-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I like Elliott Abrams. Big time.
But…gee. Elliott…Elliott…Elliott.
Mr. Abrams is in the news for this piece over at National Review Online
Sounds saleable, yes? Ex-Reagan State Department aide cites Newt criticism on Reagan.
There’s a problem with this story.
The reason I became — and remain — a fan of Elliott Abrams is not just because he’s a smart guy. He was done a considerable wrong in terms of his work at the State Department — bluntly put he was targeted in one of those special prosecutor witch hunts. This was a despicable thing…morally and legally inexcusable. Mr. Abrams bore — and bears — this episode with considerable grace that is a study in character all by itself.
But the issue here is the Newt-Reagan tie.
And there’s another side to what Elliott has to say.
In the day, the Reagan White House political office, of which I was a member, was charged among other things with conducting briefings featuring various administration players. I did them — my colleagues did them. On my watch I had to arrange the list of speakers — and one of those was Elliott Abrams. He always, always made the time to come and discuss Reagan foreign policy to this or that group of Americans at our invitation. He was superb.
At the same time, the White House political office in any White House is charged with dealing with the president’s political interests — including keeping an eye on internal party critics. Meeting with them, talking with them, and yes… on occasion… doling out or not doling out the countless favors sought by congressmen. The latter could range from cufflinks to rides on Air Force One to a presidential signature on a fundraising letter. If a member was in some disfavor for having gone after the president… the political staff rallied. No cufflinks, no rides, no signatures or whatever.
Never… not once… did Elliott Abrams ever say to me something along the lines of “that SOB Newt said X.” Never. I never heard it from Elliott, and perhaps even more to the point I never heard it from a colleague in our office. One would hear things about, say, then Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter or some such. The President himself would get irked at Specter. But Newt Gingrich? Anti-Reagan? A problem of some sort for the Reagan White House political office? Not a prayer.
If this were a problem, not once did Elliott Abrams ever say a word to me. So the question is: did he say this to someone else? Was there someone inside the Reagan political office who knew all this and never said a word? These folks are around to ask.
One was just on TV addressing the nation the other night. That would be Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels — the overall boss of the Reagan political office. And then there’s now former Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, just below Mitch Daniels in the pecking order in the day. Neither ever said a word to the rest of us about Newt being anti-Reagan. There was not a word said that I can recall — much less irritation or real anger. For that matter, did Elliott ever bring this to the attention of Daniel’s predecessor — Ed Rollins? Mr. Rollins is now a Fox commentator and not terribly shy. Perhaps he could be asked if he thought Newt Gingrich was anti-Reagan?
So. The point? Newt Gingrich is running for president, is surging in the Florida polls and his various controversies swirl. (As noted, Bob Tyrrell has his take right here.)
But quite specifically, if Elliott Abrams ever was seriously concerned about Newt Gingrich’s relationship with Ronald Reagan he never… ever… brought it to the attention of the White House political office. To the best of my knowledge.
Or… he did. And the answers are there to be had from Governors Daniels and Barbour and from Ed Rollins.
View all comments (26) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/26/attention-elliott-abrams-on-ne
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Drek| 1.26.12 @ 3:00PM
Jeff,
You know what happened.
Gingrich is surging, he's making hay with the rank and file by virtue of holding high the torch of the Gippper. Romney HAD to do something, but as usual with him, he couldn't get his hands dirty.
So a member of his extended team comes up with this crap.
Abrams is lying.
It's just that simple. I'm sure there are reasons that he justifies this to himself, {all liars have some kind of rationalization}.
But now the race has narrowed to two men. Gingrich and Romney.
They're attacking Gingrich to advance Romney. And to stop Gingrich, ANYTHING will do, any smear, any misrepresentation, any lie.
SUBVET| 1.26.12 @ 4:40PM
Mr. Lord I wnat to thank you for your insite on just who Newt really is. Your latest articals open the door to what really happened in the 80's.
I will add you to my prayer list right under Newt's name...My God bless you Sir.
SUBVET| 1.26.12 @ 4:41PM
"May" God bless you Sir.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.26.12 @ 3:02PM
Actually, the polls are changing again and Newt is falling.
Look for some type of attack against Romney for having invested in Fannie/Freddie. The investment was in a blind trust in a mutual fund.
