Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Newt may not be Tea Party, but his D.C. enemies treat him like he is

Newt may not be Tea Party, but his D.C. enemies treat him like he is

Every now and then I stumble upon a column which says exactly what I had been thinking but had not yet written.

Christian Whiton absolutely is on target as to the reasons behind the collective and almost uniform piling on of Newt by the Republican pundit and political class which supports Mitt Romney, Why Washington Is Shocked, Shocked By Newt Gingrich’s Rise Over Mitt Romney.

Whiton’s theory is that while Newt may be of Washington, he is not a creature of the current Republican political and punditry establishment, and is someone who will do much more than move around the chairs at the same D.C. feeding trough.

This excerpt doesn’t do the column justice, but it will give a flavor, so by all means read the whole thing:

… Gingrich has the audacity to imagine that Washington can be run without his own party’s establishment. Their assumption of dominating the next Republican administration is not safe if it is Gingrich. He is not  proposing to replace the Democratic piano player at the brothel that is  Washington with a slightly sterner-sounding Republican. Instead, he claims he will close the brothel. And the establishment of his own party just knows that can’t happen. In their lives, it never has. And where are they then to go for  their pork and porking?

The establishment may still prevail. There are nearly infinite news cycles until the nomination is won by someone. Gingrich’s opponents are not close to giving up and serious Wall Street money is falling squarely behind Romney.

Whiton also has one of the best lines of the campaign season, as part of an explanation how the “smart” punditry did not see it coming (emphasis mine):

Back in our capital city, Jennifer Rubin, the Republican at the Washington Post,  congratulated herself noting “I suggested that Republicans ‘could pull a name out of a hat and find a more consistent and personally stable conservative’ than Newt Gingrich. Many smart conservatives seem to agree.” Maybe Ms. Rubin should start listening to people she thinks are dumb.

The abuse and disdain being heaped on Newt resembles the abuse and disdain heaped on the Tea Party movement, and comes from the very same people. That may help explain why Newt is so popular with Tea Party supporters compared with Romney.

Newt may not be Tea Party, but his D.C. enemies treat him like he is. Maybe they’re onto something.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


DINORightMarie | December 10, 2011 at 8:53 am

“Newt may not be Tea Party, but his D.C. enemies treat him like he is. Maybe they’re onto something.”

The cocktail circuit-loving Republican establishment don’t like Newt at all. He means business, and has a vision, a plan – and knows how to get it done!

All the more reason to support him, if it truly comes down to Mitt vs. Newt, as it looks to be. Newt fights, takes it to Obama – where it belongs, and knows his facts, his history, not to mention his sound American 21st century foreign policy. A solid Conservative Senate and House will keep Newt from straying too far into the big-government domestic weeds.

ABO. But Newt over Mitt.

That establishment Repubs treat him like the TEA Party is a HUGE clue that he is more Conservative than they will admit – and they fear him! Newt is looking better all the time. 🙂

    ABO is right on the money. I agree that Newt seems more capable of beating Obama because of his willingness and ability to fight Obama at every turn.

    I’m not sure why the Republican establishment is so against him except for the reasons you posed. Apparently he did ride roughshod over some people when he was Speaker and they never forgot it.

      JEBurke in reply to JayDick. | December 10, 2011 at 1:15 pm

      “I’m not sure why the Republican establishment is so against him…”

      There is no “establishment” unless you mean the governors, senators and others who have actually been elected by tens of millions of Americans, including most Republican voters. There are no “bosses,” only elected officials responsive to their electorates.

      Be that as it may, why are such folks so uniformly against Newt? Because they have worked closely with him, under him and over him for the 40 years that Newt has been the ultimate insider and believe him to be unprincipled, volatile, narcissistic and puerile.

      You would think their opinion might count for something.

        Darkstar58 in reply to JEBurke. | December 10, 2011 at 1:26 pm

        uh, wow…

        and Mittens being “Next in line” is just a figment of everyone’s imagination I assume.

