Byron York has a history lesson for you. And Sarah Palin believes you should read it and pay close attention, lest you further embarrass your party and prove yourself a bundle of undisciplined, panty-wadded smear proving yourselves to be nothing more than useful idiots helping the left determine who our viable and “electable” candidates are:
Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it’s worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich’s former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich’s ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.
I wrote about the matter at the time, first in a 1995 article about Gingrich’s accusers and then in a 1999 piece on the Internal Revenue Service report that cleared Gingrich. (Both pieces were for The American Spectator; I’m drawing on them extensively, but unfortunately neither is available online.)
At the center of the controversy was a course Gingrich taught from 1993 to 1995 at two small Georgia colleges. The wide-ranging class, called “Renewing American Civilization,” was conceived by Gingrich and financed by a tax-exempt organization called the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Gingrich maintained that the course was a legitimate educational enterprise; his critics contended that it had little to do with learning and was in fact a political exercise in which Gingrich abused a tax-exempt foundation to spread his own partisan message.
The Gingrich case was driven in significant part by a man named Ben Jones. An actor and recovered alcoholic who became famous for playing the dim-witted Cooter in the popular 1980s TV show The Dukes of Hazzard, Jones ran for Congress as a Democrat from Georgia in 1988. He won and served two terms. He lost his bid for re-election after re-districting in 1992, and tried again with a run against Gingrich in 1994. Jones lost decisively, and after that, it is fair to say he became obsessed with bringing Gingrich down.
Two days before Election Day 1994, with defeat in sight, Jones hand-delivered a complaint to the House ethics committee (the complaint was printed on “Ben Jones for Congress” stationery). Jones asked the committee to investigate the college course, alleging that Gingrich “fabricated a ‘college course’ intended, in fact, to meet certain political, not educational, objectives.” Three weeks later, Jones sent the committee 450 pages of supporting documents obtained through the Georgia Open Records Act.
That was the beginning of the investigation. Stunned by their loss of control of the House — a loss engineered by Gingrich — House Democrats began pushing a variety of ethics complaints against the new Speaker. Jones’ complaint was just what they were looking for.
There’s no doubt the complaint was rooted in the intense personal animus Jones felt toward Gingrich. In 1995, I sat down with Jones for a talk about Gingrich, and without provocation, Jones simply went off on the Speaker. “He’s just full of s–t,” Jones told me. “He is. I mean, the guy’s never done a damn thing, he’s never worked a day in his life, he’s never hit a lick at a snake. He’s just a bulls–t artist. I mean, think about it. What has this guy ever done in his life?…Gingrich has never worked. He’s never had any life experience. He’s very gifted in his way at a sort of rhetorical terrorism, and he’s gifted in his way at being a career politician, someone who understands how that system works and how to get ahead in it, which is everything that he has derided for all these years. So I think he’s a hypocrite, and I think he’s a wuss, and I don’t mind saying that to him or whoever. To his mother — I don’t care.”
At that point, Jones leaned over to speak directly into my recorder. Raising his voice, he declared: “HE’S THE BIGGEST A–HOLE IN AMERICA!”
Jones and his partner in the Gingrich crusade, Democratic Rep. David Bonior — they had been basketball buddies in the House gym — pushed the case ceaselessly. Under public pressure, the Ethics Committee — made up of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats — took up the case and hired an outside counsel, Washington lawyer James Cole, to conduct the investigation.
Cole developed a theory of the case in which Gingrich, looking for a way to spread his political views, came up with the idea of creating a college course and then devised a way to use a tax-exempt foundation to pay the bills. “The idea to develop the message and disseminate it for partisan political use came first,” Cole told the Ethics Committee. “The use of the [the Progress and Freedom Foundation] came second as a source of funding.” Thus, Cole concluded, the course was “motivated, at least in part, by political goals.” Cole argued that even a hint of a political motive, was enough to taint the tax-exempt project, “regardless of the number or importance of truly exempt purposes that are present.”
Cole did not argue that the case was not educational. It plainly was. But Cole suggested that the standard for determining wrongdoing was whether any unclean intent lurked in the heart of the creator of the course, even if it was unquestionably educational.
Meanwhile, Democrats kept pushing to raise the stakes against Gingrich. “Anyone who has engaged in seven years of tax fraud to further his own personal and political benefits is not deserving of the speakership,” Bonior said just before Christmas 1996. “Mr. Gingrich has engaged in a pattern of tax fraud, lies, and cover-ups in paving his road to the second highest office in the land…I would expect the Justice Department, the FBI, a grand jury, and other appropriate entities to investigate.”
