-
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
In an otherwise good bit of reporting about Newt Gingrich’s “deep ties” to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the NYT couldn’t leave well enough alone. Here’s the totally false sentence in the otherwise solid story, with my empahsis in italics:
House rules appear to require him to have filed a report within 30 days after he left Congress under an ethics cloud in January 1999.
Well, no he didn’t leave it under and ethics cloud. There were no pending ethics charges at the time, nor even any known, pending, unofficial allegations of wrongdoing. He left Congress because he screwed up the management of Congress and of the 1998 campaigns. As a result, as has been reported and confirmed so many other places by now that it’s not worth linking to them all, he just flat-out didn’t have the votes for re-election as speaker. But ethics were not a component of his leaving, at least not in any immediate sense, although there may well have been sort of a hangover from his one ethics violation that was disposed of more than a year earlier — but that hangover, if a part of it, was just part and parcel of the whole overall record as speaker; it did not cause a “cloud” hanging over him by the end of 1998 and early 1999 that directly caused his ouster.
This is just a sheer matter of fact. To repeat, not a single ethics charge was outstanding against Gingrich when he left Congress. The New York Times knows this. The New York Times doesn’t care. Not content with publishing facts that tend to discredit the former speaker, it adds an old fiction with which to smear him — thus discrediting the rest of its otherwise decent work on this story in the process.
As with the racism charge leveled against Gingrich that I dealt with here, this is a load of crud that should not be allowed to stand.
Lord knows I’m no Gingrich fan, but fair is fair. The story on Fannie and Freddie should stand on its own, without a smear being added to it.
View all comments (46) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/04/nyt-smears-gingrich
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
Oldefarte| 2.4.12 @ 2:21PM
Very fair [understanding your possible preference for others]. His dedication/inclusion in Reagan's conservative movement cannot/should not be honestly denied. The NYT is what it sadly is, so it should be discounted as partisaned political propaganda for the Democrats [and against Republicans]. I'd just like to propose a WHAT IF if I may? What if [or should] Nancy Pilosi's reign as Speaker of the House was subjected to various violations perhaps? Oh no they wouldn't do that since SHE WAS THE FIRST FEMALE SPEAKER [just as such someone we all know/love is THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT]. Are there ethics violations that COULD BE brought against Madam Speaker over say the Democrats' healthcare legislation? What about the failure to bring legislative inquiries by same over Justice's possibly illegal activities or other federal departments that partisanly and illegally prevented oil drilling in our oceans or that failed to carry out their fiduciary duties involving immigration? Is possibly Dame Nancy as guilty [or more so] than Newt was? WHAT IF???????????????????????????
Vern Crisler | 2.5.12 @ 3:11PM
It's about time AmSpec writers started attacking the lies against Newt. It would have been nice if they had started earlier, seeing as their newfound attention to accuracy is too late to make a difference.
beebop2| 2.5.12 @ 3:54PM
In the meantime Newt self immolates at a press conference he called. Whose fault will that be?
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 2:25PM
Actually the Freddie, Fannae garbage is also bogus.
Unless you are suggesting that Newt Gingrich has grounds to sue Freddie Mac for forcing him into a breach of contract, you cannot with a straight face say that he was a lobbyist.
To put things in perspective here, while the money total that his company made was 1.6 million, you need to divide that by 8. Which means 200k a year went to Gingrich's company (not to Gingrich).
Furthermore, you need to also look at the fact that Gingrich makes a lot more money giving speeches, from his books (and he has a few best sellers under his belt), etc.
In order for Romney's conflict of interest argument to be valid, the money being shilled out would have to be enough that it would have actually meant something to Gingrich. In all honesty, considering Gingrich testified that Freddie and Fannae should be broken up, I highly doubt he was lobbying for them.
If Mitt Romney can't tell the difference between a lobbyist and a consultant, then one wonders how much time did he really spend in the private sector, and how much of that time was spent planning his launch into politics and his push to be President.
TomH| 2.4.12 @ 5:49PM
Newt stinks period. He speaks up for the rule of law and the Constitution and extolling ballot and delegate rules one minute and the next he's trying to change the law or get a pass.
