade that he believes more in selling conservative ideas to the public and then implementing them much more than just enacting them while ignoring the people. I agree with that sentiment. It is clear that he had that concept in his mind when he made those stupid remarks. That rationale doesn’t excuse those remarks, but you can at least understand where he was coming from. But ultimately everybody was right for calling him out on saying something so pathetic.

 

Odds are Newt still wont be the nominee. While he does have a slim shot at pulling it off, its a very steep hill to climb.
But for those that were curious about the back story behind some of these dumb decisions, I hope you find this informative.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • wonkish1

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/correcting-the-record-newt-gingrich-didnt-divorce-his-first-wife-while-she-had-cancer/

    • wonkish1

      Detailed exactly what happened through the Scazzafava mess. There was a video where details being approached with Scazzafava’s record and the method of her being selected and where he realized at that moment he had made a mistake. I can’t find it, but I did watch it back in November of 2009.

      Here is another video though.

      • wonkish1

        It’s kind of in Lincoln Douglas format. And in this debate you’ll see how Newt approached the issue of dealing with the environment from a conservative approach instead of a cap and tax, regulate, and litigate methodology that the liberals advocate.

        I don’t agree with Newt’s approach to environmental issues, but its extremely different than saying that Newt is for a big government approach like what the left is advocating.

        ^^Hopefully that works or here is the link. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7844874520095835803

        And this is Newt absolutely destroying Henry Waxman in a subcommittee hearing about Cap and Tax.

        For those that don’t want to listen to another hour long sub committee hearing this is the key couple minutes where Newt spanks Chairman Waxman.

  • Common_Cents

    Gingrich did look strong once again last night.

    • wonkish1

      And what sums up some of Newt’s mistakes is that people read the headline not the argument.

      Take for example: Newt saying a few years ago the America was engaged in a “Phony War”. Well, the headline spread and within the day Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc. were all laying into Newt for saying that, and using it as an example of Newt going off the reservation. Not one of them actually listened to the clip. But then when you turn around and actually listen to the clip you go, wow! Not only was the headline off, but man that clip was good!

      Listen for yourself. 4 minutes long and you’ll be screaming “Hell yea” at the end of it.

      • wonkish1

        huh!

      • avgjo

        into context.

        Great clip!

      • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

        Nobody else but Santorum is even willing to name the enemy as Newt does. But Newt is far, far more articulate and forceful on this issue than Santorum is.

        One of the greatest speeches I’ve read in the last couple of years is the one Newt gave at the AEI in July 2010. I can’t recommend it highly enough: “America at Risk: Camus, National Security and Afghanistan.”

      • Flagstaff

        so is Newt, about fighting our enemies.

        Still, I found your diary to be not only a good defense of Newt’s actions, but also an indictment of his discretion and a mixed bag about his ideas. A serious person, which is what he is striving to be, can’t go around making mistakes like man-made global warming, the couch, Dede Scozzafava, and “right-wing social engineering,” he has to reject them before they get to the public.

        In fact, his mistakes seem as bad as the gaffes Herman Cain has made, except Newt made his over a span of years, not one of months.

        I have one big question about Newt, similar to one written somewhere here about Romney, but it think it’s more serious regarding Newt: Does he suffer from ‘smartest man in the room syndrome,’ just as Obama and his advisers all do? I’m afraid that Newt has made all those minor gaffes (which add up to a major problem for him) because he hasn’t seen the need for caution, he hasn’t listened to either his own misgivings or those of his advisers, perhaps because he’s the smartest man in the room/on the stage so he can just go ahead and say/do it because, by gosh, he’s right. (In Romney’s case, I think he just has the manner of a pedant without the true inner feeling that he’s always right; I think he’d listen if somebody said THERE’S A TREE IN THE ROAD!! I’m not sure Newt would even hear it.)

        Which turns out to be an argument for the importance of having a good conservative foundation–a President should know pretty much where he’s going without being quite so sure about the details of getting there. For those we have respected advisers to make suggestions but not policy.

    • wonkish1

      Appreciate it.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Ya’ know it’s kinda funny how we all use different methods and standards to judge the measure of a man or woman running for office.

    Sometimes, in spite of very good arguments for or against a person, in the end I go by gut level hunches. As brilliant as Newt is, I think his time to serve in an official government office is passed. He reminds me too much of the old school establishment and as I stated in rwm52′s diary, I just see a huge ego that causes Newt’s many questionable missteps and that is not what I am looking for in a candidate. I think he has a tendency to “think more highly of himself than he ought” and that causes him to betray whoever happens to be in the way when he’s feeling extra brilliant.

    So, in the end, all we have to choose from are frail, flawed people and some how we hope we are making the right decisions. This is where prayer helps me as I truly believe that God governs through the affairs of men and he uses flawed people all the time as that is all he has to choose from.

    • wonkish1

      I didn’t create this diary to change anybodies minds on Newt(like it matters he is very likely not going to get the nomination), I only created it to tackle the sometimes implied notion that his heart is or was no longer with the conservative movement given his previous transgressions. I dispute that notion vehemently. I think his heart has always been with the conservative movement, but that he has just really screwed some things up in the past.

      I myself see issues with Newt, but I would never ever accuse him of not being a conservative.

      • acat

        I agree with you (and Erick) that Newt isn’t going to win this, but it’s good to have all his baggage in one place, tagged, and ready to go.

        I also appreciate the effort that went into finding the truth among the lies and political expediencies.

