Bill Bennett is a jackass.

Overview

A prominent Republican pundit and a supposed spokesman for conservatives is a guy named Bill Bennett. Bennett was the Education Secretary in Reagan's second term, and in Bush 41's administration, he was the "drug czar" (in charge of the war on drugs). From there he became the self-appointed arbiter of culture and morality. Oh, I forgot to mention that he is also abrasive, self-righteous, and arrogant. Toss in a good bit of hypocrisy and bullshit, and you have a grade-A jackass.

What follows is a partial explanation of why I say Bennett is a jackass. The events described are old news, as they occurred in 2003 and in the fall of 2005. However, they exemplify what Bill Bennett is all about.

This post is intended as a precursor to the next post, which will discuss Gerald Ford's views on the Iraq war and Bennett's reaction thereto, which shows that he is still a jackass.

Bill Bennett has what many would call a lapse in morality.

Bennett has made a career out of telling people what is right and moral, and he has done so in an abvrasive, condescending manner. That in and of itself would not warrant my criticism. However, it turns out that Bennett has a greater than minor problem with something that most of his family values allies would find objectionable. Not only that, but a group led by Bennett has railed against this particular activity. All that adds up to abject hypocrisy, and that warrants my criticism.

See, it turns out that Bennett has a gambling problem. A big gambling problem. The June 2003 issue of the Washington Monthly had an article by Joshua Green entitled "The Bookie of Virtue" which described this aspect of Bennett's "character:"

Few vices have escaped Bennett's withering scorn. He has opined on everything from drinking to "homosexual unions" to "The Ricki Lake Show" to wife-swapping. There is one, however, that has largely escaped Bennett's wrath: gambling. This is a notable omission, since on this issue morality and public policy are deeply intertwined. During Bennett's years as a public figure, casinos, once restricted to Nevada and New Jersey, have expanded to 28 states, and the number continues to grow. In Maryland, where Bennett lives, the newly elected Republican governor Robert Ehrlich is trying to introduce slot machines to fill revenue shortfalls. As gambling spreads, so do its associated problems. Heavy gambling, like drug use, can lead to divorce, domestic violence, child abuse, and bankruptcy. According to a 1998 study commissioned by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, residents within 50 miles of a casino are twice as likely to be classified as "problem" or "pathological" gamblers than those who live further away.

If Bennett hasn't spoken out more forcefully on an issue that would seem tailor-made for him, perhaps it's because he is himself a heavy gambler. Indeed, in recent weeks word has circulated among Washington conservatives that his wagering could be a real problem. They have reason for concern. The Washington Monthly and Newsweek have learned that over the last decade Bennett has made dozens of trips to casinos in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, where he is a "preferred customer" at several of them, and sources and documents provided to The Washington Monthly put his total losses at more than $8 million.

(emphasis added). Read the article for the details of Bennett's gambling activities and his denials that he had a problem. Perhaps even more revealing than those details was the description of Bennett's "defense" of his gambling.

When reminded of studies that link heavy gambling to divorce, bankruptcy, domestic abuse, and other family problems he has widely decried, Bennett compared the situation to alcohol.

"I view it as drinking," Bennett says. "If you can't handle it, don't do it."

Nice. But wait, there's more...It turns out that Bennett was a co-chair for a group called Empower America, and that group opposed the expansion of casino gambling in the states. Indeed, Bennett's co-chair, Jack Kemp, wrote an editorial in which he criticized lawmakers who favored casino gambling by claiming they wanted to "pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner." Not only that, but Empower America

published an Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, with an introduction written by Bennett, that reports 5.5 million American adults as "problem" or "pathological" gamblers. Bennett says he is neither because his habit does not disrupt his family life.

What a guy. He can rail against gambling in general, but for him it is no problem engaging in that same behavior he generally condemns. Let me make something clear. I am not condemning gambling. I've been to casinos. I've gambled, and I have enjoyed it. I even did legal work for a group that was trying to establish casino gambling in a state. However, I have not publicly opposed the expansion of casino gambling, not have I publicly preached the evils of gambling. Bennett has done both both through his organization. Moreover, I have not made a career out of abrasively telling people how they should live their lives. Bennett, on the other hand, has. And that is what makes his gambling and defense of it galling.

One other event in particular shows Bennett's true character.

Abortion, crime rates, and racism

On Bennett's syndicated radio show on September 28, 2005, a caller was discussing a lack of revenue for Social Security, and said he had read some articles claiming that if none of the abortions after Roe v. Wade had not taken place, there would have ben enough people to fund Social Security. Clearly, this caller was taking a very strong pro-life position. Bennett stated that such a claim was not necessarily supported by statistics, and he said he would not base a pro-life position on such a claim. And then Bennett decided to go out where the buses don't run. Here's the transcript of what was said:

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

(emphasis added). Remember in particular the words which are italicized and in bold type. These statements caused a stir, to say the least. Bennett gave several explanations that amounted to a steaming pile of crap. First, he claimed that the author of Freakonomics, Steve Levitt "discusses, as I did, the racial implications of abortion and crime. And he does that in an extended debate on Slate.com." This was utter bullshit, as on the first day of the Slate.com discussion, Levitt stated the following:

As an aside, it has been both fascinating and disturbing to me how the media have insisted on reporting this as a study about race, when race really is not an integral part of the story. The link between abortion and unwantedness, and also between unwantedness and later criminality, have been shown most clearly in Scandinavian data. Abortion rates among African-Americans are higher, but overall, far more abortions are done by whites. None of our analysis is race-based because the crime data by race is generally not deemed reliable.

Then, when Levitt heard about Bennett's falsehood, he responded by saying that "Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that [co-author Stephen J.] Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics."

Next, Bennett claimed that he was simply posing a hypothetical in order to dismiss it. Here's Bennett's technical explanation: "As a philosopher, I was showing the limitation of one argument by showing the absurdity of another. I was showing the fallacy of a proposition by using what's called an argumentum ad absurdum or an argumentum ad finum." So, Bennett was saying that he disagreed with the abortion/crime theory of Levitt. Bennett went on to point out that he had said on September 28, 2005, that his argumentum ad absurdum would be impossible, ridiculous, and morally-reprehensible. Bennett felt that should have ended all discussion and criticism of him, but he overlooked one thing. While he seemed to reject Levitt's theory in general, he specifically said that it was valid as to black people. As Levitt stated:

There is one thing I would take Bennett to task for: first saying that he doesn't believe our abortion-crime hypothesis but then revealing that he does believe it with his comments about black babies. You can't have it both ways.

Unless you are Bill Bennett, that is.

But Bennett was not finished in trying to defend, justify, and/or explain away his original statements. On September 29, 2005, Bennett appeared on Fox News's "Hannity and Colmes," and he compared his comments to a great historical piece of satire when he said "This is like Swift's 'Modest Proposal,' for people who remember their literature." "A Modest Proposal" was a satiric essay was written in 1729, and it suggested that the solution to hunger and overpopulation problems in Ireland was for the poor to sell their children as food. "Swift" would be Jonathan Swift, who wrote Gulliver's Travels, and was arguably the foremost satirist in the history of the English-speaking world. For Bennett to compare his comments to Swift is as laughable as saying that Michael Savage displays the erudition of William F. Buckley. Swift's essay was clearly satire for two reasons. First, his "modest proposal" was insane and reprehensible. It is true that Bennett's statements about aborting black babies and the crime rate shared these characteristics, and it is true that Bennett said as much. However, the second reason why Swift's writing was clearly satirical is found in what he wrote in addition to his insane proposal:

Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients...taxing our absentees...using [nothing] except what is of our own growth and manufacture...rejecting...foreign luxury...introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance...learning to love our country...quitting our animosities and factions...teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants....Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, 'till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

In other words, Swift was pointing out the reforms that he was in actuality promoting through deriding them in the tone established by the fictional narrator of the essay. This fits the definition of "satire:" irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. Someone point out the irony, sarcasm, or wit in Bennett's comments. Don't look too hard, for they aren't there. Instead, what Bennett did was say that he would not promote the idea of aborting black babies to lower the crime rate, but then he said that the idea would work.

But Bennett still was not finished. He employed favorite tactics of the GOP in general and the Bush administration in particular--fallaciously redefine the issue and then falsely accuse your critics. On October 5, 2005, Bennett was once again on the Fox News Channel--this with Neil Cavuto--and on James Dobson's radio program. On each program he said the issue about his comments was abortion and that it was his liberal critics who were in reality in favor of aborting black babies. Yeah, that perfectly rational. As Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.) pointed out, the issue was not abortion but racism in claiming that "African Americans are synonymous with crime." And remember, Levitt--the co-author of Freakonaomics and the guy who Bennett attempted to pin this on initially--stated that "the crime data by race is generally not deemed reliable." But Bill Bennett, after having his other defenses exposed as bullshit, just had to find some way out of the mess he put himself in, so he had to change the focus of the discussion and then spout an equally crazy theory that liberals have an abort-black-babies agenda.

Notice that Bennett never apologized in any way for his statements. He never even conceded that they could have been interpreted to have the meaning some thought they have. And he never retracted his statement that aborting every black baby would result in a decrease in the crime rate.

What a jackass.

Preview of posts on Ford's views on Iraq and Bill Bennett's reactions thereto

A few days ago, the Washington Post published an article by Bob Woodard revealing things Gerald Ford told Woodward in 2004 and 2005. The portion of the article which has revceived the most attention concerned Ford's opposition to the Iraq war and the reasons given for the war. I was not going to write anything about Ford's views until I saw what Bill Bennett had to say about them. I will have two posts on the matter. First, I will explain that Bill Bennett is a jackass. Then I will write about Ford's comments and why Bennett's reaction further shows that he is a jackass.

Saddam Hussein has been executed.

Another former head of state has died, but unlike my statements about Gerald Ford, there will be no words of praise from me for Saddam Hussein.

It seems to me that the decision to quickly carry out the sentence once all appeals had been denied was made solely by the Iraqi government, and that could be a major factor in the weeks and months to come.

Regardless of what one thinks about capital punishment, there is now no possibility whatsoever that Saddam will ever again wield any power.

