So I am wondering why with all the negatives in the press about Newt Gingrich why the former House Speaker‘s time of discipline during his reign is not being discussed? That in 1997 Newt Gingrich was sanctioned by his peers $300,00o . Then, in the 208 year old history of the House of Senates something like this had never been done. This was (& still should be) an embarrassment to Republicans. And still is an embarrassment to this country.
Could this possibly be why we are not hearing about this when all his other skeletons are being dragged out? Are the republicans ashamed?
Yet through all the mud slinging not one mention of this. Not even from the Democrats.
“Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). “If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment.” as reported in The Washington Post January 22, 1997
It was reported then and obviously was enough proof for the House to vote to censure him. That Gingrich had admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information is enough for me to know that this is not my candidate choice.
Ironically in the same Post article: “the ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said”
I am confused. Is this the same House, the same Ginrich, the same republicans? Things that make you want to go Hmmm….Did Newt turn over a new leaf? Religion maybe? Really?
“The 395 to 28 vote [closed] a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then GOP whip. The complaint took on greater significance when the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in four decades, propelling Gingrich into the speaker’s chair.”
Not surprisingly many democrats felt the fine was not stiff enough, and that it should have been paid out of his personal monies and not campaign funds or legal coffers. I wonder how and if the fine was ever paid. Another day of research in order? Maybe someone who is reading this knows, or will be challenged to find the answer.
For Gingrich, it was another humbling event in a remarkable series of peaks and valleys since 1994. That year, he led his party to the promised land of control of the House and Senate, only to threaten it when he was blamed for two partial government shutdowns during the battle over the budget, making him seem reckless.
And this is who our people believe should have the unmistakably most difficult job of running our country’s budget? If it had been proven that I in prior jobs to be inept and disruptive to the manner of running the business in a fiscal sense would I be hired for the same position again? Or one with even more responsibility? Would make no sense to hire me and jeopardize the integrity of the business. Why not just set the business up to lose money and possibly bankrupt?
Gingrich also complained about his treatment on a long flight aboard Air Force One, making him seem petty. The GOP narrowly retained its House majority that November in 1997, giving him a brief reprieve. The next month, he admitted to the charges brought by the ethics subcommittee.
So trust is an issue too? If he could bold face lie or deny any wrong doing then, so openly and brazenly behaving unethically then what stop him from feeling so privileged as our country’s leader? I am afraid to ask. Not only that I am fearful of allowing him that power,but also that freedom.
During the sanction Gingrich stuck his head in the sand so to speak. In addition The Washington Post reported back then in 1997:
“The speaker was barely visible yesterday, staying away from the House floor during the 90-minute debate and vote on his punishment. He was in his office and did not watch the proceedings on television, according to spokeswoman Lauren Maddox. Gingrich left late yesterday afternoon for a two-day GOP House leadership retreat at Airlie Farm and Confere He smiled broadly and said “yes.
House Democrats had considered trying to force a vote then on reconsidering Gingrich’s Jan. 7 reelection as speaker — the first for a Republican in 68 years — but decided against it, fearing it would distract from the harsh punishment being meted out. In addition, Democrats believe enough damaging information has been presented to tarnish the speaker, Democratic leadership aides said.”
Apparently special counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich had violated tax law and lied to the investigating panel, but the subcommittee would not go that far. In exchange for the subcommittee agreeing to modify the charges against him, Gingrich agreed to the penalty Dec. 20 as part of a deal in which he admitted guilt.
And this is someone we should consider? I wonder why none of this is being discussed during his campaign and while the country’s primary’s are happening. Instead the media is focusing on such minor things as to whether he did or did not ask his ask ex-wife to join him in an open marriage? Seriously. While although what our president does and behaves in his private life is a concern I believe that discussing or questioning Gingrich on the events that unfolded in 1997 and before is much more relevant to our country’s current needs That this behaviors he would bring to the White house has more urgent need of exposing.
Whether he would lie, try to avoid tax laws, or deny any kind of wrong doing trumps whether or not he believed in open marriages in another time of his life in 1999.
The whole issue comes down to trust with me. And to be honest I’d rather not have a documented liar & cheat in the White House leading my country.
And that my friends is how I feel. Gee, are you not glad you did not ask me to tell you how I really feel?