"entrepreneurial public management" = "more contracts for haliburton"

I don't know about Newt sometimes. I like him, but he has a reputation for not playing well with others. On one had, I agree completely with what he is saying, and await such reforms avidly. I feel it is imperative that conservative leaders not govern like liberals once elected, and true reform in style of governance will be one of the greatest boons of being the majority in government. I must say though that Newt, true to his ideology, is sometimes blind to practicality. Demanding that our leaders achieve the terribly difficult in impossibly short spans of time is not productive, nor is criticizing them for failing to do such. And I fear that piling upon them unreasonable complaints, on top of all the other complaints they face legitimate or otherwise, will only serve to hinder them from making any progress.

matt, in case you actually missed the defenition of the phrase, it has nothing to do with Halliburton.....and not everything a Republican does is tied to Halliburton. Your one-trick pony won't work here.

"the advances of science and technology combined with the creativity of entrepreneurs and the power of the market to give people a broader range of options . . . to offer more choices of higher quality at lower cost."

"Entrepeneurs" has nothing to do with Halliburton...but has EVERYTHING to do with individuals that are TRYING to start a NEW company. Learn english, even those english words whose etymology is French. I'm surprised you didn't mention Enron....it would've been as equally irrelevant.

As for Newt....he needs to stop laying down with Hillary (THERE's a sick thought) as if there's some sort of symbiosis going on there when all that's going on is purely parasitic. Hillary gets to look like she's cooperating with the "other side" (good for HER) and appear to be a moderate (good for HER)....and if anything comes out of their arrangement, SHE is going to get all the credit for the good and HE will get the credit for the bad. Not a wise political move for Newt.

Sarge: how is it that Newt cooperating with Hillary is not as good for him as it is for her--especially given his record of "not playing well with others" as MJ put it. I would think that is a two-way street that both benefit equally from.

In either case, I think it's great that they are making (or appear to be making, anyway) some headway on the healthcare issue.

Sarge - Perhaps in Sargiganistan you take political speech at face value but we don't here in the US.

I don't see what talking about entrepreneuralship has to do with government structure - UNLESS it means moving government projects into the private sector. Small companies very rarely get government contracts because they can't afford to play the game - the regulation, the contacts, the beaurocracy.

Further, often rhetoric meant to persuade those who are for small businesses often ends up creating legistation that does more to help big business.

As is typical of republicans lately, we don't need to hear about vague, noble goals but detailed solutions.

How 'bout detailed facts? You're full of crapola. I work at a small business, the GOP does alot for small businesses, the democrats do alot to snuff us out of existence. What are you, merit shop all of a sudden?

Entrepreneural governance would mean replacing the existing structure with something more efficient, more productive, and more inventive. A government more able to think of new solutions to new problems, rather then trying to recycle old ones. And a government whom's policy would be tethered to results, and held accountable for making sure it's performance is tangible.

If they privatise as much of themselves as possible in the process of getting there, more power to them. Things work better that way, precisely because business possesses the spirit of ingenuity, and merit based rewards that bureaucracy lacks.

Actually, matt, it's called living in the real world and reading ENGLISH instead of injecting feelings and partisanship where it does not belong. Your anti-Haliburton partisanship shows when trying to equate ENTREPENEURIALSHIP with Haliburton, which it has NOTHING to do with, no matter how much you dislike Haliburton......and since you have no clue what Newt's really talking about, but would rather talk about Haliburton....go read it HERE

Go to the "PRINCIPLES OF ENTREPRENEURIAL PUBLIC MANAGEMENT" and read what he actually has to say, instead of injecting your anti-Haliburton feelings. In case you don't actually want to read it, he's simply laying out a tentative plan of 20 proposed changes in the management style of government to get away from the ineffectual "beaurocratic" government style that currently runs DC and most, if not all, of the States and Commonwealths. You don't see what entrepeneurialship has to do with government because you have not read what Newt has to say on the matter and all you've ever known is beaurocracy. Detailed solutions indeed....detailed like "It's right there on my website (even though it isn't)"?.

Andy....laying down with a snake will only get you bitten. Newt's attempting to set up for a run and he doesn't have a chance to be the actual nominee (wayyyyyy too much prior media negativity and I don't think the People are ready for a twice-divorced single man to be POTUS yet....unless he's been remarried AGAIN). Whereas Hillary would be the instant nominee just by throwing "Old Crusty" into the ring, so any "good" to come of this relationship will be all hers.

-he uses wal-mart as an example of success?

-hm, seems that the private sector has its share of scandals

-most entrepreneur fail many many times

-people from business tend to be very good at funneling business into their own companies

-there is no reason why the private sector would be better at using information technology

-which portions of our government are we going to outsource to India?

-the zoo example is weak. many cultural institutions are run in this manner. i really don't see how it would apply to other government areas

-why the hell bring judicial nominations into this

-----

In all, his 20 points say almost nothing. He just repeats the words "entreprenuer" and "information" over and over again. Sorry man, but there will be many hard political decisions to be made along the way.

