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.
I haven't endorsed anything. I am just saying that all, and I mean all, politicians have to be narcissistic in order to subject themselves to the rigors of applying for a public office.
Then, repeating myself, they enrich themselves at the public's expense, they dress in fine clothes, eat the best of foods, travel at the public's expense, etc. And, all the while telling the public how much they are doing for them.
I repeat, this is at all levels of government. This is what politicians do, no exceptions.
I didn’t guess or imply anything. I said I hoped a certain thing. If even that gets your prickly, then it’s impossible to have a calm, rational discussion w you.
To suggest that all politicians are equally narcissistic is to render the word meaningless. Just as Obama saying all countries consider themselves exceptional nullified the concept of American exceptionalism, ‘all of them’ being narcissists means that narcissism is meaningless. Either it is a clinically defined Personality Disorder or it isn’t. It happens to be. Some politicians are afflicted w it and others aren’t.
Newt has compared himself to Reagan and Thatcher. He has displayed a stunning lack of empathy, even toward his children’s mother. And how about this:
‘Newt’s supersize ego led him astray. Course notes extolled the then-GOP whip’s role in creating an “American movement” with a GOP majority as an “advocate of civilization,” a “definer of civilization,” a “teacher of the rules of civilization” and — prepare to feel a thrill up your leg — an “arouser of those who form civilization.”’
He is a clinical narcissist. He is that in ways most pols aren’t. Disagree if you want, but please stop telling me they’re all equally narcissistic. It’s insulting. You believe it if that’s what you want to believe. Just stop trying to convince me of it, because it’s uninformed at best.
Excelllent point.
Newt’s ad with Nancy Pelosi was over a year before the fraudulent data at East Anglia was exposed.
Believe it or not, Newt had been interested in the environment from a young age. He wasn’t a tree hugger, but he was in line with the “responsible stewardship” understanding of taking care of nature.
The fraudulent data was believed by a lot of people because it was supposedly the best data out there. I could see someone saying, “I can’t just ignore this.” and being an honorable person. (Personally, I always had suspicions and sided with the minority scientists.) However, that doesn’t mean that those who went with the majority data were dishonest or lacking in integrity. They simply chose differently.
The real issue is what they did when the fraudulent data was exposed. Did they dishonorably continue spouting what they now knew to be lies? Or, did they change their views?
Newt changed his views. Initially, he became an agnostic on the issue. As the fraud became more apparent he totally left behind any ideas regarding cap and trade. That seems honorable to me.
I think he is again in the camp of “responsible stewardship”. So am I.
We cannot abuse nature. Nor can we ignore that God gave it to us, in large part, so we could sustain ourselves and our loved ones.
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.