With the charges against Gingrich megaphoned in the press, Gingrich and Republicans were under intense pressure to end the ordeal. In January, 1997, Gingrich agreed to make a limited confession of wrongdoing in which he pleaded guilty to the previously unknown offense of failing to seek sufficiently detailed advice from a tax lawyer before proceeding with the course. (Gingrich had in fact sought advice from two such lawyers in relation to the course.) Gingrich also admitted that he had provided “inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable” information to Ethics Committee investigators. That “inaccurate” information was Gingrich’s contention that the course was not political — a claim Cole and the committee did not accept, but the IRS later would.
In return for those admissions, the House reprimanded Gingrich and levied an unprecedented $300,000 fine. The size of the penalty was not so much about the misdeed itself but the fact that the Speaker was involved in it.
Why did Gingrich admit wrongdoing? “The atmosphere at the time was so rancorous, partisan, and personal that everyone, including Newt, was desperately seeking a way to end the whole thing,” Gingrich attorney Jan Baran told me in 1999. “He was admitting to whatever he could to get the case over with.”
It was a huge victory for Democrats. They had deeply wounded the Speaker. But they hadn’t brought him down. So, as Bonior suggested, they sought to push law enforcement to begin a criminal investigation of Gingrich.
Nothing happened with the Justice Department and the FBI, but the IRS began an investigation that would stretch over three years. Unlike many in Congress — and journalists, too — IRS investigators obtained tapes and transcripts of each session during the two years the course was taught at Kennesaw State College in Georgia, as well as videotapes of the third year of the course, taught at nearby Reinhardt College. IRS officials examined every word Gingrich spoke in every class; before investigating the financing and administration of the course, they first sought to determine whether it was in fact educational and whether it served to the political benefit of Gingrich, his political organization, GOPAC, or the Republican Party as a whole. They then carefully examined the role of the Progress and Freedom Foundation and how it related to Gingrich’s political network.
In the end, in 1999, the IRS released a densely written, highly detailed 74-page report. The course was, in fact, educational, the IRS said. “The overwhelming number of positions advocated in the course were very broad in nature and often more applicable to individual behavior or behavioral changes in society as a whole than to any ‘political’ action,” investigators wrote. “For example, the lecture on quality was much more directly applicable to individual behavior than political action and would be difficult to attempt to categorize in political terms. Another example is the lecture on personal strength where again the focus was on individual behavior. In fact, this lecture placed some focus on the personal strength of individual Democrats who likely would not agree with Mr. Gingrich on his political views expressed in forums outside his Renewing American Civilization course teaching. Even in the lectures that had a partial focus on broadly defined changes in political activity, such as less government and government regulation, there was also a strong emphasis on changes in personal behavior and non-political changes in society as a whole.”
The IRS also checked out the evaluations written by students who completed the course. The overwhelming majority of students, according to the report, believed that Gingrich knew his material, was an interesting speaker, and was open to alternate points of view. None seemed to perceive a particular political message. “Most students,” the IRS noted, “said that they would apply the course material to improve their own lives in such areas as family, friendships, career, and citizenship.”
The IRS concluded the course simply was not political. “The central problem in arguing that the Progress and Freedom Foundation provided more than incidental private benefit to Mr. Gingrich, GOPAC, and other Republican entities,” the IRS wrote, “was that the content of the ‘Renewing American Civilization’ course was educational…and not biased toward any of those who were supposed to be benefited.”
The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.
Back in January 1997, the day after Cole presented his damning report to the Ethics Committee, the Washington Post’s front-page banner headline was “Gingrich Actions ‘Intentional’ or ‘Reckless’; Counsel Concludes That Speaker’s Course Funding Was ‘Clear Violation’ of Tax Laws.” That same day, the New York Times ran eleven stories on the Gingrich matter, four of them on the front page (one inside story was headlined, “Report Describes How Gingrich Used Taxpayers’ Money for Partisan Politics”). On television, Dan Rather began the CBS Evening News by telling viewers that “only now is the evidence of Newt Gingrich’s ethics violations and tax problems being disclosed in detail.”
The story was much different when Gingrich was exonerated. The Washington Post ran a brief story on page five. The Times ran an equally brief story on page 23. And the evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC — which together had devoted hours of coverage to the question of Gingrich’s ethics — did not report the story at all. Not a word.
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.
Conversely, the Romney champions seem to believe it in their interest to repeat the smears as if they’re facts — which explains why so many in the establishment sat idly by while many TEA Party types were being savaged in the press as racists and worse: they approve of the methods, and in the end, power is all that matters to these people.
I’ve said it many times but let me repeat it here once again: party doesn’t make much difference anymore. What we have is a ruling elite vs. the rest of us. And until such time as we recognize that and work to break up that monopoly on power, we will remain slaves who stupidly believe themselves in control of their masters.