        I do disagree with ‘patriette on one point. Newt would make an outstanding cabinet-level appointee, I can think of few departments that where his understanding of D.C. wouldn’t be useful.

        Mew

        • westcoastpatriette

          I guess I was thinking in terms of running for an office. I am sure he could be useful somewhere–if he can keep his ego in check.

      • avgjo

        We could make a similar diary about many heroes of the right. Irony is, for some reason, Newt’s transgressions are often treated as worse than the others’.

        The affairs, no defense, period. I am glad to see that he appears genuinely contrite.

        The point I see beaten more than any other is the Pelousy-couch incident. (Visuals are powerful, n’est-ce pas?) Fair enough. But many of the same folks pushing that argument swoon over Tom Coburn. As in Tom Coburn who implied that critics of Pelosi were being duped by Fox news and that they should leave that ‘nice’ woman alone.

        I’m not sure that his odds are quite as bad as many think. The real takeaway from polls seems to be that most people are not decided. If Perry continues to hammer Mitt, he will probably get the nomination. If he backs off, and Gingrich picks up the mantle, he could well get frontrunner status (Cain is on the way out, esp. after last night).If he gets that, he’ll probably get the nomination.

    • wonkish1
    • kestrel

      Contrary to his vocal “We’re all on the same team” magnanimity in the televised debates, he seemed to be insidiously working against Perry in a Bill Clintonesque way today on Hannity’s radio show. Essentially, Newt offered Perry “advice” that would probably hurt Perry. Specifically, Newt said something to the effect that Perry sounded good on domestic energy (or energy jobs?), and should focus more on it. My impression is that Hannity paused involuntarily in surprise, before flatly saying he disagreed, and then moving on to a different question. I also disagree, mainly because while Perry is correct in his assessment of what domestic energy development would do for our economy — essentially turn the whole USA into a California Gold Rush boom-town nation, imo, — few people actually understand this. Palin makes the case briefly in one of her books (I forget which one), but encapsulates it with this statement in her first book, Going Rogue: An American Life, that Alaskans were saying, after production at Prudhoe Bay declined, “God, give us another oil boom and we promise not to pi– it away.” The prosperity of the state through the 1980s was unbelievable.

      Back to Newt, of course the primary candidates have to distinguish themselves from each other, but there are honorable and less honorable ways to do it.

      I think the reason the couch issue persists is that it is symptomatic of a more fundamental problem that still exists. Whether this problem is ego, lack of discipline, mammoth blind spots or what, I don’t know, but here’s another example: He is so enamored of his “Solutions” that he apparently fails to see the Orwellian aspect of renaming the EPA the “Environmental Solutions Agency”. I don’t care how you revamp the agency, any government agency with “Solutions” in its name just makes me laugh.

      You might be right with this comment, Patriette:
      “I just see a huge ego that… causes him to betray whoever happens to be in the way when he

      • wonkish1

        There are hundreds of reasons as to why Newt brought that up. You seem to gravitate to the one that signifies the most impure motives. That is more to say about you then him.

        It could also be because American Solutions struck gold with drill now, drill here, pay less campaign and he’s suggesting it because he thinks it is a bigger issue than people realize.

        Or

        It could also be because Newt is focused on advancing the conservative argument in as many areas as possible, and Perry is particularly talented on that front so he wants the issue brought out more.

        Or

        It could also be because Newt thinks its better than candidates attacking each other all of the time. Better if Perry is talking about something positive than making his campaign about not being someone else(and that goes for all of the candidates).

        I get particularly annoyed when folks come on sites like this and analyze a decision of a candidate in the most conspiratorial way they can without any evidence to support it. I don’t care if its Newt, Perry, Cain, Santorum, or even Romney I wouldn’t run around accusing anyone of them having sinister motives without any evidence. I don’t particularly like it when people do it to any of the candidates even one of the 2 I don’t like, like Bachmann. No offense!

        • lastgopinillinois

          more on energy and jobs at face value in the exact same vein that he DEFENDS the candidates running against him on the debate stage and urges them to adhere to Reagans 11th Commandment. He does not have an alterior motive in these things. He wants conservativism shed in a good light, regardless of who is promoting it. I am convinced of that.

          Where I am still confused about Newt is related to his strategy. At times he seems to pander to the middle to attract more voters. I would prefer to have someone that I would be convinced he wouldn’t compromise on conservative principles if he actually were elected.

        • kestrel

          The few alternative explanations you suggest, of your supposed “hundreds of reasons”, don’t fit the context. And it takes more than one person, (Newt in this case) to have a conspiracy.

          His comment was purely self-serving. That’s an opinion and I explained how I formed it. What other kind of evidence do you want?

          Furthermore, there’s a difference between “self-serving” and “sinister”, or else there’d be no one worth electing. You are escalating the language in an attempt to ratchet me into territory into which I did not go.

          As for the Hannity-Gingrich exchange, again I ask, did you actually hear it? You appear to be making blind, uninformed guesses, and to be subtly smearing me for giving an opinion that you don’t like. I get annoyed when folks run around a website doing exactly this, which makes them look like paid political hacks. No offense!

      • circlegranch

        because he’s been the playground monitor all along during the debates. Anderson Cooper talked last night about how the campaigns all wanted to hold the time to 90 min even though he wanted a 2 hr debate. He said at the end of the 90 min. Bachmann and Gingrich didn’t want to stop so he allowed them each time for another comment. (In fairness, Cooper should have then allowed any of the candidates that wanted to make a closing statement of the same length of time but he didn’t do so.) It was curious that both Bachmann and Gingrich, who stood next to each other on stage, both wanted a final comment and both comments basically were linked and had the appearance of being planned. Bachmann said she wanted to stay focused on Obama and Gingrich follows with a scolding about arguing in debates. Then he tells Hannity that the exchanges between Perry and Romney hurt the GOP.

