The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Elliott Abrams Caught Misleading on Newt

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Elliott Abrams Caught Misleading on Newt

By Jeffrey Lord on 1.27.12 @ 11:28AM

As Ronald Reagan used to say: Well…

Yesterday we took note of former Reagan State Department official Elliott Abrams’ piece over at NRO that went after Newt Gingrich on his relationship with Reagan. While voting regularly with Reagan as a young congressman from Georgia, Gingrich, claimed Abrams, “often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides and his policies to defeat Communism.” Abrams then goes on to cite ” a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986.”

Or sort of cites it.

In fact, I’m sorry to say, what appears to be going on here is that Elliott Abrams, a considerably admirable public servant and a very smart guy, has been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries. He is even being accused of trolling for a job in a Romney administration. No way!!!! Really????

What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan? The pieces invariably following the Romney line that Newt had some version of nothing to do with Reagan.

A piece like the one Abrams wrote depends for its success in garnering headlines — which it did — by assuming no one will bother to get into the weeds and do the homework. Usually a safe assumption when dealing with the mainstream media, particularly a mainstream media that, as one with Establishment Republicans, hates Newt Gingrich.

Not so fast.

Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.

Mr. Scheve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker. While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Scheve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.

Uh-oh.

That’s right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich’s long ago March 21, 1986 “Special Order” speech on the floor of the House, and aware “that most of [Abrams’] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order” — Scheve started digging. Since the Congressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of the Congressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me.

So now I’ve read the Gingrich speech that is the source of all the hoopla. All seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form.

I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.

Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says:

• “Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism.” Gingrich then goes on — at Newtonian length — praising Reagan for Reagan’s understanding of Lenin, Reagan’s understanding of the real “purposes of a Soviet dictatorship” and much more. He lists and applauds Reagan repeatedly for the President’s appreciation of “the threat in a more powerful Soviet empire” and the threats posed by Communist Cuba and Nicaragua. He ranks Reagan with the great cold war presidents in protecting freedom.

In short, time after time after, Newt Gingrich — true to form — is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Ronald Reagan. Is it any wonder that years later Nancy Reagan would speak so publicly and warmly about “Ronnie” passing the conservative torch to Newt? Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan has stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt?

• Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets are “inadequate and will ultimately fail.” This is shameful. Why? Here’s what Newt said — in full and in context:

“The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan’s strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.”

In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern, prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Reagan’s then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick, not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Kristol and the late-Mondale aide turned conservative Krauthammer, that Reagan’s anti-Communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona. The entire speech focused on suggestions of how to do just that — to effectively institutionalize Reagan’s conservative beliefs in the government. Is Abrams seriously accusing Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan? Of spewing “insulting rhetoric” at a president everyone in Washington knew they staunchly supported? Really? Of course not. But in apparent service to the Romney campaign, in order to make Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol.

• ABC News. Now here’s a little juicy tidbit. What’s been the big news with Newt’s campaign in the last week? That’s right. The ABC News “investigative” piece by Brian Ross in the form of an interview with Gingrich’s ex-wife Marianne. Aired two days before the South Carolina primary, the incident famously backfired as Gingrich launched an attack on ABC during that now-famous CNN debate hosted by John King.

All new, right? Wrong.

Five days previous to Gingrich’s speech, President Reagan had addressed the nation on what he called “the mounting danger in Central America” from Nicaragua. Nicaragua, which Reagan described as “a Soviet ally on the American mainland only 2 hours’ flying time from our own borders. With over a billion dollars in Soviet-bloc aid, the Communist government of Nicaragua has launched a campaign to subvert and topple its democratic neighbors.”

Typically, the liberal media of the day zapped Reagan. And sure enough, buried in that March 21, 1986 Gingrich speech on the House floor, Gingrich was tough on the liberal media’s handling of Reagan’s speech. And who — quite specifically — did he single out for criticism? You guessed it: ABC News.

Said Newt:

All too often the news media itself is grotesquely uncritical and grotesquely willing to use Soviet language to explain Soviet behavior. Possibly it reached its epitome when ABC News put on a paid Soviet propagandist following the President of the United States.

In other words, 26 years ago Newt Gingrich was busy incurring the institutional wrath not just of the mainstream media in general but ABC News quite specifically over the issue of their “grotesquely uncritical” treatment of the Soviet dictatorship.

What America is seeing in real time today in this 2012 presidential campaign in terms of Newt Gingrich taking on both the media in general and ABC News in particular is decidedly not new. There is a history here — a long one — of Gingrich calling out ABC. And, as seen in the now infamous ex-wife interview, ABC pulls no punches when dealing with Newt Gingrich.

One could go on here. This March, 1986 speech was a long, typically Newt presentation. Lots of history. Lots of constructive thought. Lots of talk about strategy, tactics, the military. At one point — a full 15 years before 9/11, Gingrich addresses the need for an American strategy that will support “Islamic freedom.”

The main point is that the Newt Gingrich who spoke on the floor of the House on March 21, 1986, was thoroughly pro-Reagan, honestly engaging in a serious intellectual effort to assess the strengths and weaknesses of American foreign policy in the day from a hierarchy of vision, strategy, operations or projects and then last but not least, tactics.

In grossly misrepresenting this speech as some sort of anti-Reagan jihad, Elliott Abrams has ironically only called attention to Governor Romney’s lack of strengths and experience in this area.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but this kind of stuff is getting out of control. Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum all have their strengths and weaknesses.

It does no one — least of all Elliott Abrams or Governor Romney — any good to try and say that Newt Gingrich, as loyal a friend and ally to Ronald Reagan as could be found in the day — was somehow some crazed anti-Reaganite who got the Cold War wrong. Not only is this not true, its laughably untrue. Quite noticeably in last night’s debate, on the heels of the release of that video showing Nancy Reagan

herself praising Newt and the news that Michael Reagan is endorsing the ex-Speaker, Romney sheepishly began to back away from all of this zaniness.

He should.

So should Elliott Abrams — who is much, much smarter, courageous and filled with character than that shoddy NRO piece conveys.

In the immortal words of Cher: “Snap out of it!”

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 11:48AM

I called it yesterday Jeff.

Your pal, your long ago associate, lied through his teeth in that post for NR.

And if he thinks that Romney will take on any political risks by reemploying Eliot Abrams after Abrams was run out of town years ago, --- if he thinks he'll be compensated for his part in this orchestrated hit against Gingrich, ---------- he doesn't know Washington and he doesn't know human nature, and most especially, he doesn't know Romney.

Bachmann won't be compensated for her great assistance she lent to the Romney campaign.

Nor will Christie, and if Ann Coulter thinks that Governor Crispie Creme is going to be tagged for the ticket, she's unhinged, {but she is unhinged, her personal life has finally caught up with her}.

Mike | 1.27.12 @ 1:53PM

Ahhh how sad! Sounds like we've got another Angry Newtian on here who's ticked off the moon base won't happen!

Nick099| 1.28.12 @ 1:30PM

It seems all of the derogatory comments made here are by primitive imbeciles or pro-bloggers sucking off the Romney campaign money hose. Why do I say this???? Because the comments are so out of touch with reality, the possible causes can be easily narrowed.

Mark Levin, the other day exposed this clown Abrams. Levin was also a member of the Reagan Administration. It is disgusting that so-called Republicans would engage in left-wing character assasination tactics.

For the primitives whose MTV education has failed them in Conservative History: Newt Gingrich is among the top ten most influential individuals to have advanced and promoted Conservative ideas and legislation over the last 50 years. Love him or hate him, he is a giant in Conservative circles and the bane of the Left-Wing Marxist. Not an opinion...just fact. To call him a Socialist, Statist, or Marxist does not just seem laughable; it is pitiful. It is disgusting. And it shows how lousy our education standards are, how ignorant the populace is, and how vicious the Romney campaign can be.

What is astounding though is so-called Conservative news outlets refusal to fully examine Mitt Romney´s record. He lied quite profusely the other night at the debate.....his denial of having run a company dealing with Medicare was the most glaring. That company paid a 119 million dollar fine under his stewardship. He apparently lied about his involvement as his account difers from the record of the US Attorneys involved in the case. So Mitt is squeaky clean????? Are you serious. Shilling for Mitt and burying your collective heads in the sand while keeping your hand out to score some coin is not going to help you when Obozo gets his second term and the country is flushed. Better save that blood money for your exodus to Canada....Freakin short-sighted imbeciles.

JenB| 1.28.12 @ 2:21PM

Exactly.