What does an irrelevant, intellectually-incurious, geography-challenged chillbilly beauty queen grifter know anyway?
Too bad(they think) they couldn’t have sent him to Gitmo, like now.
Cooter is a cunt.
Cooter is a cunt.
Thank you Merriam Webster.
Rush is reporting that Nancy Pelosi told John King Newt would never be President, no chance, never. Because she knows things, even if the GOP doesn’t.
The last thing she knew this categorically was that she’d still be Speaker come two-Januaries ago.
Now that made me laugh!
You know, if we weren’t so worried about being accused of imposing our morality on other people (probably by hectoring them on a weekday) we wouldn’t have to have these debates in terms of the substitute faux-morality the Left has so helpfully provided for us.
Is it time to put in a plug for Angelo Codevilla’s America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution? I’m sure most here have read it, but it’s always worth a re-read. Better yet buy his book, which greatly expands on the theme. It’s certainly a different — and revealing — way of looking at Washington.
I would be more sympathetic if Freddie Mac whore Newt would stop whining about how Wall Street Romney made his monies, especially with his tacky slut wife dripping in Tiffany
Hey, look what that loony fearmonger Glenn Beck is saying:
Did I say Glenn Beck?
I meant George Soros.
I would be more interested in what a cartoon character had to say about serious matters if it phrased its comments seriously.
Did I say Glenn Beck? I meant George Soros.
The easiest way to tell the difference is that Beck doesn’t cackle as he’s making his observations/predictions.
Hen. George Saudis is a cartoon character too.
Saurus. Damn you auto-correct.
Also, “Heh,” not “Hen.”
Dino-saurus?
I thought you meant Sauron.
Why the hell would journalists investigate something? They already knew the Pravda.
Ya know, I really think we could do without the idiotic slandering of every woman as a “slut”.
I would like to see the sun set on that expression along with a few others.
it’s a very distasteful word but when you’re a little whore aiming to get into the pants of a married man old enough to be your dad what happens to be your boss it sorta comes with the territory
You parody yourself, feets, which if only for the tedium and redundancy, means I just did JHo.
it’s a parody now but when President Newt the whore fucker and his slutty bimbo wife start talking about the sanctity of marriage in Christ, you and I will both know the truth won’t we
yes we will indeed
Newt’s hair reminds me a WHOLE LOT of Benny Hinn’s. Why, it’s like twins.
…and he does a lot of the Lord’s work in SoCal, now that you mention it.
Soros is correct. There most probably will be fighting in the streets when the weather warms. And he knows because he will be financing some of it.
I think we can count on it, BT. I’m not looking forward to a repeat of 1968, but I think we are going to get it.
What is sad is that the Owwies could be natural allies. Their anger is just misdirected.
leigh, if we’re lucky, we only get a reprise of 1968.
I tend to think riots will start because the government gravy train derails.
That’s what they want you think BT.
The natural allies thing, not the misdirected anger.
so the eastern gulf remains off limits as well as the pacific coast and also the atlantic coast
This is not a president who likes jobs not even a little.
@23,
good point Mr. lee that is apt indeed
“Is it time to put in a plug for Angelo Codevilla’s America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution?”
Hadn’t seen it. Thanks!
Sorta related, in a with friends like these, who needs enemies? way.
*Just in case you’ve forgotten, Norm is the bright fellow who let Al Franken steal his Senate seat out from under him.
Except his own.
Blake, I think we are in for a long hot summer one way or the other. It’s one of the reasons that I am becoming concerned that the Won may be re-elected despite our best efforts to stop him. There are too many tricksters on their side of the aisle and our folks, bless their hearts, are too busy beating each other over the head like the Marx Brothers (sorry, Dr. Paul, you’re like Zeppo) and not keeping their eys on the prize.
And Trump is threatening to go 3rd Party AGAIN.
@33,
Gingrich and Reagan: In the 1980s, the candidate repeatedly insulted the president
Oh, Newty Newt Newt. Why does your tongue not burst into righteous flame when you speak Reagan’s name?
And blow me, you pompous, progressive windbag.
Here is a very unconvincing attempt to paint Newtie Newt Newt as Reagan’s right hand man.
Personally, I choose to listen to the Newster’s own words about Reagan. And note the many, many, many non-conservative, Big Government policies and positions that he has espoused and supported over the last 30 years.
let him what has a robust umbrella policy cast the first stone
Ace is spot-on today. (Don’t worry, it’s just a chart.)
Fred Thompson is on Cavuto telling us that Newt is our man.
“Newtster’s”
Today Coulter was on Beck and they both remarked that a lot of Newt supporters are getting as crazy as Nor Laup’s crowd: sending death threats to pundits who slam their man.