Gerald R. Ford: 1913-2006

Last night, I was saddened to learn that Gerald Ford, our 38th President, had passed away at the age of 93.

I admired Ford. When he became President, I felt like he was the right kind of person to be in that office after the Watergate scandal, and my opinion never changed.

There are two excerpts from this AP article which express my feelings about Ford. George W. Bush was quoted as saying "The American people will always admire Gerald Ford’s devotion to duty, his personal character and the honorable conduct of his administration." For once, I agree with Bush. The second excerpt is a quote from Ford.

Asked at a news conference to recite his accomplishments, Ford replied: "We have restored public confidence in the White House and in the executive branch of government."

To say the least, that was not an easy task after Watergate and Nixon's resignation, but Ford approached the job with the grace and resolve that was needed--not just for the government, but for the country. This does not mean that he was necessarily one of our greatest Presidents. However, the greatest priorities when he became President were to help the nation heal and feel some trust toward the government again. And in that regard, Gerald R. Ford served our country with distinction.

Newt Gingrich--what a swell guy! (Part 7--the new guardian of free speech)

Overview

And finally I come to the matter that got me started on this whole series.

On November 27, 2006, Gingrich gave a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire at the anuual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which honors people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech. And in this setting, Gingrich's speech called for a restriction of free speech.

Gingrich's speech and statements he made subsequently show the dangers of his views and that he has not changed.

The speech and Gingrich's subsequent statements

Gingrich stated that the war on terror requires restrictions on free speech. As he put it, "I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of threat."

A key part of the speech came rather early:

This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear of biological weapons.

(emphasis added). Remember the italicized words, especially "every." Anytime you think there is a limit to what Gingrich proposes, remember "every."

With that in mind, here are other pertinent portions of Gingrich's speech:

And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

At first blush, this might not seem unreasonable. Why wouldn't we want to do whatever we could to stop people who want to kill us, especially if they are going to use nuclear and biological weapons? Surely Gingrich wants to use these measures only against terroristic barbarians with WMD, right? Well, point me to Gingrich's words which show that he would utilize such parameters. And I will point you to "every."

I will also point you to a Gingrich quote from a December 16, 2006, article from the Union Leader (newspaper in Manchester, New Hampshire). Gingrich was talking about being able to distinguish terrorists whose free speech should be restricted and non-terrorists when he said, "If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you're a terrorist, I'd say the burden of proof was on you." (emphasis added). There is no limitation there. There is no indication of what constitutes such a "signal." The definition of "any signal" is apparently completely at the discretion and whim of Gingrich. This is dangerous stuff, folks, and anyone who does not realize it needs to wake up. I am not even going to get into a discussion of how this "standard" is just the opposite of the basic American rule of placing the burden of proof initially on the accuser rather than the accused. Instead, I will focus on what should be done when it is necessary to place some restrictions on liberites such as free speech. Indeed, there are circumstances under which restrictions on free speech are justified. Moreover, the area of terrorism likely is one such circumstance. However, restrictions on free speech are the exception to the rule, and those exceptions need to be defined and enforced carefully; otherwise, the exception can swallow the rule. In other words, if the exception and its enforcement are left unchecked, there will be little left of free speech. Gingrich has provided absolutely no parameters for his proposed restrictions. Instead, he wants to know what is said in every suspect place, and he wants the restrictions to apply to any signal (however slight) of possible terrorist expression. And the worst part is that he provides absolutely no definition or basis for determining what would trigger his restrictions. That is how things are done in authoritarian regimes. Last time I checked, America was not an authoritarian state.

On December 17, 2006, Gingrich appeared on "Meet the Press." What he said further showed that he is proposing no real limitations AND that he has an ulterior motive.

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You close down any Web site that is jihadist.

MR. RUSSERT: But who makes that judgment?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Look, I—you can appoint three federal judges if you want to and say, “Review this stuff and tell us which ones to close down.” I would just like to have them be federal judges who’ve served in combat.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned, however, that with carte blanche, that the government could move in and say, “This mosque is closed, this Web site is shut down”?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd. In California, you can raise soft money to run negative commercials attacking your opponent through the state party and you cannot raise soft money to run a positive commercial on behalf of your own candidate. That’s California state law. It’s stunningly stupid and a clear infringement of free speech.

So we’ve had a 30-year period of saying it’s OK to infringe free speech as long as it’s about politics. But now if you want to be a jihadist, and you want to go kill people, well who are we to say that’s morally wrong? I think that’s suicidal.

Where to start? I guess I will start by pointing out that Gingrich once again offered no standard by which to determine what speech will be subject to his restrictions. He did say that he would appoint three federal judges to make the decisions, but he offered no rules for them to apply, no rules which limit "any" and "every." And while requiring the judges to have served in combat is not a bad idea, that would certainly narrow the potential pool, and it would seem to me that requiring the judges to have extensive experience and backgrounds in Constitutional law would be a good idea, but apparently that is not important to Gingrich.

And then we come to the ulterior motive. Notice that when Russert raised the obvious concern about the government having carte blanche to restrict free speech, Gingrich completely avoided giving a substantive response. Instead, he basically said that restricting free speech as it relates to campaign finance is just as bad as allowing free speech relating to possible terrorism. And here is where we see Gingrich's true colors come out again. He wants to remove limits on the ability to raise money. Go back and read Parts 2, 3, and 6 to see what Gingrich did in the past about campaign finance--and in particular soft money--and what a huge hypocrite he has been on the issue. Gingrich helped start and perpetuate the system that led to all the money and lobbyist-related corruption that has engulfed the GOP, and he is still complaining about efforts to change that system. What a jackass.

The problems of the slippery slope, unchecked discretion, and irreconcilable positions.

"Slippery slope" is a term often used in the context of Constitutional law. When one steps on a slippery slope, one cannot keep from continuing a slide down the slope. Basically, using the term "slippery slope" is a way of saying that an exception can swallow the rule. In the context of restricting Constitutional rights, the term asks where the line is to be drawn--where and how does one say that a given restriction becomes too great? Gingrich has offered no answer and no way of determining an answer. Instead, he feels that "every" and "any" speech which could conceivably be viewed as threatening should be shut down.

Gingrich told the Union Leader (see the link above to the December 16 article) that "Our friends at the 'ACLU left,' of course, were staggered at this concept (of restricting free speech)." He also told Tim Russert that ACLU-types are "suicidal." This is no different from the Bush administration's bullshit rhetoric that either you agree with all of its policies or you love terrorists. This indicates that Gingrich is not interested in a real dialogue, but rather that he wants to practically demonize anyone who does not agree with his position. In short, Gingrich does not care about the slippery slope.

And here is an example. On "Meet the Press," Gingrich offered the following as showing the need for his restrictions on free speech:

Well, let’s start with an incident recently in Illinois where the FBI sold hand grenades to a jihadist who wanted to go into a mall at Christmas and blow up himself and as many people as possible.

*******

...he’s an American living in Illinois, and he’s getting on the Internet and he’s reading hate and he’s reading recruitment and he’s reading how to be a jihadist. Now, why would you tolerate that?

That is a legitimate question, but it is also legitimate to ask why we would tolerate any speech which would promote the sale or distribution of weapons or anything that could be used to make a weapon. After all, those items could end up in the hands of a potential terrorist, and such speech would come under Gingrich's "every" and "any" standard. That would mean that any website, any advertisement, any statement which promotes the sale of any kind of weapon or anything that could be made into a weapon would be restricted and probably shut down. And if free speech can be restricted to that extent, it will be easy to justify--on the same grounds--all kinds of restrictions on the sale of any weapons or anything that can be made into a weapon. Again, anyone who thinks I am wrong needs to show me where Gingrich has put any limitations on his proposed restrictions and explain how those limitations would work.

Now I know what some of you are thinking...Newt would not institute the extreme kinds of restrictions I just discussed. Well, assuming that is true, can you say the same about others? Now that Democrats are in control of the Congress, it could be possible that those freedom-hating liberals would use Gingrich's proposed restrictions to pass the most stringent gun control agenda in the world. And what about all the activist judges out there? Who knows what kind of crazy rulings they are going to come up with? The points here are that once laws with no limitations are established, 1) how they are interpreted and used are completely up to whoever is in power, and 2) a change in power likely means a change in how the laws are used.

In other words, such laws are applied solely at the discretion and whim of those in power.

Back to Newt...Perhaps he would not allow his free speech restrictions of "every" and "any" to spread to include gun control. In the past he certainly said he was against gun control, as he wrote a letter to the NRA (scroll all the way down the page) in 1995 promising that "As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights." His record in that regard was questionable, but he nonetheless said he was against gun control. And on July 3 of this year, Gingrich revealed that

The NRA is having a Mediterranean cruise and asked if I'd [talk]. I was surprised and turned to [my wife], who said, "Which part of visiting Rome, Croatia, Greece, Turkey, and Malta do you not think is really cool?" So I said yes.

So, Newt is at least keeping up his public stance of being against gun control. Trust me, if he was not against gun control, the NRA would not be inviting him on a cruise. Now let's assume that Gingrich, as President, would have the ability to make sure that there would be no restrictions on free speech regarding the sale of guns and other weapons. If he did that, he would necessarily be violating his position of "every" and "any." That would mean that he would be selectively enforcing his laws on restricting free speech, and that would mean that the interpretation and application of the law would depend on his discretion and his whim. And that, my fellow Americans, is the antithesis of the rule of law.

And if anyone thinks they can predict how Newt would exercise such discretion, consider something he wrote in an essay that is on his own website. The essay is entitled "Securing America and its Allies by Defeating America's Enemies," and in the section called "Opponents," Gingrich gives his description of "the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam." A review of Gingrich's speech, the Union Leader article, and the "Meet the Press" transcript shows that the terrorists referred to therein are the same as "the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam." Gingrich's essay says the following:

This ideological wing of Islam is irreconcilable because...[i]t does not accept freedom of speech.

And so to combat this group he considers to be uncivilized, barbaric, intolerant, and against freedom of speech, Gingrich now wants to restrict our freedom of speech in a way that has no limit and no real definition.