What you have is a bunch of people who can only read a headline and maybe, if we are lucky, the first paragraph of an article. Then they run around commenting on the articles like they are "informed."

I have to admit, the MSM and establishment are really good at exploiting people's weaknesses. Throw out an inflamatory headline and the lazy people run with it, never reading anything more. I see it time and again. The headline is the inflamatory part and if you actually can make it 3/4 of the way down the article, you find that gee, that headline is misleading at best. I will see comment after comment where it is quite apparent, they didn't read the entire article. The media counts on that. It is quite unfortunate.

ChicagoBob123| 1.28.12 @ 7:31PM

We cant let this LIE stand.
Email Fox news about the hoax that was played on all conservatives.
newsmanager@foxnews.com
http://spectator.org/blog/2012.....t-misleadi
The FIX is in folks dont let Romney benefit for his liesEmail Fox news about the hoax that was played on all conservatives.
newsmanager@foxnews.com
The FIX is in folks dont let Romney benefit for his lies

Buzz Kill| 1.29.12 @ 2:46PM

I read the entire speech. Newt is unquestionably criticizing Reagan's handling of the Soviets, basically saying Reagan wasn't walking the walk and his policies had failed. Newt also refers in the speech to the mujahideen in Afghanistan as "freedom fighters." You know, those guys who would later form the Taliban and we are now fighting against? The time of interventionist foreign policy Newt advocates for in the speech is precisely what has us bogged down in two quagmires currently in the Middle East.

PBR| 1.30.12 @ 9:25AM

You are wrong. The mujahideen were the freedom fighters who were fighting AGAINST the taliban. The taliban sent a suicide bomber (the first one I had ever heard of) disguised as a reporter to blow up their esteemed leader after the Americans took away their aid during the Clinton years. After that they fell apart and were killed off, losing the battle with the taliban. That was when the taliban took over. Fact.

Markangelo| 1.29.12 @ 1:00PM

When the indians were gone
the cowboys started shootng each other.
Par for the course
the elephants are killing each other !!!

hwebb| 1.29.12 @ 1:14AM

I'd rather have a moon base than GOVERNMENT FORCED HEALTHCARE. I think we know who still defends that one don't we. Ol' Liberal Mitt

Clint| 1.27.12 @ 4:10PM

" The New Hampshire Gazette

The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.

name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman

A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close."

Clint| 1.27.12 @ 4:11PM

The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame

name:
Willard Mitt Romney
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
March 12, 1947
home state:
Michigan
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
excuse:
None to speak of
preferred activity:
Trying to talk people into becoming Mormons
occupation:
Climbing ambition's greased pole

When your daddy's a Governor and a Cabinet Secretary, it's amazing how your odds of being drafted diminish."

Paul on the Cape| 1.28.12 @ 7:03PM

The Romneys as English converts to Mormonism, came to the US around 1840's. No Romney male has ever worn a uniform. Civil War? Nah, Spanish American? Pass. WWI? Sorry. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I & II and Afghanistan? Too busy.
Well, we know Mitt is into money, but patriotism? No so much. Not a Romney family value as proven by near 200 years of family history.

Jack in Wi.| 1.28.12 @ 12:28PM

Clint: It is a lot of fun watching the neocons destroy the party, as well as destroying themselves. The lunatic extremists, on the West Bnnk, are pushing Nutt and the slightly saner are pushing Mutt. All this squabbling over who is a more rabid warmonger will only guarentee Oblabala's re-election. If Romney had any common sense he would fire all those Neocons he has hanging around and read the whole gang out of the party. Then he should put forth a real America First program of ending these wars and bringing the troops home. That would take tremendus political courage. We all know Mutt has none of that. He said something about bringing the troops home at the beginning of the campaign. The Neocons hit the roof and he wilted like a leaf of lettuce left out on a hot day. In fact I think it is because of that that the extremists are mounting this Gingrich attack. No-body trusts Mutt on anything.

Vern Crisler | 1.27.12 @ 10:45PM

I love that, Governor Crispie Creme!

W| 1.28.12 @ 8:33AM

Mr. Lord
I just read the speech and it is worse that what Abrams said. Following is an excerpt that summarizes Newt's opinion of Reagan's policies and Reagan's effort to beat the Soviets. He does list the institutions and others in government, but he clearly says the FIRST PROBLEM IS REAGAN:

"Whatever tactical successes he is winning in El Salvador, in Grenada, or in rebuilding ourdefenses, are successes built on the quicksand of his personal popularity. As he himself saidlast Sunday, he has less than 3 years left to serve. Yet there are not the institutionalframeworks, the political movements, the massive public education that are the necessarypermanent base for a true American response to the rising Soviet imperial challenge in theform of a transnational strategy of tyranny using Cuban colonial forces.

The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which isadequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.

Sincere, decent, committed anti-Communist Members of the House and Senate whoquestion $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan freedom fighters and ask in vain for astrategy are fundamentally right. The Reagan administration has a huge gap between its President's correct visionary warnings of the transnational Soviet empire and the rest of the executive branch's incorrect, ineffective fumblings and inadequacies.

The burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan; he is thePresident.In addition, to making goodspeechesit is his job to ensure that others design goodpolicies, that they implement them effectively, and that they reshape existing institutionsand invent new ones as necessary. He is more than just the greatest communicator of ourtime, he is the President and therefore the head of the executive branch as well as the headof his political party

.Second, the burden must be on his White House staff, which has systematically failed againand again for 5 years now to understand that the real problems of developing atransnational strategy for freedom of confronting the Soviet empire and the Cuban colonialarmy are problems much more fundamental than a Reaganspeech,much more difficultthan a Pat Buchanan editorial, much more difficult than once again using the CIA toineffectively manage to do the best it can when the best it can is simply not good enough.

I say this not as in any way a comment on any personality but on an institutional crisis of thefirst order about American Government and the American Government's inability as aninstitution to meet the challenge of the Soviet empire.

Third, the failure must be borne by the senior executives in the Cabinet, the Department of State, Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency; not as individuals, not because they donot mean well, I believe they do, not because they are not serious, I think they are, notbecause they do not work hard, they work terribly hard; it is reasonable for these three finegentleman to wonder what it is that is being asked of them.

But the answer is simple: They are the heads of great institutions. Those institutions currently do not have anunderstanding of the transnational Soviet empire, do not even use the language thatdescribes that empire, have no strategies to defeat the empire in countries the President has identified."

Newt blames everybody in government, BUT
Newt clearly states that the "burden of falilure frankly must be placed on President Reagan.."
Abrams is right. Lord is wrong.

chuck| 1.28.12 @ 9:10AM

I consider this more "constructive criticism", then the "Reagan bashing" that was reported.

Abrams is just part of Romney's game to buy, lie, steal, cheat, and make up whatever is necessary to drive his opponents out of the race. He did it to Cain, when he was the threat, and now he's doing it to Newt.

W| 1.28.12 @ 11:01AM

Yeah, Romney arranged for Cain to have dinner with those women and pay for the bills of one woman, ten or fifteen years ago, so those stories would come up in 2011. And Romney then told Cain not to learn anything about Libya.

Do you have any evidence of the specific lies and cheating?

Newt had some good points in his speech but there is not question he criticized Reagan's leadership. Whether you believe it was constructive criticism or bashing is your opinion. If you like Newt it is constructive, if you don't like Newt it is bashing. Newt said what he said and anyone who reads it can make up his mind.

But Lord and Rush were acting like this exculpates Newt, and I think it is worse than Abrams reported.
Abrams has more credentials than Newt. Abrams was the point man for the Contra support, he testified repeatedly before Congress, and was indicted for misleading Congress. Read his story, it is clear he was persecuted because the Dems could not get to Reagan. Thankfully, Bush 41 pardoned Abrams in 1992.

Abrams knew much more about Reagan's policies than Newt.
This speech shows the problem with Newt's grandiose ego. He is lecturing Reagan about Soviet foreign policy. Now he is lecturing Romney and others about capitalism and free markets.
But I will still vote for Newt if he is the nominee.

Clardy| 1.28.12 @ 12:11PM

I wouldn't call it lecturing Newt lecturing Reagan - I'd call it Newt lecturing everybody else with the advice he'd give Reagan, most of it reasonable given the divergence between the President's rhetoric and what his administration was actually doing. Keep in mind that this was back in the day when Kissinger (who only sought a "decent interval" between the his Nobel-prize-winning treaty and the fall of the Republic of Vietnam to an outside invasion) was still considered respectable and much of our political leadership did not believe we would prevail over the Soviet Union.

