Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Remembrances of Things Past

As time passes, it's easy to forget things that have happened. Memories blur and things that aren't necessarily true can ossify into conventional wisdom. Now that our man Newt is back on the scene, part of the conventional wisdom is that he was ethically challenged and was forced to resign "in disgrace" because of the evil deeds he did. I've heard these things in recent days, but a lot of it didn't jibe with my own recollection of events, although I didn't quite remember why. Writing for the Washington Examiner, Byron York gives us a trip down memory lane:
Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it's worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich's former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich's ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.
York's piece should be read in full, but a few things are worth calling out. First, the role of Gingrich's chief accuser, Ben "Cooter" Jones, the onetime "Dukes of Hazzard" actor who found his way to Congress but lost his seat due to redistricting. Jones had an axe to grind and he wasn't particularly subtle about it, as York reminds us:
There's no doubt the complaint was rooted in the intense personal animus Jones felt toward Gingrich. In 1995, I sat down with Jones for a talk about Gingrich, and without provocation, Jones simply went off on the Speaker. "He's just full of s--t," Jones told me. "He is. I mean, the guy's never done a damn thing, he's never worked a day in his life, he's never hit a lick at a snake. He's just a bulls--t artist. I mean, think about it. What has this guy ever done in his life?…Gingrich has never worked. He's never had any life experience. He's very gifted in his way at a sort of rhetorical terrorism, and he's gifted in his way at being a career politician, someone who understands how that system works and how to get ahead in it, which is everything that he has derided for all these years. So I think he's a hypocrite, and I think he's a wuss, and I don't mind saying that to him or whoever. To his mother -- I don't care."

At that point, Jones leaned over to speak directly into my recorder. Raising his voice, he declared: "HE'S THE BIGGEST A--HOLE IN AMERICA!"
And if what York asserts is true, why then has the impression of Gingrich being a world-class scoundrel hardened, at least on this issue? Let him explain how the game works:
Back in January 1997, the day after Cole presented his damning report to the Ethics Committee, the Washington Post's front-page banner headline was "Gingrich Actions 'Intentional' or 'Reckless'; Counsel Concludes That Speaker's Course Funding Was 'Clear Violation' of Tax Laws." That same day, the New York Times ran eleven stories on the Gingrich matter, four of them on the front page (one inside story was headlined, "Report Describes How Gingrich Used Taxpayers' Money for Partisan Politics"). On television, Dan Rather began the CBS Evening News by telling viewers that "only now is the evidence of Newt Gingrich's ethics violations and tax problems being disclosed in detail."

The story was much different when Gingrich was exonerated. The Washington Post ran a brief story on page five. The Times ran an equally brief story on page 23. And the evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC -- which together had devoted hours of coverage to the question of Gingrich's ethics -- did not report the story at all. Not a word.
All the news that's fit to print, of course.

There are plenty of things to dislike about Newt Gingrich, including his philandering, his egomania and his tendency to misunderstand that bloviation isn't an adequate substitute for principle. At this point he'd not be my choice to lead this nation. Still, in a time when dishonesty is firmly in the saddle, York's article is a useful reminder of why dishonesty works so well. I'll say it again -- no matter what you think of Gingrich otherwise, you really need to read the whole thing.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"And if what York asserts is true, why then has the impression of Gingrich being a world-class scoundrel hardened, at least on this issue?"

Mark, you know the answer: Gingrich gives the impression of being a world-class scoundrel because he is one. He has lived and breathed the politics of personal destruction his entire adult life. And done so with a staggering amount of hypocrisy. So a lot of stuff tends to stick, even when it might not be completely true. And don't kid yourself...he was leally exonnerated after lawyering up. Do you think Bill Clinton didn't perjure himself because he wasn't convicted by the Senate?

Regards,
Rich

Anonymous said...

Mark,
I await your next blog on how Gingrich really was a historian for Freddie and Fanny;)

Rich

Mr. D said...