No more shopping days 'til Christmas

A couple of weeks ago I heard a story on NPR about Christmas shopping and "blue laws" in South Carolina. For those who might not know, back in the day, practically no retail stores were allowed to open on Sundays, and the laws which prohibited such retail activity were known as "blue laws." Today, there are few blue laws still in existence--except in South Carolina. The NPR story explained that each county in South Carolina is responsible for the creation and enforcement of blue laws within its boundaries. This year, retailers in certain counties were seeking to have those counties temporarily suspend the blue laws. The reason was that a potentially big shopping day, Christmas Eve, fell on a Sunday. The retailers did not want to lose sales to stores in other counties which either had no blue laws or had already suspended them for that day.

My first reaction to this story was "Here's another example of why South Carolina is the most right-wing conservative state in the country." Then almost immediately, I remembered a paper I wrote in college, and that caused me to want to side with the South Carolina blue law counties. The topic of my paper was how Easter was celebrated in Dallas from 1886-1900. The paper was a primary source research project, and my primary source was the Dallas Morning News. Going in, the only bit of knowledge I had was that the date of Easter varies within an approximately five-week period. In order to conduct my research, I had to go through lots of microfilm, looking at each page of each paper from that five-week period for fifteen years. While this was tedious, it proved to be enlightening in a way that surprised and saddened me. Early on, there was very little mention of Easter, and all of the items in the paper concerned church services--where, when, and sometimes who would be presiding. Moreover, those items would appear no sooner than a day or two before the scheduled services, and they would be brief and listed all on the same page of the paper--and usually would not even take up the entire page. And then a change began. Soon there were notices of a few Easter parades, and then within a span of a few years, the emphasis was no longer on the church services. There were advertisements for Easter clothes, and the ads started appearing first about a week before Easter, then two weeks, then three. The ads quickly became larger than the church announcements, and they were in almost every section of the paper. Next came advertisements for Easter candy, soon followed by advertisements for...toys. By 1900, almost all the announcements of church services on Easter were gone from the paper. It was shocking to me to see how quickly and how completely what was supposed to be one of the most holy of celebrations was transformed to utter commercialism without regard to its true meaning.

And that was in the latter years of the 19th Century. It does not even compare to what Christmas has become in the 21st Century. In some places, Christmas promotions are going up even before Halloween! Having Libertarian, free-market leanings, I am not anti-commercialism. However, since I also have spiritual leanings, I am against a complete abandonment of the "reason for the season." And I have seen very little in the public square about the message of Christmas--which, by the way is not meant just for Christians, but I'll get to that later. Indeed, one TV commercial I saw shortly before Thanksgiving drove this point home for me. This commercial was a local Wichita Falls commercial. It was for a business, and the entire commercial was the owner of the business reminding everyone to keep in mind the true meaning of the Holiday season. It was the only commercial or other advertisement or public announcement I had seen or heard up to then delivering this message. The owner of the business is a man named Ken Knowles, and his company is Central Bail Bonds. Now, this is not in any way intended to slight Mr. Knowles. He is a good man, and he is completely sincere, and I am thankful that he made that commercial. I just found it ironic that instead of a church, or some charitable group, or a group of churches, charitable organizations, or even retail businesses did not choose to deliver this message, and instead the one person who did is a bail bondsman.

It would be nice if more was done to convey the Christmas message. As I said, that message is not just for Christians. Part of that message is "Peace on earth, good will toward men," as in peace for the ENTIRE world and good will for ALL people. The message is not just for Christians. At the time of Jesus's birth, there was no such thing as Christianity. Jesus was born a Jew. His parents were Jews. The Wise Men came from afar and were not Jews. The angels did not say that the blessings of the event were meant for only one group or another. No, the Christmas message--the "reason for the season"--knows no limits based on religion or any other characteristic. It is a wonderful message, and yet it would be almost lost in the crush of shopping and commercialism were it not for a few people like a bail bondsman in Wichita Falls, Texas.

Which brings me back to South Carolina. The decision by some counties there not to suspend their blue laws on the one hand seems like a stubborn refusal to come into the modern age, but on the other hand, it is nice to see someone standing up to the crass spectacle that has become Christmas in our society. And while I am still not sure how I ultimately feel about this blue law issue, it certainly has caused me to focus on what Christmas is supposed to be about.

Peace on earth, good will to all.

Merry Christmas.

Christmas Eve 2006

On November 29, I was out in the yard raking leaves at 11:00 in the morning. I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt. The temperature was 75° F. By 3:00 that afternoon, it was 35° F.

Welcome to Wichita Falls and its wacky weather.

About 4:00 that afternoon, I went to a grocery store near my home. Outside the entrance was the familiar red kettle and ringing bell of the Salvation Army. I put some money in the kettle, the man who was ringing the bell thanked me, and I proceeded into the store. As I was walking in, I noticed that he was rubbing his hands together as he bent over slightly. A thought came to me that perhaps he needed some gloves and that I should look for some in the store. After gathering my oh so important other items, I located the selection of gloves in the store. Basically, all the gloves were work-type gloves, but I did find some pretty thick jersey gloves that looked liked they would provide some warmth. I checked the size, because I thought I noticed that the bell ringer had large hands, and I did not want to get gloves that would not fit.

After paying for all my items, I went out the door and right over to the bell ringer. I presented him with the gloves, saying that they might not be the best, but they seemed to be the warmest ones available in the store. He was so happy to get something that might give his hands some warmth. He explained that he had some gloves that his fiancé’s son gave him, but they were too small and he could not wear them. Good thing I got the large size of the gloves, huh?

He thanked me again, and then I went to get a drink out of one of the soft drink machines outside the store. The man walked over to me and asked if he could talk to me for a minute. I said “Sure,” and he proceeded to tell me that he used to be a minister and then he ruined his life because of drug use, but that he had cleaned up and put his life back together. But that’s not the remarkable part of this conversation. He then said, “You might not believe this, but as you were first walking toward the store, I said ‘Lord, if you’re listening, I could sure use some gloves to keep my hands warm.’ And then you gave me these gloves. It’s like my fiancé says, ‘Never leave five minutes before the miracle happens.’”

This is one of the best experiences I have had in a good while. I am not sure that on this blog I have directly said this, but a major basis for my faith is what I have experienced and what I have seen in the experiences of others. I have seen the teachings of Jesus manifest. I have seen them and experienced them in this life, in this time. And every such experience strengthens my faith. This bell ringer telling me that his simple prayer in a time of need was answered is one of those experiences.

This experience reminded me of an important lesson about faith, namely that faith requires patience. To put the matter in the context of what the bell ringer told me, impatience is not part of faith. Being impatient could result in one leaving "five minutes before the miracle happens."

In addition, the fact that his simple prayer was answered by the gloves serves as another good lesson for me, namely that any time I might get a thought that there is something I can do to help somebody, I need to pay attention and act on it. Seeing and feeling this man’s gratitude showed me that acting on such thoughts can be a way to fulfill Jesus’s primary commandments of “love your neighbor as yourself” and “love one another.” And, in case I have not mentioned it expressly, I say now that those commandments are the foundation of my faith.

And what does this have to do with Christmas Eve? Well, it occurred right before the start of Advent, which is the season marking the coming of Christ. Also, on this night began the life that by words and by example taught many lessons, including the ones I experienced thanks to a volunteer Salvation Army bell ringer on a cold November day in Wichita Falls. It seemed to me that a good way to mark the arrival of Jesus would be through a story that exemplifies some of His lessons and commandments.

I hope that everyone can find his or her own story to help us all have hope and to love our neighbors as ourselves. I may be wrong, but that sure seems to be a central part of the Christmas message.

Newt Gingrich--what a swell guy! (Part 6--more proof that hypocrisy is his SOP)

Overview

Up to this point, I have shown many examples of the hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich, and this post is going to show several more. These additional examples go to the core of Gingrich's "politics" and how he has used power. These additional examples show that a primary part of the Gingrich standard operating procedure (SOP) is say and do whatever it takes to get what he wants and that often that means he says or does something one moment and then says or does just the opposite the next. In other words, for Newt, shameless hypocrisy is SOP.

One of the sources for this post is the "Frontline" interview with Fred Wertheimer (the same interview reference in Part 1). That interview provides an in-depth view of Gingrich's SOP, but it was done over 10 years ago, so I will also cite some articles within the last year that show Newt's SOP has not changed.

Example 1: campaign finance and "soft money"

Part 2 examined this example in part , and contained some excerpts from the Wertheimer interview. I noted that

In other parts of the interview, Wertheimer explains 1) that before he became Speaker, Gingrich tried to shut down the "soft money" and PACs; 2) that during this time Gingrich was his ownself building a political machine fueled by soft money and PACs; and 3) once he became Speaker, he took steps to preserve the very system he had publicly condemned as corrupt.

Here are the "other parts of the interview:"

The 1994 election was a rejection of the Democrats and part of what they were rejecting was this corrupt system in Washington. A corrupt system that Newt Gingrich had been attacking for 16 years. Now Newt Gingrich wins, he becomes speaker, you don't hear the words from his mouth any more about the House being a corrupt institution. You don't hear him talking about a corrupt system any more. He somehow seems to believe that his presence as speaker has magically washed away all the problems that come from these millions of dollars of corrupt campaign contributions. He too was trying to get away with it.

*******

A millionaire [candidate or incumbent] has a big advantage, in terms of being able to spend all his/her money. However, they're a small problem compared to the so-called soft money system, which has allowed millions and millions and millions of dollars in huge corrupt contributions to come into the political process of both parties.

The soft money system was used to fuel his own PAC, GOPAC. Now, last Congress when he had no power, he co-sponsored legislation to shut down the soft money system. To end it. When he testified recently, that wasn't on his mind somehow. So if you talk about millionaires, you ignore the biggest problem in the system, you're trying to get people's attention away from the real problem. He has played games with the issue of money and politics for a career when he was in the minority and now he's playing games when he's in the majority. The stakes are much larger for him now because huge, huge amounts of money are flowing to the speaker and his party, at the Congressional level, at the party level and they don't want to turn those spigots off. They want to let that corrupting money keep flowing -- How do they do it as revolutionaries?