Also, from a policy negotiation perspective, it undoubtedly helped shift the definition of "middle ground" farther toward the anti-Communist viewpoint than anything based on the utterances of the State Department.

stubob| 1.28.12 @ 1:01PM

It was constructive criticism, not Reagan bashing, as Nancy and Michael [last names: Reagan] will attest. He was saying that policy based on Reagan's iconic persona alone - without the backing of a bureaucratic infrastrucure that would outlive Reagan - would wane once Reagan left office. When you read something in the mainstream [and apparently the right-wing establishment, AKA RINO] press, say to yourself, "That just might be
true." I'll fact check it before I vote." As Reagan would say, "Trust, but verify."

hwebb| 1.29.12 @ 1:19AM

Romney in debate with Teddy Kennedy " I was for Reagan Bush, I was an Independent at the time of Reagan Bush' Romney in 2002, " I'm not a partisan, Im a PROGRESSIVE Republican." The ACU ratings, Newt, 90% lifetime. Romney DOESNT EVEN HAVE ONE.

Reg| 1.27.12 @ 11:49AM

NRO should withdraw the piece and issue an apology to Newt for its smear. Jonah and Rich know better than to participate in a smear campaign against good conservatives.

I'm not a huge fan of Newt, but the lies spewed about his record by Romney and his backers is really disgusting.

Windy City Commentary| 1.27.12 @ 12:53PM

Jonah and Rich don't no better. Rich is in the tank for anyone but Gingrich and will do anything he can to slyly take him out, and hope no one notices his bias. Lowry is two-faced. He wants to come across as reasonable and not taking sides; just an honest above it all editor. You should hear him when he goes on Dennis Miller show and has one snide snarky comment after another hitting Gingrich.

NRO must get rid of Lowry, if they are ever going to be the publication they once were.

stubob| 1.28.12 @ 1:07PM

I agree. As if bashing Ayn Rand [in fairness, this began pre-Lowry] weren't enough, they now bash Newt. To paraphrase William Buckley, I'm going to cancel my own damn subscription.

Mike| 1.27.12 @ 2:01PM

Yes Reg, just like Newt's lies that his campaign now admits that Newt lied twice to ABC news! His own campaign admits it! Then his calling Romney anti immigration ad that they agreed to take off the air because they basically admitted it was dishonest especially after Rubio came out calling the ad outrageous! Then his Bain Captital documentary in which the entire video was proved to be completely a lie! So cut the crap about Romney's camp! It's called politics and that's what they all do! You obviously don't get it though! I imagine you are a Ron Paulite!

Vern Crisler | 1.27.12 @ 10:46PM

That was not Newt's documentary.

Beverly | 1.28.12 @ 8:13PM

Keep it up everyone, just helping to re elect Obama for another four years and maybe more!!!
Stop the bashing, forget the Good Old Boys and get behind the only Conservative left standing Santorum...they have eliminated the others.

Derek Leaberry| 1.27.12 @ 12:03PM

By nature, Elliot Abrams is a deceitful person. Back in the 80s, Abrams was knifing Richard Holwill in the back at the State Department yet, in the company of Holwill, proclaiming his fealty. Bureaucratic infighting, no doubt. All this was alluded to in a John McLaughlin column in National Review in 1985.

Mike| 1.27.12 @ 2:10PM

Derek,
I didn't know you were one of God's handchosen judges that knows for a fact that by nature Elliot Abrams is a deceitful person just because you think you are a know it all who can reference some authors article in 1985. You know what I have? A gift of calling out B.S.! And have a whole lot of it!

denise| 1.27.12 @ 10:39PM

Their all climbing over each other to get on top, it is disgusting and I really wish a good honest person would run against Obama, but this is disgusting and it's no wonder the establishment republican's are losing support

Ted| 1.28.12 @ 10:23AM

There is an honest person running, his name is Rick Santorum and all that anyone can talk about is the 2 jackasses that are at the head of the pack. The 2 most self agrandizing individuals that you will ever see next to the current president. We need somone in office that doesn't think that everything revolves around themselves. Rick Santorum is a servant leader please consider not getting caught up in the hype that steals the spotlight. Take a look at Rick and shine your light on him and let the media burn themselves out talking about the other 2 clowns.

Clardy| 1.28.12 @ 12:16PM

There's also that other guy, Ron somebody or another.

He has a long track record of speaking bluntly about uncomfortable truths, and so far he's the only one who keeps hammering on the mind-boggling scale of our ever-growing fiscal disaster. (If you can remember any other candidate saying "We can't afford..." in relation to paying for some policy, feel free to correct me on that last bit.)

Beverly | 1.28.12 @ 8:22PM

Agree with you, Denise. WHEN are they going to stop battling one and other? They are giving the election to Obama....They should all start pointing to Obama's record and his apology to other countries, his background, instead of pointing out the faults of Conservative candidates. The opposition will dig up enough dirt, start researching the background of the Demo's candidate, it could be more beneficial.

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 12:06PM

Oh, by the by,

Romney is beginning to back away AFTER the attacks accomplished their task, which was to reduce Gingrich's numbers.

Now Romney's supporters will once again go forth chirping and prattling about Newt "imploding," "blowing himself up," etc.

Nary a word will be mentioned of Romney's role in all this, nary a word will be mentioned on how this orchestrated attack just didn't happen, how it was planned, and who was in on that planning and how it was mapped out.

Lowry at NR had to have a hand in it, as did Drudge, which means Coulter was there somewhere in the background. Bob Tyrrell's piece was likewise probably well-timed to coincide with this wideranging, multipronged attack.

This was akin to RAF's Bomber Command and our US Army Air Corp's 8th Air Force targeting a single German city for destruction, and having our guys go pulverize that city by day, and our British cousins incinerate that same city by night, and then targeting the exact same city, the next day and the next day.

Which we did by the by.

This is just an unreal level of smears and falsehoods.

Who knew that Gingrich was supposedly a Reagan hating, Marxist spewing mental case run amok on Capitol Hill. Wow! How did he get away with that for years and years.

Whew! I'm glad Rich Lowry, Coulter and that weird Drudge who has all kinds of issues himself, disclosed all of it to us. MAN we dodged a bullet with Gingrich.

I feel so much better with the guy who wrote in Planned Parenthood onto his health care boards, especially since Planned Parenthood does such wonderful work advancing the lives of real career women, it's such a wonderful and moral organization.

It's great too that our nominee has his head on right about homosexualism, and doesn't share the attitudes of backward Christians who wickedly maintain that old canard that there's something wrong with such natural and plausible attractions. Again, we should all be so glad that Drudge and Coulter saved us, SAVED US from that wild man run amok, Gingrich.

Windy City Commentary| 1.27.12 @ 12:55PM

Of course Lowry had a hand in it. He's the editor of NR. And since NR is not widely read by the general public, he had to have Drudge blast the big headline to make it the article bigger than it really is. I can't stand Lowry. I'd love that guy to be exposed as the David Brooks clone that he is.

Mike| 1.27.12 @ 2:03PM

Dude Drek, so what's your page long defense to the fact that despite all this hubbub Newt still says in a video that if Bush runs on Reaganism he will lose! And in 08 he said the era of reagan is over? Im curious to see what your crazy response will be!

Windy City Commentary| 1.27.12 @ 2:08PM

The truth about that video came out yesterday. It was also completely taken out of context. Mark Levin played the whole video. Newt had lots of Reagan praise in that video.

Mike| 1.27.12 @ 2:31PM

What about the part that says if Bush runs on Reaganism he will lose! I mean I guess I'm tired of people saying, "oh, well there was a whole bunch more to that video, or that audio." Okay I understand that, but unless his actual words of "If Bush runs On Reaganism he will lose" have been altered and dubbed over and he didn't actually say that, then I think your whole argument of "well there is a lot more to the video." are pretty pathetic.

Sherlock| 1.27.12 @ 3:37PM

Mike, for Pete's sake listen to the video as played by Mark Levin. here is a link to a post at Legal Insurrection. It was taken out of context.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2...../#comments

Vern Crisler | 1.27.12 @ 11:04PM

Excellent commentary by Mark!

Josh| 1.27.12 @ 6:34PM

You're an idiot. In context, what he was saying is that in American campaigns you have to run forward looking. If Bush simply chose to run on continuing the 80's the public wouldn't bite. He specifically said, a few minutes later, that Bush needed to build on Reaganism, to move it forward (like he did with the Contract with America). As you should know, America politics is not a static thing. He was clearly advocating moving Reaganism forward, to keep it fresh and desired by the public, to build on the movement so that it would not wither away in different times. Misrepresent all you want, Newt was a champion of Reagan and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who devoted more time and energy to the Reagan conservative movement. Alas, I am sure by the end of this campaign you'll believe that Romney was Reagan and his private sector experience is really the source of conservatism.