Someone once said that all adulterers are liars. I suppose Newt meets that description one-hundred times over.
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 10:16PM
He's pointing out that the Florida GOP is violating the primary rules which they are. Something he couldn't say until after they violated the rules.
He couldn't sue over the Virginia GOP rigging things for Romney until after he could prove he was negatively affected.
Yeah, you heard me I'm out and out accusing you man Mittens and the GOP establishment of engaging in Obama style rigging of elections.
Oldefarte| 2.5.12 @ 11:07AM
If all adulterers and/or liars were eliminated from public political service, our government would be on auto-pilot!!!!!!!
Drek| 2.5.12 @ 11:27AM
I wouldn't give a damn if he chased skirts all day long, -------------- just so long as he overhauls Washington!
I don't need some guy who aspires to give endless sermons on the family, who deludes himself that by campaigning for the White House he's doing the Lord's work.
In short, Santorum's act has already gotten quite tiresome!
RJ| 2.4.12 @ 2:50PM
The NYT's article is another example of why society can't trust much of today's media. It isn't about reporting the news but promoting an agenda through propaganda. Its hard to find the truth these days; so much of what the media "reports" just isn't so.
Pete| 2.4.12 @ 3:00PM
Well the GOP establishment, the NYT, Nancy Pelosi are on the same side of the fence about Newt. Then we have Soros telling us Romney is the same as Obama. We know RomneyCare = ObamaCare.
Makes one wonder.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.4.12 @ 3:14PM
Newt Gingrich consulted for a firm he knew was corrupt and for 8 years only clearing out right before the bitter end.
The OFHEO had reported to Congress as early as 1998 that Fannie/Freddie should be stopped.
Ironically, they were one of the few federal agencies doing their job and doing it well. Their reward? Gone.
Newt played with fire at Fannie/Freddie and now somehow he never knew anything, it was all innocent. Sheeesh!
Oldefarte| 2.5.12 @ 11:12AM
Sadly, all members of congress are involved in selfish ways to enhance their pocketbooks, hence the legislative attempts currently to ban insider-trading of stocks etc by such. As to former members being guilty of this, shazam the population of the states surrounding DC would become ghost towns. The Catholic Church can't even depend upon their clergy to two the line morally speaking, so politicians in congress are a lost cause regretfully!!!!!!!!!
Interested Conservative| 2.4.12 @ 3:22PM
That's a headline useful in four decades.
sickoftalking| 2.4.12 @ 3:29PM
None of the NYT story was really news.
Gingrich has always supported the existence of government-sponsored enterprises, he was of the school of thinking they're a good model for government agencies which are currently completely public. He's argued for transitioning NASA and the Post Office as GSEs. Presumably, all privatization efforts would really just be semi-privatization; joint government-business operations.
In fact, as people should know by now, his consulting work at Fannie and Freddie was basically limited to him framing an argument for the GSE model. But he always also acknowledged that GSEs need regulations, and came out in support of more regulations for Fannie and Freddie.
Now, some conservatives might disagree with him on this. But that isn't the debate the Republicans are really having. They're obsessing about the semantics of "lobbying" and implying that he approved everything that Fannie and Freddie did.
C Bowen | 2.4.12 @ 4:10PM
The New York Times? Was that the publication that use to publish on the front-page the ridiculous Judith Miller stories that Iraq was a threat? I know, LOL
Why wasn't it shut down for printing such lies?
Oh, wait.
TomH| 2.4.12 @ 5:47PM
It's time to cue the Gingrich defenders in denial. when are you going to wake up people? Newt is a pious phony ethics violator adulterer who cheated on two wives 1000s of times over years!! Years!
Newt is rotten to the CORE, notwithstanding his "confessions" otherwise.
When Callista gets fat, ugly, old, or sick or all four, Newt will abandon her too.
I cannot understand why any good Christian thinking person would choose Newt over Santorum.
Corrupt. Truly Corrupt.
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 10:19PM
Here is a response, there is a very good chance I will vote third party if your man Mitt is on the ballot. I absolutely, will not support a liberal hack, posing as a conservative.