        “these are not the candidates we’re looking for. Move along…”

          JEBurke in reply to Darkstar58. | December 10, 2011 at 1:45 pm

          Absolutely, a total figment. Worse, it’s a superficial media-created construct. It cannot withstand minimal scrutiny. Was McCain “next in line” to some supposed esrablishment? If so, why was he broke in the summer of 2007, pulling 15 percent in polls as of October 2007 behind Giuliani, Thompson and Huckabee and had to fight all of them plus Romney tooth and nail to nail down the nomination only in June?

          Some establishment?

          Anyway, if there was an establishment — or an insiders DC ring or whatever — was a charter member until about a month ago.

          Wise up.

          Darkstar58 in reply to Darkstar58. | December 10, 2011 at 5:33 pm

          Yes, McCain was certainly the Establishment Choice. He was the “Establishment darling”

          Remember, he announced on Letterman (because, he’s a “political celebrity” and all, you know…) and instantly gained “Conservative Favorite” status (much like Romney) from everyone on nearly all sides (again, much like Romney)

          He stayed the Establishment choice as everyone else did a similar game to this years, until he eventually (with massive GOP-money backing) pulled off the election.

          Then, he pulled in Palin, and the rest is history.

          …well, sort of – the Establishment seems to still hold Palin (ie, McCain’s “Cold, calculated political decision”) as being responsible for his loss (because, really, how could their “political celebrity” lose?) and his decision (which he now calls a mistake; because really, how could he lose?) has seemed to play into many of the Republicans actions since; including the primaries where they seemed to dismiss Patriots as much as Dems and the Media did as they constantly told us the people we want couldn’t possibly win election (you know, much like they are doing right now with all the Non-Romneys…)

StephenMonteith | December 10, 2011 at 9:00 am

No; they’re treating him like the ex-husband they divorced years ago when they discovered he’s not the man they married and are now trying to keep others from making the same mistake. Gingrich’s “enemies” include a number of Congressmen who were first elected during his ’94 “revolution” who thought of him as a brilliant leader at first, but soon came to realize he wasn’t exactly “Speaker material”. Gingrich talks a good game, but once he’s in power, he starts to unravel, and his “enemies” don’t want to give him another four years to screw things up.

Hmmm. I wonder who that sounds like …

In an interview last night that totally stunned me, Glenn Beck spoke to Judge Napolitano about his interview with Newt which, by the way, I thought was very candid and forthright on Newt’s part. He declared that he would not vote for Newt because he was a Progressive and no different from Obama and that – get this – the only reason conservative would vote For Newt over Obama is because of – wait for it – RACE!!!.

    StephenMonteith in reply to csd. | December 10, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Beck, of course, overlooked the most popular reason for nominating/electing a bad candidate: willfull ignorance.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to csd. | December 10, 2011 at 9:53 am

    I listened to that interview, and I think what Beck didn’t like is that Newt showed him up with Newt’s historical knowledge. Beck wanted to fit Newt into some narrow Teddy Roosevelt/progressive box, and Newt explained why it’s not so.

      Oh, please, you’re going to make me have to repost my lengthy comment about why Newt, the historian, was 100 percent wrong about Teddy. The short version in that TR was always a progressive, as that term was understood then. Before his Presidency, during it, and after it. There was no “1912 TR” different from TR in 1908 of 1900.

      Anyone who has read any of a half dozen good bios of TR would know this.

      Some history lesson.

    Darkstar58 in reply to csd. | December 10, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Glenn Beck see’s progressives in a room full of toddlers. Its the reason so many of us are losing respect for him; he’s the one trick pony trying to figure out a way to label each and every person he comes across with the same exact tag.

    Meanwhile, his new book is proclaiming Washington his favorite patriot? The same Washington who was willing to be led around on a chain by the very first Progressive (Hamilton) because Washington was a General who knew almost nothing about politics.

    The Washington he claims is his favorite Patriot was the one who faced the Whiskey Rebellion – a group of people refusing to pay what was an unfair tax targeting the poor to line the pockets of the rich, which was proposed by Hamilton and signed by Washington. But when the people took a stand, and fought back against the taxes, Washington (again, at the hands of Hamilton) decided to send the closest thing we had to a Military at the time to “show the Federal Government is to be respected” when it wants something done.

