Newt Gingrich--what a swell guy! (Part 1: book deals and hypocrisy)

Overview and where to find more info

This is another of those topics I have wanted to write about for some time, and that urge was usually prompted by Gingrich saying something stupid. In the past I determined that writing about Gingrich was not worth the time or effort, but that was then. What has finally caused to explain why Newt Gingrich is utterly lacking in class and character is twofold: 1) he recently proposed limitations on free speech, and 2) he wants to run for President. Here's a summary of everything that follows: He is a self-absorbed, power hungry, hypocritical jackass. And lest anyone think I am being too harsh, do read on...

It is hard to know where to start, and it is hard to decide what to include. The examples of Gingrich's duplicity, hypocrisy, and general lack of character are too numerous to detail here (even in one of my oh so loved multi-part series). If you want to read even more details, check out the "Frontline" presentation entitled "The Long March of Newt Gingrich." In particular, read the following:

• "Good Newt, Bad Newt," a July 1989 Vanity Fair article by Peter Boyer;
• "The Inner Quest of Newt Gingrich," a September 1995 Vanity Fair article by Gail Sheehy; and
• the interview with Fred Wertheimer.

The program aired originally on January 16, 1996, but the qualities and conduct described therein have been exhibited by Gingrich since that time.

Let's begin with the matter that propelled Gingrich to the forefront--the attacks against Jim Wright which forced him to resign as Speaker of the House.

The basic story as to Wright's book transgression

Gingrich led the charge against House Speaker Jim Wright in the late '80s which eventually resulted in Wright's resignation in disgrace. Gingrich was the one who filed the original ethics charges against Wright. The first charges against Wright were that he was improperly receiving royalties from book sales. At that time, the House rules held that no member could receive more than $30,000 a year in speaking fees. Wright got around this rule by making bulk sales of a book he wrote to groups to whom he would speak. Ninety-eight percent of the book's sales were bulk sales.

Moreover, Wright's book was a collection of his previous speeches and writings. In other words, Wright did absolutely no new work on this "new" book, meaning in effect that Wright was getting paid for something he had already done. That's kind of sorry.

In any event, this book deal was improper. But guess what? Gingrich his ownself had been involved in two questionable book deals before he ever brought the ethics charges against Wright. Then again, he was involved in a shady book deal after Wright resigned, but I'm getting ahead of the story.

Gingrich's early book deals

As described by Peter Boyer in his July 1989 article for Vanity Fair,

The first (book deal) was in 1977, before he actually won his seat, when he accepted $13,000 from his supporters to write a book that he never completed. The second case, involving Gingrich's 1984 manifesto for the Conservative Opportunity Society, concerned a unique arrangement by which twenty-one "investors" paid $5,000 each to a limited partnership, run by Mrs. Gingrich, to raise money to promote the book.

"Mrs. Gingrich" was his second wife. He is now on wife #3, but that story comes later. When Democrats raised complaints about these book deals, Gingrich was quick to point out that his 1984 deal was completely different from Wright's book sales

because the money given for his book by each partner was "an investment, not a gift"--so defined by Gingrich because each partner had a chance to reap a profit if the book became a best-seller. (It didn't.) However, Gingrich's wife didn't recruit just businessmen in forming the partnership, she recruited supporters of Gingrich's, many of them constituents, and at least fifteen of the people who have contributed to his political campaigns. Some of them have said that they had no intention of making money, they just wanted to do something for Gingrich.

Yeah, that is absolutely nothing like what Jim Wright did. And Gingrich did all of this before he brought the ethics charges against Wright.

But wait, there's more...

The post election book deal in 1994

In late November 1994--just after the election and just before Gingrich was to become Speaker--he made another questionable book deal.