And don't kid yourself...he was leally exonnerated after lawyering up.

So is "lawyering up" a prima facie admission of guilt? That's a kinda a Red Queen way of looking at things, doncha think? Or do scoundrels lose the right to legal counsel and simply must accept whatever charges are leveled against them?

At least for now in America, you are allowed to "lawyer up."

As for the rest -- I'm not saying he's not a scoundrel; you read this blog so you know I'm not a supporter of Gingrich. Still, he's entitled to the same rights as anyone else, no matter how distasteful an individual he is.

So a lot of stuff tends to stick, even when it might not be completely true.

In other words, don't bogart my narrative, dude.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Rich,

You are sounding a bit brittle and higher pitched these days, as if you can't stand that Gingrich or Romney might get a fair examination from a reasonable man. What's with that? It sounds like you're trying to bully Mark into being unthinkingly negative. Do what you want, of course, but it comes off as a touch hysterical.

We're all going to hear plenty of negative things about the GOP candidates and I'd be willing to bet that we'll believe plenty of them too, especially if they are true. But even if you don't agree with us that the MSM distorts the truth, you should at least recognize that many of us DO believe it and need to arrive at conclusions by relying on something more substantive than their breathless reports of conservative skullduggery and general ickiness.

Gino said...

He has lived and breathed the politics of personal destruction his entire adult life.

glad to see Rich is onboard with being against the politics of personal destruction.

we'll see if this principle holds up through november.

Mr. D said...

glad to see Rich is onboard with being against the politics of personal destruction.

we'll see if this principle holds up through november.


Heck Gino, Rich couldn't even make it through his comment. ;)

Gino said...

and Rich: Clinton was convicted of perjury and had to surrender his law license.

the senate doesn't convict crminally. its not in their power.

Anonymous said...

Heck Gino, Rich couldn't even make it through his comment. ;)

Mark, can you explain how I practiced the politics of personal destruction? I am a little lost here (I frequently am, so nothing new there.) As far as I can tell, you have been more strident in your comments against Gingrich than I have ever been. Hell, I am rooting for the guy to win the primaries.

What, in this comment, isn't general knowledge about him?

"Gingrich gives the impression of being a world-class scoundrel because he is one. He has lived and breathed the politics of personal destruction his entire adult life. And done so with a staggering amount of hypocrisy."

You guys are getting your panties in a bunch over nothing. You don't see me getting all pissy when one of you describes Bill Clinton as a lecherous douche bag. Wanna know why? Because it's common knowledge that he is one. That isn't the fault of the press, Fox News, Eric Erickson, Matt Drudge or any vast right-wing conspiracy. It's the fault of Bill Clinton for running around acting like Caligula on Cialis. Pretending otherwise would be laughable. Just as pretending that the general impression of Gingrich as a scumbag and hypocrite isn't true. Are things said about Clinton's lechery that may or may not be true? Absolutely. But you aren't going to see me whining about it.

Why you would want to rehab Gingrich is beyond me. The GOP Media machine has been doing this for 15 years, and it is biting them in the ass right now. Based on Gingrich's performance last night, the biting may stop next week. Romney did a great job of silencing the school yard bully. But that's not going to change the simple fact that Gingrich is a self-serving, ego-maniacal jackass.

Finally, I want to go on record here as being against the politics of personal destruction in the same ay that Gingrich is.

Regards,
Rich

Mr. D said...

Rich,

I guess if anything set me off on your initial comment, it was the business about "lawyering up." You've used that before and it's no good. He had an absolute right to defend himself against what were baseless charges.

And the business about things sticking "even when they might not be completely true" is troublesome, too. The truth matters.

I have no interest in propping up Gingrich, either, but it's no credit to his opponents if they use charges that are not true. And in the case of asserting that he "resigned in disgrace" because of the ethics report, that's not true. And Romney should know that. Romney can (and will) beat Gingrich on any number of other fronts, so this line of attack was, well, out of line.