-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
That’s why, according to former U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, Newt Gingrich was forced to step aside as Speaker. While there are parts of the story he leaves out, especially regarding all the events of 1998, Souder provides a fair and balanced assessment that is probably more kind to Gingrich than not. It’s well worth a read. Fair is fair. I remembered the Gingrich ethics charges to be somewhere between the high level of infraction charged by critics and the almost non-existent infraction described by Souder, and I have hit Gingrich for it. I still think others would dispute Souder’s virtual exoneration of Gingrich. Nonetheless, based on Souder’s account, if I overstated Gingrich’s culpability in a post somewhere several months ago, as I think I may have (I can’t find the post now, but I’ll keep trying), then I withdraw that particular criticism to whatever extent it was overstated.
Either way, the Souder account is a good read. On matters aside from the formal ethics charges, plenty of others have described at great length all the horrors of Gingrichian leadership to which Souder only briefly, but memorably, alludes.
Anyway, getting the record right is important. Please do read Souder’s piece to get a thoughtful account thereof.
View all comments (39) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/03/not-disgrace-but-incompetence
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Drek| 2.3.12 @ 1:33PM
Hillyer,
You've gone well and truly off the deep end.
Gingrich isn't conservative enough for you, so instead of him, let's saddle the party and the all the rest of us with the least conservative, the most lefty of any Republican contender since Ford.
That's just a great idea.
You are helping NOBODY but Romney, and the Romney apparat.
Quin| 2.3.12 @ 2:02PM
Huh? I just posted a link to a column that is mostly nice to Gingrich, and admitted possible error on my own part in overstating the ethics case against Gingrich, even though I can't right now find the post where I (think I) did so. How is that helping Romney?
Reg| 2.3.12 @ 2:30PM
The fact so many republicans smeared Newt over this without doing any homework is discgraceful. Anybody who listened to Rush in the 90s knew the ethics claims were all BS.
The fact Romney isn't being hammered for repeating 15-year-old David Bonior talking points is revealing.
Dai Alanye | 2.4.12 @ 11:15AM
Newt has no one to blame but himself for the bad press he's now getting. If he hadn't acted like a narcissistic fool when he briefly held the lead in the Iowa polls none of these charges, slanderous or accurate, would stick. Romney's negative ads worked because they reinforced the stereotype of out-of-control Newt, a stereotype Newt's own behavior had brought into being in the first place.
If Gingrich had a modicum of self-control none of his past errors would count for much, under the principle of what's past is past. But then, if Gingrich had any self-control he wouldn't be the Newton Leroy Gingrich we all know and cherish.
jane| 2.3.12 @ 1:35PM
All l can say is bless your heart.
kf451| 2.3.12 @ 1:45PM
You've obviously been too harsh on Gingrich.
Lindsay Graham on Greta re Newt:
"Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren that Congress was perhaps a bit too hard on Newt Gingrich when it ousted him from his position in the House of Representatives back in the 1990s. While he did admit that when Gingrich is “not on, he’s a danger to himself and others at times,” Graham insisted that he doesn’t “mind one bit” if Gingrich carries on with his campaign. “Looking back, I appreciate how hard his job was better than I did in 1997. And I’m here to say, as the guy who was in the coup, that looking back we were too hard on him, and if he got to be the nominee, I think he could win.” Graham represents South Carolina, the state that chose Gingrich in its primary election. "
He also says that when Newt is on, no one can articulate conservatism better than Gingrich:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/.....t_id=86925
Mike W| 2.3.12 @ 1:56PM
Do y0u really think the endorsement of this little squirrel from South Carolina is a good thing? Lindsey Grahamnesty vouches for Gingrich - that is all I need to know.
kf451| 2.3.12 @ 2:45PM
Given that he was there, and was part of the original coup, I think his appraisal on the subject is powerful. The Republican establishment went way overboard on their attempted destruction of Newt, and it's good that some of them are feeling uncomfortable with it.
kf451| 2.3.12 @ 1:47PM
^^^The above link just goes to Greta's site. Look for "No Love for Newt" interview with Graham to see the correct video.
Windy City Commentary| 2.3.12 @ 1:48PM
He was so incompetent that he balanced the budget and passed welfare reform. If Newt's speakership was one of incompetence, how could John Boehner's be described?
Quin| 2.3.12 @ 2:10PM
No HE didn't balance the budget and pass welfare reform. The GOP Congress did. Santorum did more to pass welfare reform than Gingrich did. The too-little-appreciated Clay Shaw did even more, and Bill Archer and John Kasich were stars of that effort as well. Kasich and Bob Livingston went beyond Gingrich's fondest dreams in balancing the budget; Bob Dole, though he gets no credit, really helped on the budget-balancing in the Senate. Gingrich, on the other hand, personally made the decision to grossly BUST the budget limits starting in the fall of 1998. It was a major betrayal of fiscal conservatives.