*******

The speaker is trying to argue that money corrupts when it goes to Democrats. Ethics are a problem when they go to Democrats. The institution is corrupt when the Democrats control it. Now we control things. We shouldn't spend too much time worrying about drowning in this special interest influence money, let us do our populist revolution.

*******

But Newt Gingrich has managed to oppose every comprehensive reform effort that in part was designed to get more money to challengers. He opposed public financing. Fine. There are proposals for free tv time. I haven't heard him talking about that. There are proposals to require networks and broadcasters to sell time at fifty percent below cost. That's a way of reducing the cost. That would be very helpful for challengers. I haven't heard him talking about that. I don't want to call his approach to all of this a flim-flam, but, it is. That's what we're dealing with here. And here is the test: you always have to watch and see what the speaker is saying about the soft money system. That's the system that allows the largest contributions, unlimited contributions from corporate America, unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals, to flow into Washington and to exercise enormous influence at the expense of the average citizen.

You have to remember that when the speaker had no power, he said, shut that system down. And as long as the speaker is not supporting and talking about shutting down the system, that is the biggest finance abuse in America, You know, the speaker is not for real on campaign finance reform. You know he's trying to have it both ways. Out of this side of the mouth he's trying to say we gotta deal with this problem. This is a serious problem. But when it comes to the use of his power, his power is being used to make sure that the heart of this corrupt system stays in place.

(emphasis added). Gingrich's shifting position on campaign finance and soft money has a few sub-parts to it, as explained below.

Example 2: Jack Abramoff

Gingrich has attempted to distance from the most widespread scandal to hit the GOP in the last few years--Jack Abramoff. As reported by Michael Scherer in a January 5, 2006, article, Gingrich at the first of this year was busy attacking Abramoff and anyone connected to him at a press conference at the Hotel Washington on January 4, 2006, where he said, "The more I have learned about this, frankly the angrier I have gotten. The indifference to right and wrong is very troubling."

In an April 2006 Vanity Fair article, writer David Margolick was given the following quote from Rick Tyler, Gingrich's spokesman: "Before his picture appeared on TV and in the newspapers, Newt wouldn't have known him if he fell across him. He hadn't seen him in 10 years." When told of this, Abramoff gave Margolick a strong reaction:

Abramoff becomes clear as he rummages through a box of old memorabilia with me. "Here's [former Republican Texas congressman and House majority leader] Dick Armey," he tells me. "Here's Newt. Newt. Newt. [Former president Ronald] Reagan. More Newt. Newt with Grover [Norquist, the Washington conservative Republican Über-strategist and longtime Abramoff friend] this time, and with [Seattle arch-conservative Republican] Rabbi [Daniel] Lapin. But Newt never met me. [Indicted Iran-contra figure and longtime Abramoff friend] Ollie North. Newt. Can't be Newt … he never met me. Oh, Newt! What's he doing there? Must be a Newt look-alike. I have more pictures of him than I have of my wife. Newt again! It's sick! I thought he never met me!"

What makes this interesting is that 1) Abramoff was ground zero for the GOP/K Street/lobbyist money machine, and 2) as explained below, Gingrich helped establish that machine and used it extensively when he was in Congress.

Example 3: the Bug Man and all that implies

This example is related to Example 1, but it delves a bit deeper into Gingrich's hypocrisy.

I have documented extensively on this blog that I am no fan of the Bug Man, a/k/a Tom DeLay. And judging from Gingrich's actions this year, one would say that at he and I share at least one opinion. The AP reported on April 13, 2005, that Newt called on Delay to stop claiming that he was the victim of a left-wing political conspiracy and make his case to the American public. Gee, that's not at all what Gingrich did when he was mired in allegations of ethical violations. As explained in Part 1 and Part 3, Gingrinch did everything he could think of to stall and dismiss the ethics investigation against him, including 1) objecting to calls for a special prosecutor even though he had called for one in the Jim Wright matter; 2) accusing the Democrats of being on a political witch hunt to drive him from power; and 3) basically lying to the House Ethics Committee at least twice.

The Scherer article said that on January 3, 2006, Gingrich called for the GOP House caucus to hold an election to replace DeLay as Majority Leader. Not that the Bug Man deserves any sympathy, but Gingrich's words must have particularly stung. As Scherer described:

Back in 1997, when Congress was debating a reprimand of Gingrich, DeLay spoke out in defense of him and in favor of party unity. "Let's stop this madness," DeLay declared on the House floor. "Let's stop the cannibalism." Nine years later, Gingrich shows no signs that he plans to return the favor.

Yeah, Bug Man, back in the day you at least made a public showing of having Newt's back, but when you could have used the same treatment from Newt, he put a knife in your back. Then again, what choice did Newtie have? If he was going to run for President, he could not run even the slightest risk of being tainted by your troubles, now could he?

Ah, but the ties between Newt and the Bug Man go even deeper. What eventually brought down the Bug Man was the lobbying/money/fund raising machine that he helped build. However, as Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Accountability Project, a watchdog group that hounded Gingrich during the 1990s, told Scherer, "Gingrich has a tremendous pot-calling-the-kettle-black problem. This hardball fundraising strategy was started by Gingrich." And therein lies the real depth of Gingrich's hypocrisy.

In the July/August 2006 issue of the Washington Monthly, Alan Wolfe had an article entitled "Why Conservatives Can't Govern," and while the premise for the entire article is certainly worthy of discussion, for this post post I will cite the portions of the article which compare Newt and the Bug Man in matters that go beyond the money and corruption issues.

Transforming the Republican Party into a highly disciplined organization determined to get its way without cooperation from the Democrats was an another objective shared by Gingrich and DeLay. Indeed, the former, not the latter, deserves the credit for substituting British-style party discipline and ideological extremism for bipartisan cooperation and moderation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Name an innovation associated with DeLay, and one discovers that it was previously institutionalized by Gingrich: developing redistricting rules to favor Republicans; encouraging House Republicans to vote as a unified bloc; weakening seniority so as to strengthen party leaders; freezing the opposition party out of a role in governance. It would take a decade after the Republican revolution of 1994 for the U. S. House of Representatives to fully transform itself into a body that no longer made a pretense of valuing fairness and deliberation. But that is only because Tom DeLay possessed a political advantage denied Gingrich: a fellow Republican in the White House.

(emphasis added). In short, Gingrich is primarily responsible for the the attack-dog style of partisan politics that run rampant in this country. And here's some proof. As described in both Peter Boyer's July 1989 Vanity Fair article and Gail Sheehy's September 1995 Vanity Fair article, Gingrich made a speech in the House Chamber in 1984 wherein he accused the Democrats of believing that "America does nothing right," and questioned the patriotism of the Democrats by saying they were blind to Communism.

And now Gingrich is trying to pass himself off as more of a centrist interested in working with Democrats on some issues--like health care with Hillary Clinton (and then there is Hillary trying to pass herself off as not-so-liberal by working with Gingrich). Some people can change, but those who are ego-maniacs who have engaged in all kinds of hypocrisy to gain and keep power are not likely to. Go back and read Parts 1-5 and decide for yourself if Gingrich can be trusted to act any differently. More to the point, ask yourself if you can trust him as President.

Newt Gingrich--what a swell guy! (Part 5--ego and personality)

Overview

This post will show what Newt thinks about Newt, along with a few other aspects of his personality. On the one hand, Newt has a mighty high opinion of himself and his role in life, and on the other hand, he has said things about himself that show reasons why he is not a strong leader. And there are plenty of things said by others--including people who worked with him--showing that he is not a strong leader and certainly not cut out to be an effective President.

Newt likes him some Newt

Gingrich's political career began in 1973, when he decided to make his first run for Congress. From the very start of his political career in 1973 (the first time he ran for Congress), Gingrich had lofty, if not admirable, goals. As Gail Sheehy noted in her September 1995 Vanity Fair article, Gingrich told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that "[My ambition] is to be an old-time political boss in 20 years."

Peter Boyer's July 1989 Vanity Fair article described something Gingrich said to the Washington Post in 1985. Gingrich was still giddy after the 1984 GOP convention, where Gingrich convinced Reagan's speechwriters to use his (Newt's) phrase "opportunity society" in Reagan's speech. Here's part of what Gingrich said to the Washington Post:

"I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it. Ronald Reagan just used the term "opportunity society" and that didn't exist four years ago. I just had breakfast with Darman and Stockman because I'm unavoidable. I represent real power."

(emphasis added). Gail Sheehy, in her September 1995 Vanity Fair article, cited more of what Newt said to the Washington Post: "Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it..."

Boyer also described something Gingrich said after the White House Correspondents dinner in 1989:

Gingrich makes an appearance on a public-television talk show, where he says that God has given him a mission: "To find honest self-government and to survive as a free people."

(emphasis added). So Newt declared he was on a "mission from God." Moreover, as shown in Parts 1-3, Gingrich claiming that his holy task was to "find honest self-government" was BS. And I will show further evidence of that in Part 6.

Until then, know that Gingrich also has compared himself to a famous historical figure, according to Sheehy's article:

"I'm a mythical person," says Newt, no stranger to revolutions. "I had a period of thinking that I would have been called 'Newt the McPherson,' as in Robert the Bruce." He is referring to his childhood, when he strongly identified with his biological father, Newton McPherson.

"Robert the Bruce," Newt continues, "is the guy who would not, could not, avoid fighting...He carried the burden of being Scotland." Like the Bruce, Newt feels he must carry the burden of being his nation.

Yeah, they can never take away his ego. So, Newt his ownself thinks he is an unavoidable mythical being with real power who is going to be an old-time political boss who will get credit for shifting the entire planet because he is on a mission from God.

Like I said--Newt likes him some Newt.

But wait...there's more.

From almost the beginning, Gingrich has wanted the big prize--the Presidency. Sheehy reported that soon after Gingrich lost his second race for Congress in 1976, he and his minions "began to plot a presidential run scheduled for 2000 or 2004. According to a close source, 'We were all discussing the timing, his age, working out the one-term and two-term presidencies in between. I think the plan is still going. I think he will be president.'"