Newt will look like a bitter fool.
Drek| 1.26.12 @ 3:20PM
And why are the polls changing again?
Not because Romney has campaigned in a way to make people believe in him.
We all know what's going on. Drudge hasn't declared war against Newt, he's trying to unleash nuclear salvos every morning and every afternoon against Newt. And just about everything that Drudge is tossing forward is skewed, and not skewed towards the truth, but towards anything that will tend to smear Gingrich.
And of course we all know one of Coulter's best buds is Drudge. They've both lost it.
What does this say about the Romney candidacy that it can only be advanced in this way?
Do these attacks against Gingrich, these smears, in any obscure the fact that Obamacare WAS based on Romneycare, that chief advisers to Romneycare COOPERATED with the obama team to construct obamacare?
Does this in any way obscure the fact that Romney CONTRIBUTED MONEY TO DEMOCRATS, while now attacking Gingrich for a supposed want of loyalty to Reagan.
This is PREPOSTEROUS!
Drek| 1.26.12 @ 3:25PM
And what of the fact that a pair of Romney's main flacks hadn't much of a prob with Freddie, {Vin Weber, Susan Molinari}?
This isn't about Freddie!
Only a Romneybot would see the 2012 GOP nomination battle in light of something so utterly irrelevant.
This is about who can frame the best narrative to duel the narrative that obama will contrive.
And that isn't Romney.
And it isn't Santorum by the way.
The race has dwindled down to two men, and though many are furious and bitter that it has, it has nonetheless dwindled down to that solid fact.
Those that oppose Gingrich now have thrown in with Romney.
EXACTLY LIKE DRUDGE, exactly like Coulter.
You're in good company.
But you've swallowed if you're still opposing Gingrich.
I haven't accepted Romney, nor Romneycare, nor a guy who campaigned against the Contract with America.
I've not accepted nor made my peace with a guy who puts Planned Parenthood on health boards in his state, who is OK with abortion, who CONTRIBUTED MONEY to Democrats.
No.
I've not swallowed.
But others have.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.26.12 @ 7:18PM
I doubt if I look at the Drudge Report more than once every three years if that.
Hobbes| 1.26.12 @ 3:15PM
Your loyalty to Moon Beam Gingrich is admirable. I suppose you are hoping for a big payoff at election time. A speechwriter job, I suspect. But you are wasting your breath. Obama would crush Moon Unit in a landslide. The guy is toxic. We don't even read your posts anymore. Just the headlines. You are too predictable.
Drek| 1.26.12 @ 3:29PM
It's real simple.
It's now either Romney, who I can't support not because he isn't as conservative as I am, nor because he won't win.
I supported McCain after he gained the nomination though I knew he would go down to ignominious defeat.
I can't support Romney because I have NO IDEA where Romney stands on any issue under the Sun.
With some candidates you have a strong idea who they are. With other candidates there is still some shading of every aspect of their personality. But with Romney ...............?
HOW can any MAN cast a vote for a creature who gives him no idea, NO IDEA who he is or what he believes?
RJ| 1.26.12 @ 3:19PM
We all know that Newt has political baggage, such as the Pelosi ad, etc, but none of the Newt bashing is making me feel any better about candidate Romney. His answer in the last debate on what he has done for conservatism was extremely weak. Winning in November is critical, but it is also critical that the President and Congress fully engage in repealing the legislation which has choked the American economy. Romney just isn't a movement reformer; he is a manager who more and more seems to represent the political establishment which has led us in our current mess.
Drek| 1.26.12 @ 3:45PM
Here's a for instance.
Romney was asked point blank what have you done for conservativism?
What was Romney's answer?
Romney immediately mentioned his family, the fact that he was married and had kids, grandkids too.
Now I'm from an all boy high school.
So I'll share with you what I immediately thought of when I heard that answer.
"So Romney having taken up the missionary position with his wife is now conservative activity that the whole party should take note of ......... is that it? Merely procreating is now enough to warrant plaudits in the GOP, and this from a guy trying to earn the chief plum of the party, its nomination for President of the United States?"
Then I asked myself, -------------- "Is doggie style conservative? Or is that "liberal?"
Maybe we should ask Romney.............
