The truth about Newts ethics violation. Now you know. Someone needs to tell Romney.

While on the campaign trail,  today,  Mitt Romney pretended that Newt is guilty of  stretching the truth when it comes to details about ethics sanctions, in 1994.   Speaking of Gingrich and his so-called "Speaker scandal," Romney reminded his audience of Newt's claim to be a historian.  He then followed that reminder with this comment, "But he [Newt] doesn't get to rewrite history." Mitt then used that statement as a segue to a more potent rhetorical attack on Newt and,  in so doing,   Romney, himself,   rewrote the record on the supposed "Speaker scandal" of 1997.  In mounting his attack, Mitt presented the "facts" of the scandal as reported by Tom Brokaw,  NBC newscaster,  himself a partisan hack from the Left.  The video is the 30 second portion of the NBC broadcast used by Romney in his current campaign against Gingrich.  

You should know that NBC and Tom Brokaw have demanded that Romney cease and desist from the use of this video blub.  You should also know that NBC continues to run the video,  themselves, doing their part to help Obama to another victory.   

More importantly,  we now have enough reliable information as regards the Newt "Speaker scandal"  to know that it is a falsified story, for the most part.  This post will give the truth of this matter as substantiated by liberals and conservatives alike.  Just tonight, on the Judge Jeanine show (Jan 29,2012, FoxNews),  guests from both sides of the aisle agreed that the Brokaw report was inaccurate and Romney's reiteration of the NBC report is unfair. 

You have the Brokaw misrepresentation,  and,  here are the facts: 

Gingrich came into the Speakership because of the 1994 sweep of the House and Senate, by the GOP,  a victory that was more the doing of Newt Gingrich than any other single politician of the day.

Let that fact sink in for just a moment.  

This was the first time in 40 years the Democrats did not "rule the roost"  and they were as vindictive and angry,  then, as they are today.  Newt was literally hated by the Democrat minority which included an embittered Nancy Pelosi. Just 10 years after this reprimand,  she would take over the Speakership of the House (1997) and rule the House as a dictator.  In 2011 she was accused of insider trading in which she and her husband took in more than $200,000 in profits.    But,  I digress.

Back to Newt.  Again, the 1990's conservative revolution was more the handiwork of Gingrich than any other Republican..    

 That is a fact.  As a result,  he was elected Speaker and began the task of implementing his "Contract with America."  He was hardly the poster boy for the Establishment GOP and,  with the passing of time,  became very unpopular with that wing of the party,  as well.  

As a side bar,  you should know that in 1989,  Newt orchestrated events in the House that lead to the resignation of, then,  Speaker,  Jim Wright (D-TX). The 1997 vote was retaliation for that circumstance as well as the Gingrich lead defeat of the Democrats in the midterm elections of  '94.  

Understand that there are sanctions,  reprimands, and censor available to the Ethics Committee when dealing with  so-called ethics violations.  "Sanctions" are the least critical and this is what all four Democrats and three of the four Republicans voted to enforce.  There was no “fine,”   as Newt's enemies call it.  Rather,  Newt agreed to reimburse the committee for part of the cost of the investigation and his share was $300,000.

The charge,  itself,  had to do with the notion that Newt had received money from a GOPAC fund, as pay for a college course Gingrich taught.  What is never mentioned in the telling of this tale,  is the fact that the IRS did,  in fact,  investigate this charge,  a charge that amounted to embezzlement,  and found the Speaker completely innocent.  Also, Newt's enemies fail to mention that he ran for Speaker in 1998,  a year following the conclusion of the "scandal,"  and won re-election.  He resigned in 1999 because the victory did not include enough of a majority to overcome the Democrat opposition.  Gingrich had done all that he could,  and resigned his membership in the House and moved into the private sector.   A related article in the Washington Post gives confirmation to all this.    

By now,  in this primary campaign,  Mitt Romney should know the truth of the matter,  but he continues to tell the Tom Bokaw version.  In my opinion,  such is a deliberate lie and Romney should move away from this story line.  

I am reconsidering my leanings toward Newt. Here is the problem.

Post script:  I may have just talked myself out of supporting Newt.  Here is why:  

Problem number one:  Understand that Newt had an affair with his second wife while married to his first wife.  He had a six year affair with his present wife (Callista) while married to his second wife.

While he might win the GOP nomination in spite of this matter,  I am concerned about the national opinion.  Understand that all this is an “old scandal,”  a matter of record for 12 years. While it is old news,  it might be so old that its rebroadcast could be considered “news” by a younger generation.