Well, the timetable is now slightly off, but Gingrich is making a run for the nation's top office, and he is trying to make it look like he has been anointed to make the run. Here's what Gingrich told Fortune magazine for a November 21, 2006, article: "I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen." Gingrich went on to explain that this means that

he plans to create a draft-Newt "wave" by building grassroots support for his health care, national security and energy independence ideas - all of which he has been peddling to corporate audiences over the past six years. "Nice people," Gingrich says of his GOP competitors. "But we're not in the same business. They're running for president. I'm running to change the country."

In other words, Gingrich is seeking to prove that he is on a mission from God. He doesn't want to run--he will have to run.

In late July 2003, I got involved in a draft movement that sought to get Wes Clark to run for President. While one might argue that it was not a true "draft" effort, I do know that it was started basically by two people, that Clark was not considering a Presidential run before the movement started, and the movement grew and grew. I also know that Clark was not traveling across the nation trying to create a draft movement. I was a small part of the Draft Clark movement, but once he officially got in the race, I spent a lot of time and energy campaigning for him. I am biased, but I have met and briefly spoken with Wes Clark, and in my opinion Newt Gingrich is no Wes Clark. But I digress...

The point is that Gingrich has seen his own destiny as being President.

And there are many reasons why his personality and demeanor are wrong for that office.

Gingrich's ego and personality are problematical, to say the least.

Unless otherwise noted, the source for this section is Sheehy's article. I encourage everyone to read the whole article, which gives a lot of detail into Gingrich's past, which could explain some of his personality traits. My point is that regardless of whether there is an explanation for his overall personality, or whether one should sympathize with him, the traits he and others have described are not ones I want in a President.

• Gingrich's descriptions of himself.

Sheehy reported that Gingrich "once called himself 'a psychodrama living out a fantasy.'" (emphasis added). Gingrich added "I found a way to immerse my insecurities in a cause large enough to justify whatever I wanted it to." Who wants that for a President? Anyone? Bueller?

And this Newsweek article from just a few weeks ago reported that in the middle of the Clinton scandals, Gingrich stated "I'm not a natural leader. I'm a natural intellectual gadfly." So why does Gingrich want to be in a position that demands significant leadership skills?

• Gingrich's mother and stepmother

In September 1995, Sheehy wrote the following:

Until he reaches his "impossibly high ideal," Newt will remain the unacknowledged child. Many observers see the child at the center of Newt. "Newtie is still a kid," admits Kit (Gingrich). Marcella McPherson agrees: "Newtie wants things Newtie's way...If he wants something, he wants it now. Newtie was always for Newtie."

I think we have had enough of this in a President already. We don't need any more.

• Other people who know Gingrinch

Mary Kahn was a reporter who covered Newt in the mid-1970s, and she was also married to Chip Kahn, who happened to be Gingrich's campaign manager in the early 1980s. She told Sheehy that "Newt Gingrich is playing out a personal agenda in a public forum, and it threatens the safety, health, and security of our most vulnerable people. And that's what frightens me about him. Someday he might be president."

I mentioned in Part 4 that Dot Crews was Gingrich's campaign scheduler through the 70s. In addition to describing some of Gingrich's extramarital activities, she told Sheehy the following:

"Looking back on everything, Newt was always focused on his agenda. It was not about political philosophy with Newt--never. If the country today were to move to the left, Newt would sense it before it started happening and lead the way."

In other words, Newt's agenda is whatever it takes for Newt to succeed.

Frank Gregorsky began working for Newt in 1978 while still in college and served as his chief of staff in the early 1980s. According to him,

"All of his colleagues have had the rug pulled out from under them enough to know that Newt's a bright bulb with no dimmer switch. It's either on or off...either pitch-black or you're blinded by the light...He can't modulate or nuance or taper."

In general, having a President with no internal filter or regulator and who lacks nuance is a bad idea. In particular, that is exactly what we have had for almost six years, and we damn sure don't need any more.

The problem with the lack of a "dimmer switch" is examined in the next subsection.

• Leadership and management style

Gingrich has had a problem with leading, managing, and getting things done in the past.

He has often been described as captivating and dynamic as a speaker, and when it comes to partisan rhetoric and catchy slogans, Gingrich has always been good, but beyond that he has problems, and Sheehy gave a good overview of them:

Unlike Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich cannot easily transmit empathy to the camera or a gathered audience. Like Nixon, he does not easily communicate sympathy, trustworthiness, or compassion. His eyes do not meet the camera. He meets the world with the gaze of an outsider whose attention is inwardly engaged. People willingly give to Newt for quite an extended period of time because they are electrified by his tenacity and vision. But as time passes and they expect their relationship with the man to deepen, it doesn't.

(empahsis added). The emphasized portion of the above description is what really concerns me. The President of the United States will be outwardly engaged, whether he wants to be or not. One cannot be inwardly engaged the majority of the time. The President simply does not have that luxury. Some might say that Gingrich's above-referenced teancity and vision mean that he is outwardly engaged. However, as shown below, that engagement has been no more than Gingrich talking at people. It has not been truly engaging with other people.

Sheehy described Gingrich's leadership style as being like Gen. George Patton's and that such style "allows Newt to see a hole and drive straight through it[, but] does not lend itself to winning friends or building lasting coalitions based on loyalty." (emphasis added) In my view, winning friends and building lasting coalitions are essential to being an effective President. Moreover, they are part of what a President is supposed to do. These things have been difficult for Gingrich in the past because he has admitted he lacks the ability to easily connect with people.

At the time of Sheehy's article, Eddie Mahe had been the Deputy Chair of the Republican National Committee, after which he became the head of a consulting firm and a long-time advisor to Gingrich. Mahe said that Gingrich "doesn't do friendship." This assessment was echoed by Vin Weber, who, like Gingrich, was one of the "Young Turks," the group of young Republican members of the House in the late 1970s and early 1980s. According to Sheehy's article, "Weber[] has also admitted that Newt has problems with interpersonal relationships. 'I told him so every day,' Weber remarks." Is it a good idea to have a President who lacks good interpersonal skills? The lack has had a direct impact on what kind of bosss he has been in the past.

After Sheehy wrote "they expect their relationship with the man to deepen, it doesn't," she wrote the following:

And when he is finished using them, he moves on, discarding former loyalists like so much used ammo. Gingrich routinely dismisses any negative public statements as the work of disgruntled former employees, but the depth of feeling among his former allies is remarkable. "There are no former disgruntled employees," says Dot Crews. "We're all just sorry that we ever went to work for him in the first place and that we didn't get out sooner."

For those who might think Crews is nothing more than a disgruntled employee, consider how Gingrich's work behavior might affect you.

Ladonna Lee, president of the Eddie Mahe Company, did many projects with Newt in the 80s. She sums up one aspect of his people problem this way: "He's a very tough taskmaster. A lot of different people who have been his chief of staff or A.A., no matter how well they do, it's never enough."

Newt's style of leadership, described by Eddie Mahe as "the mountaintop philosophy," may be a further complication. Says Ladonna Lee, "He would always get people started on a project or a vision, and we're all slugging up the mountain to accomplish it. Newt's nowhere to be found...He's gone on to the next mountaintop."

Echoes Dolores Adamson, "He would say, 'You have to understand that I am a think tank, I can save the West, and when I come up with a new idea, we need to move on it immediately.' We'd have this big project going, and all of a sudden it just faded away. Everybody went into swarms to try and get something accomplished. And then he turned on them and did something else."

Vin Weber says, "I never saw a lot of crackpot ideas. I saw a lot of good ideas. But there was difficulty in assessing a cost-benefit ratio. Even if every idea is good, resources are limited. With Newt, it didn't matter if we were overreaching, we had to do everything."

(emphasis added). I think most people would grow weary of a boss who not only would not allow them to complete a given project, but would demand that they finish any and all projects he could come up with. My concern is not that this makes Gingrich a difficult boss. My concern is that here is another aspect to the "no dimmer switch" part of Gingrich's personality. It seems that Gingrich has no filter, no sense of priority, and no discipline regarding starting and finishing a job. That is not Presidential material.

Conclusion

Gingrich has an oversized ego with a sense of divine destiny that he is supposed to be President. Yet he described himself as being an intellectual gadfly and not a natural leader. His primary concern is his own agenda and achieving it. He has poor interpersonal skills. He is not a good boss because he is a taskmaster who is impossible to please and he makes it impossible for people to get their work done. He is full of ideas that never come to fruition because he does not see anything through. These facts alone are reason enough why he should not be President, but there is one more that is the proverbial icing on the cake.

Recall that Gingrich his ownself said that he was "a psychodrama living out a fantasy." Sheehy's concluding paragraphs revisit that description.

Perhaps Gingrich doesn't quite believe the mythology in which he has cloaked his long, unglamorous march to the top of the Hill. As was the case with Gary Hart before him, one part of Newt is truly confident that he would make a magnificent national leader. But there may be an inner voice of doubt --the voice of the past, Big Newt and Bob Gingrich-- which is silenced only by the attempt to prove he is so worthy, so tough, so heroic that he is above the rules that apply to ordinary mortals.

But what happens to the country while Newt Gingrich immerses his insecurities in a cause meant to justify himself?

We do not need to find out.

Lamar Hunt

In the wee hours of the night, I saw online that Lamar Hunt had passed away. Football fans know that he was one of the great pioneers of professional football as owner of the Dallas Texans, who became the Kansas City Chiefs. He was perhaps the key person in the effort that led to the merger of the AFL and NFL. And he is the person who came up with the term "Super Bowl."

Above and beyond that, he was a total class act. He was an SMU alum, and that is primarily how I got to see his character. Also, one of his sons, Clark, was at SMU when I was there. SMU was full of rich kids and lots of very conspicuous consumption. Anyone who didn't already know Clark Hunt was the son of one of the richest men in the country would never have been able to tell from seeing him or being around him. Clark, who was on the soccer team, was certainly not your stereotypical rich kid. He drove a semi-beater car for starters, and he was a reflection of his father--humble, hard working, and straightforward.

Lamar Hunt's grace and generosity will be greatly missed.

If you are watching football on February 4, 2007--the date for the Super Bowl--take a moment to remember Lamar Hunt and appreciate what he did and who he was.