• The sources
  

Most of the sources I found regarding this deal are Washington Post articles from December 1994 and January 1995. I have been unable to find the articles anywhere other than the Washington Post archives. That means if you want to read the articles in their entirety, you will have to pay for that privilege. Then again, you can read the abstracts for free. Here is a list of the articles:

1. "Gingrich $4.5 Million Book Deal Draws Fire," December 23, 1994.
2. "Gingrich to Relinquish Book Advance," December 31, 1994.
3. "Democrats Attack Gingrich for Meeting Murdoch Before $4.5 Million Book Deal," January 13, 1995.
4. "Details of Gingrich-Murdoch meeting renew calls for probe of book deal," January 15, 1995.
5. "Speaker Says Meeting Murdoch, Fox Lobbyist Was Not Improper," January 18, 1995.
6. "Gingrich Takes On Book Foes," January 20, 1995.
7. "Democrats Give New Speaker Taste of Medicine He Prescribed for Wright," January 20, 1995.
8. "Gingrich Calls Criticism 'Grotesque,'" January 21, 1995.

I am not going to make specific citations to these articles. Instead, I am just going to tell the facts as described in the articles.

• The basic background
  

On November 28, 1994--just weeks after the GOP's dramatic electoral victory and just weeks before Gingrich would become Speaker of the House--Gingrich had a private meeting with Rupert Murdoch. For those of you that do not know, Murdoch is one of the richest men in the world, and he is a media mogul whose properties include Fox News. Murdoch is and always has been staunchly right wing and ruthless. Also at this meeting was Preston Padden, who just happened to be Murdoch's top lobbyist. And it just so happened that at that time there was legislation pending in the House in which Murdoch was very interested. Gingrich said there was nothing improper about the meeting because "I see everybody," and his press secretary Tony Blankley (now the editor of the Moonie Times, a/k/a the Washington Times) called the meeting a "10-minute courtesy call" by Murdoch and said "They only passed the time of day." Murdoch's spokesman insisted that no specific legislation was discussed, but rather that the men discussed "broad national issues." Yeah, and pigs can fly. And if no specific legislation was discussed, why was Murdoch's chief lobbyist there? After all, a lobbyist's job is to make sure specific legislation is passed or defeated.

What makes this meeting truly suspect is what happened on December 22, 1994. On that day Harper Collins--a major publishing house owned by...wait for it...Rupert Murdoch--announced it had made a deal with Gingrich to write a non-fiction book and provide commentary on an anthology of other non-fiction writings, and part of the deal included giving Gingrich an advance of...wait for it...$4.5 million. Let's see, Murdoch had legislation pending before Congress that he wanted passed, he and his chief lobbyist met with the soon-to-be Speaker of the House, and then three weeks later, he was going to pay the soon-to-be Speaker $4.5 million dollars. That was going to be guaranteed money, as in not dependent on future sales, as in if not one book was sold, Gingrich would still get $4.5 million. And there's more...The book that Gingrich was supposed to write was basically a rehash of a college course he had previously taught (and that is another long story that will be addressed rather briefly in another post). In other words, he was simply going to repackage work he had previously done--just like Jim Wright did. As for the other book, writing commentary to fill space between the works of others ain't exactly worth $4.5 million in my humble opinion.

And I left out one detail, namely that this November 28 meeting was not disclosed until January 12, 1995.

• The reaction and Newt's reaction (part 1)
  

As one might expect, when this book deal was disclosed, it caused quite a reaction, and Gingrich's reaction is a prime example of why he has no business trying to be President.

It was not remarkable that there was shock expressed when the deal was announced. Just on its surface, the deal blatantly appeared to be a case of Gingrich cashing in on his position of Speaker (again, just like Wright did), and the amount of the deal was staggering. And it was not just Democrats that were complaining about the book deal. Republicans, including then incoming Senate majority leader Bob Dole, thought it was improper.

What was remarkable was Gingrich's reaction in turn. He was genuinely surprised that people would find anything wrong with the deal. Within about a week, Gingrich said he would not take the $4.5 million, and then he engaged in what has since become the GOP SOP--blame everyone else, especially the Democrats. The Republicans won the 1994 election by promising to reform the government and end the corruption that had become entrenched in the Democratic Congress (more on that in a subsequent post), and so Gingrich criticized his detractors on the book deal as "The defenders of the old system" who "were clearly going to use the book advance to distract, to obstruct and to critique" instead of taking care of the country's business. In other words, Gingrich accused the Democrats of making the book deal a political issue. He turned down the money not because it would have been wrong to take it but because by turning it down, he would prevent the Democrats from distracting the Congress. Yeah, right.