Gingrich provided some great leadership in 1994 and most of 1995. After that, I think he did more harm, on balance, than good, and so do lots of other conservatives who were there. That's opinion, not fact. What is fact is that a lot of good things happened for conservatives and then things fell apart. What is a reasonably supposition is that Gingrich deserves neither all the credit nor all the blame for either. But it makes me sick to see sole credit being assigned to a Speaker who was driving his erstwhile conservative allies batty while they held things together. Armey did some good work. Archer. Hyde. Livingston. Kasich. Boehner. Shaw. Gerald Solomon. Tom Bliley. Chris Cox. Even Jim Leach, who really held Clinton's feet to the fire on ethics. In the end, though, they all pushed Gingrich aside, for solid reasons.
Reg| 2.3.12 @ 2:35PM
Wow, Santorum did more to pass the nineties budgets than Newt? That's the dumbest thing I've read on the internet in a long time.
Nobody is giving Newt "sole credit," Kasich particularly deserves a lot. But Newt was the frontman for the whole thing, he was the guy talking to the press and taking most of the heat. It's not like after Newt left, anything got better. The budgets got far worse.
Reg| 2.3.12 @ 2:41PM
I missed the switch to welfare reform. I don't think it changes my point.
Jeff Perren| 2.3.12 @ 3:43PM
Instead of indulging in pointless insult why don't you offer some facts in rebuttal? That would be educational and, perhaps, persuasive. Or do you believe that "talking to the press" is strong evidence?
Now-standard disclaimer, regrettably necessary this primary season: I am NOT a Romney supporter; quite the contrary. I view him as contemptible as a candidate and a man.
Reg| 2.3.12 @ 4:21PM
I don't have access to the databases to do real research. It would be interesting to check whose name is more associated with Welfare Reform in the papers and talk radio, Newt or Santorum. I'd bet money it's not Santorum.
Dai Alanye | 2.4.12 @ 11:19AM
And we all know that the papers and talk radio are absolutely trustworthy sources. ;~}
Drek| 2.3.12 @ 2:40PM
And what has any "GOP Congress" managed to balance without him?
The best endorsement for Gingrich has been the mismanagement, the ideological incoherence, the spending spree that ensued once he was gone.
NONE of that could have occurred with him in the Speaker's chair, for it would have blown a hole in what he was trying to accomplish by insisting on a balanced budget during the Clinton tenure.
Everybody here and elsewhere who says that it was a conservative revolt against Gingrich's Speakership, should be required to explain in detail what aspect of the overall conservative agenda was advanced once Gingrich was removed.
Gingrich wasn't removed for lack of pushing a conservative agenda, he was forced out PRECISELY BECAUSE he sought to advance the conservative agenda, ------------------ and the sequel to his removal proves that point to a finality.
SpiralArchitect| 2.3.12 @ 4:34PM
Quinnn, Shift + Enter will allow for spaces for things like paragraphs.
Paragraphs are used not only for clarity of the content but for the increased ease of the reader.
Vern Crisler| 2.3.12 @ 1:49PM
So, Quin, are you now admitting that Mitt Romney is a lying snake?
kf451| 2.3.12 @ 2:49PM
I used to think he was just a liberal republican pretending to be conservative, but basically a nice, competent guy, although a poor choice for President. I now see him as a lying snake that will say anything to get elected.
Dai Alanye | 2.4.12 @ 11:24AM
Romney has been willing to lie and backstab right along. And Newt has always exaggerated and fantasized. All the more reason why I prefer Santorum, who generally is able to keep his political ego within reasonable bounds.
WL| 2.3.12 @ 1:56PM
Get a grip man...
I know you don't like Newt, and you have em all wadded up because we don't buy your narrative about the reasons for trashing him as if you were the leader of a psycho liberal mob...
But does every SINGLE article have to be your one man effort to destroy Newt?
This is kinda ridiculous.
Mike W| 2.3.12 @ 1:58PM
Reminds me of Jeff Lords and his one man campaign of Newt Love.
Quin| 2.3.12 @ 2:13PM
Huh? This Souder piece is more pro Newt than not. And I apologized for perhaps overstating the ethics findings against Gingrich. How is this post an effort to DESTROY Gingrich?
Drek| 2.3.12 @ 2:47PM
"[F]or perhaps overstating the ethics findings against Gingrich?"
Was that what that was? An "overstatement," and maybe even not an "overstatement" for otherwise why would the term "perhaps" be thrown in as a qualifier?
You haven't come clean about your version of why Gingrich left the Speakership.
Moreover, you've not admitted that your efforts against Gingrich has left the party increasingly vulnerable to the predations of a Romney, so vulnerable that Romney clearly has now an inside straight for the nomination.
This is no joke.
This is no piece of political theater without real world consequences.
In the wake of a Romney nomination exists the widespread and public repudiation of a sizable percentage of the Reagan revolution, AND that by the party of Lincoln and of Reagan.
This is a disaster, and instead of turning your fire against your peers at NR who went beyond the bend before you did, ---------------- you saddled up to ride with them.
Just unbelievable..............
kf451| 2.3.12 @ 2:52PM
Even now you can only say "perhaps" you overstated the ethics findings! Anyone who found fault with Gingrich over this issue has always been drinking the liberal koolaid. He has some warts, but these ethics charge has never been a legitimate target.
