Newt Tells the Truth

Newt Gingrich likes to compare himself to Winston Churchill,
shown here in 1939, London, England, UK, when 
he was First Lord of the Admiralty.  
Credit: Bettmann/CORBIS  

By Mary Claire Kendall

It’s been quite a month.

After Newt’s distant fourth-place finish in Iowa, the former House Speaker vowed to “tell the truth” about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  

“We are not going to go out and run nasty ads, but I do reserve the right to tell the truth,” he told less than 100 supporters just before jetting out of Des Moines.  “If the truth seems negative, that may be more a comment on his [Romney’s] record than the nature of politics.”

Oh, but it’s been nasty. 

To win South Carolina, Newt’s “independent”—wink, wink, nod, nod—super PAC carpet-bombed the state with a 27-minute video accusing Mitt of “predatory” business practices. So says former Newt confidant, now independent Newt super PAC head, Rick Tyler. 

After Newt won South Carolina, he couldn’t be bothered with that insignificant former Governor sharing the debate stage with him.

Whatever happened to Reagan’s 11^th commandment?  In the heat of battle, you lob attacks, based on a candidate’s record, and defend yourself when you think you’ve been unfairly attacked. But, once the battle’s been waged, you observe all the niceties.

Not Newt.   He routinely calls Mitt a “liar,” brandishing his political knife aimed squarely at “the Gov,” acting just like a Shark in a scene straight out of West Side Story.

But, cross over into Brooklyn to a far different 50s reality—the set of “I Love Lucy”—and you’ll find imaginatively fertile higher ground to help Republicans live the 11^th commandment. 

Take a glimpse of “Lucy Tells the Truth,” first airing on November 9, 1953. Ricky and the Mertzes are fed up with Lucy’s constant fibbing.  She had just finished embellishing the truth, saying she played a starring role in Oklahoma.

You know—like when Newt compares himself to historic leaders such as Winston Churchill.

Inspired by this episode, Mitt, being the solutions-oriented businessman he is, decided to accept Newt’s Lincoln-Douglas debate challenge. The only catch is, just like Ricky and the Mertzes, who bet Lucy she couldn’t tell just the truth for 24 hours, Newt had to tell the truth no matter what.  Here are a few snippets from that debate.

FADE IN:

INT. DEBATE AUDITORIUM—NIGHT

The Romney-Gingrich Lincoln-Douglas-style debate is just starting.  All eyes are on the former Speaker as Mitt Romney addresses a question to him.

                                               

MITT ROMNEY

Mr. Speaker, you said Freddie Mac paid you

$1.6 million to provide historical commentary. 

Wasn’t that a bit of a stretch?  Some could

even say, well, you were lying—something

you often accuse me of?

Gingrich nervously fidgets and looks at Mitt Romney, who is trying to suppress a smile.

CLOSE-UP: Beads of sweat popping out on Newt’s brow as, for once, he’s speechless.

                                      MITT ROMNEY

                             Mr. Speaker, was it a lie?

                                      NEWT GINGRICH

                            OK, it was a bit of a stretch. But, this is Washington. 
                            Stretches are our stock in trade.

                                      MITT ROMNEY

                   You mean you didn't tell the the whole truth? 

                                      NEWT GINGRICH

                             Well, if you seem shocked by it… yes... I could 
                             have provided a more precise definition.  But,
                             historical commentary is what I do best.  It fit.

CLOSE-SHOT: Ron Paul’s eyes bugging out.

INT. DEBATE AUDITORIUM—LATER

The debate continues.  Newt is sweating profusely.

                                               

MITT ROMNEY

Mr. Speaker, you said you were a Goldwater

Republican at the first Florida debate, but in

1988 when that wasn’t too cool, you bragged

you were actually a Rockefeller Republican.  

Which one is it?

Gingrich nervously fidgets and looks at Rick Santorum, who is all eyes.

                                      NEWT GINGRICH

                             Neither.  But, it seemed right in the moment.

MITT ROMNEY

That’s what you accuse me of! Isn’t that

a little hypocritical?

                  

Newt sheepishly nods his head.

CLOSE-SHOT: Rick Santorum’s eyes bugging out.

          FADE OUT.

Now back to reality where Reagan’s 11^th commandment is being ripped to shreds.  (Newt didn’t even congratulate “the Gov” for his landslide win in the Sunshine State.)