Newt Gingrich--what a swell guy! (Part 4: the family man)

Overview

Anyone who has read this blog semi-regularly knows that I have a strong distaste for hypocrisy. Where there is hypocrisy, I often focus on the hypocrisy and do not harshly criticize the other conduct. In the area of family values, Gingring has been a huge hypocrite, but for me even that fact is overshadowed by the nature of his conduct.

Gingrich has been married three times. That in itself is not particularly remarkable. However, his "extra-curricular" activities as a married man and how he treated his first two wives are remarkable, and to me, a true indication of the man's lack of character.

I don't know if this post will abide by my now-erroneous statement in Part 2, but at least this post won't be full of dry details and acronyms. If you want more details, read "The Inner Quest of Newt Gingrich," a September 1995 Vanity Fair article by Gail Sheehy. I will be quoting from that article (and others), but Sheehy's piece really goes into detail. I will also say that Sheehy reveals many details showing that Gingrich in some ways had a rough childhood, which is not to say his mother, adopted father, or his biological father are to blame. The story of Gingrich's childhood perhaps explains some of his marital behavior, but I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether that story excuses any of his behavior.

Wife #1

Gingrich married Wife #1, Jackie, in 1962. They were married for approximately 18.5 years and had two children. As Stephen Talbot wrote in "Newt's Glass House," "Jackie Gingrich raised the daughters, worked to put Newt through graduate school and was a loyal political wife during his two unsuccessful campaigns for Congress in 1974 and 1976." She remained the loyal political wife until they divorced in 1981.

In 1974, during Gingrich's first campaign for Congress (which he lost), a pattern was being established, as explained by this excerpt from Sheehy's article:

Newt showed a propensity for the kind of behavior boys boast about in the locker room. Throughout his first campaign he was having an affair with a young volunteer. Dot Crews (Gingrich's campaign scheduler through the 1970s), who occasionally drove the candidate, says that almost everybody involved in the campaign knew. Kip Carter (Gingrich's campaign treasurer from 1974-78) claims, "We'd have won in 1974 if we could have kept him out of the office, screwing her on the desk."

Nice. This, however, was not a one-time deal. Dot Crews told Sheehy that "It was common knowledge that Newt was involved with other women during his marriage to Jackie. Maybe not on the level of John Kennedy. But he had girlfriends--some serious, some trivial."

One such girlfriend was Anne Manning, and Gingrich was having an affair with her during his 1976 campaign. She was married to a professor at the college where Newt was teaching, and he was an avid volunteer in Newt's campaign office. Manning said to Sheehy that "I did have a relationship with him, but when it suited him, he would totally blow you off." Nice. There is more to the Anne Manning affair, which continued into 1977, but that will be revealed a little later. Before that, here's more from Kip Carter, as told the Sheehy:

"We had been out working a football game --I think it was the Bowdon game-- and we would split up. It was a Friday night. I had Newt's daughters, Jackie Sue and Kathy, with me. We were all supposed to meet back at this professor's house. It was a milk-and-cookies kind of shakedown thing, buck up the troops. I was cutting across the yard to go up the driveway. There was a car there. As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the passenger seat and one of the guys' wives with her head in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me his little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy were a lot younger and shorter then.

Ditched his kids for a tryst, and then was busted with them present. Really nice.

When Newt ran again for Congress in 1978--and won, he was crowing about family values, and attacked his female opponent for lacking them. Peter Boyer described this strategy in his 1989 Vanity Fair article: "He drove the point home with an ad claiming that if Shapard were elected to Congress she would leave her husband, a local businessman, behind, while Gingrich would keep his family together." Talbot explained that as part of that attack Newt had Jackie write a campaign letter which said that "Newt was a fine husband and would take his family with him, although his top aides already knew Gingrich was having affairs and the marriage was falling apart." Shapard also told Boyer that "As the days dwindled down in the end of the campaign, the campaign workers had an unofficial pool going on to see how long it would take him when he got to Washington to dump [Jackie.]"

Turns out it took about two years. Jackie did go to Washington for Gingrich's first term, but told Boyer that Newt walked out on her in the Spring of 1980. As if everything he had done up to that point was not enough, Gingrich then did something truly reprehensible. Talbot provided a good description:

The most notorious incident in Gingrich's marriage -- first reported by David Osborne in Mother Jones magazine in 1984 -- was when he cornered Jackie in her hospital room where she was recovering from uterine cancer surgery and insisted on discussing the terms of the divorce he was seeking.

Now how's that for family values? But he still wasn't finished. According to Talbot,

Shortly after that infamous encounter, Gingrich refused to pay his alimony and child-support payments. The First Baptist Church in his hometown had to take up a collection to support the family Gingrich had deserted.

Really nice from someone who also campaigned on personal responsibility.

While still married to Jackie, Gingrich was having an affair with a woman named Marianne Ginther, who was fifteen years younger than Jackie. Six months after the divorce, Marianne became Wife #2.

Wife #2

Marianne resented any claim that she was simply a trade-up for the newer, younger model, as she told to Boyer:

"He's a public figure and people will attack him," Marianne says. "He's just got to take it and keep moving."

In fact, she adds, she and Gingrich spent long hours discussing his troubled previous marriage, which was years in the undoing. "I've seen bills where they both went to marriage counseling before they split up, before she got ill. The documentation is there."

Can you guess how this part of the story turned out? Sheehy's article is particularly revealing regarding this second marriage, but I will give just a few highlights. Marianne worshipped Gingrich and did everything she could think of to make him happy. In spite of this, one of Marianne's former co-workers said, "Newt was indifferent to Marianne right from the beginning." Also, Gingrich treated Marianne rather harshly.

She gave him a copy of the book Men Who Hate Women & The Women Who Love Them, by Susan Forward and Joan Torres. The book describes men who are socialized to dominate and control. One variation is the "Henry Higgins" type of man, who is "often charming and even loving," but who switches to "cruel, critical, insulting behavior on a moment's notice...They gain control by grinding the woman down. They refuse to take responsibility for how the attacks make their partners feel."

"Oh, boy, does that sound like Newt!" exclaims a family friend. Another family observer agrees with this assessment and says, "She may not be Eliza Doolittle, but he sure as hell is Henry Higgins. I feel sorry for Marianne."

Nice. I don't think I will spoil the story by saying that Gingrich ended up divorcing Marianne. There was at least one long-term affair, but let's assume that the affair was not the reason for the divorce. What else could have been the reason?

Sheehy described in detail that a likely reason was that Marianne had no desire for a very public life, and in particular she did not want to be First Lady. That's a bit of a buzz kill for an ego-maniac with dreams of being President (and I will affirm this description in another post). Boyer's article told of how Marianne left a press conference over Newt's $4.5 million book deal in tears because it was "testy" and how she did not attend a subsequent function because she was so upset. Gingrich certainly could not run for President with such an emotionally fragile wife, now could he?

In any event, after more than 17 years of marriage, Gingrich sought a divorce from Marianne. This time, instead of informing his wife in the hospital, he did something slightly more classy: when Marianne was visiting her mother, Gingrich called at her mother's house and told her over the phone that he wanted a divorce. What a guy.

Marianne was caught completely by surprise. When asked why the divorce was requested, she was quoted in this article by David Corn as saying, "We don't know. We just don't know. If you find out, let me know. It's a mystery." One thing became less than mysterious, as it soon was disclosed that Gingrich had been having a lengthy affair with a congressional aide named Callista Bisek. At the time of the phone call to Marianne, Gingrich was 56 and Bisek was 33.

Bisek became Wife #3. Looks like he traded-in for the newer, younger model this time. Take a look at the picture of the couple on Gingrich's official biography and tell me she is not a prime political trophy wife.

Wife #3

Gingrich is still married to Wife #3, and I have been unable to find much information on the relationship. It would seem that all is well, but given Gingrich's past, I do wonder.

Even if this third marriage is free from infidelity, Gingrich's long history of adultery--icluding the affair which eventually resulted in this third marriage--shows that the man who first so ferociously campaigned on family values is completely full of shit.

Back to one of the affairs...

Let's revisit the affair with Anne Manning. Manning described to Sheehy one particular incident with Gingrich:

In the spring of 1977, she was in Washington to attend a census-bureaus workshop when Gingrich took her to dinner at a Vietnamese restaurant. He met her back at her modest hotel room. "We had oral sex," she says. "He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, "I never slept with her." Indeed, before Gingrich left that evening, she says, he threatened her: "If you ever tell anybody about this, I'll say you're lying."

(emphasis added). Hmmm...now where have we heard that before? Here is something that all you wingers out there can still criticize Clinton for, but you can't blame Bill for creating this "defense." No, that credit goes to Newt Gingrich. Talbot recalled one time when Gingrich was publicly confronted about this "defense:"

I was covering Gingrich for a PBS documentary when the speaker appeared at a book signing in Los Angeles and was confronted by a man waving a Bible and shouting, "I want to know here where it says that oral sex doesn't count as adultery." The gentleman was hustled out of the bookstore by the Secret Service before Gingrich could answer his theological question.

Manning told Sheehy about her experiences

because she fears that Newt might become president someday. "I don't claim to be an angel," she says, but she is repelled by Newt's stance as Mr. Family Values. "He's morally dishonest. He has gone too far believing that 'I'm beyond the law.' He should be stopped before it's too late."

Indeed.

Newt Gingrich--what a swell guy! (Part 3: the ethics charges)

Overview

Newt Gingrich rose to power by accusing Democrats in general and Jim Wright in particular of corruption and ethical violations, but Newt his ownself was guilty of corruption and ethical lapses, including lying to Congress.

A procedural history of the investigation

On January 17, 1997, the House Ethics Committee issued its report concerning the alleged ethics violations of Gingrich. The report begins with a description of the procedural history of the investigation:

On September 7, 1994, a complaint was filed with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ("Committee") against Representative Newt Gingrich by Ben Jones, Mr. Gingrich's opponent in his 1994 campaign for re-election. The complaint centered on a course taught by Mr. Gingrich called "Renewing American Civilization." [NOTE: This is the course which was to provide the material for Gingrich's $4.5 million book deal.] Among other things, the complaint alleged that Mr. Gingrich had used his congressional staff to work on the course in violation of House Rules. The complaint also alleged that Mr. Gingrich had created a college course under the sponsorship of 501(c)(3) organizations in order "to meet certain political, not educational, objectives" and, therefore, caused a violation of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to occur. In partial support of the allegation that the course was a partisan, political project, the complaint alleged that the course was under the control of GOPAC, a political action committee of which Mr. Gingrich was the General Chairman.