Oddly enough, the Mittens don’t send death threats so much, probably because Mitt inspires just that much zealotry.
Ummm. You realize that Newt is criticizing the Reagan administration for being too soft on the Commies (as well as grandiloquently grandstanding) right?
OT: Tiny Tim Geithner sez he won’t serve a second term at Treasury.
Let him what does not drink enough water pass the first stone.
Tiny Tim Geithner sez he won’t serve a second term at Treasury
Needs time off to do his taxes.
Now that the Newt and Mitt fight is going on aren’t we supposed to tie the bag and throw it into the water?
Needs time off to show his face at Davos. Which, think about that.
Ernst,
Rather than saying that Newt said Reagan was being “too soft” on the Commies, I would rephrase it as him saying that Reagan wasn’t being hard enough. Yes, Carter was “too soft”, but Reagan was not. And would Reagan pushing the USSR harder than he did throughout his presidency have been better?
Even if Newt truly did feel that way, “Hard-core Anti-Communist” does not necessarily equal “Staunch Conservative”. I seem to recall the people in power in 1940’s Germany as being pretty hard-core anti-communists too.
And how are we supposed to take Newt’s statement where he called Reagan’s 1985 summit with Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”? Seriously, Newt? What did Reagan giveaway to the Russians at that summit? How did he bungle it? I seem to recall Reagan standing firm there.
Face it, Newt is John McCain with better debating skills and increased arm mobility.
On the other hand, Mitt is McCain with better hair and more private sector experience.
The thought of either of these gentlemen helming the S.S. America for the next 4 years fills me with the urge to put a double-barred shotgun in my mouth and pull a trigger with my toes. Of course, to put that into perspective, the thought of Obama having another 4 years in power makes me want to pull both triggers. Just to be sure.
Shhh…. don’t confuse them with facts.
I sincerely doubt Newt inspires more death threats than Obama. I suspect the issue isn’t the candidate so much as the insiders’ arrogance at demanding the base once more bend over and take it for an establishment candidate.
I just can’t bring myself to consider anyone who got along with the International Olympic Committee as being honest or honorable enough to warrant my vote…
The State taketh, and the State giveth away.
Go Team R!
Just to clear up some confusion, apparently it was a teleprompter error that caused Obama to make this bewildering statement last night:
“This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy — a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper and full of new jobs,”
What he meant to say was, “an all-out, all-of-the-above-ground strategy”.
He obviously still hates oil, natural gas and coal.
Dave, I think you make a fair distinction between too soft and not hard enough.
Longer reply later.
Dave, you have to be careful about applying 20-20 hindsight. Newt was arguing what he thought was necessary at the time, and because Reagan achieved what he did isn’t to say Newts approach wouldn’t have had equal or better results. I don’t think even Reagan knew how weak the USSR really was in 1980.
I don’t think most people
knowchoose to see how weak the USA is 30 years later, either…Ernst,
Look forward to it.
Lee,
Regarding hindsight, you’ve got a point. I was in the USAF from ’82-’86 and remember thinking during that time that the USSR had us outgunned in all areas (conventional as well as nuclear forces) and worrying that we were in a more precarious position that we ultimately ended up being.
And I admit my opinions on Newt of the 80’s are skewed by memories of his actions during the 90’s and 00’s.
in a more precarious position than we ultimately ended up being in
Grammar is our friend.
Hey leigh: as a psychologist, what do you make of Newt’s doodles?
He apparently wasn’t a professor of penmanship.
He’s certainly a man with a plan, di.
The fact that he is drawing figures is important. Granted, the figure(s) are of himself and his then wife, but it shows a humanity that I have not seen in doodles by other R presidents (not that I have looked) and candidates since Reagan, who drew cowboys and animals. Most Republicans tend to draw shapes: squares, triangles predominate, and Newt is drawing circles, indeed, circles within circles that show an inclusivness and layering of ideals.
He is incorporating ideas with which all of us here are familiar with and agree upon. He is drawing his ideas from the Founders and mentions them explicately by name, as well as that of President Jackson of whom he is a great admirer.
Since the list(s) are from 20 years ago, it would appear that he is able to construct a plan that is doable. Indeed, he has accomplished many of the tasks that he set for himself in the writing of books and the (at the time of writing, still a question) making of video to further his vision.
He is seeing himself as the central figure in his plans, which only makes sense as they are his plans. The plans themself show delegation of duties with himself as the decider and final decision maker.
The call to revitalize and recivilize all Americans is a charge that Bill Bennett, Michael Medved and others had embraced in the early ’90’s and continue to embrace today. Indeed, Glenn Beck has made it a project of his to educate us all about our American greatness and the dangers of losing our freedoms.
