CQ's Crawford Suggests Newt Gingrich For HHS

Over at Congressional Quarterly, Craig Crawford is having himself an idea on who might be a good replacement for Tom Daschle. On the one hand, there's Howard Dean, who would have to find himself on better terms with Rahm Emanuel in a hurry for that to happen. On the other hand, theres...:

Gingrich? Now before you lefties have a collective heart attack, think about it. Something as big as overhauling our entire health care system will be tougher to get done on a purely partisan basis. There are Republicans who want to play.

Oy. If bipartisanship truly was the cure-all that people make it out to be, we wouldn't need universal health care. I'd just get my prostate evaluated by the House Judiciary Committee and call it a day. But, more to the point, while Newt Gingrich might be worth reaching out to on a narrow issue or two -- Newt's basically on board with the conversion of paper medical records to electronic versions, for instance -- it's impossible to see what you gain from having someone hostile to the cause of universal health care heading up HHS. One would presume that appointing Gingrich would create -- oh, I don't know...impediments? -- to an effort on which the administration has said it wants to go "deep and long."

So how does Crawford evaluate Gingrich's ability to secure the administration's desired reforms?

As much as it would infuriate liberals, picking Gingrich would be a hyper-bipartisan move. Would it confound the GOP into submission on health care? Maybe not, but it would be a bold move to change the political dynamics that have killed reforms in the past.

So, let's see. You appoint Gingrich, alienate your supporters, and then probably fail to "confound the GOP into submission?" Isn't that a high-concept recipe for defeating the purpose? Sure! BUT WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE "HYPER-BIPARTISANSHIP?"

Comments

[osusana]

Not. in. a million. years.

No way.

No how.

[jesuslovesObama]

Keep Gingrich as far away as possible from any position in this administration. He has done enough damage to America already.

[bz12]

why not sean hannity for press secretary? this is insane.

[LALC]

Actually, as crazy as it sounds, Craig has a point:
If Newt was "in charge" of health care reform, Repubs would almost be compelled to cooperate. Remember, Gingrich would NOT want to walk away a failure - esp his own Repub party to blame! He'd love to "make history" with this admin - he IS really full of himself!
And the Repub congress would NOT want to be responsible for the failure of "one of their own" ESPECIALLY Newt! -wouldnt be Obama's exact plan (it won't be anyhow) maybe a start?

As it is now, they're gonna dig in their heels in really deep! Force Obama admin. to give-into demands since they know how badly he wants bi-partisanship AND wants to pass some sort of legislation! Repubs are doing it right now & with Rush at the helm to-boot!

[colleen2]

"it's impossible to see what you gain from having someone hostile to the cause of universal health care heading up HHS."

Do you think?
He's also hostile to reproductive healthcare for women and unremittingly hostile towards the poor. He's so corrupt that the lobbyists were handing out checks on the House floor during that sad chapter in American history when this SOB was Speaker. Likewise, Gingrich is inarguably one of the architects of the present day economic and healthcare meltdown. Anyone who would seriously suggest, nominate or vote for this abomination for HHS should be impeached or fired.

[MsLiz]

When Newt Gingrich takes over health care, I am going to the nearest ER. They'll probably send me up to the psych ward.

[grumpygranny66]

Jason; what are you smoking? To suggest Newt Gingrich for HHS is laughable.

[klondiker]

I actually think that the perfect person for this job is Hillary - too bad she's already at State (not that she can't do an amazing job with that. I just think something like this is better-suited for her talents). Heck - let's just have her do both! Joe Biden can pitch in with State, if she gets too busy!

[LALC]

I like the idea!

[breathestolive]

The Newt Gingrich who engineered the whole "blame the 'liberals' campaign"? That Newt Gingrich?

We don't need bipartisanship THAT bad, trust me.

[klondiker]

HAHAHA! That's a good one! Why don't we get Dick Armey too, while we're at it?

[kareemachan]

Dear God, not that sma rmy, na sty little slim eba ll...

[MANK]

Craig,
I like you. Please don't make yourself irrelevant with such stupid statements. There is too much wrong to waste time on this nonsense.

[FR]

Bi-partisan doesn't mean stupid.
Gingrich is a nasty narcissistic has-been who should not be allowed anywhere within 500 miles of the political process.

[zanzig]

The only people demanding bipartisanship appear to be the irrelevant GOP, in an attempt to make themselves relevant, and the onloy suggestions they have made so far are so devoid of intelligence that they are doomed to further irrelevance. When the President does show bipartisanship by inviting them to discuss their ideas for the Recovery and Reinvestment Bill, they reward that reach by voting en bloc against the Bill, in the House.

[whsmith]

I think republicans have misinterpreted the meaning of "bipartisanship" completely. They seem to be forgetting who actually won the election.

[kevinw]

Craig I love ya man, but this is the craziest thing I have ever ever heard you say. Yes the only bigger Bi-partisan move would be Jesus Hiring Satan to man the pearly gates. Bi-partisanship is only useful if it helps get good policy in place from having people of good will work creatively to solve problems of common interest. There has to be some common interest besides they both live in the US. Newt has been a major opponent of any and all govt sponsored health care. The only time having people on the extreme work toward a mutually beneficial conclusion is in a Lifetime channel movie with a Hot Liberal chick and a hardcore conservative hunk. The solve their problem and fall in love. I just don't see this scenario working with Newt and Obama.

Seriously,

If the Obama camp were to push the bi-partisan crap that far, they will lose their base.