The American Spectator

Ivan Ivanovich| 1.24.12 @ 6:16AM

Jeffery: You give away your "in the tank" condition with "Wow"

Jack in Wi.| 1.24.12 @ 11:08AM

Reagan never even knew Newt's name. Newt was just another backbencher. Newt would be the worst candidate possible. His baggage makes him poison to most women, independents, young people, and dissatisfied Democrats. He would be like fuel to the fire to get Democrats to the polls. He would destroy the ticket as the base stays home in droves or goes 3rd party.

Vern Crisler| 1.24.12 @ 11:21AM

I came to political consciousness during the latter part of Jimmy Carter's presidency, and participated in the Reagan campaign for presidency (in my local area). Those of us who knew anything about Reagan knew that Newt was a big part of the Reagan Revolution.

I wish I had been on the inside like Jeffrey Lord, but a lot of us had to be content with watching from afar. BTW, Hayward's books on Reagan are excellent. He also has a couple of lectures you can download which are great.

Just because you're a Paulista, Jack, doesn't mean you have to rewrite history about Newt. If Newt wins this thing, I nominate Hayward to be the official biographer....

Occam's Tool| 1.24.12 @ 1:44PM

Jack, Lord was a Reagan political director. What he has forgotten about the Reagan administration is more than you will ever know, you twisted little 4-F Bradley Manning supporter.

Sonny119| 1.24.12 @ 10:01PM

Exactly !

Romeny RINO's and the Paulista's, are all the same. Repeat the lies, inuendo's, false accusations, and political propagandist tripe enough, and make the "Newt has too baggage" theme rhetoric, the truth..

Not going to work. The liberal media, and their collsuionary cohort Romney RINO's manipulation and coercion of the facts and truth, are making the American people, paricularly the Reagan Tea Party Conservatives, will not sway us in the least, but only makes us more determined to win this Nomination, then the U.S. Presidency.

IzeHavitt| 1.25.12 @ 2:04AM

Memo to The Tea Party Reagan Conservatives: Don't lose your nerve. Period....... Go, Newt!!!

Steve| 1.26.12 @ 9:49AM

Romney may be many things...a RINO is not one of them.

What the heck does RINO mean anymore? For many it means someone who is to the left of me.

Surly Curmudgen| 1.26.12 @ 5:42PM

Romney is one of the communist/socialist wannabe masters whose first disguise is as a progressive with his second disguise being Republican. He is not worthy of my vote. He is not worthy of any thinking American's vote.

Steve| 1.26.12 @ 9:46AM

"I came to political consciousness during the latter part of Jimmy Carter's presidency, and participated in the Reagan campaign for presidency (in my local area). Those of us who knew anything about Reagan knew that Newt was a big part of the Reagan Revolution."

Ditto.

There are those who wonder why we support Newt Gingrich in spite of his warts. Can't won't speak for others, but for me one word sums it up...Ideas. (see Newt Gingrich 2+2=4)

So often when Romney is asked what he would do about...whatever, you get a sound byte, that sounds really good...but what does it mean?
When Gingrich is asked you get a well thought out substantive answer....Ideas

thoughtcriminal2| 1.26.12 @ 6:27PM

My word is "fighter". Newt is a fighter for conservative principles, for this country and for us. Romney will never be a fighter and so, he probably could not even win an election against Obama.

Interested Conservative| 1.24.12 @ 1:49PM

Jack - did you even read the article, or are you just cutting and pasting across websites? IIRC from 3rd grade, your sentences don't make up a paragraph, though they appear to. Maybe you have cut and pasted from cutting and pasting? Please review and resubmit.

Jack in Wi.| 1.24.12 @ 2:03PM

I think Romney pretty well destroyed that argument when he found out that Newt was mentioned one time in any of Reagan's papers, in an obsure comment. He hit him over the head, with it, in the last debate in South Carolina. Lord here was an obscure, young, flunky in Reagan White House. He has been trying to live off that for the last 20 years.

W| 1.24.12 @ 2:45PM

Jack,
You don't like Newt, Romney, or Rick.
Ron Paul will not be the nominee. Will you vote for the Rep nominee if is is not Paul? Yes or no?

Hobbes| 1.24.12 @ 4:32PM

Ron Paul is the only candidate who served in the military. The others are warmongering chickenhawks.

TrueBlue| 1.24.12 @ 7:41PM

He was drafted, in the Air Force, stayed stateside, and was a medical doctor. Trust me, he was as close to being a civilian as anyone can get in the military.

I have great respect for him having served, and I will say nothing against the medical corps of the US military, but they do not have their fingers on the mental pulse of the military; not even remotely close.

IzeHavitt| 1.25.12 @ 2:08AM

Memo to Hobbes: Service in the military, while laudable, doesn't necessarily translate into wisdom. We wish it did, but it ain't always so.

Foxfier| 1.26.12 @ 7:23PM

Man, I wish I could introduce you to my buddy from when I was in that thinks Obama is a moderate and is the "hawk" of his group for thinking that the military should be kept for disaster relief.... (The rest of his friends think it should be abolished entirely.)

Jack in Wi.| 1.24.12 @ 7:07PM

Either he is the nominee or the Republican party is finished. I at one time thought I could vote for Willard Romney as the last resort. Now I am so disgusted at the filth that the Republican party has been feeding us since Reagan, I won't vote for anyone but Ron Paul, or a 3rd party. Newt is unelectable. no sane Independent, woman, young person, or disasisfied Democrat will pull the lever for him.

The Partiot Act, TARP, endless war, endless bailouts of the fatcats, endless printing of money by the Fed, the TSA and endless ex-rays and feelups at airports, endless destruction of the Constitution. The final straw was the NDAA which most Republicans voted for. that gave Obama the power to kill Americans or throw them in prison, without due process, as long as he called them terroists.

I am sick of being fed dog food by the Republicans and them calling it steak.No sane person should vote for the Republicans, if they keep on their present course.

W| 1.24.12 @ 8:00PM

Jack
Why is your anger directed at the Republicans and not the Democrats? Obama has been president for 3 years, Dems control the Senate since 2006, and controlled the House from 2006 to 2010.
You don't make sense. You act as if the Republicans control the government, and Dems have not part.
You sound like you will vote for Obama. Obama did not have to do any of those actions, just because he had the power to do so does not mean he was compelled to do so.
You don't blame Obama and the Dems, just the Republicans, and yet you say you are for Ron Paul, who even an idiot can figure out has no chance to be the Republican nominee.

Jack in Wi.| 1.24.12 @ 9:47PM

We all know the Democrats are terrible. The Republicans are supposed to be better. Bush gave us Clinton. Bush Jr. gave us Obama. Romney will give us somone worse. Gingrich is worse then Obama. I could care less which of these 3 guys wins. For 12 elections I have voted the Republican Presidential ticket. Never again. It's write in Ron Paul or vote 3rd party. That is the only honest thing to do.

I will say right now that Ron Paul has more chance of being nominated then Newt Gingrich. Gingrich isn't even on the ballot in several important states, like Misouri and Virginia. Newt has so much baggage and such a big mouth that he will never stand up to scrutiny. Gingrich and the Israeli billionares pouring money into his campaign are only guarenteeing Barack Obama's re-election.