JenB| 1.28.12 @ 3:20PM

Then find the whole clip yourself to determine. Sherlock posted it. Basically, Newt was saying if he runs on just a continuation of Reagan he will lose because people want to know what you will do as president. Bush was no Reagan. So what is his plan? What will he do to tackle the issues of the day? Just running on a Reagan platform was not enough in his opinion. If you actually listen to all that he said, he actually did NOT bash Reagan at all.

Frankly, I find it very lazy when people won't find out for themselves. If you are hearing conflicting information, wouldn't you take the time to find out for yourself, instead of just assuming that there is no additional context? A lot of things can be taken out of context if you only take 20 seconds of a 5 minute segment.

Here is an exercise for you on context.

w/out context: "A conservative platform of the 80s won't work in 2012."

w/context: "A conservative platform of the 80s won't work in 2012, unless people understand that the media will do everything to stop it."

Granted, I was just pulling that comment out of thin air, but it shows how 10 more words can change the entire context. No editing to change the sequence is necessary. All you have to do is stop the audio right before the "unless."

The media is NOT honest. You should know this by now. I knew that Abrams article was deceptive, because he only took portions of the quote. Throughout his article you didn't see full quotes, they were broken into segments. A red flag to me that context was missing.

denise| 1.27.12 @ 10:42PM

SOUNDS LIKE THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN, yes it does. Romney IS NOT DIFFERENT then Obama. At least Newt's honest about his warts.

Fog| 1.28.12 @ 10:47AM

"as did Drudge"

Yeah, I've all but written off drudge at this point. It's one thing to be GOP biased (all media at this point is party biased to some extent), but to quite clearly be helping to slam a specific candidate over their chosen one is pretty foul.

If Romney gets the nomination, Micky Mouse gets my vote.

pramono| 1.28.12 @ 11:07AM

Rommney has some excellent properties, Lying and Cheating are the top of them.
Knowing him ppersonaly I have seen them on a daily basis. He lives in a dreamworld in which not telling the truth is an hourly event.

Try to explain, how with all the limitations the IRS puts on yearly contributions, and investments in retirement plans, he was able to contribute accumulate over $100Million in his plans. The only way it is possible is through cheating. The fact that he escaped IRS scrutiny is simply his luck. But, I am sure that once he is the nominee, IRS/Obama will examine it and "discover" the lies.

Picking Rommney is a sure path for Obama reelection.

TG| 1.27.12 @ 12:09PM

It's a shame ... I would have enjoyed this as a piece of investigative reporting showing the evidence of what Newt said back in 1986. However, the problem is this piece is so full of innuendo and unsupported accusations against Romney and the supposed "establishment", that frankly I can't tell the difference between your response and those you accuse.

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 12:16PM

Have you any idea of the depth of the reporting that you are asking for?

How much time would be spent only to 48 hrs later expose the lies that already wrought such damage to the opponent of Romney?

It's one thing to put together a post, it's quite another to put together a minor tome explaining what all of us should have understood without any refreshers, and that is that Gingrich figured prominently in the Reagan revolution.

There's a reason that it was Gingrich that Reagan said would have to continue on and finish the work thus begun.

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 12:19PM

TG| 1.27.12 @ 12:49PM

I'm not asking for any depth, just the facts. What I got was the facts mixed into its own anti-Romney / anti-Establishment hit piece. Considering all the unsupported accusations, I don't see any difference between Jeffrey Lord and Matt Drudge.

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 12:57PM

Jeff won't be able to provide wiretapped phone conversations between Abrams and Lowry, between Rubin and her husband, Elliot Abrams.

The case is made by the actual speech, and the connections that exist between those who highlighted the smears and the excerpted versions of Gingrich's speech, such as Drudge, and those who contrived the hit in the first place.

denise| 1.27.12 @ 10:43PM

Here it is:
http://www.scribd.com/bshapiro.....iet-Empire

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 12:13PM

There's another group that requires mentioning on this hit piece by Elliot Abrams.

And that's his co-religionists over at Commentary/Contentions. They're closely tied to Jennifer Rubin over at The Washington Post as well. So this wasn't just an NR hit. Commentary people figure into the background as well.

All the Northeastern Republican types got together, and not having any way to advance Romney himself, they did their usual.

They lied.

Limbaugh just called out Elliot Abrams on his radio broadcast.

Jeffrey Lord is being referred to.

God I'm infuriated at the Rockefeller wing.

Michael Shirley| 1.27.12 @ 1:45PM

By the Rockefeller wing, you do intend to include Newt Gingrich in that I assume, as your buddy Rush Limbaugh just yesterday played an audio of Gingrich flat out saying he was a Rockefeller Republican! So get your facts straight or shut up!

Henry Gomez| 1.27.12 @ 12:17PM

Please post full text of speech. Needs to be distributed.

Boxwood| 1.27.12 @ 3:11PM

Second.. Something tells me it doesn't exonerate Gingrich all that much.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.27.12 @ 12:23PM

Jeffrey,
thank you.
Rush is going ape sh*t on this blog as I write.

Well done!

Tell Emmet he ought to be ashamed! (hopefully you won't be fired)

PattyMor| 1.27.12 @ 12:57PM

Well its obvious that Republican "establishment" is in full court press to discredit Mr. Gingrich. Its doesn't seem that it makes any difference to them whether the issues it pounces on is true or not. What does that say about their character?

Like a Rush caller said, the more the "establishment" wants Romney, the less I want him . And it pushes me to Newt as the only guy who can take on Obama. He balanced the budget once (just think how many enemies that made) and he can do it again.

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 1:01PM

They've rationalized their falsehoods, lies and smears as doing whatever it takes to save the GOP from the mob, from the dolts, from the idiots, from the homo haters and pro-lifers.

They're saving the GOP for the future, don't ya' know?

God help us................

Fred| 1.27.12 @ 10:33PM

He "balanced the budget" by spending all the FICA receipts that year. When Ron Paul called him out for making this bogus claim in the debate the other night, Newt said that yes, he had tried to remove FICA funds from calculations of the current-accounts deficit.

Then tonight, there he was on Fox News, repeating his admittedly bogus claim that he balanced the budget.

Oh, and by the by, Trent Lott is right: it was John Kasich and Pete Domenici who negotiated with Clinton's guys on behalf of the R's, not Newt.

Fog| 1.28.12 @ 10:49AM

"Like a Rush caller said, the more the "establishment" wants Romney, the less I want him ."

Precisely my stance as well.

Finrod| 1.27.12 @ 12:57PM

Has anyone checked William F. Buckley's gravesite lately? I expect there's quite a bit of spinning action, considering the moderate-loving crap that his magazine has been spewing for a while now.

If National Review can't support conservatism, it needs to be burned to the ground.

CR| 1.27.12 @ 1:03PM

Lots of high profile and respected republicans have in the past days and weeks expressed their opinions about Gingrich and these have ranged from slight antipathy to extreme aversion. To blame the Romney campaign seems like quite the stretch. I recommend Occam's razor here.

PS Lord commits the same mistake he accuses Abrams of: providing only a snippet of a speech.
Let's see the entire original scan. Thanks.

JediJones| 1.27.12 @ 1:32PM

Don't you mean high-profile, respected election-losing RINOs like McCain and Dole? Whether we blame the Romney campaign specifically or not is besides the point. We know which wing of the party they all identify with, the moderate wing that is a threat to conservatism and has demonstrated time and again that they can't win national elections.

Fred| 1.27.12 @ 10:34PM

Tom Coburn blasted Newt too. Is he a RINO now?

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 1:42PM

CR,

sorry, you haven't any idea, no idea whatsoever how deeply Romney has sunk his fangs into the GOP Beltway establishment, and drained the lifeblood right out of them.

Romney was their candidate four years previous. They've been planning his candidacy for quite some time. Roughly HALF of all GOP political operatives in the area are on Romney's payroll.

He's bought up everybody.

Mike | 1.27.12 @ 1:48PM

Drek, you are such an amazing conspiracy theorist! By the way check your earlier post about your Rockefeller comment as I posted a nice tidbit that people like you always refuse to add in as well.

CR| 1.27.12 @ 2:05PM

I don't believe in conspiracies though I understand their appeal...they make for good Hollywood fodder.

The truth is that Newt, the quintessential Beltway insider, has used a mix of "exaggerations", debate drama, and sleight of hand, to convince Tea Party folks that he is the outsider.