Does anybody give a damn that he insulted all of us by trotting out something so utterly stupid as the CHIEF conservative accomplishment of his existence.
Gingrich created a Republican majority, and fought to enact the Reagan agenda.
But that little thing, that trivial activity is nothing compared to Romney's taking up his favourite position and getting his wife preggers.
This is nuts.
And this isn't going to end well.
Romney is going to get taken to the cleaners if he gains the nomination.
I'm persuaded by Ben Shapiro's take on the election, as well as that of Professor Jacobson over at Legan Insurrection, as well as Dan Riehl.
The more the establishment howl about Gingrich, the more determined they are to destroy him, the more important it is that Gingrich is forced upon that establishment, the more important it is that the establishment be forced to accept the bit between its teeth.
Thomas Sowell, Art Laffer, Bud McFarlane, the WSJ that said Gingrich's economic plan was worth the while, while Romney's was barely worth mentioning.
There are reasons why Gingrich has EARNED the nomination, because of the many battles he fought in, the many trenchlines he held in the face of liberal attack.
Not a single Republican politician has the nerve to mock the media as he has, and the intellectual firepower to make them look stupid.
Romney is a joke, and the joke will be on us if Romney prevails in this nomination battle.
For understand this one and all. It won't just be Romney that prevails, it will be the very same people that have led this country into such straits, such a crisis. The very same people that have wrought economic havoc upon scores of millions 0f people.
A vote for Romney pleases our establishment overlords.
Not so a vote for Gingrich.
The more the howling against Gingrich, the more worthy of my support he becomes.
Larry| 1.26.12 @ 3:49PM
Drek, you've got it covered, buddy. Don't worry about any of the other usual numbskulls who might attack you about Newt. You've hit the nail on the head about why this is happening. And now there is some confirmation about the credibility of Elliott Abrams. Which is zero, nil, nothing, nada.
George S| 1.26.12 @ 5:09PM
Is what Abrams cites true or not (i.e., did Newt say or not say those things)?
Did the author refute Abrams citations? No. He said there was "another side". What is the other side? Didn't say; all the article is relying on is things not said in only one location.
Not everyone agreed with Reagan, especially on dismantling the Soviet evil empire -- some were probably scared, others were probably doubtful, and others may have thought it required too much political capital for too little return.
If Newt disagreed with Reagan, then ask him why. But when Reagan took all the hits, it appears particularly galling to those such as Abrams -- who stood by Reagan -- to see the doubters jumping on the bandwagon and claiming credit. That would be enough to piss off even the classiest of people.
Oldefarte| 1.26.12 @ 3:54PM
There was no critisism because THERE WAS NO CRITISISM, and obviously this is political destruction coming from some source. IMO the Democrats are behind this, since they would stand to get a two-fer in destroying Newt and correspondingly making Mitt look deceitful. I also think the Democrats were behind the Cain destructive efforts, as this is simply what COMMUNITY ORGANIZING 101 from Axelrod, Immanuel, Pilosi, Reid etc is capable of [never letting a political oppunity go to waste!]. These Democrats will stop at nothing in order to get Obama/Democrats re-elected, and its their gutter politics at work here. Until proven otherwise, don't be too quick on the trigger to always fellow Republicans for what is now happening, okay???????
Butch| 1.26.12 @ 4:05PM
Mr. Lord, Rush brought your name up today. I worked late last night and slept late this morning. Woke up to my usual Drudge, NRO, AmSpec. It was an anti-Newt barrage. Hoped Rush could make some sense of it (he is the one I trust the most), but he was pretty confused, also.
Drek above, I was having thoughts along your lines. I wonder what Angelo Codevilla thinks about this?
jstwndring| 1.26.12 @ 4:45PM
Do any of you "conservatives" that are supporting Romney notice that he uses the same character assassination techniques that Democrats use? He avoids the issues because his positions are indefensible as a Republican. So, he attacks Newt's character. It's cheap, but, sadly, it works.
Newt was not my first pick, but, I guess no-one was interested in Michele, so, he's about all I've got left. At least Newt has some positive results from his time as Speaker. What's Romney's legislative record? It's less than stellar. He signed into legislation one of the most economically crippling bills in Massachusetts State history. One that looks suspiciously like Obamacare.
