Back in the late 1990's, when then-Texas Governor George W. Bush was making his run for the presidency, he adopted a phrase Team Bush thought would soften his brand and appeal to moderate voters; "compassionate conservatism." Although some in the chatterati have argued over who was responsible for coming up with the term (in 1979, Doug Wead, a former advisor to George H.W. Bush and counselor to Dubya, gave a speech titled "The Compassionate Conservative"), much of the credit has gone to Marvin Olasky.

Olasky, currently the editor of the conservative evangelical weekly magazine World, sealed the deal in 2000 when his book titled Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can Transform America, was published.

Even at its height, however, "compassionate conservatism" was never really about compassion, especially for the least among us. At the heart of Olasky's argument was an anti-government animus that maintained that the federal government and state governments should play less of a role in supporting a social safety net, and instead, that role should shift to local charities and faith-based institutions.

Well, it's more than a decade later and there's little in the way of "compassion" left in the conservative movement. So little in fact, it has caused Olasky, along with Watergate felon Chuck Colson and others to criticize the Ayn Randian druthers of the Tea Party/Republican Party. For now, however, Olasky has put his old friend Newt Gingrich in the crosshairs.

'Has Newt Changed?'

By now, anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention to the GOP's presidential sweepstakes knows that Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign is going nowhere. He may hang in there to sell a few more books and DVDs, but for all practical purposes, it's curtains for Newt.

Olasky's World article, titled "Has Newt Gingrich changed?" (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18131), has been largely overlooked by the mainstream media; it was brought to my attention by a recent Esquire column by John H. Richardson.

In "Has Newt Gingrich changed?" Olasky claimed that during Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings, the then Speaker of the House met with President Clinton, and Clinton intimated that he knew about Gingrich's indiscretions and would use them if Gingrich got overly involved during the impeachment process.

By way of introducing Olasky's Gingrich story, Richardson pointed to the interview he did last year with Gingrich's former second wife, Marianne -- her first since Gingrich had "dumped her for another woman - the woman [Callista Bisek] who would become his much talked-about third wife and accompany him for his run for 2012" (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/marianne-gingrich-behind-th e-scenes-081010).

Richardson pointed to a part of his interview with Marianne where she recounted a conversation she had with Newt about his having received a phone call from Clinton summoning him to the White House. Gingrich went to see Clinton - going in through "the back door to the Oval Office" - Newt recalled. Newt then told Marianne that "during that meeting, Bill Clinton said to me: 'You're a lot like me, and here's why.'" Marianne noted that, "he wasn't talking about another woman. He said he couldn't tell me. That's why he had to walk."

A Gingrich/Clinton conspiracy?

World teases Olasky's Gingrich story with a provocative sub-head: "Questions about the past: Did Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have secret meetings prior to Clinton's impeachment hearings? How wide was the knowledge of Gingrich's extramarital affairs? Did Clinton know? Did Clinton's knowledge affect Gingrich's actions? The question for the present: What does Gingrich's conduct then, and the way he has dealt with it, tell us about him today?"

Before getting the meat of his expose, Olasky gave Gingrich his props for "his role in promoting historic welfare reform in 1995 and 1996," and he salutes him "for publicizing a book I wrote on poverty-fighting." Olasky also pointed out that while Gingrich may have spiritually changed his life by among other things writing books and making films like "Rediscovering God in America" and converting to Catholicism, former Rep. Pete Hoekstra told Olasky, that he doesn't remember "Newt ever apologizing to the caucus about his affair. It is one of the gaping holes in the story. . . . It is almost unforgivable and a real weakness of leadership when you jeopardize your followers. . . . Why should those who followed him in 1998 follow him now? Will he put his followers at risk again?"

Olasky pointed out that during an interview last fall with former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who heads up FreedomWorks, one of the most powerful national Tea Party organizations, Armey told him that during the impeachment hearings, "President Bill Clinton 'found out about the Gingrich affair and called Newt over to the White House for a private meeting between the two of them.' Armey argued that Clinton pressured Gingrich to go easy on that year's impeachment drive 'or I'll start telling your story.' He claimed the two leaders 'had many meetings that we didn't know about where they'd drink wine and smoke cigars and talk about their girlfriends.'"

Olasky also hypothesizes on how Clinton may have found out about Gingrich's affair: "One likely conduit - according to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., former Rep. Bob Dornan, R-Calif., and others - was Rep. [Steve] Gunderson, who now runs an association for charitable foundations. As a congressman, Gunderson hired Bisek and helped her move to the Agriculture Committee staff where she served as an assistant clerk. Frank told me regarding Gingrich's affair that 'Gunderson knew about it. He was complicit.'"

Gingrich's denial

Did Gingrich back off Clinton? Not according to Gingrich. According to Olasky, "Gingrich vigorously denied that [he was on a leash] in emails to me: 'There is no example in my career of my backing down out of fear over anything.... My father spent 27 years as an infantryman. One of my closest friends is an 8 year POW in Vietnam. It would be impossible to blackmail me.'

Olasky reported that "For evidence to support his contention that he did not back down in his battles with Bill Clinton, Gingrich pointed to [Steven] Gillon's [book] The Pact - but that solid historical work does not provide much of a defense. Gillon writes that in 1998 Gingrich 'went from blasting Clinton in April for being the most corrupt president in history to giving him a free pass in August' - the month that those Salon.com warnings emerged. Gillon refers to Gingrich as 'uncharacteristically uncertain' and sending 'mixed signals.' He suggests that Gingrich in criticizing Clinton 'must have realized that he was vulnerable to similar charges.' He reports that conservatives felt Gingrich 'had gone soft on the president.'"

According to Olasky, "One of Gillon's sentences is particularly memorable: 'While listening to a Republican debate about censure, Gingrich stuffed his tie in his mouth and bit it-a sign of his frustration at keeping silent on an issue about which he felt so strongly.'"

Finally, Olasky has some behavioral suggestions for Gingrich: "Gingrich's affair contributed powerfully to the conclusion reached by many Americans that the GOP was a party of moral hypocrites who talked about family values but did not practice them. He hurt not only his wife but the 'Republican revolution' and the followers who trusted him. He cannot succeed now by referring to the harm he did in an offhand way. If Gingrich wants to show that he has changed, he needs to review what he did in greater depth and tell the whole story. He won't win by showing himself as a master of public policy. He needs to show an understanding that honesty is the best policy. He needs to show that he has mastered himself."

Despite the Gingrich's predilections for making movies at the drop of a hat, it is doubtful that the secret Clinton/Gingrich face-off in the Oval Office will ever be committed to film. But if it was, can't you hear the stentorian voice-over narration: "In a world where impeachment was inevitable, and a president was about to be deposed, two of the most powerful men in Washington met in the White House. This is the story of what happened behind the closed doors of the Oval Office!"