IzeHavitt| 1.25.12 @ 2:10AM

Then you may wish to vote for The Independent Conservatives.

Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 4:59PM

OMG, you're so ''''STUPIDLY''''' full of excrement it's beyond belief. Why don't you assist your Wisconsin governor Scott Walker from being mugged by Democrats/labor unions instead of kissing Ron's backside??????

Jack in Wi.| 1.24.12 @ 9:53PM

Old Timer, with the putrid pen. I back Scott Walker and is probably the last Republican I am voting for. There is no way Gingrich can ever carry this state or the upper Mid West. Most of these states lean Democrat. An old warmonger and crook like Gringrich will destroy the ticket in this state. Romney has a slightly better chance but his chances are very slim as well. He is just to much of a phoney.

Ed| 1.25.12 @ 10:59PM

What a dope. See the polls out of MN today? Newt's slaughtering Myth.

idalily| 1.25.12 @ 6:42PM

Yet again, Jack proves he knows absolutely nothing. What a surprise.

JenB| 1.25.12 @ 11:18PM

And we are supposed to believe you (stranger on internet) over the guy who actually was there? Riiight. I see.

SUBVET| 1.24.12 @ 11:38AM

Jeffery......thank you for your history lesson on Newt. I will pass this on to all who "have no clue".

@Jabber3.....this explains "the old, passive & reactive Republican Party".

Dai Alanye| 1.24.12 @ 11:42AM

A great exposition by Jeff Lord of the reasons to back Gingrich in preference to Romney. But Lord is wise to end his tale before Newt gained power, when things began to fall apart. We've learned how good Newt was way back when, after having dropped his backing of Nelson Rockefeller and becoming a follower of Reagan, but what about 1995 and later?

To that end, how is Gingrich to be cleared of folding to Clinton over government shutdown? What explanation can be offered for his own party -- the conservative wing of it -- turning against him? How to explain his peccadilloes such as involvement in the House Banking scandal? What of his more recent errors involving Dede Scozzafava, global warming, the individual mandate, the pointless slam given to Paul Ryan?

Newt's greatest problems are hubris and a love of public attention. This does not bode well for a President Newt. We already have a leftist narcissist in the office -- we must replace him, but preferably not with an erratic righ-leaning narcissist, nor with a moderate posing as a conservative.

BullPasture| 1.24.12 @ 12:14PM

Why did his own party turn against Newt in 1995? Perhaps the answer is the same as to why the Republicans caved on the debt ceiling last summer. The trappings of power became more important than principle or victory. All the Republicans had to do to achieve their goal of reducing the size of government was - nothing. They caved out of fear of losing their power.

Interested Conservative| 1.24.12 @ 1:51PM

For goodness sake, please review before submitting. 1995? Facts help make arguments. Arguments often persuade. Ignorance does neither.

Hobbes| 1.24.12 @ 4:32PM

Ron Paul is the only candidate who served in the military. The others are warmongering chickenhawks.

Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 5:00PM

%%%%AND THE COW JUMPED OVER THE MOON, WHILE THE DISH RAN AWAY WITH THE SPOON%%%%

Alan Brooks| 1.24.12 @ 7:07PM

"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush"

Bush? anyone who wants to revisit Bush is a sado-masochist.

Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 8:16PM

Unless of course you'd instead want to revisit Obama, and then you'd be just plain STUPID!!!!

Alan Brooks| 1.24.12 @ 7:09PM

Paul says what he thinks;
Newt says what Rube Goldbergs and Walter Mittys want to hear.

Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 8:16PM

And Obama says what NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!

Sam Deakins| 1.24.12 @ 6:48AM

I really can't understand the Romney campaign. He and his consultants seem not only disconnected from the voters but, out of touch with what is happening with the Romney candidacy.

Chef Schnauzer| 1.24.12 @ 6:57AM

".... in a hand-basket."
The arrival time of the basket with Obama is one time period... The arrival time of the basket with Romney the moderate-mush 1.5 time periods and with Gingrich who I am beginning to think of as a well behaved sociopath is 2. It just doesn't make a difference. This conservative will not drink the republican party kool-aid; no nose holding, no coming around in the last week -

Richard Baker| 1.24.12 @ 6:57AM

Romney is trying sooo hard to not be a conservative that it's hard to watch. He is the latest and not greatest in the Scranton, Rockefeller, Ford, Dole, and McCain mold. Meanwhile, Newt is beating him up on his lack that you have to honestly wonder who his "consultants" are and are they paying attention. Guaranteed, though, that they are being paid a fortune for the privilege of "advising" this guy. If he's not careful, he'll pick up the Harold Stassen mantle. How long has he been running for President, again?

idalily| 1.25.12 @ 6:46PM

Romney is bending over so far backward to court Indies that he's losing the base. And Gingrich, who cut his teeth in Reagan's time, knows without the base, you don't win anything. That's why he fights. He knows the conservative base wants a fighter. Romney hasn't got the cajones to fight with a marshmallow.

Just Tom| 1.24.12 @ 7:05AM

Any poll that has Clinton and Kennedy above Washington, and Obama in 7th place is beyond risible.

Conserdude| 1.24.12 @ 7:16AM

All fine points mr lord. Romney is not a great candidate, except for the others. Newt will be catastrophic if he's the nominee

richard ryan| 1.24.12 @ 8:28AM

That may be true regarding Newt as a candidate, but as a president, he would run circles around the Timid One. Newt has proven, as Mr. Lord documents, that he has the courage to stand on principle. Just as importantly, he is not afraid to call out those who waffle, cringe, and pander when the heat is on. As Governor Perry pointed out, Newt is not perfect. But at this point in history, the most important thing is to get a conservative who is a bold leader. Someone who is smart enough to lay out a good plan (see Newt.org), and tough enough to make sure it happens.

Occam's Tool| 1.24.12 @ 1:47PM

Folks, please seriously read about how people considered Churchill in, say, September of 1939. The KING didn't want him as Prime Minister. But there are times when we need hyperactive chihuahuas with oversized egos. Patton was an asshole, too.

Drunken Sailor| 1.24.12 @ 4:10PM

Exactly OT. Sometimes it takes a asshole to get things done. I scratch my head at conservatives that say we need another Ronald Regan but turn their nose up at someone that worked closely with Regan and Jack Kemp. And if anyone doesn't think the Rino's and Liberals of the day didn't have their knives out for Newt are just not dealing with reality.

IzeHavitt| 1.25.12 @ 2:17AM

Re. Patton: Let us please note thet:.....he won!!!

idalily| 1.25.12 @ 6:47PM

Occam, you nailed it. Well said.

POST American| 1.24.12 @ 7:19AM

-----------Tavistock CON OP '80's Show'-------------
---------------------RED ALERT!-----------------------

Though Reagan himself --MAY-- have been
wise to things, nevertheless, he was the
second open adulter put before the public
to represent 'CON-servativism' and to lay
cover for the RED China TREASON OP.

Gerald Ford was the first.

BOTH were KEY to smoothing the way
for the US taxpayer underwritten
RED China TREASON OP ---and,
on a deeper level, subliminal degradation
of the culture.