While the lists and the goals are lofty and ambitious, as I said before, they are doable and do not ring any alarms.
If he were designing uniforms, monuments and great halls rather than planning the course for our country’s future, I would worry. He is not planning a dynasty. He is trying to recapture what it means to be an American, by his lights.
I’d say it shows he felt he was in competition with his father for his mother’s affection.
Well, that too, bh.
Heh.
Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America
Yeah, leigh, it was very subtle but then “arouser of those who form civilization” was a dead give away.
It looks awfully grandiose, which you know what that says to me.
?????????, one of Newt’s stumbling blocks.
“which you know what that says to me.”
rick santorum 2012
That’s a strange spelling for hubris, sdferr.
(Joking, I googled it to find Sophrosyne.)
The call to revitalize and recivilize all Americans is a charge that Bill Bennett, Michael Medved and others had embraced in the early ’90?s and continue to embrace today. Indeed, Glenn Beck has made it a project of his to educate us all about our American greatness and the dangers of losing our freedoms.
Glenn’s plans are indeed as grandiose, but he’s doing it as a private citizen, not as POTUS.
Big diff.
There’s a strange mixture of hubris and sophrosyne in Socrates, which is revealing somehow. On the one hand, his knowledge of his own limits requires great consideration of many things. On the other, his great consideration of many things makes him knowledgeable in many things, hence to his contemporaries appearing to be hubristic (and hubristic in fact, at the same time as severely self-constrained). It’s weird, when seen up close.
newt should start out as a blogger first if he wants to be a pundit
James P. Cole made a fortune suing tobacco companies and anyone else who had a nickel to rub together. He’s the archetypical Democratic hack lawyer.
The Luap Norians appear to be decloaking more and more and resemble OWSies when fully wound up.
There’s a strange mixture of hubris and sophrosyne in Socrates, which is revealing somehow.
Paradox, is what I see in Socrates.
Glenn’s plans are indeed as grandiose, but he’s doing it as a private citizen, not as POTUS.
I have a difficult time with Glenn Beck as he veers and swerves too much for me. His heart is in the right place, but I prefer his mentor David Horowitz. They both say many of the same things, but David doesn’t make me check around quickly to see where the exits are.
It remains to be seen if Newt will achieve his quest to be POTUS. I know you see him as a narcissist and see that in a malevolent way. It’s a long time until November, so I suggest we all keep our powder dry.
Regarding Santorum, SDN made a great point on a different thread about the fears that many have expressed about him are the very ones that turned many of us off of Huckabee. He turned out to not be what he said he was and was trying to make us “better”. I’m paraphrasing and will have to go find the exact quote. It was well written and expressed my own hesitation quite well.
If you were to pin the paradox you see down to terms, how would you write it leigh?
That is an excellent question, sdferr, to which I’m afraid I cannot answer just yet. I will think on it.
You are very learned about the Ancients. Do you see paradox or am I going down a blind alley?
“he said he was and was trying to make us “better””
really?
“Teacher of the rules of civilization”
Here is the comment:
SDN posted on1/24 @ 9:04 pm
Jeff / Pellegri,
The essential problem people have with Santorum is that they are afraid they saw him in 2008 under the alias Huckabee. Someone who genuinely feels that it’s the government’s job to “make people — better.” The areas for improvement aren’t the same as Obama (or ORomney), but the mechanism is the same.
I’m not entirely certain how he goes about that, but that’s where I see his problem.
“Do you see paradox or am I going down a blind alley?”
It’s better to just jump at the phenomenon straight, I think, even if it turns out to be more complex than our initial reaction would allow — so, on account of I wanted to hear your view (to take advantage of your “fresh eyes” on the problem, so to speak), I want to hold back on any commitment for now.
Link for #82
I see him as headstrong and proud. Now, Pride is a Christian sin and quite obviously Socrates was not a Christian, but I will assign Pride to him as the hubris that I see.
Now, being the learned man that he was and one with (obviously) considerable oratorical skills, he felt the need (perhaps a compulsion?) to teach the young men of Athens. In his zeal to share his great thoughts with the youth of Athens, he brought down the wrath of the Counsil who accused him of corrupting the youth and put him to death.
The paradox, to me, is that he was such a learned man, so wise to the ways of man, that he surely knew that he was treading on shakey ground, but made a decision to soldier on even knowing that it would cost him his very life.
That’s probaably all wrong, but it’s been a long time since I have read any ancient philosophy.
Thanks, geoff.
“Someone who genuinely feels that it’s the government’s job to “make people — better.””
yea by cutting taxes
“Someone who genuinely feels that it’s the government’s job to “make people — better.””
yea by taking on the “education elites”
“Someone who genuinely feels that it’s the government’s job to “make people — better.””
yea by approving the keystone pipeline
sdferr, I also think that the paradox is that Socrates did not think himself wise at all.