Mr. Gingrich responded to this complaint in letters dated October 4, 1994, and December 8, 1994, but the matter was not resolved before the end of the 103rd Congress. On January 26, 1995, Representative David Bonior filed an amended version of the complaint originally filed by Mr. Jones. It restated the allegations concerning the misuse of tax-exempt organizations and contained additional allegations. Mr. Gingrich responded to that complaint in a letter from his counsel dated March 27, 1995.

On December 6, 1995, the Committee voted to initiate a Preliminary Inquiry into the allegations concerning the misuse of tax-exempt organizations. The Committee appointed an Investigative Subcommittee ("Subcommittee") and instructed it to: determine if there is reason to believe that Representative Gingrich's activities in relation to the college course "Renewing American Civilization" were in violation of section 501(c)(3) or whether any foundation qualified under section 501(c)(3), with respect to the course, violated its status with the knowledge and approval of Representative Gingrich * * *.

The Committee also resolved to appoint a Special Counsel to assist in the Preliminary Inquiry. On December 22, 1995, the Committee appointed James M. Cole, a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave LLP, as the Special Counsel. Mr. Cole's contract was signed January 3, 1996, and he began his work.

On September 26, 1996, the Subcommittee announced that, in light of certain facts discovered during the Preliminary Inquiry, the investigation was being expanded to include the following additional areas:

(1) Whether Representative Gingrich provided accurate, reliable, and complete information concerning the course entitled `Renewing American Civilization,' GOPAC's relationship to the course entitled `Renewing American Civilization,' or the Progress and Freedom Foundation in the course of communicating with the Committee, directly or through counsel (House Rule 43, Cl. 1);

(2) Whether Representative Gingrich's relationship with the Progress and Freedom Foundation, including but not limited to his involvement with the course entitled `Renewing American Civilization,' violated the foundation's status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations (House Rule 43, Cl. 1);

(3) Whether Representative Gingrich's use of the personnel and facilities of the Progress and Freedom Foundation constituted a use of unofficial resources for official purposes (House Rule 45); and

(4) Whether Representative Gingrich's activities on behalf of the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation violated its status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations or whether the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation violated its status with the knowledge and approval of Representative Gingrich (House Rule 43, Cl. 1).

As discussed below, the Subcommittee issued a Statement of Alleged Violation with respect to the initial allegation pertaining to Renewing American Civilization and also with respect to items 1 and 4 above. The Subcommittee did not find any violations of House Rules in regard to the issues set forth in items 2 and 3 above. The Subcommittee, however, decided to recommend that the full Committee make available to the IRS documents produced during the Preliminary Inquiry for use in its ongoing inquiries of 501(c)(3) organizations. In regard to item 3 above, the Subcommittee decided to issue some advice to Members concerning the proper use of outside consultants for official purposes.

On January 7, 1997, the House conveyed the matter of Representative Newt Gingrich to the Select Committee on Ethics by its adoption of clause 4(e)(3) of rule X, as contained in House Resolution 5.

On January 17, 1997, the Select Committee on Ethics held a sanction hearing in the matter pursuant to committee rule 20. Following the sanction hearing, the Select Committee ordered a report to the House, by a roll call vote of 7-1, recommending that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded and ordered to reimburse the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000. The following Members voted aye: Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Goss, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Borski, and Mr. Sawyer. The following Member voted no: Mr. Smith of Texas.

The adoption of this report by the House shall constitute such a reprimand and order of reimbursement. Accordingly, the Select Committee recommends that the House adopt a resolution in the following form.

I would add that the subcommittee's members were two Republicans and two Democrats.

What the foregoing does not show is that Gingrich agreed to accept the reprimand and order of reinbursement in order to avoid further hearings and keep his job as Speaker. Had the hearings continued, more evidence against Gingrich would have come out, and he would have run a real risk of being censured. Censure was (and is) more serious than reprimand, and any House member who is censured was (and still is) prohibited from holding any leadership positions.

What follows is a brief (in relation to what it could be) discussion of the result of the investigation.

The negotiation of the reprimand agreement and its breach by Gingrich

As reported in this January 18, 1997, Washington Post article,

Cole disclosed that in its original statement of alleged violations, the investigative subcommittee had charged Gingrich with three counts of violating House rules, two for having failed to seek proper legal advice on the tax laws and one for providing the committee with inaccurate information.

But Cole said committee members were anxious to bring the ethics case to a swift conclusion without a lengthy disciplinary hearing, which he said could have "put the House in some turmoil for up to six months." So the members encouraged him to enter into negotiations with Gingrich and his lawyers.

As a result of those negotiations, completed on Dec. 20, the three counts were combined into a single count of engaging "in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." In return, Gingrich agreed to admit to the violations, and face a reprimand and the financial penalty.

In other words, this agreement meant there would be no protracted hearings which would further detail Gingrich's activities, that Gingrich would not be censured, and it would look like Gingrich was really being punished although technically Gingrich and the Republicans could say that he had not been found guilty of really serious ethical violations.

With that in mind, let's take a look at just what Gingrich did.

The Special Counsel's statement

At the actual hearing before the Ethics Committee, Special Counsel James Cole gave a detailed statement. You can find the statement beginning with this link. To read the entire statement you will have to keep scrolling and clicking "next" until you get to page 22. Cole's statement is a good description of the entire investigation, the charges, and the facts. Consequently, I am going to rely on that statement for what follows. Should anyone doubt the accuracy of Cole's statement, consider the following:

At the end, all of the members of the subcommittee agreed on the facts. There were differences as to the law, but eventually we came to one conclusion together. We found common ground for agreement, and that produced the statement of alleged violations to which Mr. Gingrich has admitted.

*******

This is evidenced by the fact that Mr. Gingrich has agreed that, in fact, this is an appropriate characterization of the charges against him, appropriate scope, appropriate seriousness--all of which is evidenced by his admission to the statement of alleged violation, and his agreement that the sanction that the subcommittee is recommending is the appropriate sanctions.

(emphasis added). Unless otherwise noted, the information below (not including my opinions) came from Cole's statement.

Newt's transgressions

• Overview

Gingrich's ethical violations basically all concerned the college course which was the basis for his $4.5 million book deal and the project which was the precursor to the college course. The full story is very long and complicated, and if you want to know the full story, start by reading all of Cole's statement, and then read the 136-page Ethics Committee Report. At the risk of upsetting the delicate balance of the universe, I am going to try to make a long story short.

Gingrich had three basic problems: 1) the college course (and its predecessor project) was expressly designed for a partisan objective (get more people to vote Republican); 2) Gingrich financed the creation and dissemination of the course through money from non-profit and charitable organizations, which is illegal; and 3) he basically lied to the Ethics Committee about all of this.

Under the law at the time, it was illegal for charitable and non-profit organizations to give money to political candidates or political action committees (PACs) or for political activities. Violation of the law could result in the charitable/non-profit group losing its tax-exept status. Here is how Cole explained it:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, a 501(c)(3) organization [which is a charitable or non-profit organization] must be operated exclusively for exempt purposes. The presence of a single non-exempt purpose, if more than insubstantial in nature, will destroy the exemption of the organization regardless of the number or importance of truly exempt purposes that are present.

Conferring a benefit on private interests is a non-exempt purpose. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a 501(c)(3) organization is also prohibited from intervening in political campaigns or providing any support to political action committees. These prohibitions reflect the congressional concerns that taxpayer funds are not to be used to support political activity.

The college course was called "Renewing American Civilization." It was preceded by a television program, "America's Opportunity Workshop," (AOW) that was created and distributed mainly through GOPAC, a political action committee (PAC) which basically became Gingrich's PAC. "America's Opportunity Workshop" later was called "American Citizen's Television" (ACTV). Gingrich submitted two letters discussing "Renewing American Civilization," GOPAC, and other groups involved in the course. Then, when he was questioned in person, he testimony showed that his representations in the letters were false.

• AOW/ACTV and the ALOF
  

AOW was initially a project of GOPAC, but soon it was becoming too costly for GOPAC. The decision was made to transfer the project to a 501(c)(3) organization in order to attract tax-deductible funding. That was a problem because of the goals of AOW. As described by Cole,

Mr. Gingrich had hoped that by using this program he would be able to create a citizen's movement. And in doing this, workshops were set out throughout the country where people could gather and watch the program and where people could be recruited for this citizens' movement.

While the program was educational, the citizens' movement was also considered to be a tool to recruit non-voters and people who were apolitical to the Republican Party.

The message that was used in AOW was considered to be one that would be particularly useful for Republicans and that could not be used for Democrats.

In other words, the objective of AOW/ACTV was to recruit new voters for the Republican party. That is a political, partisan activity for which funds from a 501(c)(3) group would be illegal.

The group which took over ACTV was the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation (ALOF). Not only was there a question about ALOF engaging in political activities, there was evidence that ALOF was in reality a part of GOPAC (which would be a further legal violation). The details are in the Ethics Committee Report (pp. 28-29 of the .pdf file). That evidence included documentation that AOW/ACTV was an ongoing project of GOPAC.

Also, the finances of ALOF raised serious questions as to the connection to GOPAC. These matters are addressed on pp. 29-31 of the.pdf version of the Ethics Committee Report. Here's a summary. GOPAC loaned ALOF a total of $74,500. GOPAC donors also made $80,000 in contributions to ALOF, of which $70,000 was then paid back to GOPAC. At that time, the executive director of GOPAC sent out letters to potential GOPAC donors seeking contributions of at least $10,000. The letter explained that helping ALOF to pay off its loan from GOPAC would serve the objectives of GOPAC and suggested making a donation to ALOF should be done. The implication plainly was that donating to ALOF would be considered a donation to GOPAC. The financial reacords bear this out, as there are several instances of very large checks going to ALOF, followed almost immediately by checks from ALOF to GOPAC for the identiacl amounts. The problem was that GOPAC was in effect receiving tax-exempt donations, and since GOPAC was an expressly political group, it was not legal for it to receive tax-exempt donations, and it was illegal for ALOF to give money to GOPAC.