Those awake at the time openly wondered
WHY even the so-called 'conservative'
press made NO issue of the hitherto unthinkable
adultery issue among conservative leaders.

It MUST be kept in mind:

Reagan took us through the very heyday
of the CFR-RED China handover and TREASON
OP --with CFR member Bush Sr. at his side.

Gingrich himself, of course, is yet another
open adulterer --and a bottomlessly mercenary
one at that.

If he's capable of dumping his
suffering spouse ---think what he can do
for you ---the abstract American public
interest.

Think of what he's ALREADY done,
promoted, and shamelessly been involved
with.

SO putting down this CON OP, and taking
up those 1995 photos of himself giving
talks by the lake in Bohemian Grove
talks which he himself DENIES
-----we think one and all will know
what to do.

This it the 11th hour.

Sellout, TREASON and VAST,
soon to be aggressively enforced,
capstone ----EUGENICS---.

Gingrich has been at the very forefront
of these agendas his entire political life.

He like Globalist slave John McCain
---needs to be definitively drummed from
American conservative political ranks.

Ron Paul, such as he is, as we write, is
definitively moving against the unspeakably
UN-American NDAA section 1021.

The pre-emptive criminalization of the
American public --MUST-- be faced and
stopped ----NOW.

The perpetrators --MUST-- be pulled from
power and defintively brought to justice.

The Constitution --HAS-- been overturned.

Soveriegnty --HAS-- been subverted.

--------WE ARE DEALING WITH TREASON-------

-------------YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED------------

Die Fledermaus| 1.24.12 @ 7:10PM

You need to get your prescriptions renewed.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.24.12 @ 7:50AM

Jeffrey, thank you for that history lesson.

Uh...Jeffrey was there, guys.

1972Patriot| 1.24.12 @ 11:43AM

I was in my early 20's when Newt led Congress. I was not driven by politics and my opinion then, as it is now, was that Newt was stepping on the toes of powerful people on the left and right and he was conveniently disposed of. I thank Mr. Lord for correctly articulating many of my memories of the time.

idalily| 1.25.12 @ 6:49PM

Right now, someone who can step on the toes of the powerful people on the left and right makes me smile. Can Newt b*%@h slap them while he's at it?

JenB| 1.25.12 @ 11:41PM

Wouldn't that be lovely? I would definitely be cheering.

Clint| 1.24.12 @ 8:05AM

So Was Dr.Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Mike Rogers| 1.24.12 @ 8:54AM

Who, like Judas, disavowed his hero when the chips were down.
And, by the way, Reagan believed in a strong military, and "we win, they lose".
Ron Paul is a loser - on the other hand, Rand Paul is going places.

Nymph| 1.24.12 @ 2:51PM

Rand may be going places, but not on a plane, since I'm sure he has now been put on the no fly list by the TSA......

Occam's Tool| 1.24.12 @ 1:49PM

Yes, but Paul accomplished nothing. When his final term in Congress is over, he will have had NO accomplishments to his name, just a history of pissing people off and quixotic attempts to legalize hard drugs.

If there is a brokered convention, he will be put in a sequestered room like his son was by TSA.

Clint| 1.24.12 @ 10:10PM

You Israel Firster Traitor Bastards Are Attempting To Accomplish Turning The GOP Into Israel's Bitch, While You Use Our American Warriors As Cannon Foddder And Piss Away Our Treasury Policing The Middle East For Israel's Agenda.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Headed To A Brokered Convention.

RCV| 1.25.12 @ 11:36AM

So that's what the Tea Party has come to? A "brokered convention". Where the party leaders choose the nominee instead of GOP voters.

And you know what Ron Paul's chances would be in a "brokered convention"?

Melvin| 1.24.12 @ 8:22AM

The descriptions of Mitt's strained Conservationism can be more accurately depicted as, "Constipated." Mitt is so stopped up with a diet of Progressivism that he has ingested his whole life and now he has had on chew on a Conservative bone, which clearly doesn't agree with him as his strained face projects.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.24.12 @ 8:29AM

Your comment about Newt's release of Fannie/Freddie records does not square with the facts. Newt released a 2006 contract and that won't cut it. He's hoping no one notices.

Interested Conservative| 1.24.12 @ 1:53PM

Why not?

Mimi| 1.24.12 @ 8:54AM

Jeff...What a story...WOW !
" You are going to have to ..do it after I'm GONE"...Quite prophetic!
Line that up against Romney's glib and irrepsponsible accusations...Yes Jeff you sure told us an AMERICAN story.
Newt Gingrich comes before this NATION...old warts and all,....TO SERVE !

Mike Rogers| 1.24.12 @ 8:57AM

Jeffrey, this piece brought tears to my eyes.
I knew the phrase "Tax collector for the welfare state", but thought is was born in the 1996 race.
Reagan and Thatcher, Churchill and Gingrich. Leaders - not always right, but always leading. I began this campaign season with a profound distrust of Newt's occasional apostasies, but the more I learn, the more I think it MUST be Newt's time.

wodiej| 1.24.12 @ 9:21AM

great article and proof despite some mild stumbles, Gingrich indeed is a conservative and has the best interests of the country at heart. Romney is not even close.

martin j smith| 1.24.12 @ 9:26AM

I do not go into history but watch and observe the behavior of the candidates. If I were forced to chose between Newt and any other candidate now running I would pick Newt because he has shown that he has the potential to be a leader and is willing to take on the MSM. I believe Romney missed an opportunity last nite. Instead of bashing Newt he should have blasted Obama especially with the SOTUS coming very soon. But n0 we can't upset poor little Obama can we. That is my problem with Romney.

JenB| 1.25.12 @ 11:51PM

I agree with your entire post. I want a present fighter and a future leader. Romney will not call out the media and he keeps saying Obama is a "nice guy" This guy is no fighter. He says some of the right stuff, but it sounds forced.

JimP| 1.24.12 @ 9:52AM

Thanks Mr. Lord for the accurate recounting of history with your eye witness history lesson! I see even being an eye witness isn't enough to make those with Newt Derangement Syndrome pause and rethink. Keep it up though, it is columns like yours that have helped me begin to sway even some Ron Paul supporters into considering a Newt vote.

Also your recounting of just some of the reasons people inside DC & the big government bubble STILL hate Newt is invaluable. Having worked in D.C. myself, I can attest to how far less important, even meanlingless, 'offenses' generate vengeance filled eternal blood feuds among the wanna-be lifelong denizens in D.C.

So, thanks again, and I'm glad you are "in the tank" for Newt.

BullPasture| 1.24.12 @ 12:19PM

Thanks to Mitt Romney for raising the issue so it can be put into perspective.

Mitt Romney had the overwhelming support of the Republican establishment for his senate campaign and in September, just six weeks from election day, the race was effectively a dead heat. At least two polls showed Romney leading Kennedy by a couple of points. Then Kennedy attacked Romney as a flip flopper who changed his position on abortion and questioned Romney's job creation claims. Romney began to fall behind. Next Kennedy brought out the big guns and questioned Romney's record with Ampad where he bought the company for $5 million, layered it with $400 million in debt, took out $100 million, and then sent the company into bankruptcy. Romney cratered and lost badly. Now he wants to do it at a higher level.

