Newt Gingrich is taking a pounding over his personal life — ABC’s Nightline broadcast a lengthy interview with one of his ex-wives yesterday. Before that, Newt was pilloried for his work for Freddie Mac, the government-created mortgage malefactor, and pummeled with ethics charges from his days as Speaker.
Yet, nary a word has been uttered about what I consider his biggest scandal — and one that involves Democrats coming to Newt’s aid to ensure his triumph over their own party’s challenger to retain his Washington perch.
Back in 1989, as the new House GOP Whip, Gingrich helped push through a massive pay raise, hiking congressional salaries by 40 percent. Gingrich and GOP leaders assured Democrats that Republicans would not attack them for voting to grab the extra dough. Democratic leaders returned the favor.
In a bipartisan love-fest, Democratic National Committee Chairman Ron Brown and Republican National Committee Chairman Lee Atwater went so far as to sign a written agreement foreswearing criticism of the hike “in the coming campaigns.”
“The gag rule,” as Utah’s Deseret News dubbed it, “was accompanied by notice from the party officials that any breach could result in censure from a candidate’s own party and a cutoff of party campaign aid for non-incumbents.”
When Democrat challenger David Worley began to hit Gingrich “morning, noon and night” over the pay raise, the Democratic Party committees — in what the Orlando Sentinel called “a breathtaking move that would make you wonder if this is a free country” — cut Worley’s campaign off.
Gingrich prevailed by a mere 974 votes . . . and went on to collect his pay increase.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
5 replies on “The Forgotten Scandal”
Got it. The Newtser is an intelligent, articulate big government politician. In spite of the desireability of seeing him mop the floor with Presbo in a debate, he will likely do little to turn around the massive spending or growth of government. He would just give us his version of the infinitely expanding national government, although maybe at a slightly slower rate.
In the interim, the press is doing do death the events of his life from 30 years ago. Don’t know about you, but I am not even close to who I was 30 years ago. I’ve had nearly a whole adult lifespan of some growth and improvement since then. And if what was going on 30 years ago is so frikkin’ important, then where is all of the investigation and front page expose of what was going on with Presbo 30 years ago? Wasn’t that when he ws doing so many drugs that he purportedly can’t remember and cogent details, like who, what and where? Where are the details in the paper about his designer-look and possible gay roomates and folks that he hung around? What about who had been funding his round the world trip that he took while in college? Not something he or his family could have even close to affording and definitely pricey. What about a decent study on previous relationships? Where are the girlfriends from the past? What about the details on the lady he pined for in his book or was she just artistic license. What about all of the rumors and innuendo about the mmembership in the bath house Man’s Country while he was in Chicago? Is it really a “gay” bathhouse? Does it have any bearing on his predeliction to appointing radical folk to positions of responsibility like gay rights extremist Kevin Jennings?
Now that would sell some papers and is a whole lot more interesting to me that what Gingrich did 30 years ago. There is a parable that the devil you know may be better than the devil you don’t. I already know way more about Gingrich than I do about Presbo. Guess that makes him the devil I know.
I would be ok voting for Newt as a relief from the lib/progs and then working just as hard to get rid of him in favor of a little “r” republican if the country makes it another 4 without crashing economically.
Also of interest regarding Newt, is that thru his life, he’s created companies whose customers were government organization. Thus, he’s used government and his influence to make himself rich.
Consider also his response to a debate question regarding unemployment insurance. He said it should be tied to job training. I see that as a Republican attempt to get campaign cash from training firms to get “government approval” for their training the unemployed. This is an example of using government to generate campaign cash (for Republicans and Democrats) and creating a government controlled monopoly market.
Far better would be to suggest that employers no longer be required to purchase this insurance for their employees, and allow them to purchase it themselves if they want it. This would essentially give a raise to everyone (as the insurance costs would soon be passed to the employee as wages instead). Instead, Newt goes for MORE government.
[…] and referendum rights. This week he highlighted Newt Gingrich’s pivotal role in Congress giving itself a 40 percent pay raise in 1989. One of the conditions of the pay raise vote was that both parties agreed to punish any of […]
Drik – you’re right that 30 years ago is a long time, people change. ANd if there was evidence Newt had, the comment would be relevant. The evidence is, he hasn’t changed.
As for the “get the Dem out with the liberal Republican, then get a conservative later” strategy. We’ve had that one for more than 20 years, during which the war for the culture and the economy have been lost, while conservatives have been saying “next time, we’re voting conservative, but we’ll hold our nose this time.” Been there, done that, lost every time.
[…] Sense: The Forgotten Scandal by Paul […]