He even pointed out that he was not doing anything that had not been done before. From the December 31, 1994, article listed above:

Gingrich defended the book deal by noting that at least 23 current senators, as well as Vice President Gore, have published books while serving in Congress, many receiving sizable advances. He said his deal is in line with a long history of officeholders who wrote books for profit, going as far back as the turn of the century when Henry Cabot Lodge was publishing biographies while in the Senate.

"No one had questioned then-Senator Gore's advance or his right to author `Earth in the Balance.' While many Republicans had challenged his ideas, myself included, none had challenged his income," Gingrich said in his letter. Gingrich's $4.5 million advance, however, would have been the second-highest for a politician; former President Ronald Reagan received $7 million in 1989 for his autobiography and a book of speeches.

Then-Senator Gore was not the Speaker of the House, a position far more powerful and influential than Gore's previous status as Senator. Furthermore, Gore's advance was not even close to Gingrich's. Gore got $100,000. That is approximately 2.2% of Gingrich's $4.5 million.

And now keep in mind that this portion of Gingrich's reaction came before the November 28 meeting with Murdoch became public knowledge.

• The reaction and Newt's reaction (part 2)

Well, once the news of the November 28, 1994, meeting with Murdoch was disclosed, the reaction was really intense. Whatever placating effect produced by Gingrich's rejection of the $4.5 million was gone after this meeting was revealed. The title of one of the articles listed above pretty much sums it up: "Details of Gingrich-Murdoch meeting renew calls for probe of book deal."

And then Gingrich really stepped up his response. It started with the statements mentioned in the first paragraph of "The basic background" above, and when no one was buying that bullshit, he got crazy. On January 19, 1995, Gingrich said Democrats were "waging a campaign of 'personal destruction' against him by continuing to raise questions about his book contract." But he was just getting warmed up, as he

accused the minority party of an "unending" assault designed to drive him from power. "There is a small group of people so bitter about losing control of the House that they have decided that any device which destroys me is legitimate."

That's right, Newt. It was always all about you. As we will see later on, Newt has always had an inflated opinion of his importance in the world.

The next day he declared "criticism of his book contract 'grotesque and disgusting' and warn(ed) that opponents will attempt to block the Republican agenda with lies and distortions." But he was not finished.

"I am a genuine revolutionary," Gingrich said. "They are genuine reactionaries. We are going to change the world. They are going to do to everything they can to stop us. They will use any tool. There is no grotesquerie, no distortion, no dishonesty too great for them to come after us."

Gingrich said Democrats and their allies will "bitterly, ferociously raise the pain level of any progress we try to make, to create so much chaos and so much destruction, to engage in such a deliberate liberal big lie campaign that they can bring us to a halt."

After bashing the Democrats instead of addressing the substantive issues (gosh, where have we seen that the last few years?), Newt went after the evil liberal media: "...to have the news media of this city used as a tool of the Democratic Party, to just go out again and again and again, in a one-sided way, is I think a despicable comment on how sick this city got."

Notice that he never conceded that what he did in meeting with Murdoch and agreeing to accept $4.5 million for practically doing no work on two books might appear even the least bit wrong, especially for someone who railed against corruption and promised to get rid of such behavior. Notice that instead he engaged in inflammatory utter freaking bullshit.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) concisely described the whole affair:

We're not talking about just some normal deal here. We're not talking about William Faulkner. We're talking about someone who was offered a $4.5 million advance because he's the speaker of the House, by the leader of a major corporation...that has very important issues before the federal government. And Newt Gingrich would not have given up the $4.5 million deal had it not been exposed.

And that's Gingrich's reaction was bullshit. However, it not only was it bullshit--it was abject hypocrisy.

• ...and here's the proof.

To understand the degree of Gingrich's hypocrisy, one first must have an idea of what he did regarding Jim Wright. The article entitled "Democrats Give New Speaker Taste of Medicine He Prescribed for Wright" provides the basic story:

But at least in terms of longevity and ferocity, the Democrats' attack on Gingrich pales in comparison to the campaign Gingrich conducted against Wright, who resigned after an ethics committee investigation into his financial affairs - including a book deal - and attempts to help officials in the savings and loan industry.