Mitt Romney wanted to surf a Republican wave that was created by the hard work and commitment of real leaders like Newt Gingrich. With his Contract for America Newt developed a surge that captured 54 house seats and 8 senate seats. Mitt Romney was one of the few Republicans who couldn't reach the shore that year. Weighed down by his flip flopping, and his questionable performance as a capitalist, Mitt Romney failed in the year of the most lopsided Republican victory ever. The contrast in effective leadership, in accomplishing change, couldn't be more stark.

JimP| 1.24.12 @ 6:16PM

Thanks for the detailed info on the '94 MA Senate race, 'BP'. Very enlightening and the info on Ampad.

albert constantine jr.| 1.24.12 @ 9:58AM

Once again Mr. Lord shows that he is quite adept at trying to make sense of the present by a review of relevant history. I think, though, the analysis is incomplete.

While Mr. Gingrich's bona fide participation in the era of Reagan is confirmed through Mr. Lord's (often eye witness) account, the issues about which I have concern took place after the 1994 victory. Newt's missteps as Speaker (anyone recall his reaction to JC Watts' "poverty pimps" description of Jesse Jackson et al, the reason for the 1995 government shutdown, etc., the circumstances of his 1998 departure, etc) and after (Dede Scozzafaza, global warming, etc) are what gives me pause.

If Mr. Lord wants to write a history to put these chapters of Newt's life into perspective, perhaps I will want to jump on his bandwagon then. Until then, Mr. Gingrich (like Mr. Romney) is not yet my first choice.

Mimi| 1.24.12 @ 10:20AM

When the elder Bush in '91 fell for the B.S from the Dems promise to cut spending and he went ahead to raise Taxes ...It was Newt , who refused to go along! That is why the ESTABLISHMENT is after him even NOW! Newt is the BEST WE GOT, to defeat this outfit in POWER right now...Wake-up Republicans ...ALL of you!!!

Mimi| 1.24.12 @ 11:39AM

The LATE 90's....Newt was demonized, to an incredible level by the LIBS and the MEDIA...The then so called Republicans turned on him...out of fear of losing their elections...if they had held together and been Newts back , things would have been a different story. He was always 10 years ahead in his thinking....If we had him around in 2006 & 2007 I wonder if we would have had the financial collaspe in 2008.
We cannot buckle to the LEFT'S attacks now...like the GRINCH who STOLE X-MAS on the cover of NEWSWEEK....They have had their way with us and have brought the COUNTRY to the brink....NOW we stand up and fight for our country and people....WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH
and YES WE ARE ANGRY PATRIOTS!!

albert constantine jr| 1.24.12 @ 7:31PM

I was a fan of and a contributor to Newt in 1994. I was disappointed by 1998, though, and not for the last time.

I haven’t ruled out voting for Newt; I like much of what he has to say. If Newt is to become my first choice, though, I think I’m going to need more than to hear him say that those things that concern me (the Pelosi couch, “right wing social engineering”, etc.) were mistakes. Mr. Lord’s article about Newt’s participation in the Reagan era may have set the record straight regarding Mitt Romney’s criticism, but that never concerned me. Before I am persuaded to jump on board the Newt bus or pass on Santorum, though, I’d sure like to see something to put the issues I noted to rest.

Hobbes| 1.24.12 @ 10:15AM

Ron Paul made an excellent point that the US has cut benefits for poor Americans while giving tons of aid to countries like Israel who spend the money on FREE health care. Why are other countries poor more important than ours?

Occam's Tool| 1.24.12 @ 1:52PM

Israel gets military aid and pays back as a stable base and intell source for the US.

We also supprot NATO, which, unlike Israel, constantly backbites the US. Our aid to NATO dwarfs that to Israel, which helps us much more.

In order to prosper, the US needs allies. Isolationism, or whatever euphemism the Paulbots put on it this week, is useless as a military posture.

Jack in Wi.| 1.24.12 @ 2:11PM

Israel is no ally but a tremedous expense to the USA. It has cost us many hundreds of billions in direct costs and trillions in higher oil prices, intrest, military support, and worldwide bad will. The sooner we dump this welfare queen the better. If is can't survive after 63 years on the dole it should just vanish on the ash heap of history like The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and apartheid South Africa.

George S| 1.24.12 @ 2:59PM

As always, we have to put things in perspective, Jack. Our federal spending right now is 10 billion per day. To summarize:

Israel: 3 billion annually (or 8 hours of Obama spending).

Foreign military aid (including Die Juden): 5 billion annually (or 12 hours of Obama spending).

Higher oil prices? Are we getting a higher rate than everyone else? Worldwide "bad will"? That, too, is courtesy of Obama.

Your arguments about Israel being an economic drag is utter nonsense.

Dave Williams| 1.24.12 @ 3:00PM

...und dot vould be de Vinal Zolution to all zose pesky Choos, right, Jack?
You are a disgusting little turd.

Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 5:04PM

Why don't you talk about the $million of cost to Wisconsin for the specila election on the recall of Scott Walker from the corrupt labor union/Democrats actions ?????????

Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 5:06PM

Are you a thug labor unionist supporter of the Democratic Party perhaps????????

Die Fledermaus| 1.24.12 @ 7:14PM

Go away Jew hater.

VonMisesJr| 1.24.12 @ 10:46AM

Remember that it was Boehner and Paxon that led the coup against Speaker Gingrich in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

What a coincidence that Boehner is now Speaker (political payoff from the GOP Establishment?) And was it not just Boehner that was fingered in the insider trading scam along with Pelosi, Moran and Kerry?

This is not hard to figure out, if one has eyes to see. Boehner and the GOP establishment are scared to death of Newt. Payback is a _itch.

RJ| 1.24.12 @ 10:49AM

Thanks, Jeff. Wonderful and informative article.

Georga Mae Collins| 1.24.12 @ 10:53AM

Thanks for writing this article. I was moved by it, not just because I love Newt Gingrich, but because of all the lies told about him. So the words left me both hopeful and sad. Blessings.

Peppermint Tea| 1.24.12 @ 10:59AM

Jeff write that Newt is a great Reagan Conservative because: 1. A PHOTOGRAPHER DECIDED HE WAS.
2. HE PUT A COMMA IN

VBMax| 1.24.12 @ 11:09AM

You must have read the article using the Evelyn Wood method. I suggest starting over.

Peppermint Tea| 1.24.12 @ 11:03AM

eff write that Newt is a great Reagan Conservative because: 1. A PHOTOGRAPHER DECIDED HE WAS.
2. HE PUT A COMMA IN a GOP platform statement. Lord knows, "which" requires a comma in front of it, "that" does not.
3. He pissed off the incumbents republicans such as Bob Dole.
I'll give him credit on number 3, but the first two are ridiculous.
I'm not saying Romney is conservative, but Newt, like Bubba, never heard a political idea he didn't like.
Santorum and Paul are looking better every day.

Old Soldier| 1.24.12 @ 1:34PM

Don't forget, he also attend a meeting in TEXAS! I had a meeting once in Houston. I should be running for President.

Any Republican Governor in the country has a far stronger resume.