But, it doesn’t have to be that way.

The Wealth of Romney

Mitt and Ann Romney
Source: RomneyCentral.com

By Mary Claire Kendall

National Journal’s Amy Walter said on ABC’s This Week that former Governor Mitt Romney will have to “defend his wealth.”  Is she serious?  Presidents with wealth are the norm.  President George Washington (1789-1797) in today’s dollars was worth $525 million. Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy were all immensely wealthy, as well. 

The big push since Sarah Palin and company started squawking about it was for Romney to release his tax returns to reveal just how wealthy he is.  Romney was skewered after he responded “maybe” when John King asked at the CNN debate in Charleston if he would follow his father, Governor George Romney’s example. In 1967, he released all his taxes when he was running for president, thus inaugurating the tradition of presidential candidates releasing their returns.

The press pounced saying Romney’s “maybe” showed his utter lack of preparation and possible cover-up, which is pure poppycock. Rather, it was simply a son saying I’m going to think for myself instead of moving lock-step with my father.  This simple explanation apparently occurred to no one. The allegation this was a major flubbed answer was repeated ad nauseam during the news cycle after the debate. 

But, bowing to reality, on Tuesday, January 24, Mitt Romney released his taxes for 2010 and 2011.  

He didn’t need to do this.  As the Tax History Project notes, “Individual income tax returns—including those of public figures—are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.” 

JFK clung to this right. But, last I checked he was not being denounced in history books as a greedy capitalist. 

Of course, the reason Washington and TR could not release their tax returns is that there were no income taxes. Until the 16^th amendment passed in 1916, enabling this pernicious tax on precious income, two-thirds of federal revenue was derived from the alcohol tax. The income tax was a sop to the prohibition lobby in order to banish alcohol from the land.  The rest of the federal pie was garnered from tariffs, which successfully protected American industry and thereby our economy and work ethic.

But, Romney waved his right.  And, what did his returns show?  He paid more taxes than he owed. Furthermore, when factoring in his charitable contributions, he gave away about 40% of his income.

To suggest his reticence to release his tax returns is proof he’s hiding something is, therefore, also pure poppycock.  Rather, it shows his class and sensitivity to the feelings of others in these tough times when many can’t afford new clothing but only a patch to fix their old clothing.  But then, the essence of wealth is what you hold in your heart not your bank account, which countless souls, who are not so materially blessed as the Romneys, know—in spades.  Still, Romney’s reticence to flaunt his wealth is laudable.

The irony is that Romney’s own true wealth lies in his desire to make life better for his fellow Americans by turning around the disastrous Obama economy—the worst since the Great Depression.  Obama, for his part, disregards Americans’ feelings as he goes about spending lavishly on himself and his re-election campaign with taxpayer money—including unnecessary million-dollar-plus trips on Air Force One to swing states—acting as cool as a cucumber except when excoriating Republicans.

Obama’s crooning  provides more alleviation of pain than his policies. But, President Romney will know the right levers to pull on Day One in January 2013 to start ameliorating the suffering of Americans—by singing the right policy tune when, once again, to quote President Calvin Coolidge, “the business of America (will be) business.”

Yet, Romney still doesn’t cut it for some. For instance, Doris Kearns Goodwin asserted on Meet the Press that all wealthy presidents had some life experience that enabled them to relate to the sufferings of ordinary people.  TR lost his wife and mother the same day—Valentine’s Day 1884.  FDR had polio.  And, JFK was Captain of PT 109 in World War II. Not so Romney.  

What she conveniently overlooks is that when presented with one of the greatest challenges a man can face—his wife Ann’s diagnosis with Multiple Sclerosis in 1998 and later breast cancer—Mitt Romney was precisely in the tradition she points to. Indeed, the compassionate way he handled this crisis in his life shows his greatest wealth lies in his heart.

Update: The hue and cry over Governor Romney's comment regarding the “very poor” in the wake of his Florida landslide, overlooks the obvious.  Of course, he “cares” about the “very poor.”  His 10% annual tithing, much of which benefits the “very poor,” is proof of that.  But, it is by focusing on the shrinking “middle class” strata, that many who are now “very poor,” will leave those ranks. For, if Romney is anything, he’s focused.