    Washington (through his puppeteer, Hamilton) was more willing to bring guns against his people then to listen to them and instead figure out a way to treat everyone fairly

    The Whiskey Rebellion is the first real T(axed)E(nough)A(lready) Party, its the first time the We the People stood up in a pact against our Federal Government which was overextending its reach in a completely unjust manor solely to benefit Hamilton and his friends. Washington took up arms against those Tea Party Patriots – and somehow still became Becks favorite Patriot…

    Dont get me wrong, I am a Washington Believer on quite a bit – but reality is, he was far from the Greatest Patriot we have seen. Nope, and instead, if he were in Obama’s place today, he very well could have come after Becks rally at the monument with the full force of the Military based off his track record…

Everything thats happened in the last 48 hours really tipped me over the edge. So much so that I donated to the Newt campaign this morn. My first political donation in my life.

The smug DC/NY “Republican” elites have absolutely no clue. None. And Im sick and tired of being called stupid and ignorant as if Im suppose to ignore my own eyes. Eff every single one of them.

I’m waiting on O’Reilly to tell me who to vote for.

He so much wants to be liked by the “Establishment” he’s went batshi* crazy over Mitt at the moment. Old Bill rolls with the flow and will support whomever the MSM ridicules the least.

I would like to remind everyone that Newt jumped on the Tea Party train in early 2009, wanting to partner with it. I was highly skeptical at the time, and to be honest, remain so. However, between his pledge to tap John Bolton as Sec. of State, his stellar debate skills, and the fact that (unlike several previous front-runners) he seems to be improving during the ham-handed mainstream media rectal exam, I feel more positive about the primary outcome than any time since Palin dropped out.

Mind you, I don’t trust him. We citizen activists will need to stay highly involved if Newt should prevail. I will be happy to promote him in the general if my Republican friends choose to nominate him, if for no other reason than he is upsetting the elite class.

    StephenMonteith in reply to Mutnodjmet. | December 10, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Yep. He wanted to partner with it so much that he endorsed Doug Hoffman over Dede Scozzafava that year, even though he knew it could cost Republicans a seat in the House of Representatives.

    Oh, wait …

1. The Republican Establishment would rather be in charge of a minority party than share power in a majority party. IMO that is a conscious decision on their part.

2. Mitt Romney likes cold fusion. His remarks on science are, to put it delicately, surprising for a Harvard MBA and, especially, governor of a state with a major high-tech sector. No wonder his handlers carefully control the campaign’s messaging.

Man, I just posted this same basic argument here on LI yesterday. What’s that saying about prophets and homelands? Geez. I’ll never make it to Hollywood.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 10, 2011 at 11:06 am

    “Gingrich is neither here nor there in terms of the established GOP political/business franchises. In this sense, he is an outsider and a bit of a ‘maverick’. It is precisely because he belongs to neither GOP franchise that he’s being hammered by both. If Gingrich wins the nomination and – God forbid! – the presidency, there will be a wholesale changeover in who holds the reins within the GOP.Given how people grow increasingly disenchanted with either GOP franchise and with the political system as a whole, we begin to understand the “Gingrich surge” and why so many are so quickly gravitating towards him.”

I think people are completely dismissing or ignoring the fact that Newt, regardless of how you view his distant past statements, is the Tea Party candidate we wanted based off his “Contract with America” and outlined plans to fix the country (he just comes without the over-the-top “I am the only True Patriot candidate” crowing we are used to…)

He is the only Candidate to clearly outline exactly what WE want to happen with plans that can actually take place. He has even outlined his “First day in office” agenda, (which any of us can contribute ideas to on his webpage) including:

Executive Order 1. Eliminate the thirty-nine White House “Czar” positions created during the current administration. The president does not have the authority to appoint bureaucrats to power who are not accountable to the Congress

Executive Order 2. “Mexico City Policy” of Respect for Life. Reauthorize President Ronald Reagan’s policy – also known as the “Mexico City Policy”— to stop tax payer dollars from being used to fund or promote abortions in foreign countries.

Executive Order 3. Restore conscience clause protections for Healthcare Workers. No American working in a medical environment should be forced to perform any procedure that he or she finds morally or ethically objectionable based on religious teaching. This protection should include, but not be limited to abortion. Existing conscience clause protections need to be strengthened.

