Gingrich hit by "Serial Hypocrisy" video

Youtube campaign ad released by GOP hopeful Ron Paul calls out his rival on inconsistencies.

An ever-more confident Newt Gingrich has seen his campaign for Republican Presidential candidate spring into the lead this week. Gingrich has a 11.3 per cent lead over current second place nominee Mitt Romney, and is 12 points ahead of Hermain Cain in the latest Iowa Caucus, according to Real Clear Politics. "It's very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I'm going to be the nominee," Gingrich told ABC News on Thursday.

But his confidence might have been deflated after a new black-and-white web video from the Ron Paul campaign -- featuring Glenn Beck and several other conservative icons -- accuses him of being two-faced. The two minute YouTube video, entitled Newt Gingrich: Serial hypocrisy, has had almost half a million hits since being uploaded on Wednesday.

The Paul campaign has accused Gingrich of not being a "consistent conservative," and the video reminds viewers of allegations that Gingrich received millions of dollars from Freddie Mac and health care companies, as well as showing him alongside House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, saying that "our country must take action to address climate change" in a TV commercial.

Gingrich said his appearance in the video alongside Pelosi was the "dumbest mistake I ever made," and denies ever working as a lobbyist.

The Youtube ad will not air on television, but the Paul campaign plans to send it to its "far-reaching e-mail list of conservative voters". Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign chairman, said in a statement released Wednesday that his campaign "is making a bold move to debunk the myth that the Newt we are seeing on the 2012 campaign trail is the conservative he has been touted to be all along."

Gingrich's press secretary R.C. Hammond denied any notion that the former speaker isn't conservative enough to be to be president.

"No candidate in the race has achieved more conservative reform of government or spent more time and energy championing the cause of the conservative movement than Newt Gingrich, which is why voters across the country are choosing Newt over Mitt Romney," he said.

With such sharp accusations abound, Republican voters may be worried that whoever emerges from the fight for GOP candidacy might be too beaten and bloodied to compete next November in the ultimate race against President Obama.


Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'll vote against bombing Isis - but my conscience is far from clear

Chi Onwurah lays out why she'll be voting against British airstrikes in Syria.

I have spent much of the weekend considering how I will vote on the question of whether the UK should extend airstrikes against Daesh/Isis from Iraq to Syria, seeking out and weighing the evidence and the risks.

My constituents have written, emailed, tweeted, facebooked or stopped me in the street to share their thoughts. Most recognised what a difficult and complex decision it is. When I was selected to be the Labour candidate for Newcastle Central I was asked what I thought would be the hardest part of being an MP.

I said it would be this.

I am not a pacifist, I believe our country is worth defending and our values worth fighting for. But the decision to send British Armed Forces into action is, rightly, a heavy responsibility.

For me it comes down to two key questions. The security of British citizens, and the avoidance of civilian casualties. These are separate operational and moral questions but they are linked in that it is civilian casualties which help fuel the Daesh ideology that we cannot respect and value the lives of those who do not believe as we do. There is also the important question of solidarity with the French in the wake of their grievous and devastating loss; I shall come to that later.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister as he set out the case for airstrikes on Thursday and I share his view that Daesh represents a real threat to UK citizens. However he did not convince me that UK airstrikes at this time would materially reduce that threat. The Prime Minister was clear that Daesh cannot be defeated from the air. The situation in Syria is complex and factionalised, with many state and non-state actors who may be enemies of our enemy and yet not our friend. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000 ground troops in the moderate Free Syrian Army but many experts dispute that number and the evidence does not convince me that they are in a position to lead an effective ground campaign. Bombs alone will not prevent Daesh obtaining money, arms and more recruits or launching attacks on the UK. The Prime Minister did not set out how we would do that, his was not a plan for security and peace in Syria with airstrikes a necessary support to it, but a plan to bomb Syria, with peace and security cited in support of it. That is not good enough for me.

Daesh are using civilian population as human shields. Syrians in exile speak of the impossibility of targeting the terrorists without hitting innocent bystanders. I fear that bombing Raqqa to eliminate Daesh may be like bombing Gaza to eliminate Hamas – hugely costly in terms of the civilian population and ultimately ineffectual.

Yet the evil that Daesh perpetrate demands a response. President Hollande has called on us to join with French forces. I lived in Paris for three years, I spent time in just about every location that was attacked two weeks ago, I have many friends living in Paris now, I believe the French are our friends and allies and we should stand and act in solidarity with them, and all those who have suffered in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and around the world.

But there are other ways to act as well as airstrikes. Britain is the only G7 country to meet its international development commitments, we are already one of the biggest humanitarian contributors to stemming the Syrian crisis, we can do more not only in terms of supporting refugees but helping those still in Syria, whether living in fear of Daesh or Assad. We can show the world that our response is to build rather than bomb. The Prime Minister argues that without taking part in the bombing we will not have a place at the table for the reconstruction. I would think our allies would be reluctant to overlook our financial commitment.

We can also do more to cut off Daesh funding, targeting their oil wells, their revenues, their customers and their suppliers. This may not be as immediately satisfying as bombing the terrorists but it is a more effective means of strangling them.

The vast majority of the constituents who contacted me were against airstrikes. I agree with them for the reasons I set out above. I should say that I have had no experience of bullying or attempts at intimidation in reaching this decision, Newcastle Central is too friendly, frank, comradely and Geordie a constituency for that. But some have suggested that I should vote against airstrikes to ensure a “clear conscience” ’. This is not the case. There will be more killings and innocent deaths whether there are UK airstrikes or not, and we will all bear a portion of responsibility for them.

A version of this article was originally sent to Chi Onwurah's constituents, and can be read here