ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, December 13, 1995 TAG: 9512130011
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
WHO SAYS Washington politicians don't keep their promises?
Last February, just one month after the new Republican majority took control of Congress, Rep. Harry Johnston, D-Fla., told a partisan gathering in Boca Raton that he and his fellow congressional Democrats were determined to find dirt on the new speaker of the House.
Johnston said people had been assigned to ``investigate'' Gingrich every day. ``We meet once a week to go over what he's done through the week,'' said Johnston.
Since April 1989, Democrats have been conducting personal vendettas. Rep. Bill Alexander of Arkansas, then the deputy whip, was responsible for a cumulative total of 490 counts against Gingrich, ``supported'' by 670 pages of ``documentation.'' Gingrich was exonerated of all charges. But the Democrats didn't give up.
Rep. David Bonior of Michigan has replaced Alexander in the role of lead character assassin. This time around, it was a mere 65 charges. All but one were unanimously dismissed by the House Ethics Committee, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The one has to do with whether a section of the tax code was violated with the speaker's knowledge and approval. An outside counsel (not a special prosecutor - there is a big difference) will be named to investigate.
But this is ground that has already been plowed. Last year, former IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander reviewed a letter from the Ethics Committee that described the allegation that Gingrich used a tax-exempt foundation to obtain taxpayer subsidization for political activity. Alexander replied to the committee his belief that the charge was based on ``a fundamental misunderstanding of the tax-exemption provisions in the Internal Revenue Service Code.''
Gingrich has been accused by the Democrats of using money from foundations to support a college course he taught that allegedly violated laws relating to what tax-exempt entities are permitted to do. But as Alexander noted in his Dec. 5, 1994, letter to Gingrich, the IRS and the courts have long been lenient in allowing exemptions for organizations that sponsor or promote particular views on controversial topics. And it's a good thing for the so-called institutions of ``higher learning'' that they do, else most colleges and universities would lose their exemptions because of so much leftist propaganda they teach that masquerades as education.
While the speaker awaits a court ruling on whether his GOPAC organization helped candidates for federal office, rather than state office as its charter says, this single technical charge is all the Democrats have on which to base their future. But this charge and the implication it is serious are so bogus, even The Washington Post - no friend of Republicans - saw through the haze. In an editorial, the Post accused Democrats of wishing to ``destroy Mr. Gingrich by any means possible,'' and properly distinguished between a ``prosecutor'' and ``counsel'': ``a `special counsel' sounds more ominous than it is ... people will confuse the action with appointment of a special prosecutor and think he has fallen under the same shadow that others have.''
No doubt Speaker Gingrich has helped the Democrats' cause by his demeanor and his attacks on the motives of his opponents. He might have taken the less confrontational ``we can do better'' line used by John Kennedy. And his sense of ethical awareness and appearances should have been so heightened that he would have delayed his book deal for at least one more election cycle, and then donated the proceeds to a foundation to provide college scholarships for the deserving poor. But choosing the wrong style is not breaking the law.
Democrats apparently feel that government is their personal play toy. Having run out of ideas of their own, they are determined to bring down the author of ideas that will work if given a chance. By attempting to shift attention away from their own shortcomings and make the speaker the fall guy, the Democrats are showing their fear that the voters are about to learn they've been had.
The demonization of the speaker is an outrage, but it serves a dual purpose for the Democrats. Not only does it divert concentration from the failure of big government, it also keeps the public from fully focusing on what could be the coming ethical crack-up of the Clinton administration over the Whitewater cover-up.
- Los Angeles Times Syndicate
LENGTH: Medium: 80 linesby CNB