Executive Order 4. Respect Each Sovereign Nation’s Choice of its Capital. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own Capital. Accordingly, the U.S. State Department should be instructed to respect the choice of each sovereign nation and place the American embassy in their Capital. (Israel is the only country the United States discriminates against in this regard. The people of Israel have designated Jerusalem as their capital. Yet the United States retains its embassy in Tel Aviv.)

Executive Order 5. End the Attorney General’s Assault on the States. Instruct the Attorney General to withdraw all immigration-related lawsuits against states immediately, including those pending in Arizona and South Carolina. The Obama Administration refuses to enforce federal immigration laws, and instead sues states who are merely trying to enforce the laws that the federal government neglects. The Gingrich Administration will secure the border by Jan. 1, 2014 by any means necessary.

(Republicans may trick Obama into allowing this, but in case they don’t…)
Executive Order 6. The Keystone Pipeline Unleash American Energy by Approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. Instruct the State Department to approve a Presidential Permit immediately for the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that will send 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Great Plains and Southwestern states to Gulf Coast refineries lower staggering energy prices, and create up to 120,000 American jobs.

add to all that, his “21st century Contract with America”:

1. Repeal Obamacare and pass a replacement that saves lives and money by empowering patients and doctors, not bureaucrats and politicians.

2. Return to robust job creation with a bold set of tax cuts and regulatory reforms that will free American entrepreneurs to invest and hire, as well as by reforming the Federal Reserve and creating a training requirement for extended federal unemployment benefits to encourage work and improve the quality of our workforce.

3. Unleash America’s full energy production potential in oil, natural gas, coal, biofuels, wind, nuclear oil shale and more, creating jobs, stimulating a sustainable manufacturing boom, lowering gasoline and other energy prices, increasing government revenues, and bolstering national security.

4. Save Medicare and Social Security by giving Americans more choices and tools to live longer, healthier lives with greater financial independence.

5. Balance the federal budget by freeing job-creators to grow the economy, reforming entitlements, and implementing waste cutting and productivity improvement systems such as Lean Six Sigma to eliminate waste and fraud. Pass a balanced budget amendment to keep it balanced.

6. Control the border by January 1, 2014 and establish English as the official language of government; reform the legal visa system, and make it much easier to deport criminals and gang members while making it easier for law abiding visitors to come to the US.

7. Revitalize our national security system to meet 21st century threats by restructuring and adequately funding our security agencies to function within a grand strategy for victory over those who seek to kill us or limit American power.

8. Maximize the speed and impact of medical breakthroughs by removing unnecessary obstacles that block new treatments from reaching patients and emphasizing research spending towards urgent national priorities, like brain science with its impact on Alzheimer’s, autism, Parkinson’s, mental health and other conditions knowledge of the brain will help solve.

9. Restore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution.

10. Enforce the Tenth Amendment by starting an orderly transfer of power and responsibility from the federal government back “to the states, respectively, or to the people,” as the Constitution requires. Over the next year, state and local officials and citizens will be asked to identify the areas which can be transferred back home.

Newt doesn’t call himself Tea Party, but the above is about as Tea Party in practice as you can get. And unlike other politicians who make grand promises without ever following through on them, the first ‘Contract with America” proves that Newt will in fact fight for each and every one of his goals

The above Contract he has given us, the American People, is probably a big part of why the Republican Establishment we hate so much, despises this man – he is going to do what he can to undermine the power the Federal Government has accumulated for itself while giving it back to the States and its People.

That’s Tea Party, thru and thru

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Darkstar58. | December 10, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Hear, hear!

    radiofreeca in reply to Darkstar58. | December 10, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    I just got out of working in the Medical equipment business. Startups are like the lottery: 1 in 26 win big. But you gotta put $100M into each one (total of $2.6Bn), and make back $3Bn profit on the one that makes it, to pay off all your debts, plus give the investors some kind of decent return on their risk. Obamacare limits the max profit on any one startup, so imagine playing the lottery where the “winning” ticket gives you $1.30, and there’s a 1/26 chance of winning. Until that changes, the regulations on startups won’t matter, because nobody’s going to fund them.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | December 10, 2011 at 11:10 am

What I really don’t understand is why they are attacking Newt personally. Newt published a policy paper that provides a bold framework for his legislative agenda if he is elected. The establishment GOP wants to talk about everything except the 21st Century Contract with America. Why isn’t his policy agenda the most important thing to talk about? Rip the policy proposals apart. Criticize it. Praise it. Whatever.

