No Newts

Now that Newt is converting to Catholicism, he can confess every time he lies. They will likely have to get a priest on 24 hour stand by.

Counterpoint:
.
Ex chief economist of the IMF, now MIT prof Simon Johnson:
.
http://bit.ly/EMOqS
.
the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital—a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.
.
One channel of influence was, of course, the flow of individuals between Wall Street and Washington. Robert Rubin, once the co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, served in Washington as Treasury secretary under Clinton, and later became chairman of Citigroup's executive committee. Henry Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs during the long boom, became Treasury secretary under George W.Bush. John Snow, Paulson's predecessor, left to become chairman of Cerberus Capital Management, a large private-equity firm that also counts Dan Quayle among its executives. Alan Greenspan, after leaving the Federal Reserve, became a consultant to Pimco, perhaps the biggest player in international bond markets.
.
These personal connections were multiplied many times over at the lower levels of the past three presidential administrations, strengthening the ties between Washington and Wall Street. It has become something of a tradition for Goldman Sachs employees to go into public service after they leave the firm. The flow of Goldman alumni—including Jon Corzine, now the governor of New Jersey, along with Rubin and Paulson—not only placed people with Wall Street's worldview in the halls of power; it also helped create an image of Goldman (inside the Beltway, at least) as an institution that was itself almost a form of public service.

"I've known Newt Gingrich for about 20 years now and I've always enjoyed him intellectually, but detested him politically."
.
Joe-In Newt's case you don't find this statement horribly contridictory on your part? After all Newt constantly uses intellectually dishonest arguments to advance his cause. Meaning he really does not believe 90% of the bullcrap he says, but he knows the press will treat him like he is dead serious. By the way he is way more concerned about being seen as a leader of a cause than he is interested in practicing what that cause truly believes in.

Jay-read Simon's article a few days ago. Glenn has linked to it and it is a must read. A lot of people will not like what they read, but the truth about ones self in this case, ones country is very hard to take. Specifically when our discourse is demoniated by the likes of Newt, Rush, Hannity and a press uninterested in informing people.

Joe-
.
Can you provide some examples of intellectually sound things that Newt has said? From what I've read, he just flails around with crazy talk.

Well, why is all this money being tossed around, anyway? These mustelids claim that Obama is trying to nationalize things and turn this into a communist (or at best, a socialist) state, but when you think about it, nationalization would be cheaper in the short run.
.
The reason so much money is being spent is because he doesn't want to nationalize, the exact opposite of their contentions.
.
I'm with you Joe. With the economy starting to show glimmers here and there, if it starts to do more than glimmer, these guys will all be relegated to smokey basements, chanting in front of posters of David Koresh and Timothy McVeigh.
.
All while furiously smoking Rush Limbaughs' ceegar!
.
As for Newt, I remember him clearly pumping the hatred in the days before the bombing of the ERM building in 1995. Like the chameleon he is (and I should choose an animal lower down in the food chain), he tried for a mantle of respectability.
.
I'll always remember him as the $6,000,000 GOPAC man:
http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

Joe Klein:
.
It's really wrong to frame this as a battle of ideas between the thoroughly discredited (except at Ignatius' and Brooks' soirees) Newt Gingrich, and the saviors of the people Geithner and Summers. This is just not so. It is a battle of ideas between those who see in Geithner's plan the continuation of a broken and corrupt finance system worthy of a banana republic, and those who believe that the short-term political risks of a real restructuring program outweigh the potential long-term benefits (presumably you, Joe Klein).
.
Matt Yglesias outlines the real, non-Gingrich debate over Treasury's policies here:
.

Will Marshall definitely thinks this:
.
In short, Obama and Geithner are working to restore the financial sector as it existed roughly a decade ago, before the frenzied run-up in real estate prices and the bubble in securitized loans. But as the president has said, the regulatory minimalism of the Bush years must be replaced with a new regime that extends oversight to hedge funds and derivatives and ensures that we never again face the necessity of bailing out companies that are too big or too interlaced to fail.
.
The administration's critics envision a more fundamental restructuring: a dramatic shrinking of the financial-services sector; an end to easy credit; a tight corset around any lending practices that might smack of seduction or predation; the permanent intrusion of government into matters of firm strategy and compensation; and, somewhat ironically, a return to the old, black-and-white days when conservative bankers took modest risks for modest profits.

.
So there isn't really any debate over the bankrupt, dishonest declarations of New Gingrich whatsoever, Joe Klein, and your attempts to bolster your own (shaky) arguments over what should and should not be done ("Geithner--and yes, Summers--have shown excellent balance, a respect for the free market system plus an awareness that the public needs to be protected from the sharks") by contrasting the Administration with a laughable conservative ideologue don't do the job.
.
You should be examining these cogent arguments,
.