        As per the comprehensive list given in this post of situations where one could argue that Newt’s actions and behavior may well fall into the category of ‘hurting’ the GOP, his lecturing others came across as very hypocritical. He wants forgiveness for his past mistakes and he should have it. He’s humbled himself on a number of occasions. There’s nothing worse to conquer than trying to deal with someone that won’t accept a sincere apology. (Just ask Perry about that in regards to Bachmann refusing to accept his admission that his actions on the Gardasil issue were wrong and he’d do it differently now.)

        For Newt, Mitt, Bachmann and Cain, they all have a tone of “Don’t look at anything I’ve ever done or said in my past because if you do, you’re being petty and you’re hurting the party. Our focus is to concentrate on anything you, Rick Perry, have ever said or done because its YOU that hurts the party.” It’s an incredible thing to watch.

        It’s increasingly clear that Cain, Bachmann and now Newt are on board to draw the tea party and conservative vote toward them and starve Perry out of the race. Then, one by one, they will dutifully and on cue, gracefully bow out, get their campaign debt paid and join the Romney campaign, hoping to ride it all the way to an administrative appointment.

        Newt is by far the best debater and he’s got all the political credentials (ever heard Romney accuse HIM of being a ‘career politician’? ) and countless hours of experience of speaking on the House floor and it shows. He’s amazing to listen to and hands down, he’d be the best choice to debate Obama but he’s taken the bait to help tip this nomination process. This game playing is what disappoints voters so much and why Congress has astoundingly low favorability rating.

        • wonkish1

          nnntt

        • kestrel

          self-preservation of their candidacies, that is, that causes candidates to do some unattractive and even harmful things in unscripted situations. I don’t believe there’s any conspiracy between or among any of these candidates. (Nor do I think Bachmann would ever endorse Romney in a primary. It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, each of these people eventually endorses.)

          The large number of candidates does pose the risk of fracturing the conservative vote to give the nomination to a moderate, and I have no doubt that many people are hoping for exactly this to happen. I am trusting the candidates to consider the larger picture as things develop.

          • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

            this worry about “fracturing the conservative vote to give the nomination to a moderate” would not even be crossing our minds at this point. We would be perfectly happy to hear all the candidates out, and allow ourselves to take the time to really weigh them and make a good decision. The current primary process is very destructive to our party, and to the national body politic. It borders on insane.

          • kestrel

            My general view is that if the Establishment GOP wants their electoral smack-down in December, fine. If they want it in January, fine. February? Fine. They have no idea how angry the public is.

            They go on with business as usual, ducking fiscal responsibility by passing it to a “supercommitee” and voting for John Boehner’s “budget deal” which is the single, largest budget in U.S. history. They don’t seem to care that the public despises Obamacare, despises Dodd-Frank and the new regulation mania (R.Shelby seems to “get it”, and actually, Collins and Snowe seem to be with him right now as well as many others), but generally, the Establishment GOP appears to have no idea what’s coming. They can pick the date. We’ll be there.

    • circlegranch

      As for Newt, I believe in redemption for him, for me and for you. We all fall short of the glory of God which is why our political system is so entirely flawed. For those that think we talk too much about religion in the political realm, I would counter that with the facts that there is a staggering amount of unfair judgment passed on others, hatred and dirty tricks and doing anything in order to score another point in the polls or make the next guy look bad during the day’s news cycle. Alot of us here have bemoaned the fact that a number of bright, articulate rising stars in the GOP refused to run this time. We can see why.

      We’re all getting frustrated no matter which candidate we support and especially for those still looking. As voters we want to be taken seriously but no matter where you look or listen, there’s somebody telling us what’s good about a person or bad about a person. We have to stand firm and follow our own good sense and not be swayed by people with agenda’s or that are being paid to speak in favor of, or against a certain person.

      Thanks for your thoughtful comments. My day has gotten off to a little better start because of reading your post.

  • intensity

    …Cain will lose support after yesterday’s destruction of 999??

    • wonkish1

      If you want my honest answer.

      2 reasons why.
      A) It occurred at the beginning of the debate. You would be surprised how much that matters. Cain shot up in the polls a while back because his heartfelt answer on his cancer and healthcare. Besides that being a big moment, it occurred at the end of the debate. Things that occur at the beginning of a debate get forgotten more by the time the debate ends.

      B) It takes a much bigger beat down or a much more embarrassing moment to see serious drops in polling numbers.

      My guess it just cost him maybe 2-5 pts off the RCP average 3 weeks from today.

  • jackdaniels11

    I think that Newt would be a great president. Reagan-esque and all that. Anyone that the left hates that much HAS to be an intelligent conservative (or a female conservative or a Latino conservative or an African American conservative).

    Newt is the idea-man in the party. Read his book, Winning the Future. Chapter 8 is all about health care. Newt’s big ideas are so well-worded. You have to read it for yourself. He talks about being more responsive to the needs of individuals. He talks about using technological advances and management principles to get the best health care to the consumer faster.

    Finally, on page 116, he says, “We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make clear that a 21st Century Intelligent Health System REQUIRES (emphasis mine, not Newt’s) everyone to participate in the insurance system. People whose income is too low should receive Medicaid vouchers and tax credits to buy insurance.”

