Gingrich: If it comes to a shutdown, the GOP should stick to its principles

The Washington establishment believes that the government shutdown of 1995 was a disastrous mistake that accomplished little and cost House Republicans politically.

While the shutdown produced some short-term pain, it set the stage for a budget deal in 1996 that led to the largest drop in federal discretionary spending since 1969. The discipline imposed by this budget — overall spending grew at an average of 2.9 percent a year while I was speaker of the House, the slowest rate in decades — allowed us to reach a balanced-budget deal in 1997.

...the balanced budget was an outcome driven by House Republicans with limited support from skeptical Senate Republicans [Me: RINOs.].

House Republicans passed a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Seventy-two Democrats joined us, giving us the required two-thirdsmajority to amend the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to reach this threshold by one vote.

Our constitutional amendment would have set a seven-year deadline to balance the budget. We adopted the same timetable and created a plan that would end deficit spending by 2002.

It was President Bill Clinton’s veto of our budget in December 1995 that closed the government. The White House knew that it could use the power of the presidency and the support of liberal media to blame us.

We could cave in and be accepted by the Washington establishment, or we could stand firm for a balanced budget for the American people.

We decided to stick to our principles through a very contentious and difficult period.

Nonetheless, the ultimate result was the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920s...

Becoming one more promise-breaking, Washington-dominated, sellout group is a much worse fate — politically and ethically — than having the government close for a few days.

I see the old "Newt wars" are flaring up again and the old, thoroughly debunked and rebutted rumors and lies, planted by the liberal media and Newt's Republican detractors are surfacing up again... Might as well be armed with some facts, because the truth and the facts are the first casualties of war.

C'mon, have you ever seen his ex?

Not just see her (Marianne Gingrich, she kept his last name), but did they hear her own words...?

When she was asked by ABC interviewer what she thought Gingrich meant when he called her and asked to finalize the divorce in 1994 (they were legally separated and lived separately, in different states since 1987, well before he met and started dating his future wife Callista in 1993) Marianne said that she thought that it was (incredibly!) an offer of an "open marriage". Is that delusional or what, but did anybody in the media point this out or had an issue with that?

The divorce from Marianne, who he has financially supported for 12 years despite separation and left most of whatever he has earned from his publishing and speeches to her in the divorce, was not finalized until Gingrich was done implementing The Contract with America and resigned from Congress, in 1999. He could finally settle his private life and have a very successful marriage with Callista (they've been together now for 18 years, since 1993). Not that he feels the need to trash his former wife, who threatened to derail his political future, only to try and keep him for his [potential] earnings.

When Newt said that during those years he sacrificed his personal life for the good of the country, it was not a flippant comment, chronology shows that it was true. Without him, neither the Contract With America nor the impeachment of Clinton could happen, he was the driving force behind both, even when it cost him his job and political reputation, with both sides doing everything they could trying to ruin it, including sham "ethics investigation" and filing 84 frivolous, bogus "ethics" charges, from all of which he was eventually cleared.

Ref: Gingrich admits ABC claim was false - FR post #32 / WSJ, No-Fault Newt, by James Taranto, 2012 January 20
Ref: The Inner Quest of Newt Gingrich (1995: Marianne Promised To "Undermine Everything" For Newt) - FR post #143, 2012 January 18 / PBS/VF, by Gail Sheehy, 1995 September

I've seen some people here still repeating the good old liberal and new Romney's (in toto, Alinskyite) lies about "serving divorce papers to wife dying of cancer" and the story about "Callista's expensive $500K/$1M jewelry from Tiffany's" which turned out to be an untapped high-limit credit line that is available from similar sources and is used by people as a form of inexpensive financial insurance (Romney might have it but probably doesn't need it, and nobody cared enough to dig into anybody-but-Newt).

Ref: Romney Must Get Personal Over Bain Capital Attacks - FR, posts #21, #36, #42, #3, 2012 January 12
Ref: "Cain/Gingrich 2012"?" - FR, posts #64, #69, 2011 October 06

And, was there any other "family values" candidate who, after hiring a team of fund-raising consultants for his campaign, was thoughtful enough to take his wife on R&R cruise in [pre-default, pre-strikes] Greece, just prior to what was expected to be more than a year-long grueling campaign schedule?

I also thought that NY-23 2009 special election "endorsement" of Dede Scozzafava was a settled and buried "issue," but there they go again... Apparently people have short memories or they simply bring up just about anything to smear "the other guy" especially when "everybody knows" that "the other guy" happens to be "flawed" (as in "not perfect" or having a "baggage") so anything goes and whatever garbage is thrown will stick:

It was brought to Newt's attention that Doug Hoffman was not eligible to run for that seat because of residency issues; local Republican Party nominated a nationally unknown 10-year representative in State Assembly whom Newt didn't know from Adam, so he "endorsed" her to keep the safe Republican seat for 1 year, before elections next year (election of Hoffman would be disqualified and the seat turned over to Democrats). Hoffman was also a spoiler next year, when he lost the nomination from Republican Party, switched again to Conservative Party, ran for the seat and his 10,000 votes provided margin of victory to Democrat who won by 4,000 votes. I've read somewhere that Hoffman later acknowledged that Gingrich was right. So why is it still used as an issue - or is it just a lazy excuse not to "Dislike" Newt?

Ref: 'Stop Romney' Christian conservatives give nod to Santorum ahead of S.C. balloting - FR post #67, 2012 January 15 (also contains a plain rebuttal to Nancy Pelosi / cap-and-trade / global warming smears).
Ref: Pelosi Fires Back at Gingrich - FR, posts #27, #29, 2012 January 09

..... "We rejected the initial script because it stated positions that we just didn't believe were true," said Tyler. "They wanted Newt to basically talk about global warming, which we would not do. At the time, 'climate change' was seen as a safe thing to say." ..... < snip >
..... About a month after the commercial began airing, Gingrich's now defunct political action group, American Solutions for Winning the Future, began its own advertising campaign -- a pro- oil "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" mantra, aimed at blocking legislation co-sponsored by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, and John Warner, a Virginia Republican, to combat climate change by curbing carbon emissions. ..... < snip >

The online petition "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" gathered more than a million signatures a month, and later that year, during 2008 Republican convention, morphed into "Drill, Baby, Drill".

Here's what Newt has done for conservative causes groups, organizations and individuals since leaving office in 1999 (including raising and donating $150K to Bob Vander Plaats' group The Family Leader to oust three pro-gay-marriage Iowa Supreme Court judges; yet Santorum won the Plaats' "family values endorsement lottery" just before Iowa caucuses) :
Gingrich's Secret Weapon: Newt Inc. - FR, 2012 January 25 / WSJ, by Neil King Jr. and Patrick O'Connor, 2011 May 09

What did the other guys do during that time, except running and getting ready to run?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.