What happened to Newt Gingrich ? By: Billy Rojas As usual, the news media, in its relentless quest to discuss the obvious, to beat each dead horse they find on the road, mercilessly, has failed to report on a news story that has important implications. Which is ironic inasmuch as most pundits and reporters are still trying to figure out how they could have been so wrong in forecasting the results for the November 8 election. Yet all the data they needed was under their noses, the massive discontent of blue collar voters in the Rust Belt, the en masse turnout of Evangelicals frightened out of their wits at what Hillary Clinton might do to the Supreme Court, palpable disinterest among many black people with the election itself, and so forth. All of this was missed as the chattering classes focused on groupthink "wisdom" that turned out to be close to 100% wrong. What is most interesting is how the punditocracy, especially TV news people, have so far missed the story of Newt Gingrich as Donald Trump works on the Transition, on his preparations for the new presidency. This is annoying -a better word would be frustrating, or even terribly aggravating. Especially since so much of the discussion on Fox and CNN is filler, or even pointless humor, reporters clueless about where to look to find
significant news on "average days." But what can anyone expect? Many of the (mostly younger) on-air personalities at Fox are focused on what gets laughs while many of CNN's lime-lighters are focused on defensiveness, finding justifications for being on the losing side in the election, and for finding rationalizations for their suddenly (to them) widely unpopular opinions However, the fact remains that within about 48 hours after the election results were in, speculation was rife that Newt Gingrich would become part of a new Trump administration in some high profile cabinet post. Newt's name featured especially as the potential Secretary of State. All of which was a view previously supported by comments of the candidate himself, most notably remarks made at the Republican Convention in Cleveland and also during a large rally in Cincinnati where Trump assured the massive crowd that Gingrich would have a prominent position in his future government. And, of course, Gingrich, next to Pence anyway, was "cheerleader in chief" during the campaign, both as a public speaker and during TV interviews, with his dressing-down of Megan Kelly drawing open praise from Trump. Gingrich also had a very high profile place at the convention, delivering an oration about the virtues of Donald Trump that electrified the delegates like nothing else except Trump himself. And now, without warning, Gingrich is gone, like Chris Cristie, exiled from the public stage, a non-person, as if he never existed. Uhhh, what is going on? About Cristie, various talking heads offered copious reasons for his banishment, his prosecution of the father of Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, the "Bridgegate" scandal that resulted in prison sentences for two of the governor's closest aides, a clash of personalities, and so forth. But about Gingrich's fall from grace there has been nary a word. Just the rather lame 'explanation' that Newt wanted to operate as a strictly private citizen because he would then be free to comment on public policy of every kind and not be limited in the scope of his discussions. O, yeah? To say the least, this is very strange when you consider that Newt was runner-up as Trump's choice for Vice President, a position that Gingrich coveted, about which he had a good number of things to say in the weeks leading up to the GOP convention. I mean, Trump's most competent flamethrower has been completely cut out of the presumed new government and this fact is not worth a second thought? Not even a few choice remarks on TV news? What explains this phenomenon? No-one who actually has the best answer is willing to say, but one can offer some conjectures that make good sense, starting with an observation that dates to some time this past June. Gingrich was asked if he was being vetted for Vice President. His reply was curious, words to the effect that he didn't know but that, in any case, it would be unnecessary since his life was such an open book, "all" of his controversies were matters of public record, and what would be the point? Many people seem to have bought this line of reasoning but it is quite possible to be skeptical. Which is not even to count perceived conflicts of interest concerning his proposals for health care reform and his cozy relationship with selected health care insurance companies. But there are other matters that are unreported upon and they count even if no-one talks about them. Partly this has to do with the nature of government and the news media, which, hopefully, is such common knowledge that dispute about the fact would be ludicrous, namely, the relationship of the press and broadcast television with whatever establishment is in power, but especially with the decision makers in the Democratic Party. Most obviously this concerns the vital matter of "access," being able to talk with White House officials, being able to talk with senators or members of Congress, and the like. That is, if you are seriously critical you will be de facto black-listed and have no inside news to report from various vital sources. Journalists are expected to be no worse than mildly critical, and sometimes expected to say nice things about people who wield political power. Which, as understandable as this may be, mitigates against objectivity and against honest criticism. One way all of this is characterized these days is to say that the news media, far from being a "watch dog," is a lap dog, eager to please its master and unwilling to as much as snarl now and then when aforementioned master does bad things. All is forgiven -in advance. However, matters go deeper. Many people need to be persuaded, of course. As a reasonable guess, the majority of voters make use of very limited sources of information, either the Big TV Networks, or their one favorite cable channel, or sometimes an urban newspaper like the New York Times or the Washington Post. Among such people politics can be reduced to a contemporary version of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," everything above board except for a few shady characters who sooner or later get their comeuppance. Alas, this is not political reality, or only is on a hit-and-miss basis. If you like to read about the workings of intelligence agencies you know better and if you are a student of practical politics you know far better. Its what you don't see that makes all the difference, secret knowledge, about such things as in-fighting, intra-party rivalries, shady deals all over the map since politicians need cash to win elections, and flagrant dishonesty, something highlighted by Wikileaks disclosures about Hillary's