Posted on 01/30/2012 6:39:39 AM PST by Servant of the Cross
Did Newt Gingrich resign his speakership “in disgrace,” as Mitt Romney alleged in last Monday night’s debate?
No, but he didn’t have the votes to keep the job.
On November 3, 1998, Republicans lost five seats in the House of Representatives, shaving their majority to 223 seats, leaving them with a dangerously thin margin. Three days later, Newt Gingrich announced he would not run for a third term as speaker.
The pressure had been building for months. In January 1997, Gingrich narrowly won a second term as speaker with only 216 votes — out of 228 Republicans. (Several of them voted present, allowing Gingrich’s reelection.) Later that month, the House voted by a wide margin, 395 to 28, to reprimand the speaker for ethical wrongdoing and assessed him $300,000. (In 1999, however, the IRS declared that Gingrich had not violated any tax laws.)
At the time, Representative Pete Hoeksta reflected: “Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House. . . . If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment.”
Six months later, a bloc of disgruntled conservatives tried to oust Gingrich from the speakership and install Representative Bill Paxon in his place. After the unpopular impeachment of President Bill Clinton almost cost the GOP its hard-earned majority, rank-and-file members demanded new leadership.
Representative Steve Largent announced in a news conference he would challenge majority leader Dick Armey. He compared the GOP’s losses to “hitting an iceberg” and said, “The question . . . is whether we retain the crew of the Titanic or we look for some new leadership.”
“We have to have new leadership or we will not be in the majority in 2000,” Representative Tom Coburn told the Washington Post. According to the paper, at least twelve Republicans pledged not to vote for Gingrich in the speaker’s election the following January.
“The sword of Damocles was hanging over Newt’s head,” says Frank Gregorsky, a former aide to Gingrich. “If we lost seats at all, Newt’s 216 supporters weren’t there.”
Gregorsky explains the dynamic Gingrich faced: “He had two sets of groups against him: the hard-right class of ’94 and the institutionalists, whom he had displaced from committees.”
Former congressman Greg Ganske, who chaired Gingrich’s presidential campaign in Iowa, agrees that certain groups opposed Gingrich, but believes the speaker could have won a third term.
“It might have been a divisive race, but I think Newt would have had the votes,” he says.
What’s more, Ganske defends Gingrich against his critics, some of whom had a “holier-than-thou attitude,” he contends: “He didn’t have just a conservative bloc in the House. He had to manage the moderate wing as well. Part of the reason I supported him was that I admired the way he did that. It was like herding cats. I find it so interesting now that guys like Joe Scarborough are so anti-Newt when he was actually so good to them.”
Former congressman Todd Tiahrt also believes Gingrich could have won another term as speaker. “He still had enough [votes] to be speaker,” he says. The reason he resigned, rather, was that he felt he would be ineffective if he won. “I think he saw the controversy that he was getting from charges by the Left, the fact that people were upset with his leadership style, and I think he just saw that he wasn’t going to be effective.”
But former congressman Mark Souder says Gingrich had several opponents running against him. In an e-mail to NRO, Souder writes that Gingrich “could not have won.”
“The election results were a factor but mostly an excuse,” Souder writes. Republicans were fed up with his leadership style, and the fact that they were poised to choose Appropriations Committee chairman Bob Livingston as Gingrich’s successor was indicative of their concerns. “We were seeking operational leadership, not ideological or electoral leadership.”
For his part, Livingston, who endorsed Gingrich’s presidential bid, says the change in leadership was a tactical decision. Gingrich had predicted a pickup of at least 15 seats soon before the election, and when it resulted in a loss of five seats, rank-and-file members are quite disappointed. “It was a tactical frustration,” Livingston tells NRO. “Not a frustration with Newt’s fundamental direction of the Republican conference, nor did it have anything to do with his ethical situation.”