As people begin to snap out of this hypnosis, we see Newt's numbers begin to fall.

Marc| 1.27.12 @ 3:44PM

I have to agree with that. It's the most bizarre thing to see Newt portray himself as any type of outsider. Only someone really gullible would believe that Freddie Mac paid $1.6 million to Newt's consulting firm for him to be a historical consultant. They wanted him for his contacts and knowledge from all those years in Congress. Newt has made a lot of money in the revolving door from government to "consulting" (de facto lobbying). Now, I'm for anyone making a buck, but don't try to sell yourself as an Washington outsider when you've spent the last 30 plus years either being a member of Congress (often high ranking) or peddling your access to it. Heck, Newt didn't even go back to Georgia when he left Congress. He just changed his permanent address to Virginia so he could continue to be involved in the Washington game.

Fred| 1.27.12 @ 10:36PM

When I think "$1.6 million historical consultant," the next thing that comes to mind is always "guy with a PhD from Tulane."

W| 1.27.12 @ 1:03PM

"The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail."

Mr. Lord,
Isn't Newt agreeing with the three writers who say there is a gap between the rhetoric and the policies?
And the policies are weak and will fail?

I am not defending Abrams but I do not see how this quote helps your defense of Newt. Newt is agreeing that the Reagan policies are weak and will fail.

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 1:45PM

Newt's point, as well as the point made by Richard Perle and others, was that the BUREAUCRACY and establishment were watering down Reagan's overarching policies.

The gap between rhetoric and performance was hurting overall execution of those policies, and Gingrich, as well as others, were saying what are we going to do about it.

Gingrich's criticisms by the way of Bush played out to a Tee. Bush lost reelection because he had no core, no reason to continue with the Reagan revolution.

Reagan hadn't accomplished near enough of a genuine conservative revolution.

And that revolutuion, once GHWB got into power, came to a crashing halt.

Mike | 1.27.12 @ 1:50PM

Drek, Dude! Stop acting like you were Newt's closest confidant and you know everything about him! Your defense is ridiculous! The only thing I can think of is that Newt has promised you a high leading role on his Moon colony!

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 7:16PM

So long as Barbarella is along for the ride to the moon colony as my personal assistant.........

W| 1.27.12 @ 2:02PM

The quote at issue states there is a gap between rhetoric and policies. It does not say what you suggest that there is a problem with the execution of the policies. Newt criticizes the policies, maybe he talks about the execution of policies in another part of the speech, but the quote says what it says, and it does not contradict Abrams.

Mike| 1.27.12 @ 2:15PM

Finally, W! Thank you! Somebody who actually is getting that despite all the other sweet talk Newt may have actually made, he stills says things that show he disgarees with Reagan and his policies! It's like people are brain dead in here!

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 7:22PM

If W forgot, or didn't live through those years, there was a dramatic variance between rhetoric and execution.

Richard Perle told Reagan once at a dinner party that not one person in his department was in favour of him or his policies, and none intended to execute them. Perle if you recall was an Asst. Sec of Def at the time, this was the time when Perle got his rep that we all got reminded of during the GW years that followed much later.

And you know how Reagan responded to Perle?

He started busting out laughing.

Why?

Because Perle told him that with an earnest almost panic stricken look on his face, and Reagan thought it a hoot that Perle thought that Reagan already didn't know that the libs throughout the executive branch weren't fighting him tooth and nail on all his policies.

I can't go through chapter and verse.

My posts are already too long as it is.

I'd have to create my own blog and instead of writing comments on the threads of others, post myself.

I already did that some time ago, won some award from the watcher's council by the way, --------- but it's too damn much work.

TommyFrisco| 1.28.12 @ 1:02AM

W, please read the entire speech. Denise provided the link at 10:43pm. What you will find is that Newt praises Reagan and his speeches, but he is complaining about the (written) policies coming out of the State Dept. where Abrams worked. Abrams is apparently still upset about that speech Newt gave 25 years ago. He probably has it hanging on his wall and has been throwing darts at it all this time.

Beach Brutus| 1.27.12 @ 8:45PM

The "watering down" of reagan policies by moderates was a going concern in his second term. The common Conservatives retort, including those at National Review, was "Let Reagan be Reagan." Newts comments were offered in this vein and instead of being an attack on Reagan and what he stood for - were offered to give Reagan a solid conservative backstop of support vs the moderate influence.

Fred| 1.27.12 @ 10:40PM

This was almost simultaneous with Newt's calls for expanding the Dept. of Ed. (which he had "conservatively" voted to create in 1979) and his book hyperventilating about unlimited NASA budgets (which show Americans as adventurous; voting to spend our money on NASA while sitting in Washington is analogous, it seems to me, to advocating the Vietnam War while energetically avoiding deployment).

Tanguera| 1.27.12 @ 1:06PM

Romney and his flacks remind me more -- daily -- of Obama and his flacks. Romney, like Obama, feigns the Mr. Nice Guy Above It All persona, while the flacks hock lies knowing full well that the truth will not be given nearly as much coverage. Romney: Obama Lite and Obama Like!

Great job, GOP. I.will.stay.home if Romney is the nominee. Has he *ever* flirted with conservatism? Is this a sick joke?

JediJones| 1.27.12 @ 1:35PM

Only people without core principles and values can be Republican moderates or liberals. Therefore they naturally have no ethical qualms when it comes to lying.

Fred| 1.27.12 @ 10:42PM

Ah, yes: advocate Newt by impugning Gov. Romney's character.

As we all know, Newt has an exemplary character.

I'm with Mr. Tyrrell: nominate Newt, then see what amazing Clintonian exploits come to light. I wonder just how many "devout Catholics" (ABC's words) he was bedding during his second marriage.

Sashamanda| 1.28.12 @ 12:02AM

If Newt were so very bad, why would the likes of Abrams, National Review, and Drudge have to lie and exaggerate to take him down?

myohmy| 1.27.12 @ 1:17PM

It turns out that Romney and his cohort are engaged in dirty politics to knocked off his formidable opponent Newt Gingrich. Romney's operative turns out selectively edited Newt speech to make him looks like he was ranting against Reagan. If this continue, we need a new and an honest nominee for the Republican Party. Shame on you., Elliot Abrams.

AmSpec Propaganda Watch| 1.27.12 @ 3:46PM

I think you'll need a new party. The rot in the GOP is broad and deep, as Abrams, Tyrell, Drudge and Coulter have proven.

chuck| 1.28.12 @ 9:40AM

If the establishment GOP gets there way, and Romney is the nominee, nothing will change in the country. Obamacare won't be repealed, his campaign implied as much. The governemnt will still grow, albeit slower than under Obama II. And 4 years from now Romney will be seeking reelection with a record of Obamacare still on the books, maybe trimmed a little, the government larger and more intrusive than ever, and generally nothing changed.

It will be the death of the GOP, and rightly so. We can only hope that the replacement party is one that believes in conservatism, and doesn't hate it like the GOP establishment, who are really just Demo-lites.

sickoftalking| 1.27.12 @ 1:24PM

The reason that Newt was making that argument was because in 1985, he was part of a Congressional committee that commissioned a report by John Collins, a military analyst, who suggested there needed to be a larger arms buildup than had already occurred.

http://news.google.com/newspap.....31,3202210

"Despite the large defense budgets over the last five years, in some very important respects we find that we are no better off than we were in 1980, or our position is worse," Collins said. "The wartime balance (of military power) is abominable. We do not have what it takes to fight and win a war with the Soviet Union."

But he supported Reagan's strategy of an arms race, and furthermore he supported contra-like surrogate wars to drain Soviet resources.

http://news.google.com/newspap.....05,7642726

The issue here is that the article made it look like Newt was at odds with Reagan's policies. This couldn't be further from the truth. He was just responding to arguments from military analysts like Collins, and was suggesting that Reagan should heed their words and step up the efforts.

If people really don't want to vote for Newt because of that, that's their choice.

JediJones| 1.27.12 @ 1:37PM

I find it hard to understand why conservatives would be upset by Newt criticizing Reagan from the right. Maybe Newt should adjust his campaign slogan to say he's MORE conservative than Reagan.

sickoftalking| 1.27.12 @ 1:40PM

Newt also criticized Reagan in 1982 for his tax increase, calling it a betrayal of the principles he ran on. He criticized moderate Republicans like Dole for committing treachery and trying to undermine Reagan's agenda in trying to create pressure for the tax increases.