We should be clear that the “make people — better” line is from Huckabee and not from Santorum.
(Not that anyone said otherwise.)
because we need to pigeon hole santorum with the mbm narrative. go leigh.
Dude, it wasn’t me that said it. I just thought it was well said.
You know, that’s my hesitation with Santorum. SDN expresses it nicely here.
I guess that’s where I split the issues. The family stuff? I view that as inherently anti-statist. If I could program a murderous robot to shoot itself in the head I’m not likely to talk myself out of it because I’m using a murderous robot to achieve my goals.
The differential tax treatment for manufacturing? Yeah, I can’t get behind that even if I can tolerate it. I think that’s a picking-winners-and-losers sort of incentive. Let’s just go across the board on just about everything when we’re discussing tax schemes.
Overall? I’d say it comes out as a net positive even with those possible negatives we’re looking at.
As everyone here recalls, I was a very big critic of Huckabee. Santorum doesn’t give me anywhere near the same vibe.
Here’s what I suspect, but can’t prove*, about that “most dangerous summit for the West” remark: The Geneva summit of November 1985 was the first meeting between the leaders of the U.S. and Soviet Union since the collapse of the SALT or START or whatever the hell the talks were. My guess is that Newt’s remarks were made prior to the summit, rather than during or after. If that’s the case, Gingrich wasn’t expessing anything more than a widely held opinion that the old man, surrounded as he was by the foggy-bottom striped pant set, would get rolled by the cagey Bolsheviks. Hell back then George “What Republican Establishment?” Will routinely banged away at Reagan for selling out the Conservative Movement. I guess he hadn’t “matured” yet.
We really need to see that sentence in full context to know what Gingrich was talking about, and we don’t have it. The fact that we don’t have that context is why I’m willing to take the chance of making (more of) an ass of myself. If the context supported the way it’s being characterized, the context would be there to suport it. So no hiding behind the McCluskey rule for me —this time.
The thing I know, just from an index search of Hayward’s second volume of his Age of Reagan, is that the Newt Gingrich of the 1980s was the original Michele Bachmann. He played the bad cop and he played it well. So much so, that he was something of a pain in the ass for the GOP establishment. That’s got to be worth a couple of points.
*because my google-fu is weak, like a flabby little gurly-mon research nerd
“The differential tax treatment for manufacturing? Yeah, I can’t get behind that even if I can tolerate it. I think that’s a picking-winners-and-losers sort of incentive”
yea because santorum’s opening is his final call. rickys could be all 999 at the end. jeez they’re effin politicos.
It isn’t anywhere near all wrong leigh, though there may be one or two of dicey particulars (so for instance, “he felt the need (perhaps a compulsion?) to teach”, may not be so much a “need to teach” as a narrower, more selfish “urge to know”, so that what appears to be “teaching” is actually a by-product of that different enterprise; and all that — despite that he cares for his fellows — yet says somewhat hubristically ” . . . I have neglected all my own affairs and have been enduring the neglect of my concerns all these years, but I am always busy in your interest, coming to each one of you individually like a father or an elder brother and urging you to care for virtue . . .” [31 b2-8]).
Still, especially not wrong in this: “he surely knew that he was treading on shakey ground, but made a decision to soldier on even knowing that it would cost him his very life”, which goes right to some of the most interesting questions, one among them being — upon reflection on a close reading of the Apology — along these lines “Is Socrates intentionally provoking the Athenian jurors to convict him, and if so, why?” and then, once they have convicted him, provoking them even more prior to sentencing? I mean, that is odd, though we have to reflect that this appearance may be more Plato’s doing than Socrates’ directly.
The thing with Huckabee that you have to remember is that he’s coming out of the protestant social gospel tradition, which is to say progressivism. He’s a paleo-progressive, a modern day William Jennings Bryan. That’s not Santorum. I don’t know enough about Catholic social teaching to say definitively, but I suspect that proselytites of the Catholic social gospel don’t have much use for him.
And this time I am just speculating on a hypothesis. I know I don’t know nothing.
Except about Huckabee. I got him booked.
I am doing the my happy dance for not being a complete idiot.
I mean, that is odd, though we have to reflect that this appearance may be more Plato’s doing than Socrates’ directly.
That, I think, is the nub of the problem of Socrates: How much of what we know of him is a construct of Plato’s or reimagined again by Aristotle?
That’s the deal. Like the Christ, the old bugger didn’t write, except in the sand. So we have to tease away at Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle and the rest of the later bunch, always skeptical whether we’ve got ahold of a real live human being. He’s a hard one.