In trying to embarrass Newt the Romney campaign and the establishment GOP is embarrassing itself. Slinging ad hominems only make Romney and the GOP establishment look petty.

I REALLY hope he stays above the fray tonight and refers back to specific policy details in the “Contract” as often as possible.

    There is a whole firmament of interlaced and interwoven money & power agreements, contracts, pacts, partnerships, etc. that is the Republican Establishment. The favored set of lobbyists, the favored set of media people, the favored set of campaign fund bundlers, the favored set of legal representation and political operatives, the favored set of government contractors, and so on. They are favored by the GOP leadership and elected GOP establishment. This aggregation decides everything, including who’s ‘turn’ it is next to be the GOP presidential candidate. Of course, they want an insider, one of their own, to perpetuate their grip on money and power, which, in DC, are the same thing.
    This is why they are so vehemently defending Romney – he’s their pick for 2012. This is why they so vehemently attack Gingrich – he is not one of the insiders anymore, and cannot be trusted to leave the existing power structure as it is. In fact, Gingrich is running on the promise to tear it down, to return the power of governance back to the states.

    If Gingrich wins, the existing GOP establishment power structure is doomed and a new one will be formed. The existing GOP establishment cannot let this happen, so Gingrich must be destroyed, just like Cain had to be destroyed, and just like Palin had to be destroyed. The policies of a Gingrich, Cain, or Palin are irrelevant, the problem is these folks were under the GOP establishment’s control.


“The policies of a Gingrich, Cain, or Palin are irrelevant, the problem is these folks AREN’T under the GOP establishment’s control.”

The fact that one part of the GOP establishment hates a guy who represents another part of the GOP establishment doesn’t mean that Newt is a “TEA Party” kind of guy.

And as far as Newt’s promises, he is far better at making conservative promises than actually implementing conservative promises. Think back over the very few parts of the “Contract with America” that were ever ENACTED into law. Why does anyone believe Newt isn’t playing conservatives AGAIN?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me…

Both Newt and Palin are not part of nor beholden to the Establishment, so the Establishment has to see them as a threat – you don’t go to Washington to get rid of Washington…

I look at comment throughout this site, and I foresee Obama’s re-election by all the Conservatives who would rather see Obama in office, than someone who’s not Conservative enough…

Has anyone here ever entertained the thought that Gingrich is hiding behind the cloak of the Tea Party?

Methinks so…

This Newt mania is getting crazy. The so-called establishment is almost uniformly horrified by the prospect of Newt’s becoming the nominee not because he is some sort of unreliable outsider insider but precisely because he has been the ultimate insider for 40 years during which time everyone involved in or closely following politics had had the chance to discover first hand how intemperate, volatile, narcissistic, and borderline nutty the guy is. Not to mention that half the time the guy has taken positions to the left of many Democrats.

It is one thing to make a case for Newt. It is really out of line to gloss over his many and obvious flaws and pretend that he is some sort of dream candidate.

    WarEagle82 in reply to JEBurke. | December 10, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    I am fairly sure I agree with everything you just said.

    We have two consummate political insiders claiming to be outsiders running for office and bashing each other over who is NOT the biggest statist, establishment candidate…

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to JEBurke. | December 10, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Half the time Newt has taken positions to the left of many Democrats? Really? Forget “half” the time. I’d like you to provide a single example of a bill Newt voted on that was “left of many Democrats”. You’re bloviating hyperbolic nonsense.

    Because if you look at actual facts, such as his voting record, you will see that Newt racked up a lifetime ACU score of 90 over his entire legislative career of about 20 years. Overwhelmingly right of center. Solidly conservative. How could he be left of Democrats half the time with that voting record? Answer: He wasn’t. You made it up.

    I agree that during the past decade when he was out of office he publicly advocated for some positions that many conservatives do not agree with, including myself. But labeling those positions “left of many Democrats” is ridiculous. You can’t possibly expect anyone to take you seriously, right?