I would say Romney would be even more damaging to this country than Obama, because at least the Conservative movement in this country would maintain credibility if Romney loses. If Romney wins, he will simply spit in our faces and continue the Obama policies of destroying this country.
Anthony M| 2.5.12 @ 10:45AM
If you fall into that trap, enjoy four more years of Obamanation. I suppose that living in the Socialist States of America won't be so bad, but you can be pretty sure that if Obama gets re-elected, this country will never be the same.
Drek| 2.5.12 @ 11:21AM
If it is as serious as you say, ---------- then why hasn't the Northeastern wing of the party reconciled itself to a candidate that unites the party, instead of them forcing upon us a candidate that shatters that same party.
Look, the party could have gone with a candidate that brings in those areas of the country we need Electoral College votes from, or the party could have gone with a guy that represents the views of those states that we're NEVER going to get Electoral College votes from, that would be the Northeast.
The establishment chose for us the guy that they think can make nice with the Northeast!
We haven't gotten any Electoral College votes worth the while from that region for decades!
No GOP candidate is going to win by signing on to the pathological social views of the DC-Philly-NYC-Boston axis. Urban pathology isn't a winner for the GOP!
Oldefarte| 2.5.12 @ 11:14AM
He's not running for POPE, and if he were to, would no doubt instantly qualify for compared to some of their actual and philosophical indiscretions historically!!!!!
Drek| 2.5.12 @ 11:23AM
Because we're not looking for some tiresome jerk who just wants to give endless sermons all the long day about the family!
We're not electing some smug, moralizing jerk!
We're trying to elect a guy a guy who KNOWS how to change Washington, and who KNOWS how to hurt Democrats.
And that's not the would be priest-in-chief, Santoru.
If he wants to go on and on about the family ------------ let him become a Deacon in the RC church and prepare sermons all week long!
Vern Crisler | 2.5.12 @ 3:08PM
Casting stones I see....Er, how many times did Jesus say were were supposed to forgive someone who repented?
bluecollarbytes| 2.4.12 @ 8:12PM
In this case, NYT is only following the lead of Romney-boosters.
Drek| 2.5.12 @ 11:17AM
Exactly!
The WHOLE campaign strategy for the Summer depends upon Romney; the last thing the NYT wants is a pissed off base that thwarts Romney from getting the nomination.
For Obama to prevail, Romney HAS to get the nomination. Everything for them depends upon Romney, because he's a stiff, a rich, out-of-touch stiff, with a thing for the passive-aggressive.
Bill| 2.4.12 @ 8:53PM
NYT LIES!
Dixie Pixie| 2.5.12 @ 12:38AM
Simple and to the point.
Bravo Bill.
Oldefarte| 2.5.12 @ 11:15AM
Yep, and their name should be NY-LIES instead of the NYT!!!!!!!!!!!
cb| 2.4.12 @ 10:36PM
Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. However we say it, Mr. Gingrich is all about the money (ask wife number three). In a recent story, “Gingrich was ask to return the estimated $1.6 million he received for providing strategic advice to Freddie Mac, the quasi-government agency (an agency that has lost millions) that guarantees home mortgages. Gingrich has said he acted as a historian, not a lobbyist”. A “historian”, is that the history of greed? He may just sell you a book on it!
Occam's Tool| 2.5.12 @ 5:38AM
The only time my bird ever squawked at me was when I tried to use the NYT to line his birdcage. Even animals have standards, you know.
Oldefarte| 2.5.12 @ 11:18AM
No doubt your bird possibly read some of the BS on the paper's pages, and [since animals are smarter than some humans] squawked in protest!!!!
Kitty | 2.5.12 @ 8:05AM
Mark Souder, former U.S. Congressman (R-IN):
“I say this as both an ally and a tormentor of Speaker Gingrich, he did not resign in disgrace.”
Oldefarte| 2.5.12 @ 11:19AM
Hopefully that was not akin to Clinton's I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN......!!!!!
javau| 2.5.12 @ 8:59AM
Wow Quin, you totally defended Newt even though you totally hate him. So the next time you write an anti-Newt article it's totally believable since you are totally objective.
Drek| 2.5.12 @ 11:15AM
This is Quin trying to reconcile the party.