Livingston adds that Gingrich initially hoped to salvage his speakership and was testing the waters for a third run. After a conference call with the Republican caucus, however, Gingrich decided not to run for reelection. And when it became apparent that Livingston, who was reluctant to take his place, had the votes to secure the speakership, Gingrich helped with the anticipated transition. Livingston explains, “He wanted me to be a successful speaker, was very gracious and kind, and cooperated with me in every way possible.”
Livingston resigned from Congress before he could take the helm, paving the way for Representative Denny Hastert to assume the speakership.
But Livingston objects to more scandalous claims about Gingrich’s departure. “Romney’s assertion that he left in disgrace is totally wrong and simply untrue,” he says. Yes, the ethics charge was water under the bridge by 1998, and Gingrich could have put up a spirited fight for his speakership.
But it is more than likely he would have lost.
Romney is a despicable opportunistic liar.
THE SPEAKER STEPS DOWN [1998 article from the NYT] … (from the article) ....
"There is no doubt in my mind he had the votes to win the Speakership, but I'm not sure he had the votes to govern," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a former White House chief of staff ...
"What I believe desperately needs to take place is to heal the alienation that currently exists," said Representative Steve Largent of Oklahoma, a ‘conservative’ football Hall of Famer who announced his own challenge today to Mr. Gingrich's second-in-command, Representative Dick Armey of Texas.
The heart of the Speaker's problems, many Republicans said, is that he had never made an adequate adjustment from being the minority to being the majority, from intense backbench opposition to governing.
The hard-edged partisan bite that worked for Mr. Gingrich in the minority came across as stridency in power, Republicans said. ''Whenever we try to go on the offensive, the White House tries to make Newt the issue and whenever that happens we lose,'' said Peter T. King, a Republican from Long Island.
...... AND the "piste de résistance" ...
When Mr. Gingrich allowed Representative John R. Kasich of Ohio, the budget committee chairman, to try to rally House Republicans around a conservative blueprint for more than $100 billion in new savings [in 1998!], the moderates refused to back it.
OK....I'll bite: TO PICK UP A PACK OF SMOKES?
What is rarely mentioned is that “power hungry” Gingrich instituted term limits for both committee chairmen as well as his own position as Speaker.
There are very few leaders that come along who limit their own power.
The thing which is scary about the dems is the kind of effort they can muster even when they have nothing in the way of candidates or ideas. They really don't give a rat's ass aboutideas or principles, the whole thing is a 100% power game to them. If you've watched "Game of Thrones", you understand the demoKKKrat party.
Translation: "We wanted a RINO who wouldn't rock the boat with the liberal media establishment."
Ding. Ding. Ding.
Wow, what a fighter!
I probably should have done this earlier... but, I just spent the past 3 hours re-reading Newt’s bio, some 1990’s era news stories, and some long-winded essays that I wrote ‘back in the day’.... just to refresh my memory.
Given the fact that, at the TIME Newt resigned, he had NOT YET been vindicated by the IRS for his ethics charges, and... he seemed likely to lose his re-election as Speaker.... I think, it’s not a HUGE stretch to say, “he resigned in disgrace”... he sort of did…
However... when one considers that, the MAIN reason he was losing support as Speaker was, the loss of Republican seats in the 1998 election... and, the fact that the REASON the Republicans lost seats was: They took a PRINCIPLED stance when impeaching Bill Clinton.... I think, it would be MORE FAIR to say, “Newt resigned WITH grace.... rather than in disgrace”.
In 1998, the general public did NOT want Clinton impeached. Yes... we all knew he was a scumbag liar and serial perjurer.... but, all our 401K’s were going through the roof, and MOST people wanted no part of anything that might spill the apple cart.
I believed... NOT impeaching a President who lied under oath would be a breach of principle. So did Newt. KNOWING that it would be politically unpopular... and, probably knowing that the spineless moderates in the Senate would not back them up... Newt moved the impeachment forward anyway. He paid the price for it when the country punished Republicans for not doing what the people wanted.
