Gingrich himself, not wanting to dredge up the whole ugly tale, said little about his exoneration. "I consider this a full and complete vindication," he wrote in a brief statement. "I urge my colleagues to go back and read their statements and watch how they said them, with no facts, based on nothing more than a desire to politically destroy a colleague."Now, Gingrich is saying much the same thing in the face of Romney's accusations. And despite the prominence of the matter in the GOP race, few outsiders seem inclined to dive back into the ethics matter to determine whether Gingrich deserves the criticism or not. But if Gingrich is to have any hope of climbing out from under the allegations, he'll have to find some way of letting people know what really happened.
Is Byron York right? Does Gingrich have to address ethics charges that he eventually won?
I think he does, and that's because of the underlined parts in the first paragraph. Note that he says it was "his colleagues" who tried to destroy him. He is not talking only about democrats. Many republicans, including John Boehner, were in that group of republicans.
I'm sure one of the reasons these folks fear a Newt presidency is because they're afraid of payback. It's hell. It's William Wallace coming in retribution against those who betrayed him.
Which, I doubt that Newt would do because he's a pragmatist if he's anything.
I think he should carry a little clipping from the time in which the headline is GINGRICH EXHONERATED is prominent.
He should simply say, "Romney/Santorum/Paul (whichever) has just said something they know to be false. They said I violated ethics. Here's a headline from the time: GINGRICH EXHONERATED. Now either this headline is a lie, and it isn't, or this politician running for office is playing fast and loose with the truth."
Newt needs to stop focusing entirely on Romney's bad policy choices and start focusing ALSO on his unelectability. He needs to sow doubt.
Romney's greatest strength is all the press for over a year calling Romney the most electable. Newt needs to hit that and not just things like obamacare, gay marriage, abortion, etc.
Newt needs to wrap Romney in the facts that Bain, which probably still pays out to Romney, also had money tied into Fredi Mac and Fanni Mae and also that Romny’s Bains thought Muslim money for a mosque was more important than holding a bit of 9/11 ground sacred to the memory of people killed by Muslims. This kind of capitalism is not good for the USA today or for recognition of our Constitution. Even the robber barons of past centuries had some sense of using their greed for the benefit of USA populace.
I agree that Gingrich has to address the ethics charges. It is hard to call this a bipartisan witchhunt when the Rep controlled House vote was 395 to 28 with 85% of the Reps voting for the reprimand and the financial penalty. The Ethics committee vote was 7-1 for the reprimand.
The IRS ruling had to do with Newt's foundation, not Newt. The IRS, concluding a three-year investigation, ruled that the Progress and Freedom Foundation's donations to Gingrich were "consistent with its stated exempt purposes," and Gingrich's course and course book "were educational in content."
Pelosi was a sitting member on the Ethics Committee. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.),(now Senator Cardin) the top Democrat on the investigative subcommittee, said: "It isn't a very pleasant matter to sit in judgment . . . but it must be done. . . . This is a sad day."
I wouldn't put it past either Pelosi or Cardin to disclose confidential information thru surrogates. If Newt gets the nomination, things could get very nasty in the General Election. Newt must take the gloves off and go after Obama personally.