Newt Gingrich--what a swell guy! (Part 2: money and the Contract with America)

The remaining parts of this series will not be as long or detailed as part 1.

NOTE: As I write this Note, the date is 12-12-06. The sentence above has turned out to be incorrect, as Part 3, while not as detailed as it could have been, is significantly lengthier than Part 1. I did not realize this fact until it was pointed out to me by a conservative Republican (see the comments to Part 3). This is evidence of the Cosmic Wheel--what goes around...

When the events described in part 1 took place, I had already had my fill of Gingrich, and the fact that he was whining about being criticized for doing basically the same thing he used to bring about Wright's downfall just really pissed me off. Let me make something clear. I am not trying to defend Jim Wright. What I am trying to do is show that Gingrich was--and still is--a huge hypocrite concerned only with his own interests. The story of the book deals really stuck in my craw when it happened, and that's why I went into detail on that story.

The story of the book deals also illustrates most of the reasons why I say Gingrich has no character and is a hypocrite. Thus, it serves as a baseline reference, meaning that the subsequent posts do not need to be as lengthy.

Now let's move on to a little thing known as the "Contract with America."

The Republicans gained control of the House in the 1994 election. It was a truly remarkable achievement. The GOP victory was by a wide margin, and it came about largely because of some brilliant campaigning and a great idea.

The idea which became the theme for the campaign was the "Contract with America," co-authored by Gingrich. I have to note that there is a dispute as to the impact of the Contract on the campaign, and I am stating my opinion as to its impact. At the time of the 1994 election, I felt that it was a brilliantly crafted idea inserted at the perfect time (six weeks before the election). I felt that it struck a perfect chord with the majority of the electorate. Hell, there were even elements of it I favored. Regardless of the Contract's impact, it represented a promise to reduce Congressional corruption, reform the government, and reduce the federal government. These things, in my opinion, needed to happen, and the Democrats in the House had pretty much shown they were not going to do them.

The House did act on some of the elements of the Contract, and some items actually became law. However, this post will not examine the contents of the Contract with America, the Contract's impact, or how well the Congress tried to implement the Contract. Instead, this post will focus on two things: 1) the overall themes presented by the Contract, and 2) what was not made part of the Contract with America.

There is no question that after years of Democratic control, there was corruption in Congress. I felt that things needed to change, although I did not want a Republican-controlled Congress. The corruption and the need for change undoubtedly made up the cornerstone of the Republican campaign in 1994, and the GOP did a good job of exploiting those issues. And if those issues were the cornerstone for the campaign, the Contract with America was the capstone. It helped to explain, focus, and crystalize everything the GOP had been talking about, and, as I said, the timing was excellent.

The point I am trying to make here is that the Contract with America had as its central themes the elimination of corruption and the reform of the government to make it more open and fair.

And one of the problems with the government then (as now and as always) was money and its influence. And yet, this issue was not addressed by the Contract with America. The Contract with America was silent on the issues of campaign finance and money from special interests. And Gingrich was a co-author of the Contract with America? Coincidence? Yeah, right.

The "Frontline" interview with Fred Werthheimer explains Gingrich's hypocrisy regarding corruption in detail. I will present some highlights here. The interview began with the following question and answer:

Q: The Washington Post says today, 'Gingrich calls for more, not less, campaign cash.' What's going on here?

Wertheimer: Well, the speaker has always worked both sides of the street on the corruption ethics issues. I think it's very important to understand that if you look at the history of speaker Gingrich, issues of ethics and corruption have been partisan weapons, not moral concepts. So that he, in effect, has made his bones on these issues during his many years in the minority. He attacked the House as a corrupt institution. He brought ethics charges. He constantly attacked the legitimacy of the institution. At the same time, he built a financial empire based on special interest and private influence money. He did everything he could to block the reforms, the serious reforms of the system that were undertaken. And now of course he's the king of this corrupt system. The money is flowing his way. And what he's trying to do here is scramble. He's trying to still hold off the notion that he wants to change this system while he's continuing a pattern of trying to make sure the corrupt system stays in place.

(emphasis added). This fits the pattern shown in the previous post about the book deals: condemn others for a given practice, then engage in it yourself, then attack anyone who criticizes you. Later, Wertheimer pointed out the basic message I am trying to convey in this post:

But, when you come back to it, you have to face the question: well, where does he stand on cleaning up this mess? Now, if you want to understand how important cleaning up the corrupt system in Washington has been to the speaker to date, I would bring one fact to the table at this point: somehow this issue was left out of the Contract With America. Somehow the same issue that had been central to Newt Gingrich's argument throughout his career in the minority--that this was a corrupt system, that PACs were a grotesque feature in the system, that money politics was driving out and defeating citizen politicians--somehow not a word about this was included in the Contract With America. Why? Because this is one of the most unusual revolutions in the history of the world. This is a revolution that is being financed and paid for by the power establishment of this country. The corporations, the richest people in this country, are paying the bills of this so-called revolution. And I would submit to you they are not paying the bill without expecting something in return.

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.

And now how does that $4.5 million book deal look?