I have not been a full-throated supporter of Newt on this board... anyone can read my posts and see that. I was rightly called out recently by Windflier for not “doing my due diligence”. Shame on me for not doing this sooner...life happens (that’s my excuse, and I’m sticking with it). :-)
Now that I have done my homework... I’m reminded: My ‘concerns’ with Newt have NEVER been about whether I like him.... or, whether he governed in ways that I wanted... my concerns were more about how “Others” see him... electability and such. That stuff matters... but, this country (this world) is in BIG financial trouble. We may well be past the point of no return. I hope not… but, if not, we’re close enough to it that major change is needed, and fast. This country needs someone bold… someone with courage.. someone persuasive… someone able to articulate a conservative vision. While I still like a lot about Rick Santorum, he’s simply lacking in these skills.
Newt is “The Guy”…and, if others see problems with him, I’ll do my best to persuade them otherwise.
SomeCallMeTim is officially “OFF THE FENCE” and on-board the train. Sure wish I didn’t have to wait until May to vote.
Yup. Even Nancy Pelosi stuck around after losing the speaker position.
Wow, what a leader who cares more about country than self!
Great post. Glad to hear you are on board Team Newt!
bttt
Ping your lists! MASSIVE FREEPING NEEDED:
FReep this Orlando Sentinel Romney endorsement poll (Orlando is in the crucial I-4 corrider)
The Orlando Sentinel endorses Romney and on the same page is a poll if you agree or disagree with the endorsement...
I agree with you. The Democrat party will say anything, and do anything to get and maintain power, including extra legal activities. They remind me on Lenin and the Bolshevik party. They all march toward one world socialism with the support of 100% of the lamestream media (MSM).
The sad thing is, most Republicans at the national level know this and yet continue with the facade that both institutions (Democrat party and the MSM0) are just loyal Americans. They are not!
That's what makes me dislike Mr. Gingrich. His cute picture sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi advancing the fraud of global warming raises questions in my mind about his judgement. He comes across as an ego maniac loving to see his fat face on the television screen.
Mr. Romney is of course less conservative than Mr. Gingrich, just another go along to get along so called Republican whose only goal is get elected. He has no conservative social values and appears to be accepting of BIG government, which is the real enemy of us all.
Just to be clear... I DO KNOW that the actual impeachment in the House occurred AFTER Newt resigned...
But, the Impeachment was a CENTRAL issue in the 1998 election. I was writing about it at the time for a local paper.
Newt was pushing for it... even though, most public polls were showing the majority of people were against the idea.
Wow, what a leader who cares more about country than self!
Hardly. The statement you posted was about his decision not to run for the Speaker position. However, he had just been reelected by the voters as their representative in the House, which he abandoned because he could not be Speaker and he didn't want to fight it out with all the other, lowly Representatives. Make me king or I boogie...that's an enormous ego, not concern for his "Country".
“Romney’s assertion that he left in disgrace is totally wrong and simply untrue,” ... Bob Livingston
Romney is a despicable opportunistic liar.””””
Romney is trying to run on his ‘running a business’ record. I don’t think he is as talented as he claims.
Romney filed his Financial Disclosure papers in order to run for office of President.
He apparently did NOT list bank accounts & investments in 23 foreign companies. He signed that document.
I am a life long bookkeeper. I have done books for small businesses which grossed from $80,000 to $3,000,000 annually.
I am pretty sure that someone with Mitt’s wealth has a good supply of bookkeepers & accountants. I don’t for one minute believe that they were incompetant about not listing his foreign investments on such a disclosure form. A licensed CPA would not risk his license.
Therefore, I can only draw the following conclusion:
Romney is deliberately hiding from the American voter that he has 23 foreign bank accounts & foreign investment income. OR:
Romney is totally incompetant himself in the details of his own life. I just cannot believe that he didn’t know that he had investment accounts in 23 foreign countries.
Either way, how can he handle the mass of details that hit the Oval office on a daily basis???
I think is even more of an empty suit than Obama. I don’t trust Mitt. I will NOT vote for him, no matter what.
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.