John - TMF| 1.27.12 @ 2:11PM

Um... important little bit of trivia:

The originator of the title "Tax Collector for the Welfare State." for Bobdole and friends.

- Rep. Newton Leroy Gingrich

Of course we don't seem to hear too much anymore about how Bobdole and his caucus came within a few cave ins (including ole Bobdole himself) to allowing Hillarycare to pass.... remember it was a filibuster in the Senate that stopped that mess...

Eliot Abrams is married to Romney Flak Jennifer Rubin. This was a hit piece of half-truths that amount to flat out lies under the scrutiny of full context.

A public, full, and headlined retraction from Drudge, National Review, and any other publication that pushed that hit piece should be the correct course of action.

I seriously doubt that it will happen. Romney has bought all of them up over the last five years of his presidential campaign.

I have been involved in Northern Virginia Politics, on and off since 1988. I got involved because of those Special Order speeches.

Newt Gingrich was a leader of the "Young Turks", he was a full throated supporter of Ronald Reagan, and a full participant in the "Reagan Revolution."

If he was such a bad leader how'd we win the House and Senate back from the Dems in '94?

The people who called him erratic are the same people who were mad at him for continuing the Revolution when all they wanted was to join the Establishment. Newt rocked the boat that they had just climbed into. He was undermined and driven off by the Establishment.

It is now the Establishment that wants him politically eliminated for good. He threatens their golden goose.

-TMF

W| 1.27.12 @ 4:07PM

I thought Abrams was married to Norman Podheretz's daugher. Is Rubin his daughter?
If you want to know about Abrams, read his book "Undue Process" how he was prosecuted (or persecuted) for his testimony about suppport of the Contras. He is no lightweight or flak.

INC| 1.28.12 @ 3:16AM

Wiki states he married Rachel Decter. "Through Senator Moynihan, Abrams was introduced to Rachel Decter, the stepdaughter of Moynihan’s friend Norman Podhoretz. They were married in 1980. "

Fred| 1.27.12 @ 10:47PM

We won in '94 because Clinton and Wife egregiously overplayed their '60s leftism in their first half-term, including via a gun control policy that killed moderate Dems like Mike Synar. Good thing Armey came up with the Contract With America idea, however, as it allowed Gingrich to put his face on the ensuing Republican tidal wave -- which would have washed away the Dems anyway.

JazzyJeff| 1.27.12 @ 11:14PM

Yes! Yes! Yes! You nailed it!

W| 1.27.12 @ 4:11PM

I don't mind that Newt was criticizing Reagan's policies. Maybe Newt was right. But the question here is was Newt criticizing the policies? Listening to Hannity while driving home and he was hysterical about Abrams' article. He, and others, are more upset that Abrams criticized Newt for supposedly criticizing Reagan's policies than when Newt attacked Romney for making too much money at Bain and for the Bain work.

JediJones| 1.27.12 @ 9:26PM

Romney and Bain would repeatedly take out massive loans on the companies they acquired, transfer the money to Bain as dividends and fees, watch those acquired companies go bankrupt, and default on their loans while Bain kept all the borrowed money for themselves. Legal, yes, ethical, that's another story Now you know why Bain was accused of "professional negligence" and "unjust enrichment" and agreed to forgo about $68 million owed to them by Dade.

W| 1.27.12 @ 11:18PM

Typical lefty rant. If they did what you said it would be illegal. Post the specific companies, the specific facts, and your authority for what you say. You can't so just buzz off and go to your lefty sites.

Dan Tompkins| 1.28.12 @ 1:41PM

I'm very grateful for these links, and I see what you're saying. But by March '86, Gorby had offered arms reductions, and there was a good deal of concern on the right -- from Jeane Kirkpatrick, Margaret Thatcher, and others -- that US _policy_ might indeed change.

And change they did. I don't see the name of George Schultz in any of the comments or in Mr. Lord's article. This is odd, because Schultz was at Reagan's side during the negotiations, and has testified to Reagan's sincerity. Note that in Reagan's second term, a number of highly placed conservatives left their posts at Defense and I believe State, loudly telling the press that Schultz was doing harm to the nation.

So my reading of his is that Newt was indeed attacking Reagan, though swathing the attack (surprise!) in verbiage, and that the word "policies" is central: don't go wobbly on the arms buildup!

As it turned out, Reagan did come to an agreement with Gorbachev, and the threat of nuclear winter was lifted. A good thing too. But it appears that Newt wanted to stand in the way of this.

I may have something wrong here. If so, I'd welcome comments.

William R| 1.27.12 @ 1:24PM

How Reagan Beat the NeoCons

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06.....ocons.html

Reagan would have been alarmed at the likes of Jeffrey Lord and Newt Gingrich.

Truth to Power| 1.27.12 @ 1:28PM

Reagan would have been rejected by paulbots. Wait a minute he was rejected by paulbots. There was no part of Reagan that was blame America first.

Fred| 1.27.12 @ 10:50PM

So you think the CIA was lying, the 9/11 Commission was wrong, and those al Qaeda recruiting videos are fake: it wasn't really blowback after all.

That's quite a theory, Truther. I guess you're voting for Santorum, eh?

Ron Paul didn't "blame America first," he simply said that if you lie down with dogs, it's not enough to lament that those nasty fleas bit you.

Alex| 1.27.12 @ 1:28PM

Thank you Jeffrey. On behalf of thousands of conservatives like me.

I wish NRO shows some guts by publishing the truth.

I am not a Newt fan, but what NRO, Jeb Bush, Rove and Coulter are doing is disgraceful.

Tanguera| 1.27.12 @ 2:36PM

Like the MSM lost its remaining credibility in '08 in support of Obama, so do the likes of Coulter lose theirs in support of Obama Lite. Like the MSM, she attacks Romney critics rather than launch a credible defense of Romney's "conservatism". Would that she had the honor of Michelle Malkin, consistent over all these years.

Mimi| 1.27.12 @ 1:33PM

We have traveled so far from the "HEART" of Ronald Reagan....What a darn shame ! They not only sin in not obeying the 11th commandment...They HAVE to LIE TOO ???
All this is the Washington Establishment crowd...AGAINST The PEOPLE out here in the COUNTRY.....They just BLEW IT.
They MUST stop.... and know and feel how angry the Conservative Base is. ..........TEA-PARTY Grassfire POLL : Newt 48, Santorum 24, Mitt 14.5...29,000.....CON's = 72.......I wonder if they will all vote throughout the NATION!

Chris| 1.27.12 @ 1:35PM

Rush was saying he doesn't think Drudge is trying to take Romney's side. If so, please tell me why this side of the story isn't up on Drudge!

sickoftalking| 1.27.12 @ 1:38PM

I've been following the Drudge Report closely, and there has been a long pattern of this type of bias. When Newt does well, you see an anti-Newt link; when Newt does poorly, you see an anti-Newt link. You get anti-Newt links whatever the news of the day is. However, when Romney does poorly or says something hypocritical, you don't see anything at all.

This latest blitz is just a continuation of that.

Fred| 1.27.12 @ 10:52PM

You sound like the Paul supporters. Oh, and the Santorum supporters. Bottom line is, Romney gets most of the attention because he's expected to win. He's the story. If the likelihood of his nomination declines (which it hasn't yet), he'll get less attention.

I'm not a Romney fan, but that's the way it is.

JediJones| 1.27.12 @ 1:45PM

Drudge and Coulter have been making a concerted effort since at least last year to promote Romney and attack the other candidates. Remember how Coulter was subtly saying Palin shouldn't run because "I like her where she is...she has more power that way," etc. They started using the tactics of the MSM, claiming to be represent one point-of-view but actually pushing a hidden agenda.

I think their reasons are slightly different than those of the old guard RINOs. Because of Coulter's open affiliation with GOProud and the assertions by David Brock and Alec Baldwin that Drudge is involved in the gay lifestyle, they probably like Romney because of his record of supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts.

sickoftalking| 1.27.12 @ 2:01PM

Really, if you compare Chris Christie and Mitt Romney -- who Coulter calls "true conservatives" -- to Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee -- who she calls "liberals" -- the most striking difference is that Christie and Romney, unlike Huckabee and Gingrich, have had a liberal record on gay rights.

W| 1.27.12 @ 11:21PM

Brilliant analysis. You forgot the black helicopters and the secret orders appointing Coulter to say this so Palin would not run. All because of Coulter's subtle message, Palin decided to not run for the presidency, and decided to stay at Fox and do TV shows to make money.

Dai Alanye | 1.27.12 @ 1:41PM

Both the leading candidates are exceedingly dismissive of the truth. Newt is all over the place, and Mitt's rebirth as a conservative is basically false.

