Posted on 11/29/2011 7:32:12 AM PST by Kaslin
Now that Newt Gingrich has become one of the top two contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, he is falling under intense scrutiny. The closer a Republican candidate comes to winning the nomination, the more their conservative credentials are called into question. Gingrich had a very successful tenure as Speaker of the House in the mid 1990’s, as architect of the Republican Contract with America, which helped usher in the first Republican-controlled Congress in 40 years. But after achieving several victories for conservatives, he abruptly resigned from Congress in 1998, days after winning reelection to another term.
The Republicans’ Contract with America consisted of ten items that Republicans promised to bring to a vote on the House floor during the first 100 days of the new Congress if they took over. Gingrich was elected Speaker in 1995 and brought up all 10 items for a vote during the first 100 days as promised, although many of them went nowhere in the Senate. He worked with President Clinton to reform welfare in 1996, pass a capital gains tax cut in 1997, and pass a balanced budget in 1998, the first balanced budget since 1969.
But as usually happens when a conservative leader accomplishes a lot and becomes highly visible, there is a backlash. Gingrich became a lightening rod and prime target of the opposition. He was considered “polarizing” and “too controversial.” While a strong personality is advantageous for getting things done, it can also be a distraction that weighs others down. The government shutdown backfired and Republicans were blamed. The Democrats piled on, launching an ethics investigation into Gingrich’s history course, to determine whether tax-exempt contributions had been used for political purposes. Although the IRS later exonerated him, the House ordered him to pay a $300,000 penalty.
Concerns developed among House Republicans that President Clinton was getting the best of Gingrich in budget negotiations. Some thought Gingrich was backing off on tax cuts, and worried about his lack of opposition to Clinton’s pork-filled budget. Former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-Fl) observed ruefully, “But Newt Gingrich did not have the luck, or good sense, to slowly fade away.”
In 1997, former Congressman Matt Salmon (R-AZ), from the freshman class of 1994, became the first member of Congress to publicly demand that Gingrich step down as Speaker. Salmon was fed up with the GOP for not producing an agenda. Salmon felt the GOP was on the defensive too much, caving in to President Clinton. He referred to Congress as “the Seinfeld Congress,” doing nothing to reduce the size of government and the federal debt.
Other conservatives from the freshman class of 1994 joined Salmon, including Scarborough, Steve Largent (R-Okla.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mark Sanford (R-SC) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who demanded that Gingrich stand firm on the Contract with America or step down as Speaker. In the summer of 1997, several House Republicans including Tom DeLay (R-TX), John Boehner (R-OH), Bill Paxon (R-NY), and Dick Armey (R-TX) unsuccessfully attempted to replace Gingrich as Speaker.
Republicans barely kept control of the House in the 1998 midterm elections, losing five seats. Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) mounted a campaign to replace Gingrich as Speaker. Salmon and 11 GOP House members openly opposed Gingrich. The final straw came when Salmon announced on CNN’s Larry King Live the day after the election that he and six other unnamed Congressman would not vote to reelect Gingrich as Speaker, and there could be as many as 30 or 40 more joining them. Doing so would have forced the GOP back into caucus without electing a Speaker.
Two days later, on November 5, 1998, Gingrich announced his retirement, even though he had just won reelection to Congress. Stepping down from Speaker and his Congressional seat, he said, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals.” He admitted that it was tough to lead since he had become a lightening rod.
Who was right? Gingrich got a lot accomplished while working with a Democrat president; in fact Clinton’s biggest accomplishments as president were actually victories for the conservative agenda. But at some point Republicans in Congress lost faith in Gingrich and thought he was capitulating to Clinton. As Rep. Ron Packard (R-Calif.) put it, "Gingrich has won a lot of victories for us, but he lost one crucial battle and we can't risk losing the majority, which is the war, over one general."
It comes down to pragmatism versus principles. At what point is it possible to get past the gridlock in Congress without compromising? Gingrich referred to Salmon and his opposition group as “The Perfectionist Caucus.” Gingrich believed their demands went too far and could not be accomplished with a Democrat president.
Salmon has a respectable 94 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union over his six years in Congress. Gingrich has an almost equally impressive 90 lifetime rating. Both are very conservative, they simply came to different conclusions about how pragmatic to be in the mid-1990s in order to get anything accomplished with a Democrat president.