Occam's Tool| 1.24.12 @ 1:53PM

Commas that change the meaning of political platforms and piss of Treasury Secretaries are powerful things.

George S| 1.24.12 @ 2:11PM

As do semicolons in a governing document:

"[A] power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? -- Federalist 41

Ann Banisher| 1.24.12 @ 11:23AM

So where should the line be drawn in a candidates personal life? He was basically a polygamist twice. We're not talking occasional flings. He carried on two relationships at the same time. What was the reason Edwards was banished from the political stage? Gingrich did the Edwards thing, not once, but twice. Am I the only one to see a pattern? I put those two in the same boat; self absorbed narcissists who feel the rule don't apply to them. The only difference is that Gingrich flat out said that the standards don't apply to him. The part that bothers me is that 1) It would guarantee an Obama victory, and 2) it would forever tarnish the Conservative brand, the party of values.

Bulbul| 1.24.12 @ 11:31AM

Newt' s records:
-Engineered the 1994 GOP revolt
-Balanced the budget 4 straight years without raising taxes
-Reformed the welfare system
-Passed the Crime Bill
-Impeached Bill Clinton
After his retirmnet from the Congress, he remained a voice for conservative movement, prompting liberty and the Constitution.
Newt is no perfect. But He is the most viable candidate in the GOP field. He is the "Shadow of Ronald Reagan."

Old Soldier| 1.24.12 @ 2:17PM

- Yes he can campaign.
- By carving the military in half and letting the civilian side of the federal government continue to grow.
- Sure, with a lot of help and a cooperative President.
- Really? You are bragging about an intrusive, anti-federalist pile of manure written by Joe Biden that included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban? Really?

His "retirement from Congress" - that is a nice way of putting it.

I remember hearing his "voice for conservative movement" telling me that a huge new federal entitlement program was a great idea.

Newt is a joke.

Bulbul| 1.24.12 @ 2:30PM

SC voted for Newt because he is the most viable candidate in the GOP field. Newt is the "SHADOW OF RONALD REAGAN."

Old Soldier| 1.24.12 @ 2:51PM

A dim one.

Bulbul| 1.24.12 @ 7:42PM

Who is your GOP guy? Barack Obama?

Die Fledermaus| 1.24.12 @ 7:20PM

You are seriously saying Clinton was of help and was cooperative in welfare reform? Are you kidding?

Clinton VETOED the bill twice. Newt and the boys sent it up a third time (a stronger bill than even the first) nearer to the 1996 elections and Dick Morris' polls showed Clinton was losing votes by not backing the bill.

So the third time was a charm. He then spent the entire 1996 Dem convention calming down his left wing base by declaring, when reelected, he was going to "fix it".

Oh, but by then it was starting to work so he shifted to taking credit for the idea. Now his left wing idiots and useful idiots on the right can claim he was "a lot of help and cooperative".

Wordmonger| 1.24.12 @ 12:41PM

Page four, middle, "That said". Who is That?

VBMax| 1.24.12 @ 1:55PM

"That" refers to the statement in quotes in the paragraph directly above.

Who Knows?| 1.24.12 @ 12:59PM

Shame has ceased to be. Since Slick Willie, politicians have learned to be shameless, which means they can get away with practically anything, as long as it’s kept secret in a “plausible deniability” way.

Memories, placed between the edges of our minds. Or, something like that, as the old song went.

Nietzsche, as usual, has an aphorism that fits---

About memory: pride says thus and memory this; and pride wins.

And don’t get me AND YOU started on SELECTIVE memory! So much left out, about Gingrich, by Mr. “oh my goodness” Lord.

There are two sides to every coin, and what a coin Gingrich is. Realists, with more complete memories of Newt’s history---the HISTORIAN, himself---must come to the conclusion that the bad outweighs the good in his life, when it concerns the future.

If the good Gingrich were wise, and SELF-AWARE, he’d realize that his political playing days are over.

As a longtime fan of the Gingrich who Lord extols, it is so painful to see him demonstrate that he doesn’t know his limits---Newt needs Dirty Harry to snap him out of his hubris. To extend the baseball analogy---yes, Newt was an important player on the Reagan team. And, those days are GONE!

We don’t need a fat “batter” whose weaknesses are well known. He should be spending his time writing his memoirs.

Oh well---fat old America chose Obama in 2008, and as the political season comes to a climax next November, the GOP continues to prove that it can outdo the stupidity of previous years. It is so demoralizing and breathtaking to deeply realize that such flawed Americans--- Gingrich, with horrible unfavorability ratings, Romney, the Mormon faux conservative, Santorum, the Catholic social and family man, and Paul, the Libertarian nut---are the only choices to beat Obama!

Yes, Americans are in a majority, floating down that river of DENIAL, soon enough to capsize.

What can’t continue, WON’T.

“Freedom is a negative process; it is not the accumulation of merit or accession of power, but the removal of hindrances which cover the real. Attachment and aversion are themselves dependent on imaginative construction. It is as we invest things with glowing or grisly attributes that we attach ourselves or evince aversion to them. It cannot be maintained that things are inherently, objectively, attractive or otherwise; for, what is liked by one is disliked by another, while a third may be indifferent to it. This shows the inherently subjective nature of these basic attitudes. Because they are subjective, they can be helped; we can be freed of them. Nagarjuna analyzes the nature of bondage and freedom thus: ‘Of constructive imagination are born attachment, aversion and infatuation, depending (respectively) on our good, evil and stupid attitudes. Entities which depend on these are not anything themselves. They are unreal.’ ‘Freedom is the cessation of karma and acts and passions; these arise from imagination; this ceases with the knowledge of their falsity.”

The Central Philosophy of Buddhism; T.R.V. Murti, 1955, pages 222-223

Jabber3| 1.24.12 @ 1:02PM

Jeffrey, no doubt there was some connection between these two men but frankly your convoluted expose here makes it seem tenuous at best and certainly not a strong connection or even one of respect. No offense intended.

George S| 1.24.12 @ 3:09PM

When you are comforted by perceptions, facts awaken like cold water to the face.

Rick Gere| 1.24.12 @ 1:35PM

Terrific, powerful and informative article, Mr. Lord. Was not aware of much if any of this. It significantly strengthens my support of Newt. Thank you.

Robert W. Haley| 1.24.12 @ 1:50PM

In a speech to the House of Representatives, Gingrich the need for spending cuts to balance the budget, which he thought should exempt Social Security. And to make that point he invoked F.D.R..

“But let me say about everything else, whether it is Medicare, or it is agricultural subsidies, or it is defense or anything that I think the greatest Democratic president of the 20th century, and in my judgment the greatest president of the 20th century, said it right. On March 4, 1933, he stood in braces as a man who had polio at a time when nobody who had that kind of disability could be anything in public life. He was president of the United States, and he stood in front of this Capitol on a rainy March day and he said, `We have nothing to fear but fear itself.`”

Seems to me Newt is a New Dealer!!

RCV| 1.24.12 @ 6:52PM

As Glen Beck pointed out this morning, Gingrich has identified his favorite Preisents as Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

Boy are they in for a big surprise if the snake oil salesman ever got in power. There's a reason he's despised by most Republicans who served with him, and why they deposed him as Speaker.