    Can you see why I feel that Romney is being unfairly accused of being “too liberal”? Newt Gingrich (NEWT GINGRICH!) was also saying in 2005 that the system should require everyone to participate.

    Does that mean that Obamacare is good? Hell no. Obamacare should be repealed because it raises taxes on individuals and forces people who don’t want health insurance to buy it.

    But everyone who says that their contempt for Mitt is all about Mitt’s private sector solution for Massachusetts health care problem, a private sector solution that was backed by the Heritage Foundation, needs to grow up. Newt hasn’t hit Romney on his health care plan and now you know why.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    The hill might very well come down to him.

    Romney gets my compliments to his presence and performance in the debates. Rock solid. As is the total not-Romney aggregate poll share.

    But while the support for the Not Romney aggregate has been steady, support for individuals in the Not Romney constituency has been very volatile.

    When they start voting candidates off the isle, I think there will be a great reluctance to shoo away Newt. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I prefer Newt over Mitt as a fallback candidate. Cain and Perry have a chance to sell me. Santorum and Bachmann don’t seem to have “it”. And unfortunately, 2/3rds of Ron Paul (sans the Neville Chamberlain, etc.) isn’t an option.

  • http://www.redstate.com/thesophist TheSophist

    Thank you so much for taking the time to write it.

  • gunsrus

    or so it was said in the 1960′s. He was an idealist for the conservative movement whose inability to compromise with the left would make him an ineffective politician. He had been divorced and remarried. He was a leader of the National Rifle Association.
    And somehow he became the greatest President of the 20th century while remaining an unapologetic conservative.
    Imagine that.

  • tealady69

    I believe Newt has changed as most of us should as we get older and wiser. However, throughout the article I see where he makes more than his share of gaffes in making decisions. It is almost like he acts, then thinks in some cases. And to sit with Pelosi who is such a polarizing figure, anyone in their right mind would realize, “stay away from this dame”.

  • anxious4change

    it’s the fact that Gingrich is brilliant, a word I’ve seen used by both sides quite often, which means an Obama-Gingrich matchup would remove the unsubstantiated notion that Obama is the most brilliant man in the room. Much as I remain supportive of Perry, I do fear the “brilliant vs. stupid” campaign.

    • anxious4change

      I do not think Perry is stupid, but I’m afraid that’s what the left has decided, which is why I’m glad they’ve decided that Newt is brilliant. That leaves Obama with his record ALONE to run on.

  • harpsichord

    an “unacceptable” candidate, I am forcing myself to think more in terms of “positives”. Newt does pretty well on the positives scale!

  • rightwingmom52

    Thanks for the input on Newt. Do you have any links you could add? I appreciate you doing the research and providing your opinion, but I do like to see things for myself. Just asking.

    In my opinion, Newt was very strong in the debate. He remains on my radar, and I think he will go up in the polls (for whatever that’s worth).

  • wonkish1

    It will be pretty difficult to find some of these.

    I spent a couple hours trying to find the Dobson audio a few weeks ago. Its gone. In one case I found a link to Dobson’s site just to have it come to Focus on the Family webpage with an error message. So that audio might be gone from the internet forever.

    The other problem is that prior to about late 2007 Newt used to have all of his recorded speeches back to about 2001 on his website available to all. That is the period that I listened to and watched most of Newts speeches. I think in 2007 all of them were put behind a paid subscription wall, and I’m pretty sure they remained behind that subscription wall until he announced he was running. I can definitely track down a quite a few like AEI speeches, but I think a good portion are gone forever.

    Otherwise its just difficult to track some of these things down because the interview was conducted 5 years ago, or 7 years ago, etc.

    I’ll do my best though to track some of this down. Any in particular you want more than others?

  • eabjr

    Upon Newt

  • Menlo

    I’ve said this before, and it bears repeating, that he helped enact HIPAA, which is responsible for a lot of what’s wrong in health care and health insurance today. How any conservative could support or even ignore the continuation of that monstrous act is beyond me. Anyway, his entire record on health care and health insurance is as much a problem as Romney’s the way I see it.

    I have not gone through what all passed when he was speaker (at which time I wasn’t even voting age), but I’m sure there would be a lot more to criticize as with any other candidate. I just get the impression sometimes that some criticisms are ignored at the expense of equally or less significant ones.

  • wonkish1

    I do find the law annoying, but as someone that has spent a lot of time studying healthcare policy I don’t see it as big drag on healthcare in general. Of course it has added paperwork to the system, but its not a big problem like charity care, lack of skin in the game, medicaid and medicare cost shifting, etc.

  • acat

    Most of my exposure to it has been with the rules regarding the handling of personal information, but that’s likely because of my career path.

    I do recall a manager, when I was trying to reach a member of his team, telling me “I can’t tell you Bob’s out sick because that’d be a HIPPA violation” …

    Did you object to the restrictions on pre-existing conditions, or the attempt to make insurance more portable?

    Mew

  • Menlo

    It’s actually a form of “comprehensive reform” in disguise. It has multiple unfunded mandates that shove such an enormous and complex sets of rules and regulations on any person or business in any way even remotely associated with health care or heath insurance as to routinely require entire training programs and classes on it. It completely revolutionized every single aspect of health care to require endless disclosures, constant technology updates that pose more risk and cost than benefit, and it makes information much more inaccessible. It unnecessarily altered and restructured the requirements associated with health insurance at least as much as, if not more than, “Obamacare.”

