Thanks for posting the excellent article. It beautifully describes the witch hunt that took place back in the 90s, whose catalyst was simply a few people who had it in for Gingrich, a complicit media that continued to hone their 'tar and feathering' skills on people who are to the right of their own political ilk, and a few democrats in the House that simply would not let go without a thorough investigation of a non-crime. All we have to do is look at the Watergate Scandal, the Iran-Contra Affair, and other similar media-hyped 'scandals' to see the similarities in their modus operandi.
But now to have a fellow republican, and fellow candidate for the republican nomination, resorting to the same kind of tactics -- i.e., harking back to a 'scandal', and the 'fact' that Newt 'resigned in disgrace', is an amazingly treacherous campaign tactic that I suspect most republicans who know the facts and circumstances behind Newt's resignation from the speakership will find more than distasteful. Romney has stepped far beyond Reagan's credo of never saying anything negative about a fellow republican. He's picked up a soiled twenty-year-old banner, one that has been proven to be bogus (at least in the minds of those who were paying attention and looking beneath all the negative hype), and he is attempting to use it against a member of his party for his own political gain. Pretty low, if you ask me.
I am not completely convinced that Gingrich should be the party's nominee. But I believe, as a viable candidate at this point, his opponents should be seeking genuine issues on which to debate him rather than resurrecting old, disproven, partisan finger-pointing. |