Just like Senator Lindsay Graham the other day remarking that they had been "too rough on Gingrich."
It's not going to fly.
Romney wanted the nomination? Yup! He didn't give a damn whether his views squared with 75% of the rank and file, he told himself that those yokels could go fuck themselves.
We got it, we understand that punk Romney.
So let those that championed him, that objectively supported him, let them go elect him!
Drek| 2.5.12 @ 11:12AM
If you think that by this post and others that you're doing your bit to reconcile the party, and to reconcile Tea Party types to the Romney nomination, ---------------------- think again.
Get this:
We're NOT voting for Romney;
We're NOT supporting the Northeastern wing of the party; and
We're NOT going to settle for a nominee who is to obamacare what Bob Dole was to the welfare state!
You wanted Romney? You elect him.
Post Script: Don't bother with the nonsense that you were really for Santorum. Your CONCRETE support, your REAL support, the candidate that you in reality, OBJECTIVELY supported has always been Romney. As for the words that you threw forward in favour of Santorum, -------- they were nothing but an abstraction, or rather, a distraction.
As Orwell remarked upon those that were pacifists, that they were objectively pro-fascist, so too your "pro-Santorum" line has always been OBJECTIVELY pro-Romney.
You did as much for Romney as any poorly-read BYU student who has been tramping around following his campaign, wearing his buttons, carrying his signs, making his phone calls and phoning in to radio hosts asking, in some airhead fashion: "why won't the base support Romney?"
ljm| 2.5.12 @ 11:38AM
Please help me understand how being charged with, pleading guilty to and fined for ethics violations does not put you under a cloud when your duty is to uphold the public trust?
Drek| 2.5.12 @ 2:38PM
What part of the word "exonerated" still escapes you?
Not a single ethics accusation, that was born in bad faith, that was born from the bitterness and the bile of Democrats relegated to minority status, not a single one of those accusations was legitimate. Not one.
As for the fine, Gingrich admitted to something without historical precedent, BECAUSE he was under pressure from the very same wing of the party pushing Romney to get it, as it was termed then, "behind us." He admitted nothing other than some utterly bogus allegation, which the IRS later completely cleared him of.
The cloud was a byproduct of a Democrat smear against the guy who just relegated them to minority status!
Even taking these smears into present calculation only rewards dirtball Democrats for making them in the first place!
PCP Smoker| 2.5.12 @ 6:00PM
Are you stupid enough NOT to understand this was a political move by the Democrats? Tom Delay was indicted by a district attorney in Dallas for the same reason. I understand you like Romney, but are you really that much of an idiot? Understand the opposition, then you'll figure out how to defeat them.
ljm| 2.5.12 @ 4:17PM
Apparently the reality of the violation has escaped you.
Gingrich has never been exonerated of all 3 charges of the violation. Two of the three charges still stand today including what many think is the most serious of the 3. That being the charge of reckless or intentional misleading of the committee. The committee determined that Newt mislead them on two occasions in an effort to get the charges dismissed.
The IRS exonerated Newt of the tax evasion charge in 1999 after he resigned in 1998.
Drek| 2.5.12 @ 5:45PM
And apparently you're comfortable repeating Democrat smears against the one guy that overturned their 40 year control of the House.
That committee you mentioned by the by was stacked with leftys, and the Republicans there hadn't any gumption to defend Newt.
It was a typical Republican cooperation in a non-existent scandal.
Newt didn't violate any IRS rulings, nor House rules. But as you referred to earlier, "the cloud" alone, without any substance behind the allegations against him, dictated to the Republicans, {under enormous pressure by Senate Republicans by the way} that the best way to move on and "put it behind them" was for Newt to cop to some idiotic, without any precedent "charge," which he did, and he did it all for the purposes of party politics, not because there was anything to it.
But hey, ---------- if you want to help Romney by repeating Democrat smears, ---------- feel free, knock yourself out. You're not the only one out there doing this.
ljm| 2.5.12 @ 7:09PM
Stacked with lefties. That is your defense for Gingrich purposely giving information to the committee that he knew was false? Twice.
Even if you allow that the 4 dems on the committee were partisan which of the 4 republicans on the committee do you surmise were in on the smear?