    I can’t begin to imagine which corporations lobbied for and benefited from the measure and continue to do so.

    The cumulative effect of everything in it, and the regulations and mandates that have been and continue to be piled on top of it ever since, make me wonder how so many people can so aggressively oppose “Obamacare” and not mind HIPAA so much.

  • acat

    The main objection you have appears to be around the “medical insurance coding” piece, i.e. that all healthcare providers, insurance carriers, etc. must use one consistent set of electronic codes.

    I agree that this is a pain, but I have a hard time, given the back-and-forth that used to be much more common between insurance companies and doctors over what should and what should not be covered, accepting that the benefit outweighs the cost.

    It does, I accept, add a burden to the medical and insurance industry, but that’s not significantly different than any other regulated industry.

    Mew

  • luvnthebigsites

    He’s very “Wonkish” ;)

    A lot of work went into this diary. Recommended/Salute!

  • wonkish1

    Nor even that big of a deal.

  • wonkish1

    ntt

  • rightwingmom52

    Just a pet peeve that when folks throw things out, I like to see back-up. In my humble opinion, there’s been too much throwing these days and not enough back-up. And I am not implying in any way you’re wrong or that you didn’t research what you’ve presented.

  • wonkish1

    If there is any other sources/links you would like me to track down, I’ll try to find them.

  • rightwingmom52

    ..
    .

  • wonkish1

    nnnt

  • Menlo

    No one can tell you even the most innocent bit of information until you can provide a plethora of proof of identity. Health care and health insurance providers require more forms and formal procedures relating to release of information and disclosure. Because it it so unwieldy and complex, many health care providers and health insurance companies are afraid to provide information that one may be entitled to.

    The insurance corporations themselves are built and run like the CIA. The technological and security measures required by federal agencies to “protect privacy” come at cost to the health care or insurance providers and ultimately the patient. Again, everyone from doctors to customer service agents to IT departments and others working in the industry require additional training on compliance. Guess who pays for that? These “security requirements” open up the door to more violations of privacy than protections. And indeed we often hear of these in the headlines.

    As with medical malpractice, complaints and litigation are a burden on the court system. Privacy issues have stifled medical research due to the inability to easily follow-up on the results of clinical trials. You have a climate of additional fear in the health care industry, and it is not without consequence.

    However, it is the “portability” requirement that puts the act on par with “Obamacare” in terms of selectively regulating and restructuring the insurance market in ways that cost employers and individuals a lot more for insurance. I simply cannot see how that provision alone does not almost parallel “Obamacare” short of a weak coverage mandate.

  • acat

    but I haven’t had a problem with mine, or with those my family work with.

    I’m aware, from our prior conversations, that your dealings with medical providers are more involved than mine, so I will bow to your superior knowledge. Have you had specific problems with your providers being unable to share information?

    While I’ll agree up front that the security issues are making things more challenging, my view is that they also prevent data from “leaking”, as would (and did) happen prior to security being mandated.

    Further, the research issue is, IMO, placing blame on regulations when the underlying issue is a lack of training in how to obtain and privatize clinical follow-ups. I agree that fear is an issue, but would argue that familiarity with the rules will reduce fear.

    As for the “portability” requirements, I just don’t see your argument. What HIPPA does is to standardize offerings and reduce the length of time coverage for a pre-existing condition can be refused. HIPPA does not address what rates may be charged to cover said conditions, as far as I can see.

    Unless you’re going to argue that insurance companies should have the right to refuse to cover pre-existing conditions at all, I do not see the problem. It’s certainly much less difficult for businesses to bear than Obamacare.

    Mew

  • wonkish1

    I deal with HIPAA on the producer side when we handle estate planning, deferred comp, business succession, etc. I am well aware of the hassles that come from that front. Trust me its one of lowest hassles in the way of forms that I have to deal with when you compare it to our securities business.

    Furthermore, on healthcare I have a sister that works as a consultant on the hospital administration side, an uncle that is a health benefits producer, another uncle that is a specialist practioner, surgeon, and chief of staff at a hospital, and a very good friend that is an analyst at a major health insurer who deals with the negative effects of HIPAA on the development of software systems in the company on a daily basis. I talk to all of the above on a regular basis about healthcare. Also healthcare policy is probably 1 of the biggest areas I personally study.

    I can assure you that from producers to the doctors to analysts HIPAA is an annoyance but it is not a law that is in any way shape or form a major driver of healthcare costs. Its very minimal at the most.

  • Menlo

    It actually violates privacy more than protecting it by assigning people “identifiers” and gives the federal government and other specific individuals warrantless access to them. There is no limit to what government can do with this information or anyone who knows one’s identifier. It’s anything but a protection of privacy.

    You prove the point with respect to research and fear. No one should have to require special “training” with regard to such a purpose. It doesn’t matter how small it is; people in the medical field have enough training to keep up with. It is unwarranted.

    As to portability, it effectively did to group insurance a lot of what Obamacare does to the individual. I still can’t help but wonder what special “regulations” were thrown in for the big insurance companies.

  • acat

    .. between ordering insurance companies and medical providers to use a common set of codes and ordering people to buy health insurance.

    I don’t know how much you know about EDI – Electronic Data Interchange – but it’s been around since the ’70s, used by large companies for purchase orders, shipping notices, etc. I’ve worked with it enough to understand the concept, but not nearly enough to make a career of it. It does pay pretty well, though.