So Matt, tell me who is making hard political decisions in YOUR party? Here are some examples of a "hard political decisions" Democrat style:

Fix Social Security: NO!

Energy Bill: NO!

Tax Reform: NO!

Medical Savings Accounts: NO!

Tort reform: NO!

Prosecuting the War on Terror: NO!

Now THERE are some positive solutions to hard political decisions!

You forgot

Reforming the UN into something that isn't trying to destroy us: NO!

Having judges: NO!

Now you're gonna show your anti-WalMart feelings? Whether you like it or not, WalMart is a success and by you questioning that success, you are showing how far away from reality you really are. Did you even read the 20 "suggestions"? ...because those items you just mentioned have little to do with what he's postulated and your questions like "how much of the government will be outsourced to India" are absurd. As is your question of "why bring judicial nominations into this", which just goes to show that you DID NOT READ IT OR DID NOT COMPREHEND WHAT YOU ARE READING. "Judicial nominations" was mentioned ONE TIME and it was to EXCLUDE them from the change he was proposing in the nomination process for EXECUTIVE BRANCH APPOINTMENTS........because long-term delays in filling executive branch appointments HINDERS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.....but he specifically DID NOT bring judicial nominatioins into ANYTHING, rather he specifically excluded them when he said "this is separate from judicial nominations, that is a different kind of problem."

You may want to simply call the "zoo example" "weak" without explaining "why" it was weak (that may fly by 10 year olds, but I don't go for the "because I said so" defense)....but it's a great example of a semi-privatization that works in CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES where privitization will not work or would be "wrong".....but beaurocracy has shown to be a failure.

He's simply laying out some ideas on how to change the style of government away from the failures that currently exist in the beaurocratic style.....but if you think the status quo is better, you better take a real look at the system and see why it's not efficient.

......and no.....Haliburton is not the topic here.

The reason that Hil will benefit and Newt won't is because she has the backing of the MSM, and he will only get "tag-along status" from anything positive that may come from this. It will be Madame Hillary all over the place. Newt is sadly mistaken if he thinks this joint venture will benifit him.

Sarge - How can one argue that Walmart is good for america? Our retail stores should be buying more goods from China and pushing US companies out of business? Nor does walmart provide good jobs.

The judicial nomination isssue is completely separate from the rest of his suggestions on hand. Also, there is a very simple way to shorten the amount of time spend on the nominations - nominate people both parties can agree on.

Sorry, I don't have to prove that the zoo example doesn't work - anyone backing it has to prove that it does work. As I said before, while it is a common thing to do with cultural institutions, I can't divine how Newt thinks it applies to other government agencies.

---

I think we've been over the "dems have no ideas" discussion before. Grow up and consider something besides Rush.

I do think Haliburton is on topic here. They're the best example of what Newt is recommending. A lot of people don't think Haliburton's involvement in the war has beena good idea.

If you think the current admin. is for entrepreneurial public management, then it is about Halliburton. This was the reason they (Rummy and CO.) gave for Halliburton being the choice in Iraq.

When you see a bill passed regarding bankruptcy for individuals, then the Feds are willing to pick up the retirement system for an airline who the hell are you kidding.

Yes, why would Halliburton deserve a bonus for feeding troops tainted food? Seventy Two million? We were paying $3.00 a gallon long before 2005. Good job Dick!

Sarge, you run your anti-Clinton agenda while putting Matt down? We may as well talk about Martha Stewart and Ken Lay. You act as if conservative republicans have nothing to do with this. If Newt is talking about small business, then lets wait for the christening after the maiden voyage.

Working for and owning a small business is two completely different subjects. When the "Halliburtons" funnel smaller companies in you get an "Asbestos Bill."

How many bonuses did the troops get?

Social Security NO, because a New York City fireman or police officer pays the same amount into the system as the millionaire CEO.

Tax breaks, NO, How many small business entrepreneurs do you think earn 200K? If we don't give tax breaks small business will suffer.

Judges NO. Conservative Curious George puppets, NO. All of Clintons were not accepted, why should Ws be?

TORT, NO. I pray that none of your children get mangled by a corporate bungle and you are told you have no TORT.

Have a good weekend. :-)

"Wal-Mart is a success"

Have you given any though to working for this successful company?

Sowell acts as if the NY Times had to dig through Wal-Mart employees to find one that lives below the poverty level.

Try Costco and you might make a better argument. The employees earn a better wage while their stock holdeers earn too. Do the stockholders earn as much as they would like to (do they ever), no but they do earn on their investment.

Sowell's argument was that the NYT arbitrarily deemed the 'cost of living' as the cost of supporting a family of 4. The NYT then proceeded to make the claim that Walmart employees were living in povery, unable to feed a family of 4. The NYT however, never thought that said walmart employees MIGHT NOT HAVE a family of 4. It might be a part-time retiree or after school job. Students and elderly need a source of income as well. You make $15.00/hr minimum wage, and you'll find none of them can get a job anymore.