Results do matter, and to that end, Newt's record looks much better than Mitt's.
Sparky| 1.26.12 @ 4:48PM
Mr. Lord, your piece is beside the point. The important question for people weighing Gingrich's candidacy is not whether Abrams ever raised these concerns with the White House. Abrams is not the issue. The issue is whether Gingrich (the self-described Reagan conservative) said these things. And there seems to be no disputing the fact that he did say them. I'm sick and tired of seeing people trying to cut Newt slack for his serial stupidities. "Right wing social engineering"? 'Nuff said.
Cam| 1.27.12 @ 10:25PM
Sparky, no he didn't. Nancy said Reagan passed the conservative torch to Gingrich. Ed Rollins, on Fox last night said the same as Mr. Lord. The facts are there to see. Several people have stepped up to refute any negatives by Gingrich toward Reagan.
martin j smith| 1.26.12 @ 5:01PM
the anti-Newt people are turning me way off. I do not think they care but they are wrong and history will teach them a lesson. And its not that I a Newt admirer or supporter per se. I see him as the Goliath versus Davids I support the underdog.
RentSeeker| 1.26.12 @ 5:42PM
The reason Newt's name was never mentioned in the White House is that he was a back-bencher, one of 435. People were concerned about what Senators thought. I doubt that the White House spent a lot of time on the opinions of 2nd or 3rd term congressmen., other than in the aggregate.
RentSeeker| 1.26.12 @ 5:56PM
P.S. The Romney advisers who green lighted the Dole endorsement should be be sued for malpractice and banned from polite society. Stone deaf, with ear plugs, with ear protectors.
W| 1.26.12 @ 7:41PM
Mr. Lord
Maybe they did not want to gossip with you about Newt?
Margtc| 1.27.12 @ 7:59AM
Newt didn't vote or run congress with an anti-Reagan posture. Therefore, you have to ask yourself what the point is to these sudden, coordinated anti-Reagan stories. Even the Reagans have come to his defense. What more do you need?
Del Shad| 1.28.12 @ 2:11AM
This is a much better article that refutes Abram's misrepresentations about Newt.
http://spectator.org/blog/2012.....t-misleadi
Charles Purvisw| 1.28.12 @ 10:07AM
The Republican establishment and both conservative and liberal media continue to show their bias against Gingrich. Even Fox News shows how disengenuous they are on "fair and balanced" when it comes to elections. And just like in 08 the Republican operatives and supposedly conservative media, believing they know better than us common folk, have already selected their
golden-child and are determined to shove him down our throats, the same modus operandi they scream about Obama using. And, just like in 08 with McCain, if they get their way Obama will win again and America will be subjected to 4 more years of a dishonest administration shoving legislation, or illegally circumventing it, down our throats furthering us down the path of socialism, bankruptcy, and national INsecurity! One would think they were intelligent enough to do a little research whereupon they would see Romney is truly only slightly right of Obama on most issues, unless of course they have ulterior motives. There are many videos where he himself speaks to his beliefs and stances on the issues, showing him to be a moderate at the very best, liberal on most.I can understand someone learning and therefore changing their stance on 1 or 2 issues, but to do it on almost every single one reeks of political expediency, period!We need to make these people understand we have only been to 3 states, that the American people's voices do count, and that if another "08" occurs we the people will hold them accountable.
Mark MacInnis| 2.1.12 @ 9:22AM
Huh. I just got a mailer from the RNC asking me for money for the upcoming election.
I sent a nice note back that said, I would be GLAD to forward my check, as soon as the RNC and their fellow elites STOP the ad hominem and false attacks against Mr. Gingrich.
I also wished them a nice day.
My fellow conservatives, the power of the wallet speaks. Punish the people who are misrepresenting the former speaker by misremembering history in the only way they understand: Let them know IN CLEAR AND UNCERTAIN TERMS the source of their funding is dependent on how they conduct their campaigns....
I find it absolutely despicable and unconscionable that the tactics we decry when the liberal left uses them.....are suddenly fair game for certain Republicans in their quest to achieve their ends.
If we don't stand as an example of truth, who will? If we don't conduct ourselves with dignity and respect in the attempt to further our goals, what are we?