    What HIPPA did was to standardize common codes for insurance and health care providers in a similar fashion. I’m not sure why government involvement was needed, and I do agree that government shouldn’t have warrantless access, but .. I am also not convinced – given what I know about EDI – of the accuracy of that claim.

    As for researchers, yes they absolutely do need special training in how to protect digital records. Everyone who handles any kind of private information does, actually. The nice folks at your bank receive special training on what information they can give out, as do the HR drones at the company you work for, the county employees responsible for your property tax bills, and the IT support staff behind all of them do as well. Why should medical data be *less* secure than financial data?

    Mew

  • d_lamar

    Leading up to the 1994 elections, I loved the “conservative” Newt when he was minority leader. He had no reluctance to tell the Dems what he thought of them in no uncertain terms. Of course they all hated him.

    When he was elected to speaker in 1994 along with a wave of other republicans on the Contract with America issue, he did his best to at least get a vote on the issues included in the contract.

    But my recollection is that not too long after the first 100 days, Newt seemed to be less aggressive in pursuing conservative principles. No defunding of any programs, no elimination of any departments. It was as if he was satisfied with the status quo.

    When he battled Clinton on the government shutdown, his strategy failed because he let Clinton and the media define the blame on the republicans. There didn’t appear to be much defense of the republicans efforts to rein in the spending. Much as the same tactic that both Bush’s used during their respective terms.

    Newt left office without having seemed to have tried to pursue the goals that we conservatives were hoping to achieve when the republicans took over the House for the first time in 40 years. Now, ironically, it’s deja vu all over again with Boehner.

    I think Newt and Boehner had a lot to do with the growth of the tea party movement. History has shown that when it comes to actually governing using conservative principles, it’s just talk, regardless of the party that is in power. And the people are fed up with both parties campaigning one way, and then voting another.

    Just my 2 cents worth.

  • wonkish1

    Turn in to a book. Another 4-5 paragraphs and folks would have passed on reading it.

    As to your points:

    1) There isn’t really anything to be said if you felt that after the first 100 days as speaker Newt *seemed* less aggressive, etc. Its a subjective point. Hence why I didn’t make the article dealing with all of the subjective criticisms towards Newt folks have made(I have some of my own) Instead it was just about real events and why and if they happened.

    2) Granted Newt got pretty screwed over by the media on the “snub” story, but that wasn’t a real issue with shutdown even though the history has been written that way. The problem was that Dole started thinking that the shutdown was impacting his presidential campaign so he opened back up the senate. The GOP leadership in the house realized they were pretty much screwed if the GOP senate was against them. So Newt and the leadership went to Clinton with a compromise budget with a bunch of real cuts and some compromises on Clinton’s priorities and a promise that Clinton would hold the line on spending the following year–a promise Bill kept. Clinton aware of his own poll numbers crashing because of the shutdown took the deal. The balanced budget occurred the following year.

    3) Newt almost pulled off in 1998 what would have been the greatest conservative victory of the last century. Newt had convinced Clinton that Bill should be worried about his legacy at the end of his 2nd term, and that the only way Bill would go down in history was to reform entitlements. Bill seeing the prospect of being “one of the greats” bought into the idea. So secret negotiations began in I believe late 07 to introduce private accounts in social security and voucherize medicare(basically the Paul Ryan plan) in exchange for removing the cap on payroll taxes. I would give my left nut for that deal(pardon the language). About 2 weeks before the deal was to be announced,the Lewinsky scandal broke and killed the deal in its tracks.

    Then the people that took over after Newt like Delay, Hastert, Boehner, etc. they were all the K street establishment guys. They were the ones that set out to convince the lobbyists that the GOP was better for special interests, and from that moment on the spending, the extra provisions in the bills, and the pork started rolling in big time by the GOP. The Republican revolution was over 4 years after came to power in 1994.

  • Menlo

    That’s understandable for identifying medical conditions and procedures; it’s a bit different with respect to identifying individuals and providing government officials with access to all their information.

    It should be up to individual entities to determine how best to protect information. There should be no need to establish a deeply detailed set of one-size-fits-all “preventive” standards devised by federal bureaucrats for all providers and insurers and other industries. Despite this, medical data is not any more secure because HIPAA allows its release upon request to certain individuals including the government (and others) without a warrant and without the patient’s consent.

    I compare Obamacare (again, other than the weak coverage mandates, which I believe Newt Gingrich may have also supported) only to the portability provisions on group policies. I will admit ERISA is the bigger culprit in that regard, to which HIPAA is a significant addition.

  • Flagstaff

    longer than HIPAA. It was one of the things EDS specialized in thirty or more years ago.

    I suspect the reason there hasn’t been more outcry is that HIPAA rules seldom hit the health consumer directly. Most of us just see that boilerplate disclaimer that the doctor gives us on our first visit or before something that requires sedation. Heck, one of the rationalizations for civil unions and gay marriages is that they are seen as a way to circumvent HIPAA restrictions on medical decision-making on behalf of the patient.

    And it’s more than the codes. It also has to do with rules about transcribing medical records to electronic form, which is a sure way to make it easier for those records to be made insecure. A varmint in Ohio can’t access my doctor’s file cabinet in Arizona unless the file cabinet is a virtual one made of binary numbers and it’s either stored or transmitted on line. As soon as the “on-line” thing comes into play, a lot of money has to be spent making sure the records are protected. The patient never sees that, only the increase in the price of a medical visit.

    That reminds me. The price of college and health care are probably the two things that have gone up most in recent decades. The services that “Wall Street” firms have provided have gone down in price, a lot, and those services have enabled a lot of us to retire comfortably. Yet the protests are aimed at “Wall Street,” whatever they mean by that.