Simon Templar| 2.3.12 @ 2:08PM
I say you are a digrace and an incompetent.
SpiralArchitect| 2.3.12 @ 4:36PM
Ah, something I can agree with.
When I saw the title my initial reaction was what provoked Quinnn to write an appology.
TB| 2.3.12 @ 3:05PM
Well, I guess it doesn't matter now, huh? Time to recoup a little dignity from your gratuitous slur, now that Florida is in the bag.
And you accuse other people of intellectual dishonesty.
Dr. Tesla| 2.3.12 @ 3:31PM
It seems like a lot of the criticism of Newt from politicians who worked with comes from people like Joe Scarborough, Lindsey Graham, and Tom Coburn (who supports raising taxes to balance the budget). I don't know many conservatives who worship care what these kind of people think.
Windy City Commentary| 2.3.12 @ 3:36PM
Coburn was part of the gang of 6 in 2011, who wanted to get rid of the mortgage deduction. Forget Coburn; he's an overrated conservative.
WL| 2.3.12 @ 5:54PM
yep, he's definitely overrated...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it.
Oldefarte| 2.3.12 @ 4:56PM
I just read something that highly disturbs me, and I hope and pray that I'm completely wrong in my conclusion. Santorum is speaking out against the administration's recent actions involving religion, specifically in application to Catholics and Jews. Also it appears that there is a subverted and half-way attempt to drag his seriously ill daughter into this situation, all for political purposes. If my suspicions are close to truth, I can't tell you what I think about that. To possibly inject one's religion and a child's illness into a political situation for poll increasing purposes is deplorable and damnable IMHO. All of this talk recently about religion bordering on the Catholic religion is going down a road that should not be traveled. JFK's candidacy walked on eggshells to avoid such and I think rightly so. There is no need/necessity to infer religion into a presidential race, when there are much larger more important fish to fry. We are on the brink of financial disaster within this country from the fiscal mismanagement of the present administrators, and to attempt to sidetrack that concern onto a religion sideroad is asininely stupid andwill result in a complete defeat for the Republican Party if not diluted and closeted immediately. Additionally to possibly use one's sick child as a political weapon for success is beyond the definition of being a basta*d IMHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interested conservative| 2.3.12 @ 5:53PM
Quin, this may be late to the game, or no longer relevant, but I wonder about so much fear behind the criticism of the speaker. For all the good and ill will, there seems to be an agreed upon set of accomplishments and failures in his background.
I don't see much at all in Gov. Romney's background, aside from a supreme and single minded business acumen. Don't misunderstand that as criticism. It's admirable, but what basis does it provide for projecting future political accomplishment? Not much. Again, that may be neither good nor bad, but there's just not much to go on.
My fear is that once the "electability" issue disappears, what does Mitt offer? I don't see the POTUS group having any difficulty demolishing that argument within a week of the convention, if not sooner.
I guess the irony is that he'll be relying on the "not-Obama" choice far more than Newt or Rick are relying on the "not-Mitt" choice.
martin j smith| 2.4.12 @ 7:48AM
And Romney has shown competence ? I do not think so. Some of his recent gaffs have shown he is an incompetentent boob, Sorry Hilliar I do not believe there is much difference in the basic humanity and imperfections in the material of Romney and Gingrich. But perhaps in one area. Gingrich might actually want to defeat Obama. Romney--I do not think so. That Hillyer is a very important factor here
Bob K.| 2.4.12 @ 9:22AM
What a pain in the ass it is getting to be to get on the AmSpec Online Blog every day and constantly read this backbiting Crap which is largely encouraged and engineered by the writers of these blogs.
If I hang around here till after election day and Obama wins I will stick around for a few months more to remind you, daily, of what really dumb asses you were during these days!
ejp| 2.4.12 @ 11:44AM
Souder's version squares exactly with my recollection of those days following the Gingrich story and more than ever it makes me feel sick to my stomach that in order to see Obama defeated this year, my only choice is another awful candidate in the Dole-McCain mold like Romney who is more than willing to embrace liberal talking point narratives to serve his purpose. Romney's embrace of the narratives of Democrats who never forgave Newt for forcing out Danny Ortega's lapdog, Jim Wright is the most disgraceful thing I've seen and proves that as far as his "conservative" credentials go, he is a phony of the first order.
Nick| 2.4.12 @ 4:00PM
ejp,
This is because too many people go to D.C. and get corrupted by the Enemy.
Leah| 2.6.12 @ 1:09AM
I suppose it's gratifying to see that many others, as I do, realize how abominable Mr. Hillyer's attack on Newt was. (I lost all respect for Mr. Hillyer as a result of that recent nasty column ((and he doesn't remember when it was??))
And so he, along with that magnificent Republican establishment, including the so-called conservative commentators on t.v., the WSJ, etc. and at Amspec, have probably given us the next wimp loser nominee who will give us just what Geoffrey Norman describes in a nearby column. May the Almighty have mercy on us. And to think what might have been - after all, Michele Bachman was in the running.