JoeGEEM| 1.27.12 @ 2:03PM

Find an editor.

Ken Royall| 1.27.12 @ 2:11PM

I am not seeing how the full context helps Newt. He said Reagan's weak policies meant he would ultimately fail. The insult was plainly there. He was basically saying Reagan was a paper tiger, that he talked tough but was doing nothing of substance. Why Rush believes this is some startling new development I have no idea.

Mike| 1.27.12 @ 2:17PM

Thank you Ken! Somebody else who finally gets it too! What's Jeffery Lords biggest argument? (In a whiny voice) Well Elliot didn't mention Krauthammer, Kristol and Kirkpatrick too! Pathetic!

Elmo| 1.27.12 @ 2:26PM

When Ken says "So now I've read the Gingrich speech that is the source of all the hoopla. All seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form." he may or may not be correct. Members always reserve the right to revise and extend their floor speeches which may often be at odds with what ends up in the Record. In this case it may well be irrelevant but it never hurts to do the rest of the research.

Bowman| 1.27.12 @ 2:57PM

Thanks for someone taking the time to look up the Congressional Record. The events in question were within the lifetime of some of us who remember what happened and the context of the events. I wrote a response to the article on NRO last night putting Newt's remarks into the correct context. And while I knew I was correct, its always nice when someone comes up with hardcopy to verify it.

I'd urge everyone here who is outraged to read the article on NRO, read the responses there, then make a response of your own there to tell NRO what you think of their (supposed) journalistic standards.

Its not enough for them to know they got caught. They also need to be aware that you of the conservative community are aware of how deliberately dishonest they were.

NC Defector| 1.27.12 @ 3:01PM

There are two words with which to describe Romney, and Abrams respectively: Mendacious and Alzheimer's.

I would not occupy the same room with either of these cretins.

Boxwood| 1.27.12 @ 3:13PM

BFD..you're probably not allowed indoors in the first place.

GoldenEagles| 1.27.12 @ 3:06PM

Thanks Jeffrey Lord, that was an excellent piece of writing, an excellent exposure of the false impressions spread by Abram's piece. The whole thing works to Newt's benefit, as his Anti-Communist credentials are set before the Republican Community now, something that helps to solidify his conservative credentials.

As for Romney, he was not even a Republican during the most important time for a person to be a Republican, and that was during the Reagan years. The Romney who wants our vote today, held his nose at the Republican Party back then.

AmSpec Propaganda Watch| 1.27.12 @ 3:42PM

Lord is right, it was pure propaganda by the National Topsider on behalf of their favorite country clubber.

There is nothing remotely conservative about that rag, or the GOP for that matter. So much for NRO...

Now, what about the slime piece published by AmSpec's hit man in chief, Mr. Tyrell? All the same--lies, bought and paid for with DC insider money, the GOP brass and the Romney slime. Enjoy your 40 pieces, Mr T.

shoebox57| 1.27.12 @ 3:53PM

Amen!

GoldenEagles| 1.27.12 @ 4:18PM

It was 30 pieces of silver, right?

Bowman| 1.28.12 @ 8:11AM

Inflation

shoebox57| 1.27.12 @ 3:52PM

Heads are about to roll in the Republican Elite. By the 2014 election, the Tea Party will control not just the hearts and minds of conservative constitutionalist, but the GOP itself. 60% of this Country wants change, but only 10% is needed to bring it about. "A Revolution is Brewing!"

garyinco| 1.27.12 @ 9:33PM

Right on! The GOP has killed itself. We are sick of them. They are toast. The $'s will no longer buy votes.

Sparky| 1.27.12 @ 3:54PM

So, Mr. Lord, you write this mind-numbingly long hit piece on Elliott Abrams that ultimately proves ... that Abrams quoted Gingrich accurately! Great work!

Yes, Newt wrapped it all in lots of sweet nothings about Reagan and, yes, he claims that Will, Krauthammer, Kristol, and Kirkpatrick agreed with him (did you check to see if they really did???), but in the end Gingrich wrongly concluded that Reagan's policies were doomed to failure.

Thank you very much for confirming the veracity and integrity of Elliott Abrams.

shoebox57| 1.27.12 @ 4:05PM

I hope you are just ignorant and can be helped through acquisition of knowledge, but I am having some doubt!

shoebox57| 1.27.12 @ 3:54PM

The mask is off the face of the oligarchy!!

Tom| 1.27.12 @ 3:59PM

It doesn't surprise me that there are so many lies being told about Mr. Gingrich. He scares the establishment because to balance the budget a lot of Washington is going to be disrupted. House prices might even go down in Mclean and Potomac! Here's a question I have about Mitt Romney that nobody has brought up. When Mr. Gingrich pointed out that Mr. Romney has invested in companies which are foreclosing thousands of homes in Florida, meaning once again Mitt is making money off other people's suffering, Mitt immediately started saying what I hadn't heard him say before--that all his investments are done by someone else and he "doesn't know anything about them." Wait. I thought he was this saavy businessman whose acumen was going to save America. Which is it? Is he the saavy guy who also is heartless and squeezes dollars out of others' suffering, or is he the man who sits back, lets someone else do his investing and reaps millions each year for nothing? It can't be both unless you go back to Bain, and what he did there did cause a lot of heartache throughout the country.

Bowman| 1.28.12 @ 8:13AM

Romney does seem to hire other people to do his lying for him. Why not his investing as well?

Tom| 1.27.12 @ 4:02PM

BTW, don't forget that Drudge also got involved in the hit job on Mr. Gingrich. Follow the money! The communications company which owns Drudge is owned by...Bain Capital!

shoebox57| 1.27.12 @ 4:13PM

Very good point! I would also say, Mr. Romney seems to have adopted the habit of saying it isn't his fault quite a bit lately. Exhibit 1, I don't handle my money, it's in a blind trust. It gives me pause, since he is this astute businessman, whether he may be stretching the truth.
Exhibit 2, Swiss bank and Cayman accounts. He said he paid US taxes on it. Oh, I'll correct that, since I didn't report it. Why is the money in the Caymans Mr. Romney, see Exhibit 1 for your answer.

Romneyite | 1.27.12 @ 4:22PM

Does any of this make Newt more electable? It does not. Fight all you want over how conservative Romney is, but unless you think he's less conservative than Obama, you'd better vote for him because he has the only chance of beating Obama. Newt comes in LAST among GOP challengers in current polls against Obama. Ron Paul comes closer to beating Obama than Newt. The rest of the country is not like the deep south. They don't want the slime baggage of ethics vioilations, adultery, ranting and raving at media and being a Washington insider for 35 years. We need someone from the outside that does not think like a politician. And Romney is owned by no one - you can be sure of that.

Fred| 1.27.12 @ 10:56PM

All true.

Jimbo| 1.28.12 @ 11:24AM

I used to think like you did but then have been reading recently more about how current polls are terrible predictors for future behavior. Here's a couple of articles explaining why Romney, while doing respectable against Obama, will ultimately lose. There are many more like this. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as looking at the current poll to see who is the most electable. I wish it was.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=1

http://townhall.com/columnists.....page/full/

BurkeVA| 1.27.12 @ 4:31PM

These people are not "misrepresenting" stuff about Newt, they are flat out lying! Romney, Krauthammer, Abrams, Will, Hume and so many more are so opposed to Newt's candidacy, that they lie and lie and lie and lie. All these many years I have supported the GOP, I believed it has always been the Dems who were liars, who would destroy a man's reputation without a second thought, not the Republicans. We were different. We cared about honesty. We cared about truth. How wrong I have been. There is no more integrity among the GOP mainstream than the Dems. What's even worse is that all the lies and invective work, because the average person out there won't take the time to learn the truth. I have never been a big fan of Romney, but I had thought him a good and honest man. Boy, was I wrong about that!

garyinco| 1.27.12 @ 9:37PM

So let's do something about it. Get out there and make the difference. But in the long run - the biggest thing that matters is getting rid of Obama.

R. Gibson| 1.27.12 @ 4:47PM

No recent nominating process was closer than the Obama-Clinton race of 2008. Yet, despite how that battle see-sawed right up to the very last primary, I cannot recall anything from that contest like the intensifying and descending level of attacks - from the petty to the personal to the substantive - that we're seeing between Romney and his allies and Gingrich and his. There simply was no equivalent to the, "Reagan-liked-me-better" purity test, or the fight for the, "I'm-the-true-conservative" label, or the, "I-hate-Obama-more" badge. The fact is, Romney and Gingrich have changed their positions over time - as did Reagan (on abortion, on unions, on the federal bailout of Chrysler). The real question isn't who is purest, or who is more like Reagan. It's, who has the best chance of getting elected, and once elected actually getting at least the major parts of his agenda passed? As for me, while fascinated by this race, I wouldn't support either of these guys.