During his two-year campaign to discredit Wright, which ended in the Texan's resignation in May 1989, Gingrich repeatedly flailed Wright's reputation in speeches on the floor of the House, in news conferences and in numerous meetings with editorial boards around the nation. He called Wright the most corrupt speaker in the 20th century, accused him of leaking classified information and undermining U.S. foreign policy in Central America, and even compared him to Benito Mussolini, Italy's Fascist dictator during World War II.

*******

In September 1988, for example, Gingrich accused Wright of revealing government secrets about U.S. provocations against the Nicaraguan government of Daniel Ortega. "Speaker Wright either violated the American secrecy requirements and leaked America's secrets, or Speaker Wright in public was saying something which was untrue," said Gingrich in a floor speech.

Accusing Wright of a "betrayal of America's friends and allies," Gingrich said: "In World War II, I guess `collaborator' or `quisling' would have been the closest terms" to describe Wright's role.

Though Gingrich was more temperate in using the floor to attack Wright on ethics charges - preferring to level blasts by inserting critical editorials into the Congressional Record rather than speaking himself - he was relentless in attacking Wright in outside speeches and appearances.

On Nov. 16, 1987, for example, Gingrich characterized Wright as a "genuinely corrupt man" and accused him of "money laundering" in a speech to Florida Republicans. "Wright is so consumed by his own power that he is like Mussolini," said Gingrich, according to an account in the Miami Herald.

Golly...Compared to what Gingrich said about Wright for a two-year period, I can oh so see why what the Democrats said about him was "grotesque." Gingrich could certainly dish it out, but he acted like a kid running home to mommy when people started criticizing him. What a jackass.

There is another element of Gingrich's hypocrisy not described in that article. This element is discussed in detail in the Fred Wertheimer interview, but here is a synopsis. Wertheimer was the president of Common Cause, a public interest watchdog group, when the Wright Matter arose. In fact, Common Cause had been investigating the matter before Gingrich brought his charges, and Common Cause had written a letter to the House Ethics Committee urging the Committee to investigate Wright and appoint an independent counsel to conduct the investigation. Gingrich had asked Common Cause to join his efforts, and even though Common Cause declined, Gingrich publicly agreed with Common Cause's call for an independent counsel.

When Gingrich's book deals surfaced, Common Cause once again called for an investigation and an independent counsel. Gingrich opposed that position and called Common Cause a left-wing, socialist group. What a surprise. This excerpt from the Wertheimer interview explains Gingrich's hypocrisy:

Q: And your response to how now Newt Gingrich is saying, 'Whatever you do in investigating me, don't get an independent counsel. And if you do get one, limit the scope'?

Wertheimer: I would describe it as another example of the pattern that follows Speaker Gingrich throughout his career, particularly when you're dealing with issues of ethics and corruption. They are situational. And they're often situational when they apply to Democrats or to opponents. So, here is Speaker Gingrich who agreed with us--we filed the first request in the Wright case--both for the investigation and for the outside counsel and for the open scope so the counsel could do their job. Speaker Gingrich agreed that you had to have an outside counsel. He said there's a higher standard, first of all, when you have a speaker and he correctly said--as we did--when you're dealing with the Speaker of the House you're dealing with such a powerful person, you have to get someone from the outside. And you have to let them do their job.

Now here we are, Common Cause has called for an outside person. Common Cause has called for that person to be able to do their job. Speaker Gingrich has adamantly fought against any outside counsel being involved in this case. He is opposing any scope for the counsel. We didn't support a fishing expedition with Jim Wright. And Common Cause, which is now headed by Ann McBride, has not supported a fishing expedition for Newt Gingrich. But you must have an outside person and let that person do his job.

Common Cause is very consistent here. Speaker Gingrich is very inconsistent. And that inconsistency you can track throughout his career whenever you're looking at questions of ethics, of corruption in the political process.

(emphasis added). That last paragraph was accurate as will be shown in subsequent posts. And after that, we will examine the fact that Gingrich has been a serial adulterer while all the time maintaining he is a champion of family values.

Again, what a jackass.