Gingrich: Copying Off the Smart Kid's Paper
primary has finally boiled down to three candidates: Newt Gingrich,
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
And each has
a similar campaign strategy. Ron Paul is smartly running on his
record of being a consistent conservative over 30 years. Flip-floppers
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are likewise smartly running on Ron
Paul's record of 30 years of ideological consistency.
Is it any wonder
why Newt Gingrich has said he doesn't want any "negative" campaign
Newt has been
working his way up the polls by copying off the smart kid's paper,
Ron Paul. Until recent months, there's been no daylight between
Newt and Obama on the issue of the individual
mandate. Now, like Ron Paul, he calls it "unconstitutional."
Likewise, Gingrich's opposition to global warming legislation took
place after the Nancy Pelosi commercial
promoting it. Guess who opposed global warming legislation all along?
Gingrich has also suddenly discovered the evils of the Federal Reserve
after doing nothing about it when he was Speaker of the House (and
was in a position to prevent the economic
bubbles this nation has suffered) at a time Ron Paul
has proven he's a political amphibian on the Freddie Mac segment
of the housing bubble. "We have a much more liquid and stable housing
finance system than we would have without the GSEs," he told Freddie
Mac in a published 2007
article at the height of the housing bubble. "Millions
of people have entered the middle class through building wealth
in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership
contributes to stable families and communities. These are results
I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely
course, at that time Gingrich was making about $300,000 per year
from Freddie Mac (totaling
$1.6 million) for giving such great "historical" advice.
Those were indeed great "results" for Newt's bank account, but they
blew up a liability bubble that has since cost taxpayers more than
$150 billion in bailouts, or about 100,000 times Newt's profit from
is smart enough not to go around regurgitating the Wall Street banking
bubble agit-prop today he was paid to disseminate in 2007. Instead,
he claimed in a November 9 debate
that in conversations with Freddie Mac that "I said to them at the
time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible. It turned
out, unfortunately, I was right." Again, Newt was copying off the
smart kid's paper. While there's nothing on the public record to
back up that Newt was saying this at the time (and there is the
above-mentioned contrary evidence), Ron Paul warned of the housing
bubble even more eloquently in 2001,
and in 2007
when Gingrich was telling conservatives to "embrace" the Freddie
Mac business model.
So you can
see the motivation behind Newt's very public policy not to criticize
his opponents. He's desperately hoping they'll return the favor
and not point out the contrast between his past and Ron Paul's past.
Newt has come to criticizing Rep. Paul has been the dust-up over
the good doctor's reluctance to be told "you're fired" in an over-hyped
debate moderated by Donald Trump. "I'm actually very surprised that
one of my friends would have said that," Gingrich said
of Dr. Paul. "This is a country of enormously wide-open talent.
You know, Donald Trump is a great showman. He's also a great businessman."
With friends like that, Ron Paul doesn't need any enemies. Newt
dropped his "friend" and colleague Ron Paul like a shot in 1996
by backing the Democratic incumbent Greg Laughlin with Republican
National Committee support. Newt wanted to keep Paul from returning
to Congress, and thought he could succeed by convincing Laughlin
(who's liberal record Gingrich had criticized
previously as a "Clinton clone") to switch to the Republican Party
with a promise of a committee chairmanship. He convinced Laughlin
to switch over, "switching over" is a process that Newt has done
countless times, but failed to keep Dr. Paul down. "Clinton clone"
Laughlin had to find another line of work.
laudatory comments about Trump are understandable only from the
perspective that Trump – if you'll pardon the pun – has been gaming
the system for years. Trump drove
his hotels into bankruptcy once, and his casinos into bankruptcy
three times. So much for the house always winning. You can
sort of understand Gingrich's hero-worship of Trump. "The Donald"
used government "eminent domain" to try to evict the elderly Vera
Coking from a house she owned in order to build a "limousine waiting
area" for the Trump Plaza Hotel in between his fits of using government
muscle to free himself of his debts. If the trust-fund born Trump
can use showmanship to create the impression he's a great businessman,
then certainly Gingrich's showmanship can fool Republican primary
voters that he's always been a small government man.
As a high school
teacher, I've seen the "copy off the smart kid's paper" tactic before.
The problem is that it almost never works. Even though the copier
always considers himself "the smartest person in the room," they
always copy imperfectly and in a way that makes it obvious.
case, his remarks on the "war on terrorism" are that imperfect match.
Gingrich – seeing demographics of Hispanic immigration – has campaigned
on behalf of a jury trial before illegals can be deported. Newt
told Mike Huckabee on Fox December 3 of illegals that they needed
jury trials: "Ultimately, they are — I believe they are — more trustworthy.
If you ask me would I trust a jury or a Washington bureaucrat, I
would rather have my fate decided by a jury of my peers than have
my fate decided by a Washington bureaucrat." And if that position
were a mere concern for the welfare of hard-working Hispanics rather
than cynical politics, the sentiment would be welcome.
But at the
October 7 Values Voters Summit, Gingrich stressed that this ancient
Anglo-Saxon right should not be extended to American citizens. "I
would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration
to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court" guaranteeing
habeas corpus and trial rights of terrorist suspects, Gingrich
"And I would interpose the presidency in saying, as the commander
in chief, we will not enforce this."
excuse for hitting the delete key on the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (not to
III) is that terrorists are under the "law of war" rather
than civilian law. What he means by "law of war" is "no law at all,"
other than the leadership principle. That's the principle where
we must trust in the elected leader to keep us safe and decide who
should be put in prison, without any checks and balances or that
mamby-pamby constitution stuff. As a highly paid "historian," Newt
must know that the last guy who asserted the "leadership principle"
did very well in the polls, though today it sounds a little creepy
in the original German (fuhrerprinzip).
should urge him to re-think this position through carefully. "But
Newt," they might ask, "if domestic enemies don't get a jury trial,
how will you stay out of prison?"
him mail] is a freelance writer and educator
who focuses upon the kids surrounding the smart kid's test paper.
He writes for LewRockwell.com, The
New American, and AntiWar.com.
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
R. Eddlem Archives