You can bet that the press will not be intimidated by Newt’s angry response. 

Will his request for forgiveness be enough to close the doors on these episodes?  What would be the impact of all this mess if presented to a 40 year old not familiar with Newt's past?  

Issue number two:  that business of Newt on the couch with Pelosi.  I remember that event and I remember my immediate response:  “Well,  that does it for Newt.”  Understand this, in sitting on that couch, Newt totally misunderstood the angst against Pelosi,  felt by the conservative community.  There is a reason why,  to this day,  she is the single most unpopular congressional personality.  

How could he have ever made the decision to sit on that couch and partner with Pelosi on environment climate issues? While he was trying to do the right thing as relates to the environment,  he didn't have to partner with the Nazi Lady,  did he??  

Understand that the “couch” is not the “rest of the story.”  He was a six year member of the Sierra Club and he supported the 1989 Global Warming Prevention Act.  The bill failed in the House.  In fact, it never got out of committee.   Its description includes this official commentary: 

101^st Congress:  1989-1990                   To establish national policies and support and encourage international agreements that implement energy and natural resource conservation strategies appropriate to preventing the overheating of the Earth's atmosphere, known as the "greenhouse effect".

Source:   http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h101-1078

What is not stated in the above description, is the fact that this proposal included a population control element – a social conservative’s biggest nightmare.  This is sooooooo not conservative legislation and Newt worked to pass this bill just four years before becoming Speaker.

As if that was not bad enough, the couch episode was followed by his call for mandatory carbon caps and this was in 2009. 

While Newt has solved this positional problem by simply admitting that it was “stupid and uninformed,” such does not mitigate the fact that had he been successful,  these laws would be on the books,  today . . . . Newt’s apologies not withstanding. 

A third problem is a current issue:  Newt has decided to take the position that he would ignore Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees.  Isn’t that what Obama is doing?  It’s “ok” as long as our guy is doing it?  I don’t think so.   This is not a good thing . . . . . . . . . . . in fact, the more I think about (as I write),  the more disturbing this is.  Understand that, with Obama’s recent decisions to on his own and outside the Constitutional precess,  we now know that there is little we can do about a rogue president.  We can’t shoot them,  of course, and, apparently,  we cannot impeach them for acting outside the course of Constitutional law.  And Newt is promising to do just that  -  to act out rogue behavior. 

A fourth issue includes the ethics violations that cost Newt his position in the House.  His supporters argue that the $300,000 penalty he had to pay was for receiving an advance on a book he was writing.  They point out that Hillary took an advance and nothing was said.  O.K. ,  so why is Newt so determined to keep the House documents concerning this matter closed?  When Pelosi threatened to do just that,  more than a month ago,  Newt almost panicked.   Do we think,  for a minute,  that what Pelosi knows,  Obama doesn’t ????  Understand that 3 out of 4 Republicans on the Ethics Panel voted to remove Newt as Speaker (1999).  While that might have been an unfair action, it is clear to me that we need to know what the enemy knows . . . . . . before Newt is nominated.  There is simply no way this information will remain private.  The Dems do not care about the law,  except when it works against them.  We need to know and Romney would be righteous in pursuing this matter,  for the sake of the nation’s future. 


Update:  add to the above the fact that Newt's "likability" coefficient is 25/53 .  a terrible ratio of more than 2 to 1 in the negative column.  While his message might overcome this,  and it appears to have done in South Carolina,  it remains a significant consideration.   In that primary,  non-Republicans were allowed to vote.  Gingrich took the Independent vote and ran a close second with Moderates.  Her is hardly "warm and fuzzy,"  but Nixon was certainly no favorite,  either,  in terms of "likability."  

Politico, the Left leaning internet giant, pretends to be dealing with an election cycle problem for Fox News. Silly.

Politico sees an evolving problem for Fox News, what do with the several paid advisors thinking about running for president in 2012. You will recognize the three, but not Rick Santorum in the lower right - and we do mean Right.

The "thinkers" at Politico apparently think that any or all of these folks will continue to draw pay from Fox while expecting Fox to cover their campaigns.

Apparently, Politico does not know there are laws that prevent this from happening. More than this, not one of those pictured would ask Fox to continue their "for pay" association. Huckabee is the most involved of the four and, for that reason, he may be the least likely to run. We shall see.

For for certain, Politico has dreamed up a problem that does not exist.