PCP Smoker| 2.5.12 @ 5:58PM
Like you give a shit. You and that whore at the WaPo have been smearing Grinch since the start. Don't try to play nice to us now, we ARE NOT voting for Romney. Not now, not in November. Asshole.
TomH| 2.6.12 @ 3:06AM
It doesn't matter if you vote for Romney. Newt is still a pious phony ethics violator, lobbyist, two -time cheater.
What does it say about you when you knowingly support such a candidate.
You like Gingrich, have lost your grip.
PCP Smoker| 2.5.12 @ 6:05PM
Those of you conservatives supporting Romney, the mask is beginning to slip off. Romney reiterated his support for indexing the minimum wage to the rate of inflation. I understand the important issues as to whether Grinch was a lobby for Fanny and Freddie, and whether he insulted Reagan in the 1980s are forefront in your mind, but keep in mind we now have a nominee who supports an ever expanding minimum wage.
TomH| 2.6.12 @ 3:04AM
Time to expose a number of media myths about the 2012 GOP primaries.
Myth #1: The majority of Republicans are for “anyone but Romney.” According to this story line, even where Romney has done well, the majority of Republicans prefer someone else — therefore, Romney’s candidacy lacks credibility.
Problem is, in 2008 the same could have been said of Barack Obama. Indeed, more people voted for Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats combined than voted for Obama alone. So what? A crowded primary field inevitably dilutes support for any one candidate. Nobody questioned Obama’s viability when he failed to garner more than 50 percent of primary votes. Nor should they question Romney’s.
Of course, you would think that Romney’s decisive 46 percent victory in a four-man race in Florida would put Myth #1 to bed. Unfortunately, many in the media are invested in the notion that Republicans lack enthusiasm for Romney and will continue to minimize his support as long as possible.
Myth #2: Romney’s support is based solely on electability. Here the media attempt to undermine the substantive case for Romney’s candidacy. On this point the media has it backward. It is true that Romney is electable. But he is electable precisely because his experience, character and vision make him the best candidate for the job. Not the other way around.
Myth #3: Romney represents and draws support from the moderate establishment, while Newt Gingrich represents and draws support from movement conservatives.
It is certainly true that several conservative icons (Rush Limbaugh; Sarah Palin) have expressed support for Gingrich. But it is Romney who has garnered support from the broadest array of movement conservatives, including the Tea Party’s favorite governors Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Chris Christie of New Jersey, conservative leader Bay Buchanan and right-wing media maven Ann Coulter.
Moreover, it is Gingrich, with 20 years in Congress and 10 years as a K Street lobbyist, who reeks of insider politics, yet journalists will look you in the eye and describe Romney (who spent just four years as a governor) as an insider and Gingrich (who has spent the last three decades in Washington) as anti-establishment. Go figure.
Myth #4: That 2012 is the nastiest election year ever.
Actually it’s not even close. In recent history, there was the infamous 1964 “Daisy Girl” ad that portrayed Barry Goldwater as a warmonger and the 1988 “Willie Horton” ad that depicted Mike Dukakis as soft on crime.
But the early years of the republic offer even more stunning examples of attack campaigns. In 1800 John Adams’ supporters started rumors that Thomas Jefferson fathered slave children; in 1828 Andrew Jackson’s opponents claimed his mother had been a prostitute; and in 1884 Grover Cleveland’s opponents claimed he had abandoned an illegitimate child. Is that negative enough for you?
Today’s media describe Republicans as unusually nasty. But say what they will about super-PACs and robo-calls, the notion that 2012 marks a dramatic departure from civilized political discourse is simply bunk.
PattyMor| 2.6.12 @ 9:05AM
Romney jumped on the bandwagon and ran those ads which showed the newsclip stating that Newt resigned in disgrace. So how's that for your Mr. Perfect, squeeky clean Mr. Romney of Romneycare fame. Patently dishonest and disgusting.
There are NO SAINTS running for Prez. But the only one who has conservative achievement under his belt is Newt, warts, flaws and all. He balanced the budget 4 years in a row and passed welfare reform. Accomplishments speak a lot louder than politicans words.