Why Newt Left the House

Did Newt Gingrich resign his speakership “in disgrace,” as Mitt Romney alleged in last Monday night’s debate?

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.

“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 for over 35 years.

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 Mitt is even more of an empty suit than Obama. I don’t trust Mitt. I will NOT vote for him, no matter what.

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.

Tim, you're to be commended for taking the time to do something that few others will. You honestly vetted a candidate you were not supporting, and changed your position, based upon what you uncovered.

Like you, I had great reservations about giving my support to Newt, prior to the Iowa vote, but just as you've done, I had to put my strong disagreements with him into context with his entire career record. It was only when I realized that his on the job performance matched what I need and want to see in a conservative leader, that I began to grant the man the credibility he deserves.

Newt's got a few old bones rattling around in the closet, but where it counts, he's sterling silver. None of us can predict with total accuracy what any man or woman will do once elected, but a close examination of their prior record can help us to choose wisely.

In Newt's case, there's enough in his record to give me the confidence that he'll do what he says he's going to do. He's already demonstrated it.

Thanks.

In Newt's case, there's enough in his record to give me the confidence that he'll do what he says he's going to do. He's already demonstrated it.

Thanks.

Well, really... it's I who should be thanking you. I HATE losing an argument. When you told me I needed to do my "due diligence"... it really hit home. Because, I hadn't with Newt. I was really too much on my memory of him. I needed to go back and refresh myself with the facts.

I must also give credit to my 23 yr old son. Newt inspires him. Here's what he wrote to me.

This isn't a race about what happened in the 80s, or the 90s. It is a race about defeating Barack Obama with quality ideas that take the country in a fundamentally different direction than where it is currently headed. It's about education, jobs, growth, and reducing the deficit.

Newt is not one to be known for character by any stretch of the imagination, but he unlike Romney, has the rockstar status that got Obama elected in the first place. The country elected someone with NO experience, which leads me to believe that what someone did or didn't do 20 years ago isn't going to make a difference.

I want to defeat Obama. The only way to do that is to elect someone that has the boldness and for lack of a better term, cojones to lead the nation and change it so my future looks better than now.

This was at the end of a series of emails we exchanged as we were were debating Mitt, Newt, and Santorum.

In times like these, keeping the productive young citizens of this country inspired is one of the most important things a President can do. This reminded me of the way my attitude was changed by Ronald Reagan. It matters.

Newt might blow up and fail us... if he does, we were toast anyway. He's the ONLY person running who has a chance to inspire, with action.

Thanks for the kind reply, Tim. I'm glad I could help get you to take another look at Newt's record in office. Like I said before, I had force myself to do the same, after not exactly being on board with the man.

I liked your son's viewpoint on all this. It's very interesting to hear how a young person sees the same things we're looking at. What's interesting to me, is that he sees the fundamentals of this primary so clearly, where some of us older folks had to muddle our way through to the light.

I think it's very cool that he's got a keen nose for what's happening in this race. Gives me some hope for the future generations of Americans.

Newt might blow up and fail us... if he does, we were toast anyway. He's the ONLY person running who has a chance to inspire, with action.

That's some airtight logic, my friend. As others have said, "we have to go to war with the army we have, not the one we wish we had."

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.