      Ooh, you got me. “Half” is hyperbole. How sbout 10 percent in Congress and 20 percent in the 13 years since he was bounced out by his own caucus? And leaning left on some biggies, too.

      So does giving Newt a pass on even 10 percent mean that Romney can get a one in ten pass too? If not, why not.

      And since you mentioned ACA ratings, why does a certain Oklahoma Senator who has racked up a 98 percent conservative voting record get waved off or ravaged as a virtual RINO for testifying that Newt is unstable and saying he could never vote for him?

        Darkstar58 in reply to JEBurke. | December 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm

        So does giving Newt a pass on even 10 percent mean that Romney can get a one in ten pass too? If not, why not.

        Wait, what? 90% is too RINO for you, too – but instead you support a guy who gave us Romneycare, and in-turn, Obamacare?

        And just so you know, Rick Sanatorium is a lifetime 88% from the ACU, where Ron Paul sits at 84%. Bachmann of course has the highest rank, but being there such a short time compared to the others, that’s understandable…

        Anyway, no one will just give Newt a pass on the 10% any more then they will give everyone else a pass on their 12-20% non-conservative tallies.

        BUT, Newt shouldn’t be destroyed for his being “anything but conservative” when he in fact compares favorably to others praised as “Conservative champions”

        MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to JEBurke. | December 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm

        I didn’t “get you”. If you’re going to post a comment using a condescending tone, which is your typical style, while at the same time making the unbelievably ridiculous assertion that Newt takes positions to the left of many Democrats half the time, then you deserve to be called out on it.

        An ACU score of 90% does not mean that Gingrich was “left of the Democrats” on the other 10%. That is absurd. If that’s your assertion, then once again you’re either confused or you are having a problem dealing with actual facts. You also assert that Newt has been to the left of many Democrats on 20% of the issues he’s taken a stand on since he left Congress. That appears to be a fictional statistic that you invented.

        I’ve never defended Gingrich’s personality or his leadership style. I’m less concerned about this leadership style than his leadership direction. To that end, I’ve only examined his actual voting record and his prospective legislative agenda as documented in his 21st Century Contract With America. So I really don’t understand why Coburn’s comments about Gingrich’s leadership style is relevant to my comments. I also don’t know why you claiming that someone else called Coburn a RINO for not supporting Newt’s candidacy is relevant — to anything, really.

        Finally, since you did bring up Coburn, I’m not aware that he ever referred to Newt as “unstable” as you assert. Coburn called Newt “brilliant but divisive” on CSPAN in March, and he said he found Newt’s leadership “lacking”
        in an interview on Fox News Sunday last week. When did he call him unstable?

        Further, Coburn did not say he could “never” vote for Newt if he’s the GOP nominee. Coburn simply said he would not support Newt’s candidacy. The vast majority of Newt’s primary supporters will vote for Romney in the general election if Romney is the nominee. And visa versa. I don’t know if Coburn will vote for Newt if he’s the nominee in the general election. Neither do you. But to conflate not supporting Newt’s candidacy with “he could never vote for him” is an illogical leap.

          You know perfectly well what I mean by Newt’s leaning left on some issues. If Romney had made a video with Nancy Pelosi at Al Gore’s invitation, you guys would use it as proof certain that Mitt should be written off. That alone would be enough to sink him. Yet, it’s no big deal for Newt. Nor is his path to “legalization” or any other stand he’s tsken.

          As for hyperbole, if you can’t take hyperbole in a political debate, you should stay away from politics — and especially stop listening to Newt who is hyperbolic every other time he opens his mouth.

[…] to Rearrange Deck Chairs On the Titanic Posted on December 10, 2011 7:30 pm by Bill Quick » Newt may not be Tea Party, but his D.C. enemies treat him like he is – Le·gal In·sur·rec… Christian Whiton absolutely is on target as to the reasons behind the collective and almost […]

It’s instructive to note that Gingrich’s contemporary counterparts in the Senate, Bob Dole and Trent Lott, are now high-powered lobbyists and power brokers (and not necessarily only for Republicans let alone conservatives). Gingrich could easily have chosen the same path but didn’t. Gingrich’s right hand in the House, Dick Armey, also took the road less traveled, founding FreedomWorks and becoming one of the earliest sponsors of the Tea Party.