  • wonkish1

    COBRA or limited pre-existing conditions as the problem here?

    Look right now today, Health and Human Services have taken up the task of identifying minimum standards for health policies all over the country(what I refer to is pork loading health insurance–something many blue states do). The reason why they are doing this is because once you create a mandate in order to prevent an insurance carrier from creating the most bare bones policy they can to get around the mandate, they have to determine what basic coverage is defined as.

    Now, given how the issue of “skin in the game” is definitely in the top 2 biggest cost drivers of healthcare costs the creation of minimum benefits is an extreme problem(just like how the minimum benefit regulations are driving up costs astronomically in Massachusetts courtesy of RomneyCare). The reason being is that the bureaucracy will strip out/lower co-pays and deductibles on large swaths of healthcare like comprehensive mental for example. You further deteriorate mechanisms such as co-pays and deductibles that attempt to deal with the “unlimited demand” problems in healthcare and the price explodes. That is before even taking into account community rating(no pre-existing conditions).

    So how you could possibly say that HIPAA or ERISA are even remotely close to the problems detailed above, I have absolutely no idea.

    The fact that the government has access to your health records sucks, but it isn’t driving up healthcare costs. The fact that it has increased the paperwork of everybody involved in the system sucks, but its a minute factor in healthcare costs. Common coding(something my sister deals with on a regular basis) is actually good for the system. The requirement to add large amounts of security features into the carrier system does add some extra costs no question, but its really know different than the several million dollar security packages that banks have to set up to secure financial data.

    So please tell us specifically what you hate so much about HIPAA and ERISA?

  • Menlo

    Those policies DO have minimum benefit and policy mandates that raise the cost of coverage; they just apply to employers and group policies rather than the individual ones. Congress conveniently left the individual policies to the states.

    Never mind the cost of government access to records. They should not have that unlimited access to it. That violates the whole intent of protecting privacy! This is not just about cost; it’s about unjustified government micromanagement and continued government overreach. Of course it’s unconstitutional too, but so is most of what government has been doing since well before then so I suppose that’s irrelevant.

  • wonkish1

    Or at least was prior to Obamacare.

    Look, bud we’ve got bigger fish to fry than if the government can see my health records without a warrant because of HIPAA.

    I’m sitting here worried about premiums doubling in the next 5 years and your here blabbing about warrantless looking at health records.

    I’m sorry, but tell everybody on this site if warrantless peeking at their health records bothers them as much as Obamacare and they’ll tell you to go to he!!, no offense.

    HIPAA is a non factor in health policy, seriously!

  • wonkish1

    Aren’t much(really I just think your pulling that out of nowhere) because group policies are still wayyy cheaper than individual ones on average. Granted the tax deduction matters, but on average they’re still cheaper after taking that into account.

    If there were serious minimum benefit additions into group policies nationwide like you are suggesting than we would be looking at group rates way outstripping individual policies.

  • Menlo

    The pre-existing condition limit is probably the most substantial. Whether such policies are cheaper in general I would not know; I’m sure there are considerable variations. It would certainly surprise me though since group policies generally provide more benefits. I would assume there will be some dispute as to whether “Obamacare” will have any “serious” benefit additions, and I would be surprised if they are more than most group plans already have.

  • JSobieski

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act

    Given your previous denunciations of insurance companies, I am surprised that you don’t favor HIPAA.

    The portability aspects of HIPAA were a modest positive. The pre-existing condition aspects of HIPAA were a modest negative.

    HIPAA is represented a bipartisan approach to “do something” in healthcare. It is hardly a source of embarassment for Newt. In the areas electronic claims processing, security, and privacy, HIPAA was very much consistent with conservative principles.

    Government created a fragmented healthcare market by creating Medicaid and Medicare in the way that it did. Since government is more than 50% of the healthcare market, there are things that government needs to do to improve the functioning of the system.

    As I recall, Newt and Clinton were close to far more conservative reform of Medicare when the Lewinsky thing blew up. HIPAA was definitely on the pathway to that unrealized goal.

  • wonkish1

    All it is doing is trying to provide some continuity into the system. Otherwise the incentive by carriers is to keep on extending out their own pre-existing condition limits.

    Look anybody that studies healthcare policy will tell you that the problem started getting perverted when healthcare started getting provided by your employer because after WWII the government wasn’t going to remove the deduction for corporate health benefits. But it skews the relationships. The individual has an incentive to get the best policy in the work world. The company has an incentive to produce cheapest policy they can find because they are paying for it and get no benefits from it. The carrier is incentivized to offer the most constricting policy for the most amount of money. The presence of the employer as the middleman creates problems and is market distortion created by deductibility given to employers but not the individual that causes their to be a lack of choice allowing pre existing carrier limits to grow astronomically in a employer based system. The creation of reasonable limits in pre existing condition time frames at the beginning of employment is not something that really changes healthcare costs at all.

    And Obamacare is going to blow a giant hole into our system with its guaranteed benefit minimums. There is no question about it. Odds are you wont be able to even buy a policy with more than a $5k deductible after they’re done setting standards. Limitless demand takes over the system and costs start skyrocketing out of control.

  • Menlo

    I would imagine the insurance industry had a hand in crafting it.

    In any event, I don’t consider requiring “unique identifiers” for individuals, unfettered government access to information, and a plethora of one-size-fits-all “privacy” mandates to be conservative.