As far as your little "NO" tyrade, I bet you made Mattk feel foolish. He goes through all the trouble of denying that the democrats are merely obstructionist, and then you go in the very next post and illustrate it.

Sorry matt, I have a real job that doesn't allow any radio playing for safetly reasons.....so I don't listen to Rush no matter how much you want that to be my source of information. WalMart is a success. It's a simple statement of fact. Whether or not it's good for America is a side issue.....and whether or not I've ever considered working at WalMArt is a non-point to the success of the company.

Nominate people that BOTH parties would agree on? So, when the next liberal POTUS gets in are you gonna recommend the same? How about "nominate QUALIFIED individuals", regardless of their religion? How about allowing a Senate floor vote?

As for your "dems don't have any ideas" whine....I did not say that in any manner. You made it up in your head just like UY does. I wasn't talking about the dems.....I was talking about YOU, concerning the beaurocracy that you are defending. ...and Newt isn't talking about "the dems"...he's talking about changing the BEAUROCRATIC style of the fedgov....because it's always been inneffectual...it's desinged to be ineffectual.....if it actually worked, they'd have nothing left to work ON....if social programs actually worked, those on 'em would no longer need 'em.

Russ...Halliburton was the choice for Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia (yeah, Clinton gave 'em no-bid contracts as well....damn that Clinton when you're damning Dick), etc....because there are only 2 companies in the world that can undertake that sort of project....AND THE OTHER ONE IS FRENCH.

...as for "How many bonuses did the troops get"? I'll ignore the fact that people don't join the military because of its high pay. Show me a Democrat that has proposed through legislation or executive order to have a pay raise for the troops. I can show you 1 and 52 others (and 2 republicans) that specifically voted against said funding increases(In 1993, John Kerry Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea).....and have you ever heard of "signing bonuses" and "re-enlistment bonuses"? I collected a bonus in '89 just for signing up for 4 years, a re-enlistment bonus in '93 for re-enlisting for another 4 years......AND they offered me another bonus, which I declined, at the end of my mandatory 8.

Sarge - Whether Walmart is good for america is central to whether we should base our government on its success.

The concerns I have about the current nominees I would have even if they were appointed by democrats. The fact is - as much as the republicans are complaining about dems standing up to their nominations, the vast majority of them pass. (yes, including many christians)

Don't even start in on "the filibuster has never been used on judicial nominations" - its a lie plain and simple.

Sarge, sometimes you need to scroll up to reread your past comments. "So Matt, tell me who is making hard political decisions in YOUR party?" A few posts down..."As for your "dems don't have any ideas" whine....I did not say that in any manner." So no, you weren't talking about me.

matt... if you're gonna snidely accuse me of saying something....at least quote ME, and not Steve.

Keep on trying to change the subject to JUDICIAL nominees, when Newt was talking about EXECTUVIE BRANCH nominees. YOU are the one that's incorrectly bringing judicial nominees into this discussion...and I'm not going to bite, because that's a discussion for another thread.

Whatever happens, there's absolutely no chance of the liberals stealing Newt's plan at least.

The fact that they seem to despise it out of hand is probably the surest sign it will work.

Sarge, I know that Halliburton/KBR is the only corp large enough to supply the troops as a private co. That's because they were allowed to write the procedure manual. It started with LBJ and they recieved a large boost from Ronnie.

The Pentagon is the primary funds provider for military pay and Os make the decisions who gets what. I was refering to bonuses for a good job.

You didn't state whether you would apply for a job at the largest retail company. I guess it's all about how you measure success?

Sorry...I don't apply for a career job at a company because of that company's success rate. I work in a very competetive field filled with NEW companies that have no record of "success" other than the amount of venture capital they've received...but they may be doing work that I love and they may be able to recruit me with the right package.

...but to answer the question so that you'll shut up about it....no, I wouldn't apply to even the most successful retail company right now BECAUSE I'M A FRIGGIN PhD TOTIN' BIOLOGIST and love my work.....but I DID work for a retailer for 4 years in high school.

Sarge, have you noticed how this went from being a discussion about Gingrich's idea, to being an argument over his example of evilnazioilmart?

I tend to see that as a good sign. Sometimes a proposals detractors lend more support to the idea then the proponents.

Well, it lasted all of ONE post. That EEEEEEVIL Hally-burton...blah, blah, blah. It's about a PROPOSAL to alter the style of government away from the current ineffectual beaurocracy, nothing more. If one doesn't want to alter the ineffectual beaurocracy, fine. Just admit it and leave Hally-burton out of it.

Show me anything the government can do better and cheaper than the private sector other than collect taxes and wage war and writing asinine legislation against THOUGHT for the sake of legislating something so that someone feeeeeels good.