Newt Gingrich decided last week to give some of the responsibilities of Bill Paxon -- whom Gingrich dumped from his leadership team after the recent failed coup -- to Pennsylvania's Jim Greenwood, one of the most "moderate" Republicans in the House (moderate being media code for the GOP's liberal wing). Unless Gingrich just wanted to serve up an emetic to his conservative backbenchers, it's hard to see why he picked Greenwood to lead the House GOP's long-range planning effort. Greenwood has never been known as a Gingrich loyalist. Moreover, Greenwood is so far out of the party's mainstream when it comes to abortion that he can fairly be described as holding hands with the Democrats' pro-choice hardliners.
As a House freshman in 1993, Greenwood was a cosponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have made the unrestricted right to abortion a matter of federal law. Shortly before last year's Republican convention, Greenwood held a press conference outside the Supreme Court to denounce the abortion language proposed for the GOP platform. And earlier this year, he joined liberal Democrat Nita Lowey in inviting colleagues to form a congressional pro-choice caucus. "With an anti-choice majority in Congress," they wrote, " it is critical that we work together to stem the tide of anti-choice legislation." Greenwood was one of only eight House Republicans to vote against a proposed ban on partial-birth abortions.
Greenwood has already tried to divert attention from his pro-abortion record, saying he would be unfairly labeled on the basis of one issue. So he and his conservative colleagues should find common ground on other issues? No chance. Greenwood has voted to raise the minimum wage, to maintain the ban on assault-style firearms, and to freeze defense spending. Last year, he told the New York Times that he and the other "moderate" members of the House GOP were "not going to be led by right-wing ideologues off of precipices that have nothing to do with where Americans want to go."
Speaking of precipices, by choosing Greenwood, Gingrich seems to be sending a signal that his political future, if he has one, will not be with the party's conservatives.