thousands of e-mails and those of John Podesta. Surely this is only the tip of the iceberg, at that, and surely this sort of thing extends into Republican ranks. After all, I once studied the criminality of George H. W. Bush; see Pete Brewton's 1992 book, The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that there are plenty of crooks and other unethical actors in the Republican Party as well as among Democrats. Which is to say that you cannot possibly understand American politics unless you also have working knowledge of secret American politics. And much of secret politics, most, is dirty politics. Almost no-one if Washington DC plays by Marquis of Queensbury rules. As Representative Louis Gomert has said, in quoting a friend of his who knows how the game is really played, a comment that characterizes DC politics, "no matter how cynical you get, it is never enough to catch up." In the case of Newt Gingrich this factor exists in spades. Let us not forget how much Newt has lost in the months since June: The Vice Presidency and Secretary of State. What does he have to show for all of his dedication to Donald Trump's cause? From every indication he has been left holding the bag. While there may be favors he can count on in the future, nothing can possibly equal the political prizes that might easily have been his, each in direct line of succession to the presidency itself. Now we are expected to shrug it all off as if Newt is no better than a disposable diaper for Trump's political baby? You may take this view but I really don't think so. Newt, it is my guess, will seek some kind of political recompense for services rendered. Unless, of course, he has been told to keep his mouth shut on pain of scandal and resulting damages to his various highly profitable business ventures. There is only so far that I can take this line of reasoning here. But let me suggest that Newt is under a cloud because of his past close dealings with a known (since 2015, a well-documented fact) one-time Stalinist Communist, recently deceased, Alvin Toffler, and because of his collusion with a number of "important people" to suppress news of national importance because that news, if known to the public, would have major policy consequences that no-one in either major political party establishment wants in any way. Not the first time in history this sort of thing has happened, of course. And not the only secret that Newt has kept hidden from public view. To cite one relatively minor example, where did the phrase "contract with America" originate? I stumbled upon it in about 1997 one day while doing research into the life of Teddy Roosevelt. TR came up with the idea as a prelude to his run for the presidency on the Progressive Party ticket for 1912. Yet I do not know of even one instance where Gingrich credits the original author, which, as a professional historian, as I am, he surely knows full well. An incident from 2012 should make things reasonably clear. The setting was Florida, just after Gingrich had defeated Romney handily in the South Carolina primary. The stage was set for a showdown in the Sunshine State. Newt was in a good position to surge into the lead for the Republican Party nomination for president. Of course, whatever else is true, Newt botched the debate with Romney and had difficulty in winning over voters in southern Florida. No matter what anyone might have done to make life difficult for Gingrich he might have lost the contest regardlessly. But for the record, that was when I did research to identify organizations like newspapers and political consultants, among others, with an interest in the primary election. That was the prelude to a mass mailing (e-mails) of the latest version of a paper best known under its original title, "The Skeleton in Newt Gingrich's Closet." The new version was somewhat revised to be especially relevant to events of the Florida primary election. Was this effective? It is impossible to be sure; as usual, to consider my various mass mailings at times in the past prior to 2012, there was no public acknowledgement despite the fact-rich nature of the document. However, there was significant feedback shortly after Newt's loss. After having been on Newt's mailing list for several years, 'eagerly' reading his various statements as he made them available, one day this service was discontinued and, shortly afterwards, while until then it had been possible to send Gingrich e-mails to provide him with information he might find valuable, this became impossible inasmuch as I was thereafter blocked. The question for Newt Gingrich is simply this: Has it been worth it to have believed the many lies told about me by Alvin Toffler and others, has it been worthwhile to have swallowed the disinformation Toffler told him about his political past, denying his Communist Party membership, and has it been remotely ethical to have black-listed me for nearly 4 decades, denying me a professional livelihood, killing off each and every creative and productive idea I have shared with people over the years? This now includes killing off my latest business prospectus, The Computer Channel, even though one of the people involved and who might have made a real difference in seeing the project become reality, Lisa Robertson, had been on good terms with me for several years? The one thing I know for sure about the fate of The Computer Channel was what happened with a friend of mine of many years, after I sent him a copy. "Capablanca" I'll call him, is a high tech whiz; he had just built a super fast customized computer, and knows computers very well, indeed. My best guess is that he immediately recognized the value of the proposal and shortly after reading it made inquiries with people in the business that he knows. After that, after X talked with Y who talked with Z, a load of crap was dumped on Capablanca's desk defaming me in every imaginable way, making any thought of a business deal to see the project become reality dead in its tracks regardless of its objective value. Otherwise I'm at a loss to explain the fact that Capablanca suddenly ended all contact with me a few days later despite our close friendship of many years, extending back to the time I played a role in introducing him to his (first) wife. Newt could have been president, or anyway the Republican party nominee. He could have become Vice President. He could have become Secretary of State. Of course, this would have required him to cease believing lies about me, so that I would have no incentive to try and undercut his efforts repeatedly many times in the years since some point in the 1980s, but that he never did. For him, belief in lies was his ticket to fame and power. But that was not how things turned out. And now Gingrich has lost everything that meant the most to him. Was it worth it, Newt, you goddamned son-of-a-bitch? -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