Bulbul| 1.24.12 @ 7:43PM

Obama is about to get deposed, as well.

W| 1.24.12 @ 8:03PM

Newt is a big government type. He wants to use the government for his agenda, which he says is conservative. But a true conservative wants a small government, and would never vote for FDR and especially not for Woodrow Wilson.

RCV| 1.24.12 @ 11:04PM

You're right. Watching Mitch Daniels tonight, I'm reminded how good an opposition candidate he would have been, an articulate defender of free market conservatism.

Interested Conservative| 1.24.12 @ 1:59PM

Mr. Lord, here's a history question which I'm interested in hearing more about - Newt and others have raised the issue of his actions in the 60's - namely the Goldwater/Rockefeller issues. Who did he support and why?

I don't think it matters much, if at all, but I am curious if it is related to the 1964 civil rights act. Namely, Rocky supported it, and Barry notably didn't. As a southerner, and a republican, even though barely into his 20's at the time, I wonder if it's another "race" issue Newt is saving for later.

Sure, Obama, and John Lewis, and all the rest would pummel him if he made a peep about it, but if we really need a "national discussion on race", how interesting would it be to review the GOP role in passing the civil rights acts over the filibustering opposition of the democrats? That, and how courageous for a southern republican to volunteer in the effort to do so?

Just wondering.

Robert W. Haley| 1.24.12 @ 2:13PM

He lied last night and said Goldwater, but on YouTube you can find an interview where he was proud to have been a State Chairman for Rockefeller! This guy is the GOP Slick Willie!

Bulbul| 1.24.12 @ 2:28PM

Romney can go as negative as he can, but yet he cannot win in FL. A New England moderate has no place in deep south, FL. Romney's records:
-RomneyCare
-pro abortion
-pro gay marriage
-pro gun control
-pro climate change
Romney is a "dead man walking." It's Gingrich in FL, all the way to the end.

Controse| 1.24.12 @ 3:12PM

What a valuable summary of the historical record for us uninformed conservative voters. Now we know why inside-the-beltway Republicans and their fellow travelers are beside themselves. My god just yesterday I heard conservative talk radio personality Hugh Hewitt stating that the major contributor to Newt's superPAC made his fortune in the gambling industry is a big negative for Gingrich. To almost quote Hewitt exactly "Gingrich's campaign is being financed with money won at the roulette table." Good grief Gingrich is powerful poison. Just by being tangentially associated with the gambling industry he makes it illegal in the mind of one of our more popular "conservative" talkers.

PattyMor| 1.24.12 @ 3:27PM

Gingrich is all we have left that can take on Obama. Gingrich balanced the budget once, and he can do it again. Don't you think the establishment was itching to get rid of him, so they could return to their free spending ways? Witness the spending orgy under Bush II. And these Congress people lie to us everyday telling us how conservative they are. Where has the Boehner leadership gotten us? Nowhere. The spending continues--$3 Billion per day borrowed or printed.

Is he perfect? Far from it and he wasn't my first choice. But he'll defend himself against the Marxist Media Megaphones and the Obama attack machine. And, he can distill conservatism down to the manageable level: Obama, the Food Stamp President. And, he doesn't back down.
And he has the guts to "explain away" his shotcomings. This is a good attribute for a politican, like it or not.

Uncle Samuel| 1.24.12 @ 3:38PM

The Gingrich Campaign began immediately after the debate to expose Romney’s lack of conservative credentials:

“You know, on one side, you had a true conservative. On the other side, you had someone masquerading as somebody that they were not,” Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond told reporters in the post-debate spin room. “So the people of Florida are very familiar with this story.” The story in 2010 ended, of course, with Crist bolting from the Republican party when it became apparent Rubio would trounce him. Crist lost to Rubio in the general election as an independent.

“I think here in Florida, all we have to do is remind people that Mitt Romney is Charlie Crist,”

THIS is language Florida voters understand.

The electorate of Florida is older, but wiser – but more than that – they are scared and angry.

They are looking for a champion and the establishment Republican Party has failed them by:

-failing to regulate Fanny/Freddy

-failing to corral and stop this administration’s brazen corruption, pillaging and spending, destructive policies and unconstitutional radicalism, the heavy handed attacks on their values, on churches, on the law and Constitution.

Barack Obama has waged war on America and they want it stopped. The establishment Republicans are not doing squat about it.

They don’t want a Christ, a McCain, or even a GW or Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels (so the RNC better not try that trick).

They don’t want anyone the RNC will haul out of their corrupt DC camp.

The establishment has created this mess and they obviously won’t fix it.

They want a champion, a fighter and someone who knows what is going on and will tell the truth about it.

They want America fixed.

They know it will take more than a face lift or tummy tuck – what’s wrong will require a heart transplant.

The US needs a change of heart, soul, mind to turn from its perilous course and even to survive what the establishment has allowed to happen.

Uncle Samuel| 1.24.12 @ 3:41PM

PS - Florida voters weren’t born yesterday. The retirees are retired CEOs, brokers, bankers, public officials, etc.

Florida conservative voters, probably more than any state in the US, know exactly who to blame for the Freddy/Fanny/Bank Mortgage scam.

And they know darned good and well it’s not Newt.

They weren’t born yesterday. These are retired CEOs, bankers, stock brokers, elected officials, government workers, etc.

They have read, researched, analyzed.

They know exactly who, what and why.

It’s ludicrous to try to fool them.

cicero| 1.24.12 @ 3:53PM

We only have three choices - Romney, Newt, and Santorum. None are perfect. All three are better than the current occupant of the WH. It seems to me that when you ask of Gingrich what he will do, he gives cogent answers. Same with Santorum. Romney comes off the same as Clinton did. When asked what he wanted to DO, he seemed to say, "I want to BE President.". Too many of the aspirants for the office during my lifetime seem to run for the office because they so want to BE president. As to what they may be able to do for the people of this country, it never seems to enter their heads. I understandd ambition. No one runs for the office without a huge taste for it. I only ask that the ambition be conjoined with a desire to lead this nation to a higher plain than they found when they arrived. The desire to achieve the office, just because it will satisfy a personal desire, or, as we have seen with both Clinton and Obama, a desire for fortune, too, doesn't fit. As Harry Truman was reported to have said, "You show me a politition who leaves office with more money than he came in with, and I'll show you a thief." Both Clinton and Obama entered public life without ever having earned a living in real time. Both will leave the scene with hundres of millions of dollars. Romney earned his in the market place. Newt earned his in the market place after leaving Congress. Santorum has been busy in private life. But Newt and Santorum articulate plans for leadership. Romney only seems to want to BE president.

David| 1.24.12 @ 4:32PM

Forget about Newt asking his wife for an open marriage and the 3 wives stuff. I like what the 2nd wife reported he said when she admonished him about things he does.

Newt said: "People don't care about what I do. They only care about what I say. And I can say things better than anyone else can say them".

Whoa. THAT SOUNDS EERILY LIKE OUR CURRENT PLANET HEALER AND RECEDER OF OCEANS.

And because I absolutely believe his wife on that, I think Newt is an arrogant opportunist with an ego at least as big as Bam Bam's.