There are three main kinds of things that can be done to prevent us from getting into this problem again: Regulate size, regulate risk, and regulate failure.
.
As best one can tell, the administration is currently pursuing a strategy that's based on the second and third options. They're imagining something like the old airline industry, in which a handful of large players operate from a privileged position (in this case, government guarantees) but subject to heavy regulation. They'd also like a rewrite of laws such that there's a way to manage a post-failure takeover. I think all this is fine, but option two is very unlikely to work over the long term. Calculated Risk observes that even if the Fed had earlier been specifically tasked with regulating systemic risk that wouldn't have accomplished anything—the Fed was led by people who didn't believe there was a problem: “How would a systemic-risk regulator help if they miss the problem?” This is a point I've made over-and-over again. Our problem was more fundamental than flawed rules, it was flawed leaders. And I doubt it's a problem that'll go away. Regulatory capture is bound to afflict this kind of situation. And the combination of toothless regulation and explicit government guarantees will allow the large institutions to squeeze out the small ones.
.
Which is why I agree with James Kwak that fundamentally we need some option one. Smaller banks will pose fewer systemic risks. Smaller banks will also be somewhat less effective at capturing regulators. And smaller banks will be easier to clean up when they f[ai]l. Indeed, calculated ambiguity about who will and won't get rescued if there's a need for a bailout will be easier to maintain with small institutions.

.
, not Gingrich's silly anachronisms.
.
I'm really not feeling well enough to comment sufficiently (I'm sick at home in bed), but here's what we have to consider, if we take Newt's arguments seriously for a minute or two.
.
Thank you for reading and considering this, Joe Klein.

Newt is not intellectually interesting, at all, and never has been.
-
Here is his latest list of big ideas. None of them are interesting or new. It might be a good idea to change the way we do air traffic control, but that's not one of the 8 biggest issues facing America. It's on the list because he is, at heart, a sci-fi writer.
-
He also compared Reagan to Chamberlain for talking to Gorbachev. Gingrich is as interesting intellectually as Hugh Hewitt. I know he claims otherwise, but Pete Hoekstra claims some stuff is true too. Doesn't make it so.
-
(reposted w/ fewer links...)

I just want to say something here. I think we have begun to reflexively attack here without really fully examining what the post is about. We tend to want to press our point of view so much that we don't take the time out to recognize that maybe we are missinig the point. Again I am saying we because I include myself in that number.
.
I don't think this post is about Joe Klein endorsing the Geitner Plan. This post is about him calling out Gingrich's bullsh*t (he says bull pucky) right wing talking points. Whether you agree with Geitner's plan or not you have to applaud the fact that Joe Klein is willing to do this when so many of the Village refuse to because of Newt's "intellectual reputation". Hell even KT takes up for Newt now and again and says he has some "new" ideas. Now honestly I am beginning to wonder if this is even the real Joe Klein because its a pleasant suprise for me that he is starting to call the people out that we have been wishing would be called out by the media for years now. Try to find another Villager who comes close to trashing Newt's point of view on this issue the way Klein does and the way it deserves to be.
.
Now obviously I agree that whether the Geitner plan will work or is the right move is debatable. I don't think its 100% that it won't work but I realize there are serious questions about it. But this post aint about any of that. Its about giving President Obama some room to actually get his work done without taking ridiculous pot shots from the right that nobody in the MSM seems to be willing to stand up to. And I for one am glad Joe posted this and I hope he keeps it up.

Get well SZ. Sorry that you are under the weather,

I look at Newt (who gave him that name?) and see a pattern: set up an outfit, write a screed with some outlandish theory, collect money to work through an "institute" and take a little time off to have something on the side, all the while condemning Bill, and complaining about being seated with the peasants on Air Force 1 and having to use the back door.

In his current incarnation he is Mr Serious; a problem solver selling bogus wares. How he gets on CNN is a mystery ( no, its not). Fox News provides the go to venue for garbage in/garbage out stuff.

A new Newt is born every few years.

To Catholics everywhere: you really want this guy in your fold?

If you really, badly want to be the next president, sooner than later, the stance to take now is Newt's. He personally has everything to gain and nothing to lose by continued economic failure. Self-centered, selfish, personal gain and gratification is what he is all about. Same as what has caused the mess we are now experiencing.
.
bitterpill, this is a cheap shot, but I am entitled as a recovering catholic. Newt will make an excellent, the best, catholic. It is the perfect refuge for the right wing nuts.
.
sz, hope you recover quickly.