  • lucasblack

    This is a great diary with all sorts of information. I have always hated Tom Delay for how he derailed the Gingrich revolution. I started out this race supporting T-Paw but when he dropped, I switched to Newt and will remain there until he either wins or drops out.

  • Menlo

    I think the structure that segregates group and individual markets makes no sense. HIPAA seems only to have further promoted that system, and that is a significant part of my complaint.

    I will agree that the entire thing has been mucked up from the beginning.

  • JSobieski

    First of all, SS was already being used an a unique identifier long before HIPAA was enacted.

    Second, unfettered government access to information is false—as Rush proved in Florida.

    Third, the privacy mandates are not anti-contextual, and thus are explicitly not one size fits all.

  • Menlo

    I don’t listen to his show and don’t know what his situation was, but HIPAA allows access to records without a warrant to certain government agencies. Naturally, it’s going to be prone to error and to change based on the whim of bureaucrats at HHS and other agencies.

    One-size-fits-all is just as bad as the alternative of thousands of pages of new federal regulations. I don’t see how anyone could consider a measure of such size and scope, one that has continually expanded, even remotely conservative in relation to its purpose and effect.

    Like “Obamacare,” HHS is given broad authority to write and revise an endless stream of regulations on private entities that are constantly being written and revised.

    As for the numbers, unless the government is paying for it, doctors should not be required to use social security or any other uniform set of numbers to identify patients, particularly when those numbers could end up in some centralized database. Regardless, whether other such measures already existed is totally irrelevant.

  • JSobieski

    HIPAA just didn’t take that power away.

    Rush fought the State of Florida to keep them out of his medical records. If what you said was true, he wouldn’t have succeeded.

    Police don’t need a warrant to access third party records, such as for example phone records. HIPAA did not remove or enhance the ability of government to access your medical records.

  • Menlo

    That would only show that the endless mountain of “privacy” regulations, despite their complexity, size, scope, and burden (which is clearly worse for some than others) was unjustified.

  • JSobieski

    was in large part an inevitable result of the government role in medicare and medicaid.

    Of all the negative interventions in health care by the federal government, HIPAA privacy regulations don’t merit a mention in the top 20.

    HIPAA took some baby steps on portability that were worth making. Having some basic regs on privacy and information security are not per se unreasonable and contrary to conservatism under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    The problem with crying wolf too often is that nobody is alerted when the real trouble arrives.

  • acat

    The division between group policies and individual policies is maintained by insurance companies and their statisticians, and was originally created by wage controls during WWII.

    There’s no good reason why insurance groups have to be arranged by employer; a church or bowling league could organize a group policy as well… they just generally don’t do so. I’m under the impression that there are more legal hoops that they’d have to jump through to organize one, though.

    Health insurance is also a highly regulated industry, having to navigate a maze of both State and Federal bureaucratic rulemakers in order to sell policies.

    It’s cheaper for health insurance companies to insure groups, thanks to statistics that say “Out of X people, only Y will cost more than they pay in, and the rest will make that up.. profit!” insurance carriers like group policies.

    It’s a totally different story requiring a much closer look at the individual and the statistical odds of their being a net profit or net loss for an individual policy.

    Having been rejected for several individual policies and having owned a small company, I can tell you that it’s much easier to get a group policy, even if the members of the group have previously been rejected. This indicates a significant preference in the industry for group policies.

    HIPPA, by the way, is tangential to this. HIPPA sits between the health care provider and the insurance carrier, and has only a passing effect on the covered individual or individual attempting to get coverage.

    Mew

  • Menlo

    It may pale in comparison to Medicaid and Medicare, but I strongly disagree that its role is that minimal, and it is anything BUT “basic.” As to the top 20, I’d be interested in what falls on that list for health care providers who do not take Medicaid or Medicare.

    From my perspective, comparing constitutionality to conservatism is comparing apples to oranges. Regardless, the constitution was thrown out the window long before HIPAA.

  • Menlo

    A response to a WW2 economic problem has no business continuing in place.

    The “group” needs to be everyone under a particular insurance corporation, not just a company or individual.

  • acat

    I liked McCain’s proposal, during the 2008 campaign, to treat benefits like insurance as part of compensation for tax purposes, thus crushing the WWII-era justification. His plan offered nice deduction that would, for most people, offset the actual benefit they receive.

    It’s not great, but it’s a start… and it gets people to think about health insurance as money, not just an assumed thing, or a right.

    Today, insurance companies want to sell to companies, not individuals. This lets them outsource the paperwork of managing the group – and companies then vary what percentage of the tab they pass on to workers to try to encourage loyalty and promote happy staff.

    The McCain proposal would blow up that relationship, and my guess is we’d see more non-traditional group policy holders, like churches and other private organizations where there’s already someone doing bookkeeping of who’s a member, and what money they contribute. Churches are actually pretty well placed, if you think of it from that standpoint.

    Ironically, HIPPA’s forced standardization would make the transition even easier.

    Mew

  • Menlo

    I generally prefer the idea of a progressive flat tax and would back that proposal on those grounds. Still, it still seems to me then it would be to the insurers’ advantage to treat all members as one group as opposed to allowing individuals and smaller groups.

    Of course my chief complaint was and is simply the size and scope of HIPAA given its lack of justification. I didn’t intend to get into a detailed analysis of specifics here.

  • acat

    After all, it covers Medicare and Medicaid as well as all the other private insurers. There’s no way to do that without being enormous.

    The scale doesn’t bother me. The lack of follow-up under W bothers me more.

    Mew