We better get behind Santorum while we still have the chance.

Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 4:55PM

'....Fearing Gingrich, Both Sides Say He's Unelectable
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 04:04 PM
By: Matt Barber

What do establishment Republicans and liberal Democrats have in common? They’ve long labored under a shared misconception: conservative candidates are unelectable.

In 1980, conventional wisdom held that Ronald Reagan didn’t stand a chance against Jimmy Carter. The GOP leadership, the mainstream media and liberal politicos alike lined up against the Gipper in an attempt to derail his presidential campaign.

Rush Limbaugh recently addressed this phenomenon on his radio program: “Gerald Ford said that Ronald Reagan was unelectable. George H.W. Bush said that Ronald Reagan was unelectable. The entire Republican establishment thought Ronald Reagan was unelectable because they were governed and informed by the Goldwater landslide defeat. That’s what they think will happen to every conservative.”

That’s what they think will happen to Newt Gingrich.

As it became clear last week that the former House speaker was on his way to an impressive victory in South Carolina, liberal strategist and MSNBC talking head Lawrence O’Donnell summed up bipartisan conventional wisdom by suggesting, against all the evidence, that Mr. Gingrich “cannot win a national election … It’s impossible.”

On “Meet the Press,” fellow MSNBCer and mushy moderate Joe Scarborough declared, “Republicans are panicked in Washington, D.C., for good reason.”

Indeed, Mr. Gingrich’s solid win, coupled with another surge in Florida, has the establishment squealing and darting about like a flaming pot-bellied pig. Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney’s campaign has trotted out surrogates like Ann Coulter and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to nip at the speaker’s heels.

Coulter, who has moved briskly leftward in recent years, even joining the Republican gay activist group GOProud, has stooped to personal attacks against South Carolina voters. “Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall,” she said.

Of South Carolina conservatives’ willingness to forgive Mr. Gingrich for his past marital infidelity — something he has long admitted to and repented for — Coulter snipped, “I think South Carolina is going back to its Democratic roots. I mean, to not care about that, that’s the position of the Democratic Party.”

Still, RINO Republicans’ fear of Mr. Gingrich stems from something entirely different from that which drives the left. The GOP leadership actually believes that he cannot win a general election, while — with a traumatic Reagan presidency still fresh in their minds — left-wing “progressives” know that he can.

It’s the liberal media and Democratic National Committee, in fact, that has largely pushed the self-serving “Romney-is-the-inevitable-nominee” meme.

In a recent Fox News interview, Sarah Palin, who has all but officially endorsed Mr. Gingrich, said, “I believe the mainstream media and Obama want to face Mitt Romney in the general election.”

And why wouldn’t they? In terms of his ability to inspire the base and get out the vote, Mr. Romney is a bit like Bob Dole without all the honorable accomplishments. After last week’s debacle in South Carolina, it’s little wonder that The Washington Post is reporting Romney will no longer commit to any further Florida debates. He finds himself in a Catch-22: he must either debate and lose to Mr. Gingrich or not debate and lose to Mr. Gingrich.

Guess who else doesn’t want to debate Mr. Gingrich? Hint: his initials are BHO.

I’ll state the obvious: Mr. Gingrich is not a perfect man. Neither is he the perfect candidate. Who is? The question is, do we allow repentance for personal sin? Do we forgive others their trespasses as we wish to be forgiven?

I’m reminded of the biblical account of King David. As a shepherd boy, he slew a giant. As a man, he fell into sin — marital infidelity and even murder. Yet through it all God called him “a man after [His] own heart.” Through it all, David remained a great leader.

Like David, Mr. Gingrich has proven to be a man with many flaws. But like David, he has also proven to be a great leader. It was Mr. Gingrich, of course, who led the 1994 “Republican Revolution” that launched the political careers of many establishment Republicans who now fear their past leader’s future nomination.

Our volatile times require a man who will decisively and decidedly lead from the helm. We cannot survive four more years of “leading from behind.”

That’s why we need Newt Gingrich.....'

Drunken Sailor| 1.24.12 @ 5:12PM

Well done!

Ann Banisher| 1.24.12 @ 7:41PM

So Newt is the second coming of Reagan & King David? Really?
I'm reminded of the Enquirer account of John Edwards. As a self serving politician, he carries on an affair with a staffer, whom he shacks up with after his wife relapses from cancer. This sounds alot closer to the Newt story than King David. How much cred does Edwards have right now? At least Edwards never said about Elizabeth "She's not attractive enough to be the wife of a president....and she has cancer".
If you want to use hyperbole to compare Newt to someone, how about this.
I'm reminded of the historical account of Adolf Hitler. The Depression caused great hardship on the German people. Adolf promised to repudiate the Versailles Treaty, strengthen the economy, and provide jobs. Adolf used his great oratorical skill to motivated his base.
Like Adolf, Mr. Gingrich has proven to be a man with many flaws. But like Adolf, he has also proven to be a polarizing leader.
It could be that the Republican establishment does not want to forever link the Republican party to the Titanic that is Newt Gingrich.

Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 8:28PM

I disagree that he is a 'polarizing leader', since that description has existed since the time he was battling Bill Clinton, the Democrats and the RINO's within the Republican Party [and as such was formulated by the MSM in their usual protection of their favored class]. He controversial in that he's opinionated, intelligent and arrogant. So what? That maybe exactly what this country needs in a principled conservative force to change the directions of same from the liberalism snowball going down hill!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 8:28PM

I disagree that he is a 'polarizing leader', since that description has existed since the time he was battling Bill Clinton, the Democrats and the RINO's within the Republican Party [and as such was formulated by the MSM in their usual protection of their favored class]. He controversial in that he's opinionated, intelligent and arrogant. So what? That maybe exactly what this country needs in a principled conservative force to change the directions of same from the liberalism snowball going down hill!!!!!!!

Richard Baker| 1.24.12 @ 6:05PM

Jack in Wi.:
Well, Sieg Heil there to you.

David| 1.24.12 @ 6:30PM

Oldfarte, nice comments.

That said, if Newt sought forgiveness, we should believe that he did, and that he is , in fact, forgiven. However, sins do have consequences. It has been a while since I read the account, but didn't the LORD take David's son Absalom as a result of his sin? Should we REWARD Gingrich with the most powerful position in the world simply because he sought and obtained forgiveness?

I recall how 4 years ago most of us here on this site lambasted Huckabee for pardoning and paroling hundreds of felons SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY REPENTED.

Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 8:31PM

I'm basically of the opinion that LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE; and as Christ tod the good thief on Calvary who confessed his sins and requested forgiveness, YOU SHALL BE WITH ME ON THIS DAY IN HEAVEN!!!!!!!!!

RCV| 1.24.12 @ 6:49PM

The look on Regan's face says it all....

Bulbul| 1.24.12 @ 7:44PM

RCV, Obama is a "SON OF WHORE."

RCV| 1.25.12 @ 11:37AM

Your Mama!!!

PCP Smoker| 1.24.12 @ 8:48PM

Such a lovely piece. Time to pack it Mittens. Once again, in the age of Reagan, GOP Elites lose.