Joe, don't you get it? The word 'socialism' is the new 'n!gger!n!gger!n!gger' in the Heartland(note the constant Third World references). The base isn't smart enough to know what 'socialism' means, and the GOP brain trust is smart enough to know that and what the base is really scared of...this is about WASP America losing it's mind as it sees hegemony slip away forever. Seriously, you don't think Glen Beck is weeping for the loss of an economic system do you?
.
People have just woken up to the fact that the corporations and the government have fused? We are not a bright people. Joe...the DFHs you've been running from your whole life weren't trying to harm you. No, they were trying to warn you!
.
Has anyone noticed we seem to be in the middle of a police brutality epidemic?
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/03/freedom-for-man-who-shot-at-cop/

For those who are second-guessing Joe's motivation for the post, didn't anyone notice that he's pi$$3d? Unlike many of us, Joe plunges into the heart of Right-wing commentary and occasionally comes back with a strong need to vent. I don't know if Obama's plan is too friendly to the current controlling interests or not but the question is irrelevant to whether or not Newt Gingrich is an a$$hat.
.
Thanks for the post Joe....

I'm not sure thinking about Newt Gingrich is worth anyone's time.
.
There's no such thing as a "serious" discussion about Newt Gingrich's ideas about the economy, because Gingrich has no serious ideas OR influence.
.
Signing off now...

rose83
.
I agree about the ideas part and totally disagree about the influence part. So far he has been the only Republican who has criticized Rushbo and not walked it back. Plus he seems to be the "gold standard" for House Republicans. They are all judged against Newt's mythical reign which is more fantasy than fact. Hell for that matter it was Newt who came out with "Drill Here Drill Now" last year which DID resonate with right wingers. He still has just enough influence to be dangerous and it makes sense to discredit him before he gets the chance

the financial services industry was given free rein--by Republicans and Democrats (I'm still looking at you, Larry Summers)
.
I feel this is an appropriate use of centrism.
.
And this:
Their unwillingness to protect average Americans from the untrammeled rapacity of an unregulated market is a disgrace.
.
Should remove any doubts how Klein feels about the current incarnation of the GOP.

Oh yeah, Paul Dirks-- this isn't a bad post at all.
-
I just think it's worth pointing out that Newt Gingrich is not, never has been, and never will be an intellectual. He's a beneficiary of the soft bigotry of low expectations we have for conservative thinkers.

sgwhite - huzzah your comment #9.
.
Joe- you aren't even tempted to call Bachman unpatriotic? Hard to see what noninflammatory epithet one can call someone who's advocating the overthrow of the government (albeit by "orderly" means, though one gets the idea she doesn't mean elections.)

I look at Joe from the perspective of what he was a few years ago. When I first signed on here, he was typical Republican pundit, spewing out the rights' TP's on everything from race to economy.
.
I really cannot criticize him too strongly at all, and I think his motives for posting his articles are probably as honest as anyone I've seen.
.
KT gets disengenuous at times, and justifies it as just doing her job. AMC tries constantly to come in from the right under the radar, that is, when she is actually posting something of consequence. Micheal Schearer has his good moments and very, very bad moments, trying to straddle the fatual gulf between the moderates and the right in the GOP. Amy Sullivan, weeeeelll. ???????
.
Joe is, the best of the bunch, I think.

Dirks
.
I got that. But Newt belongs in the "just go away" category, not in the intellectually interesting category.

And most of those who have been in a position to evaluate the real effectiveness of Obama's agenda are either dead, retired, or dead and retired.
.
It's going to be very hard for a 30-something dyed-in-the-wool "conservative" commenter, like most seem to be, to convince me that they really know what they are talking about.
.
So basically, even given that Newt is old enough to have a father who's experienced it, the only courses of action proven to work are those that FDR put in place.
.
It makes absolutely no sense it all to re-invent the wheel in these more-or-less extreme times - and that is what is making the GOP so irrelevant now.

Rose:
.
I was thinking about SG's comments, and I'm guessing that perhaps this post is simply demonstrative of the almost absolute, surreal disconnect between the Beltway/media bubble and engaged news consumers/the public.
.
The fact is that the world that Joe Klein inhabits is an intellectual carnival fun-house, where the inhabitants are constantly gauging reality via the distorted images they see of themselves in media mirrors. When Meet The Press convenes an "Economic Round Table Discussion", they invited an array of Serious luminaries, amongst them CNBC's Erin Burnett and Newt Gingrich.
.
Here is a transcript of the Serious "discussion" between America's greatest economic minds:
.