If Gingrich does end up winning the presidency, Salmon will be back. Salmon is running for Congress in Arizona again and expected to win. We need leaders like Gingrich who can rally people behind his big personality to get things accomplished. We also need leaders like Salmon who will stick to their principles. Having learned from the past, there is reason to believe these two will be able to work together this time through our system of checks and balances. Gingrich has learned his lesson, and sounds more like the principled Gingrich of the early 1990’s than the pragmatic conservative of the later 1990’s.
Perfect description of how Gingrich and Co. squandered the incredible amount of power conservatives gave them.
Newt has one principle, Newt.
Newt Gingrich reminds me of a young married Professional “Yuppie””know-it-all” type couple who has NO kids trying to tell a successful Homeschooling Family how to raise kids or be parents.
Correct. Newt is a narcissist. They are great at sizing people up, figuring out what they want to hear and giving it to them. Anybody who listens to the pitch and believes the narcissist will subsequently stand on principle and follow through, just hasn’t had much experience w these types. They will let you down every single time, no exceptions.
Everything changed on the climate front when the East Anglia fraudulent research was exposed in late 2009.
Everything anyone had suggested prior to that is moot. Some honorable people were operating on trust in some falsified data.
The question is what they did when they found out about the falsified data.
Many refused to continue their support of global climate change. They were the honest ones. Newt Gingrich was one of those. He stopped supporting it.
Others continued as if climate change were real and as if falsified data did not matter. They were the dishonorable ones. They continue to cry “wolf” to the nation.
Yeah, I’m on it. It’s amazing what a simple missed tag can do to a beautiful post.
Bullcrap. We all knew that is was a Marxist wealth distribution scam before then, and Newt did too, or he should have known.
Sorry, no pass for the Newt.
I disagree. We all didn’t “know” it. We believed the minority research. That doesn’t mean those who believed the majority research were lacking in integrity.
It means simply that they were wrong. That is not an ethical issue.
For them NOW to know it and to continue pushing this crap is an ethical issue. They are not to be trusted.
So, Gingrich gets a pass on this one.
It’s deer hunting season in Ohio. I’m a true environmentalist. I will do my small part to help thin the herd. Nor will I dump its carcass into the stream that runs alongside my property.
He reminds me of the t-shirt:” People say I have ADD...Look, a chicken!”
To me [aside from his other failings], Gingrich lacks self-discipline and organizational skill. He IS the ADD candidate.
You maybe right, but what I find striking is that Lindsey Graham was one of the people forcing Newt out. However, he became a US Senator and I recall the people giving the GOP nice new majorities in 2002 so we could get some Judges appointed. I recall that Mr. Graham then became a member of the GANG of 14 to compromise with RATS on which judicial appointees would get the nod. I would say that Graham ultimately squandered way more power than Newt did. We lost some good potential Judges.
The problem was that the falsification claim turned out to be itself falsified.
The list of Republicans who helped squander the power that conservatives gave them is too long to argue over who was the worst.
All politicians are narcissistic. That is what drives them to be politicians. A non-narcissist doesn't stand a chance at being a politician.
are you saying that the east anglia data was correct and good data?
Newt is far beyond the ordinary, garden variety narcissist [which technically isn’t a narcissist at all; the term is overly-broadly applied by people who have no idea what the Personality Disorder associated w it is fundamentally about]. He in part excused his infidelity by citing his ‘passion for the country’. When you are so narcissistic that you can even think of such an excuse, much less utter it in public, your narcissism rises beyond common misconceptions and into the realm of a full blown Personality Disorder.
Let me ask you this. If Weiner had in part blamed the tweeting of his erection on his “passion for the country”, how would you have responded? If you respond w a shrug, then you truly do not grasp this mental disorder.
I don't respond in any way. I have observed that to be a politician one needs to be narcissistic; revel in adulation; take advantage of the position for one's own benefit at the expense of those who are taxed to pay for the situation; make laws that do not apply to them; etc; etc.
I hope you’re not saying it’s normal political behavior to cite ones love for the USA to justify adultery. I know of no politician other than Newt who has used that line.
No doubt about it, Newt is not the only narcissist in congress or in government. But not all pols are narcissists by a long shot. One prime characteristic of a true narcissist is the inability to empathize. Newt has displayed this trait in spades. Even some of our most craven pols can empathize on some level. Those who lack this ability are the ones to really watch out for; they are very bad news for all around them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.