POST American| 1.24.12 @ 10:08PM

---------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

------Ford, Reagan, McCain, Gingrich------

---OPEN adulterers one and all
and, therefore, the perfect enablers
for the 'KNEE--Oh! CON'-Globalist
handover of the US economy and
the systematic overthrow of the
American republic.

----KEEP alowing them to co-opt the
GENUINE American awakening and
you will, by God's own words,
DESERVE what they are doing to you.

NOW, go to the mirror, make eye contact
and whisper '------TSA-----' three times slowly.

------------------------AGAIN!-------------------------

Leah| 1.25.12 @ 12:37AM

Thanks for a great and true tribute. Libs and Rinos are either scared of strong conservatives or jealous. Whatever - the people will decide.

Marco2| 1.25.12 @ 1:10AM

The idea that a lout like Gingrich, a character so publicly devoid of morals, ethics and principles is supported by some "conservatives" as a candidate for the presidency is appalling. Big time Ronald Reagan braintruster my butt. Romney and Santorum may not be the ideal candidates, but at least they are good and honorable human beings. While calling John King a poopoohead is apparently enough for his legions of yobs, the world, to say nothing of the party and the country, will be better off if he sticks with developing mining colonies on the moon, one of his vaunted "big ideas".

somnolence| 1.25.12 @ 1:26AM

Does anyone really believe Gingrich will win Massachusetts like Ron did? Keep on dreamin'.

Richard Baker| 1.25.12 @ 6:13AM

David:
Do you know the Lord's mind on someone's repentence? Regardless of David and Absalom, if Newt is sincere, and I've no reason to doubt, then he may already know that there is a consequence for his actions. Or, has he already suffered it? Only God and Newt know.

Rene Bourriague| 1.25.12 @ 9:16AM

I was taken by the personal insight offered by Mr. Lord during the fateful time of drafting that conservative message. Written as only an insider could, he presents a good case to consider Newt. Mr. Gingrich has certainly been fighting "the good fight" for a long time. Can't say the same thing about Mr. Romney, who still can't state coherently a conservative principle.

Robert W. Haley| 1.25.12 @ 10:29AM

oops...seems Eliot Abrams recalls things a bit differently! Juicy Newt quotes excoriating Reagan.

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ott-abrams

"Newt Gingrich in retrospect seems less the visionary than the politician who refused the party’s leader loyal support on grounds that history has proved were simply wrong."

Julie| 1.25.12 @ 5:30PM

Romney is one of the quintessential "guilty rich" who is ashamed of his own good fortune. He is a moderate, focus-group tested liberal without a core of principles. Obama's goons will eat him alive in the general.

Why is he pretending to champion the conservative cause?
Romney is a coward, a smug coward with no core. His candidacy is an embarrassment.

Great article, Jeffrey. Thank you.

Sandy Kearfott| 1.25.12 @ 5:57PM

Mr. Lord if this article is an honest and correct representation of history, I am urging you to get out there and stand up for Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney is spreading lies and untruths. Political pundits are repeating his lies, because they don't know the truth. Now is the time to stand up, well before the Florida primary. Please. The country needs to know the truth.
Respectfully,
Sandy Kearfott

Ben| 1.25.12 @ 6:37PM

It took you five pages to say that Newt changed a comma in a sentence and that someone thought of him as important. Just because someone thought of him as important doesn't make him an ally to Ronald. Only being an ally to Ronald made you an ally. Newt was Newt. A self serving no-it-all, always willing to say what he thought would make himself sound the best. See http://www.nationalreview.com/.....tt-abrams. All you have produced in your article is that he was important and he added a comma. By the way, Newt didn't win for the reasons you said. He won by the less educated people in the state who felt they couldn't vote for a Mormon. The stats don't lie. Scroll down half way and you'll see people who wanted to vote with someone whose religion they self identified voted for Gingrich, voted for Ginrich (even though he is an adulterer who left protestantism); Those who aren't voting their religion voted Romney. Also the more educated, or wealthy, the more you vote Romney. So, apparently the real reason has nothing to do with anything said in this article. Basically, poor, uneducated Southernors like Gingrich and don't like Romney. See http://www.cnn.com/election/20...../epolls/sc

NEWT 2012!| 1.25.12 @ 7:16PM

Keep it up and South Carolina's election results will be repeated all over the country! lol

FACE-IT| 1.26.12 @ 12:37AM

Since Reagan's 1986 Amnesty, over 28 million illegals were arrested at the border, and 100 million illegals weren't http://bit.ly/h0jNr3

and now we have Newt

Mad Jayhawk| 1.26.12 @ 12:38AM

You would think that an article about the relationship between Reagan and Gingrich would contain some substantive details or even an interesting antidote about the fledgling congressman and the President of the US since it was written by someone who was there and saw it all supposedly. But, alas, we get nothing but Romney bashing. A worthless article.

POST American| 1.26.12 @ 1:24AM

-------------------BOTTOM LINE------------------------

AGAIN, about half, maybe more, of the
above posts appear to be coming from
cyber generated sock puppets.

Sad IF true.

Sadder STILL if it isn't.

suzy000| 1.26.12 @ 8:40AM

First of all...it was Newt that called Reagan's administration an American failure...he also denigrated Reagan's foreign policy and accused his Soviet policy of being a disaster. He even went on to say that it was Reagan's fault that America was in decay. Go back to 1985 guys and see all this. And they are calling him Reagan's Lt.? Look...I forgave him for TWO affairs...I forgave him when he supported the individual mandate...I even reluctantly overlooked the global warming thing and chastising Rep. Ryan's work but to criticize MY President Reagan? NOPE...unforgivable....that was the last straw...he WON'T get my vote.

TDoug| 1.26.12 @ 12:06PM

Gingrich may have been a part of the Reagan revolution, but apparently Reagan was not all that aware of him for most of his presidency, regardless of how well Jeffrey Lord knew Newt. So, for Gingrich to say he worked alongside Reagan is a gross overstatement.

Newt is like an extra in a scene of a blockbuster movie who wants to share billing with the superstar actor. He wants his name next to Reagan's, but it will never happen.

Even if he was a part of conservatives rising in the 80s, that would not justify our electing him now. He is far too careless and erratic of a leader. How he was repudiated by Congress for his leadership as speaker is a red flag warning. If he failed as the leader of conservatives who should have been his greatest allies, how in the world can he possibly lead the broken mess we have in Washington now.

POST American| 1.26.12 @ 10:41PM

----------------------BOTTOM LINE--------------------

---"And the country is under STRONG delusion."

Thanks to the 'leadership' of
OPEN, unrepentant, mercenary

--------------------ADULTERERS-------------------.

------------CON-servers par 'X-sell-ants'--------------

Rich Birkett| 1.27.12 @ 3:01AM

Most people don't realize is that Reagan was a closet libertarian, except for his foreign policies. Ron Reagan Jr. revealed that Ron Sr. secretly favored cannabis (marijuana) legalization, but Sr. thought Republicans and conservatives wouldn't go along with that.
Barry Goldwater was openly libertarian, favoring gay rights, legal abortion and legalized cannabis. What Republican candidate is closet to Reagan and Goldwater? Ron Paul.