“. That’s not Santorum. I don’t know enough about Catholic social teaching to say definitively, but I suspect that proselytites of the Catholic social gospel don’t have much use for him.”
why is the narrative around santorum this socon discussion. really we can’t debate bh’s concern? oh noes we have talk terry s and elian. eff the mbm. why do you folks dwell on mbm issues?
Few quick thoughts:
– Not busting Santorum’s balls there, nr. Very much the opposite. I get your point. I’m not looking to hang the guy for putting out an opening bid that lots of Dems would have a hard time voting against right off the bat.
– Been trying to nail down the date on Gingrich’s statement, Ernst. People are just quoting that line without any cite whatsoever. And there is nothing other than “1985”.
– Don’t think Santorum is anywhere near that area of the church. He’d at least have given off some Jesuit tics by now if he was anywhere near there.
The narrative we engage around Santorum does honor to Santorum’s own intentions, I think, newrouter. He isn’t ashamed of his platform, calling his campaign by the name Family, Faith and Freedom.
i see it now: santorum is elected and thomas finds a penumbra to make the pope king. ave maria
i kinda hope herman and michele get back in
bh, I think Ernst correctly put his finger on Santorum as a Thomist (even if only loosely so), Natural Law kind of guy some days back. Haven’t seen anything to conflict with it yet.
Think I’d have to agree with that as well. Best fit.
– Been trying to nail down the date on Gingrich’s statement, Ernst. People are just quoting that line without any cite whatsoever. And there is nothing other than “1985?.
And the fact that it’s nothing other than that single sentence from 1985 that they’re quoting has me pretty well satisfied that it’s being deliberately misconstrued as an anti-Reagan sentiment when it’s probably just a momentous events in the offing, fates hang in the balance, the world waits breathlessly kind of (grandiose) thought.
Also, that this is straight out of the Romney campaign. Sure, I badmouthed Reagan, but you know what? So did Newt!
In my case newrouter, I’m trying to argue what I pretty much always try to argue, and that is that the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives have enough common ground to make common cause. The social welfare state is bad for society and it’s bad for the fisc.
The first place I can find that Gingrich “quote” is here on Dec. 13 2011. There is nothing earlier on Google and the person putting it up only ays it was from 1985 supposedly.
It has now jumped into the more mainstream blogs with this piece which still doesn’t say when or where it came from and has other problems with attribution for all the charges made in it.
says not ays.
Elliott Abrams has an awful lot of ellipses in his article at NR. I am suspicious since they are in the tank for Mitt.
Anybody link the Jeffery Lord piece yet?
That’s the first place I found it too, geoff. I’m guessing it’s from another “famous floor statement” and can be found in the Congressional Record, or the WaPo or the NYT.
Anybody got a microfilm or microfiche reader?
Someone should tweet Gingrich on it and see if the campaign lackey knows the answer.
I nominate Geoff because he’s freakishly good at this sorta research.
Dave in SoCal did up in #40
Thanks Ernst.
Meet the 21 year old Columbia Spectator editor and Barnard grad who wrote the editorial which had the Gingrich “quote”.
Here’s her twitter feed.
Anybody remember CamScam? Newt took on Tip O’Neill —and won.
“Then I started reporting on eminent domain. I didn’t even know what the term meant before 2008, but that beat became my baby. I wrote about it so much that, by junior year, I could regurgitate three paragraphs of background in a minute and reel off a dozen sources’ cell numbers. ”
thanks for telling why the dept. of “education” must go. yea and your union thugs. eff you stupid b—
Somebody find out where she got that nugget of chewy goodness from.
Did it anyways.
Heh, I took the other option, Geoff. Investigative journalism!
I finally got around to reading that Lord article Dave in SoCal linked and sdferr mentioned. I wasn’t aware that Bob Dole had endorsed Mitt Romney. Bob Dole and John McCain, my oh my. That’s quite the rogues’ gallery Romney’s collecting.
Robinson, Epstein and Yoo. Jeez, it’s depressing, right throughout. But worst at the end. Can’t help but recommend ya listen anyhow.
go rinoline
minnesota stupid: go coleman hi cap’t ed
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Bk II, Chapter XIX: Of the Dissolution of Government.
On the other hand, Coulter and Haley and a de facto Rubio.
That’s why I don’t like the who likes whom and what it might mean game. Multi-variate analysis should be avoided. It’s too hard to play for fun.
more hits for hot gas. go rick perry.
Well, I still like Coulter. And I understand the politics behind Haley’s endorsement. Not sure what’s going on with Rubio, but Haley’s lost investment in the Romney bubble might be the reason why it’s de facto instead of de jure.
