Failing to understand what was false and vicious about Romney’s attack on Gingrich

A reader writes:

Granting that the NY Times will try to put the presumed Republican front runner in a bad light, I think this article brings up some important background on Gingrich.

Note that Gingrich himself conceded bringing “discredit on the House.” Calling Romney a liar [see this and this] for saying Gingrich brought shame to the House, or whatever the words were, may not have been fair.

LA replies:

Gingrich himself advocated that Republicans vote yes on the resolution criticizing him, to put the issue behind them which the vindictive Democrats were using to paralyze the Republican-led House.

Try to imagine what it’s like coming under a relentless effort by the entire leftist establishment of this country to destroy you.

You write: “Calling Romney a liar for saying Gingrich brought shame to the House, or whatever the words were, may not have been fair.”

You are misstating the main issue in this discussion. Romney has stated, repeatedly, that Gingrich “resigned in disgrace.” But Gingrich’s resignation as Speaker had nothing to do with the ethics charges, which the House resolved in January 1997, almost two years before he announced his resignation in November 1998. His resignation was triggered by the disappointing results of the 1998 elections in which the House Republicans lost five seats. If the Republicans had gained five seats, Gingrich might very well not have resigned.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 27, 2012 10:21 AM | Send