Let's See Those Hands for Gingrich

By Rick Horowitz

Is there anyone here who really believes that Newt Gingrich didn't know what he was doing all along? Newt's the Smartest Guy in the Room every time he walks through a doorway; you have to figure he had the whole thing -- the college classes, the TV programs, the tax-exempt foundations -- worked out to the millimeter.

Is there anyone here who really believes that the information Newt provided the ethics committee when they started looking into this scheme of his -- "inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable" information, the committee discovered -- was just a lawyer's mistake? Newt was the only person, the committee's special counsel concluded, who both reviewed those letters to the committee for accuracy and had enough knowledge to verify the so-called facts they contained.

Is there anyone here who really believes that the classes and TV programs Newt funded with those tax-exempt dollars were truly nonpartisan? So what if he seldom uttered the word "Republican"? He didn't have to; Newt's strategy memos made it crystal clear that capturing the House of Representatives was a central goal of all these machinations.

Is there anyone here who really believes that Newt's failure to consult a tax attorney about the propriety of mixing politics and tax-deductible contributions was simply a busy man's oversight? The ethics subcommittee certainly didn't believe it; they found "significant and substantial warning signals" Newt should have heeded before mixing the two, and they faced a "disturbing" choice: Newt's failure to consult a lawyer was "intentional" -- he didn't ask because he knew what he'd be told and didn't want to hear it -- or it was "reckless."

Is there anyone here who really believes that misusing taxpayers' money to grab power is different from other ethics abuses as long as you can point to some "political philosophy" you're trying to advance along the way? That's what one of Newt's other lawyers was arguing the other day -- but he's paid to say that. What's your excuse?

Is there anyone here who really believes that these ethics charges are minor compared to the charges Newt himself once leveled against Jim Wright, because Newt never "lined his pockets"? What about the multi-million-dollar book deal Newt signed as Speaker-elect as soon as the Republicans finally did capture the House? Or the hundreds of thousands he still collected from the book when public outrage forced him to cancel the original deal? You can line a lot of pockets with that kind of dough, don't you think?

Is there anyone here who really believes that Newt was truly "culping" in his mea culpa to the House after he was barely re-elected as Speaker? "To the degree I was too brash, too self-confident or too pushy," he announced, "I apologize. To whatever degree, in any way, I brought controversy or inappropriate attention to the House, I apologize." To what degree was that, exactly? He never says. Cute.

Is there anyone here who really believes a word of it when Newt appears before the Republican National Committee mouthing pieties about "moral purpose" on the very day the special counsel is laying out Newt's ethical misdeeds chapter and verse? "I don't worry too much about each day's headlines," Newt assured the crowd. So why did he help orchestrate the Republican response to his committee plea bargain to make sure his own spin on the violations was out there in the very next news cycle?

Is there anyone here who really believes that it's OK to push the ethical envelope year after year as long as you do nice things for the Atlanta zoo? (Newt's lawyers again.)

Is there anyone here who really believes that Newt would be Speaker today if the committee's report had been available to all the members before they voted?

Is there anyone here who really believes that "intentional or reckless" are the kinds of words the Republicans want hanging around their necks for the next two years? Watch that space.

1/21/97

©1997 Rick Horowitz. All rights reserved.