OT: saw over on Instapundit that Warren Buffett’s poor secretary is really one of those greedy 1%ers who don’t pay their fair share.
leigh, that “make people — better” was actually in reference to Captain Mal Reynolds.
And Jeff, you may be right about Santorum not being Huckabee; that’s just the vibe I (and others) get off him. I’d love to be wrong, but it’s up to him to sell me.
There’s also the sad fact that a lot of Newt’s appeal is simply that he fights. He embodies OUTLAW! in that respect at least: call me a hateful Visigoth, but I will be heard…
Oldest mention I can find online of the 1985 Gingrich quote is from a 2000 Wayback Machine cache of a 1994 article from “The New American”:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000817184139/http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1994/vo10no25.htm
The citation there? “In 1985″… Too bad the online Congressional record only goes back to the 101st Congress. Now I wait for someone else to do the legwork…
Rubio, as with Haley, was helped by Romney in 2010 election.
You know what? That wasn’t just leigh, SDN. I remembered Huckabee saying something like, paraphrasing from memory, “religion makes people better” during the last election cycle. Thought that’s what we were referring to.
Maxima culpa.
Mea maxima culpa? The mea is implied right?
In English, I should be more careful. And less of a loose dumb ass.
Towards the Romney endorsements? I’m just saying that this way of looking at it gets complicated quick. I can’t figure out what’s going on in one or two of their heads let alone many of them with different opinions and motivations at one time. It’s unfruitful.
From the article in “The New American Magazine” linked above. Keep in mind that it is the official publication of The John Birch Society.
That “potentially” though not in the quoted phrase does imply that this statement was made before the summit took place.
Kinda expected that to be the case. Thanks geoff.
A quote from farther down the article gives some context to all the rest there.
Santorum seems to want religious believers left alone by the government; Huckabee wanted to tell me what to eat. Least, that’s the feeling I get.
Heh, good on you both.
For finding it and for predicting it.
You know, the most interesting thing about that New American is that for the most part, the predictions of doom and gloom, betrayal and heartbreak didn’t turn out that way. Gingrich did a pretty good job of delivering on the Contract, despite being a Rockefeller republican sellout who was using conservatism as a vehicle to further his own selfish ambitions.
A couple more points in his favor in my book, I guess.
As I said, Jeff, this is a vibe Santorum can counter, but he needs to do it more explicitly and clearly than he has. If I was convinced, he’d be my #1 candidate.
There’s also the sad fact that a lot of Newt’s appeal is simply that he fights. He embodies OUTLAW! in that respect at least: call me a hateful Visigoth, but I will be heard…
Agreed on the being heard, SDN. The shellacking Newt is taking from the GOP is shameful.
In several of the linkied articles on this thread, there is much fleshing out of Newt’s philosophy and firebrand style. The guy wasn’t afraid to bring it to the Old Heads, e.g., Tip O’Neill, Bob Dole and the dispicable Jim Wright, both on the House floor and off. Having stones and convictions breeds enemies as well as allies.
Not to beat the bones of Zombie Reagan, but RR also began to speak his plans for a Greater America or a return to Greatness way back in 1964 when he gave the nominating speech for Barry Goldwater. We do well to remember that RR wasn’t a player for the presidency until 1980, by which time he had even more courage of his convictions.
Newt’s many references to RR aren’t just for the sake of invoking a beloved president. They did work in concert and were good friends.
What has Mitt done? Ran from the Contract with America.
Santorum? His heart is in the right place and he is, unlike Obama, a good man, but he is not a firebrand or an exciting candidate. He also doesn’t appear to be much of a salesman for his American ideas and he better get it quick because the sand is washing out from beneath his feet.
Leigh, Reagan was a player in 1976 against Ford for the Republican nomination.
And the Goldwater speech wasn’t at the convention, it was an infomercial of sorts.
He also made an abortive run in ’68.
And Reagan was too old, too extreme, and too into voodoo.
You guys are right, of course. That’ll teach me to type stuff and not proof it before racing out the door.
Leigh I agree with what you say except for the one correction. Now, tonight searching for magazine covers from the 70s about global cooling I came across this cover from Time August 9 1976. Interesting fact. The Republican 1976 convention was the last convention by either Party where the nominee was not known until after the first ballot was held. Ford squeaked out a win.
That’s very interesting, geoff. I had just graduated from high school in 1976 and was more excited about the bicentennial that the presidential race (my birthday is in December, so even though I turned 18 that year, I wasn’t able to vote anyway).
I had a number of friends who were absolutely convinced that Reagan was the anti-Christ. I used to needle them about that characterization since it was en vogue to proclaim that one was an atheist. College never changes, I guess.
[…] Goldstein beat me to the punch with his comments on this matter: …the Romney champions seem to believe it in their interest to repeat the […]