Meet The Press - Sunday, March 08, 2009
.
Gregory: could we have another Depression and would that be really Great???
.
Ahamed: we could if try to address the deficit and not spend enough
.
Gregory: so we should be Republicans?
.
Ahamed: no I said the opposite dimwit
.
Gregory: OMG how could GE be in a trouble - GOD help us all!
.
Burnett: there are no real problems - just fear and lack of confidence
.
Gregory: we need national Viagra
.
Gregory: so what is causing all these problems
.
Burnett: the media
.
Gregory: no things are really bad - help me Mort
.
Zuckerman: it's all confidence - hell I've stopping picking up $100 bills of the street
.
Gregory: Let me quote the Wall Street Journal
.
Gingrich: conducting a War on the Rich and Successful will lead them to put their money in a mattress
.
Gregory: so sad
.
Gingrich: a clawback will take money that people thought they had earned which definitely put a crimp in the time-machine business
.
Gregory: so Mort we've established that Obama has ruined America
.
Mort: I don't agree
.
Gregory: away with you!
.
Gregory: Why doesn't Obama make people confident but shutting down all ATMs?
.
Ahamed: my stars you are quite the moron aren't you?
.
Burnett: maybe we could let AIG fail
.
Gregory: so sad
.
Gingrich: look this is a whole new world - a Senator actually called CEOs idiots!
.
Gregory: no!
.
Gingrich: he should have been responsible and accused the Democrats for drowning susan smith's children
.
Gregory: exactly
.
Gingrich: Obama needs to decide if he is going to succeed or do the right thing or adopt Republican policies
.
Gregory: why hasn't Obama solved all of America's problems?
.
Mort: gee i don't know maybe they're hard to solve?
.
Burnett: he's fulfilling promises - which is an odd experience
.
Gregory: the eastern europe economy is not doing good
.
Ahamed: Dracula has been reduced to drinking V-8
.
Gregory: everybody has to sacrifice
.
Ahamed: we need people to be responsible
.
Gingrich: I'm not impressed by Obama he has a lot to learn
.
Gregory: you could teach him
.
Gingrich: right he's never served his dying wife with divorce papers in the hospital
.
Gingrich: no one is going to start a new business with Obama talking about shutting down the Metropolitan Opera
.
Zuckerman: i have to say that Newt is a true idiot
.
Gregory: but i looove him
.
Zuckerman: we need to fix the economy
.
Burnett: Lazy sick people are going to bankrupt America
.
Gregory: why is Obama doing to so much
.
Burnett: Obama is moving at light speed - he needs to slow down and let the rest of us catch up
.
Gingrich: i will be proven right - we need to have an emergency dialog and admit that the Democrats cause all immorality
.
Gregory: we need a bigger bloat
.
Ahamed: the strong must help the weak
.
Gregory: Newt you said Obama is just like Nixon and Haldemen who were criminals
.
Newt: Exactly - objecting to Rush's hate will stop us from coming together as a nation - attacking Rush is partisan
.
Gregory: so Rush is the Republican party?
.
Newt: um no did I just say that?
.
Gregory: yes
.
Newt: this nation has to have once in a 100-year conversation about why homeless women should get free laptops unless they are having their period
.
Gregory: you're such an idea man!!

.
Newt Gingrich was called upon to deliver his thoughts on the economy during political media prime-time, and nobody --least of all the inane and incompetent David Gregory-- in their strange, disconnected world thought twice about it. It's incredible. They really do live in Versailles.
.
So I suppose that we can strive to understand how it comes to be that Joe Klein is having this sort of bizarre debate with somebody who believes in the economic equivalent of Intelligent Design. He truly isn't familiar enough with the non-Beltway world to know that Meet The Press sounds like Meet The Press to engaged news consumers.
.
I just think that it behooves him and the reality-based community for us to let Joe know that the real, serious debate is out here, and if he'd like to be sufficiently intellectually armed for what's coming down the road, he should pay more attention to it instead of gazing into fun-house mirrors.

God, I feel like dog-crap on the sidewalk...thanks for the well-wishes, folks.
.
I can barely hold my head up. teh suxxor!

Here is my Shorter Joe Klein;
.

I like Newt Gingrich personally but acknowledge that he is an ass hole. And when it comes to talking politics he is a BIG TIME ass hole who ruins all serious discussions. To prove that I am a better person than Newt I won't call him the names that he calls everyone else but I will say nobody should listen to him. Here is an example of some more crazy sh*t he has said recently about Geitner and Obama.
.
cue the transcript
.
This is just fear mongering and its ridiculous and and nobody believes it anymore oh by the way I actually like the Geitner plan so screw Newt and what he thinks. And Krugman thinks he is retarded too.

Here is a NYT Magazine cover story that fleshes out some of Newt's influence with at least some members of the republican party.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/magazine/01republicans-t.html
.
He may have more current relevance to the republican party than the republican party has to policy.