Now, I am sure somebody out there is thinking that the money paid to ALOF was not really a payment to GOPAC but was only a repayment of ALOF's loan, so there was nothing wrong with it. Anyone thinking that should be able to define "is" for me. And, as it turns out, other people concluded that all of this was improper, but more on that a little later.

Now let's look at "Renewing American Civilization."

• Renwing American Civilization
  

The material for this course was created by Gingrich, GOPAC personnel, and GOPAC members. Gingrich decided that the themes and messages of "Renewing American Civilization" would be the basis for the GOP campaigns of 1993 and 1994. The course, while going to colleges, was intended to be part of workshops set up all over the country in order to get out this partisan message and recruit people for the Republican party. Gingrich and GOPAC determined that such a system would get out GOPAC's message while GOPAC would not bear the cost of dissemination. The course was half lectures by Gingrich and half lectures done by faculty members at the colleges where the course was offered. The major cost was for the distribution of Gingrich's lectures, which was accomplished via via cable, television, satellite broadcasts, video tapes, audio tapes through the Renewing American Civilization Project. This cost--approximately $1.2 million over three years--was paid for by tax-deductible contributions that were made to various 501(c)(3) organizations that sponsored the course. So once again, it appeared that tax-deductible contributions were paying for political activities in violation of the law.

• Conclusions (and lack thereof) regarding AOW/ACTV and Renewing American Civilization
  

The tax expert consulted by the subcommittee came to this conclusion, according to Cole:

During a preliminary inquiry, the subcommittee consulted with an expert in the law of tax-exempt organizations, and members of the subcommittee did their own research and read voluminous materials involved in this area.

Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of the American Opportunities Workshop, American Citizens Television, and the Renewing American Civilization projects, as well as the activities of others that were done with Mr. Gingrich's knowledge and approval in regard to those organizations, were reviewed by the tax expert.

The expert concluded that those activities violated the status of the organizations under 501(c)(3), in that, among other things, those activities were intended to confer more than insubstantial benefits on GOPAC, on Mr. Gingrich, and on Republican entities and candidates.

(emphasis added). Gingrich naturally hired his own tax expert who came to the opposite conclusion. However, both experts did agree on one thing:

Both the subcommittee's tax expert and Mr. Gingrich's counsel, however, were asked about what kind of advice they would have given Mr. Gingrich had he come to them before embarking on any of these practices.

Each of them had the same conclusion. They would have advised Mr. Gingrich not to use the 501(c)3 organizations he had used for the purposes he had used them. The subcommittee's tax expert based this opinion on the fact that it was a violation of 501(c)3. Mr. Gingrich's tax counsel based his opinion on the fact that the mixture of politics and tax deductible donations is in his words, "an explosive mix." It draws the attention of the IRS, it raises red flags, and he would not advise a client to do so.

Moreover, Gingrich knew that what he was doing was risky and possibly illegal. The evidence made it clear "Gingrich had intended that the American Opportunities Workshop and American Citizens Television Project and the Renewing American Civilization Projects would have substantial partisan political purposes." Also, even before AOW, Gingrich had been part of a group called the American Campaign Academy which had been denied 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status because it was providing an improper benefit to Republican candidates even though the Academy's activities were also educational. Gingrich told the Ethics subcommittee that at that time he had been "fully briefed of the tax controversy involving the Academy and was very well aware of its legal problems as they were progressing." Gingrich had also stated publicly that in regard to "Renewing American Civilization" "he viewed his activities as being very aggressive in regard to 501(c)(3) law. He stated he was going right up to the line and taking risks in that regard." He had been part of an "educational" program that had been deemed as a violation of tax laws, he was aware of those issues, and yet he admittedly and intentionally embarked on subsequent "educational" programs that he knew could be illegal.

At this point I must state that the tax law issues were not resolved against Gingrich. The Ethics committee did not resolve them and instead referred the matters to the IRS. This was part of the plea agreement. Also, after the Ethics Committee issued its report and reprimand, a new Congress--and a new Ethics Committee--convened, which conveniently meant that the matters would not be addressed by the Ethics Committee again. Also, as reported by the AP on February 4, 1999, the Progress and Freedom Foundation--the 501(c)(3) group which primarily funded the Renewing American Civilization course-- was cleared of any wrongdoing by the IRS.

Now I know what some of you are thinking...this proves that Gingrich did nothing wrong and that he was the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy. Think again. Seriously, think about it. Lawyers have codes of professional conduct and ethics (insert joke here). Although the codes vary from state to state, they all basically say that a lawyer should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. What Gingrich did certainly had the appearance of impropriety. Now recall that the issue before the House Ethics Committee was whether Gingrich had violated the ethical rules of the House--not whether he had broken some other law. Moreover, the one charge which was leveled at Gingrich was whether he had engaged "in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." When the #1 person in the House, who rose to power by attacking the Democrats' corruption, and who presented himself as virtuous, engaged in the things that Gingrich did (and remember, there was no dispute about the factual account of what he did), in my book that certainly "does not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives. What do you think?

Should you be unsure of your answer, then read on...

• Not being truthful

This was the issue that really brought Gingrich down.

Before the subcommittee was formed, Gingrich sent a letter dated October 4, 1994, which discussed "Renewing American Civilization." However, that letter did not discuss any of the tax issues, and those issues were the basis for the original ethics complaint filed against Gingrich. The Ethics Committee informed Gingrich that it wanted some explanation on those issues, and in a December 8, 1994, letter, "Mr. Gingrich stated that the course had no partisan political aspects to it, that his motivation for teaching the course was not political and that GOPAC was neither involved in the course nor received any benefit from any aspect of the course." That letter was written by Gingrich's lawyer, but Gingrich read, approved, and signed it. However, when he then testified to the subcomittee, he admitted those statements were inaccurate. In January 1995, the complaint against Gingrich was amended, and on March 27, 1995, once again the subcommittee received a letter from Gingrich's attorney. Here's what Cole said about that letter:

The letter was signed by Mr. Gingrich's attorney, but Mr. Gingrich reviewed it and approved it prior to its being delivered to the committee.

When asked about this letter, Mr. Gingrich stated, in the course of the preliminary inquiry, Mr. Gingrich stated, that if there had been anything inaccurate in that letter he would have told his attorney to change it.

So, Newt reviewed it and then told the subcommittee that it was accurate. And now for the good part...

Similar to the letter of December 8, the letter of March 27 stated that the course had no partisan, political aspects to it, that Mr. Gingrich's motivation for teaching the course was not political, and that GOPAC had no involvement in, and received no benefit from any aspect of the course.

In his testimony before the subcommittee concerning these letters, Mr. Gingrich admitted that these statements were not true.

Unbelievable. After he admitted to the subcommittee that the December 8, 1995, letter was incorrect, he sends them another letter making the same incorrect statements--you know the ones he told them were incorrect! And then he had the gall to tell the subcommittee he did not see anything innacurate in the March 27, 1995, letter.

Now tell me if you think Gingrich's conduct "d[id] not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.

Cole's statement provided a concise picture of Gingrich's conduct.

Cole gave a nice summary of the charges and the facts.

In looking at the letters and talking to Mr. Gingrich and his attorney, it was clear that the goal of these letters was to have the complaints against Mr. Gingrich dismissed.

What was also clear was that all -- all of the people who were involved in drafting or editing the letters or reviewing them for accuracy, only Mr. Gingrich had personal knowledge of the facts contained in the letters regarding the course.

The facts in the letters that were inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable went to the heart of the issues that were being considered by the committee. In reviewing the evidence concerning both the American Opportunities Workshop and American Citizens Television Project and the Renewing American Civilization Project, certain patters became apparent.

In both instances, GOPAC had initiated the use of the message that was in each of those projects as part of its political program to build a Republican majority in Congress. In both instances, there was an effort to have the material appear to be non-partisan on its face yet serve as a partisan political message for the purpose of building the Republican Party.

Under the Methodology Test, as it's known, of the Internal Revenue Code -- of the Internal Revenue Service both of these projects did qualify as educational.

However, they both had substantial partisan, political aspects to them. They were both initiated as political projects, both motivated, at least in part, by political goals.

The other striking similarity in both situations is that GOPAC was in need of new source of funding for the projects and turned them over to 501(c)(3) organizations for that purpose. Once the projects had been established in a 501(c)(3) organization, however, the same people continued to manage it as had done so at GOPAC. The same message was used as when it was at GOPAC. And the dissemination of the message was directed towards the same goal as the project had intended when it was at GOPAC.

The only significant difference was that the activity was now funded by a 501(c)(3) organization. This is not a situation where one entity develops a message through a course or a television program for purely educational purposes and then an entirely separate entity independently decides to adopt that message for partisan political purposes.

Rather this was a coordinated effort to have the 501(c)(3) organizations help in achieving a partisan political goal. In both instances, the idea to develop the message and disseminate it for partisan political use came first. The use of the 501(c)(3) came second as a source of funding.

This factual analysis was accepted by the members of the subcommittee and myself. However, there was a difference of opinion as to the result under Section 501(c)(3) when applying the law to these facts.

(emphasis added). And that difference of opinion was one of the reasons for the agreement reached with Gingrich that he would agree to this factual analysis and accept a reprimand and a penalty of $300,000. I reiterate that the facts were agreed upon by the two Republicans and two Democrats on the subcommittee. The facts were not and are not in dispute.

Does this kind of behavior make for good leaders? I say "no." Do we need leaders who engage in this kind of behavior? Again, I say "no." More specifically, is this kind of behavior what we need in a President? I say "hell, no." And that is why this series on Newt Gingrich is relevant. He is gearing up to run for President in 2008. People need to be reminded of Gingrich's past--and shown that he has not changed.

And that will be done after the next post, which shows a swell family man Gingrich is.