Seraphim| 1.27.12 @ 4:48PM

It would go so much better for the GOP if they would campaign honestly, and against Obama, instead of this slander against one another. What, when it's all over and say Newt becomes nominee, or Romney, or Paul, or Santorum, then everyone will make nice and act like best friends? It's coarse and really pathetic in every sense of the word.

Rick Callahan| 1.27.12 @ 4:55PM

Any possibility of getting a transcript of Newt's special-order speech of March 21,1986? I would love to see for myself how wrong Abrams, ABC & co. were.

Oscar S| 1.27.12 @ 5:07PM

Romney has demonstrated an ability and predisposition to say and do anything to get elected. The fact that he will get on stage and call himself a principled conservative (when he once ran to the left of Ted Kennedy) and defend Romneycare as a market-driven system (when it formed the basis of Obamacare) demonstrates that he can lie through his smiling teeth with the best of them.

Since Romney treats so lightly with the truth, it is not surprising that his surrogates (a.k.a. attack dogs) dispose of it completely in the cause of (once again) nominating a Republican presidential candidate with nary a shred of conservative principles.

It is true that Newt Gingrich has many faults. But he has also been advocating strong conservative principles for decades, while Romney has fallen into his conservatism expediently, though quite awkwardly. For any conservative (I will not say "Republican") who cares anything about fiscal discipline, small government and constitutional restraint, Mitt Romney should inspire something between despair and disgust.

Gra8dane| 1.27.12 @ 5:27PM

Hey Blogger... I found you through Drudge. I don't know who the hell you are, but it's painfully obvious that you're a Gingrich Hack. Shut the hell up.
Why should I value "your" opnion? Newt is UNSTABLE, and so full of himself. He blows up all of the time. We don't need him...He's really NOT that brilliant. The more I see, the less I like. Serial Adulterer --- Very definition of adulterer is dishonesty and deception and oath-breaker.

Right-minded Frank| 1.27.12 @ 8:39PM

your post reads like an unstable Mitt supporter. I find it ironic you'd call the writer of this article unstable.

ramrod| 1.27.12 @ 6:57PM

Romney is a liar. His business experience - especially as a job creator - is overstated, and his government resume is a sad moderate/liberal joke. He lacks experience and is certainly no match for the egos that dominate the Congress. His effectiveness will be nill.

Further his campaign rhetoric is that of a spoiled rich-kid bully. He has demonstrated an anstonishing ability to lie and obsfucate issues and has an equally astonishing lack of conscience when it comes to deploying his attack dogs.

But what can be expected from someone who openly admits to membership in a religeous cult that openly flaunts its ability to embellish the truth of the Gospel with the lies and absurd fictions of the Mormon "church."

And he has the unmitigated gall to point his crooked finger at another an launch into pronouncements about their mental stability.

Oh yes you Rinomney Zombies, I absolutely despise the man. If he wins the nomination I will abstain from voting in the general election because you jokers deserve nothing that comes with the power of the presidency - in fact you deserve the fruits of your labors such that only another 4 years with Obama can bring.

And Gra8dane, you wouldn't know an adulterer if you found one in your own bed.

Bill99| 1.27.12 @ 7:00PM

Matt Drudge should just redirect his site to the Romney Campaign website. After all, Drudge has pretty much been functioning as an arm of the Romney campaign for a while, now, never missing an opportunity to link to every single article he can find which bashes Gingrich. Many, if not most days, the main headline in huge bold letters on Drudge's website is some type of a Gingrich-bashing article. And sometimes, Drudge posts multiple links on his website to create the appearance of numerous different articles which are against Gingrich, but then it turns out that several of the links go to the same article. And sometimes, as this article highlights, Drudge takes advantage of dishonest and garbage articles in order to bash Gingrich. And sometimes Drudge does link to articles like this one which are more supportive of Gingrich, but the links to articles like this are always few and far between, they are always buried down lower on his webpage, and the only reason Drudge includes them at all is to try to create some type of illusion of impartiality. The fact is that neocons like Drudge are pulling out all the stops to get Romney to win the Republican nomination. These are the same establishment folks who gave us John McCain and who now always give us a poor excuse, barely-right-of-center RINO for a presidential candidate. And many of us have had it. I have not been a big fan of Gingrich, but I take issue with Drudge's all-out assault because the reason for it is to get the nomination for Romney. And Romney is awful. There is no way I will ever vote for Romney, and if people like Drudge are successful in getting the nomination for Romney, I'll be voting third-party in November.

mikekat| 1.27.12 @ 7:18PM

What I would like to see is all the headlines from yesterday be posted today that explains all of the false accusations by someone with a chip on his shoulder. I would like to be able to make up my own mind without a bunch of rash and unchecked stories from supposedly reputable sources coming out on any of the candidates.

perlstar| 1.27.12 @ 7:20PM

ABC might have been doing a hatchet job on Newt when interviewing his ex-wife. But, I don't think that they made her lie about what happened. Newt has said that she was lying, but it is his word against hers, and she doesn't seem to have much reason to lie about it.

Even if she IS lying, and he never asked her for an open marriage (we'll never know for sure), he has admitted that his marriages "overlapped" a bit.

On the other hand, who cares? There are probably many among us who haven't been 100% faithful to every lover. Forgiveness, and all that.

The reason I don't like Newt is that he believes that Government can solve all problems, that it should be bigger, more powerful, and more expensive. He has admitted that, too. I think the opposite. Newt doesn't even pretend to want to "cut" any part of it, not even the mythical "waste, fraud and abuse".

garyinco| 1.27.12 @ 9:45PM

What are you, 12 years old?

Gingrich did a lot to shrink govt. Ask your parents...

CR| 1.27.12 @ 7:28PM

This article is very confused indeed.

Lord has augmented the speech fragment Abrams used without altering the underlying message.

Newt refers to Reagan's adequate rhetoric (quite the endorsement) while describing Reagan's policies as weak, inadequate, and destined for failure.

Not only does Lord fail at making the point he thinks he is making, he inadvertently supports Abrams whom he accuses of misleading people.

biggoofer| 1.27.12 @ 7:43PM

I have seen plenty of Leftwing partisan media carrying water for their Democratic candidates.

I didn't realize that the so called Conservative media is not much better either.

Openly rooting for their favored candidates, playing dirty tricks against their unfavorite ones!

How about all the candidates ducking out among each other and let the best candidate win the nomination?

This country is going down the rat hole. The establishment pundits and politicians in both parties are screwing the American people big time.

teflon93| 1.27.12 @ 8:03PM

Hmm, I seem to recall Mittens having something to say about Reagan long after the success of the Reagan Administration was clear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pVqZzHm3Z4

Whoops.

K garner| 1.27.12 @ 8:08PM

What a joke of a story and then you have all of the what not Republican elites like Sean and rush and Levin referring to this sad example of proof?? LOL The establishment is Newt Gingrich. It is a joke to suggest otherwise. The people who know him best do not want him on the ticket!

Mike| 1.27.12 @ 8:18PM

Who cares? Isn't there more pressing things to get to, like how Obama lies through his teeth on a daily basis? You just don't impress me with your coveage.

Chriss Street | 1.27.12 @ 8:18PM

Jeffrey Lord seems to want the American Spectator to give a a hall pass that Newt Ginrich was not bashing Ronald Reagan when Gingrich bashed the Reagan Administration's actions when he states: "The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail." This is indubitable equivalent of bashing Reagan for only being adequate in speech, weak in action, and doomed to fail. The problem American conservatives have with Gingrich is that he is much more like Bill Clinton than Ronald Reagan!

for not following through with the statements of the commander and chief, communists spokmen for hypocracy The American Spectator seems to expect the news services to condem communist Russ

Right-minded Frank| 1.27.12 @ 8:37PM

Unfortunately the GOP establishment is bent on nominating a weak candidate that will get beat soundly by the Obama juggernaut and is willing to lie, cheat and steal from the voters the only candidate that has a chance at beating Obama. Ellitt Abrams, ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Bob Dole, Peggy Noonan, George Will, Charles Karuathammer, Bill Kristol, John McCain all have let the conservative movement down and will have to pay for elevating another loser as a candidate. Conservative voters will not forget this attack on Newt as they did not with the attacks by the same people regarding Sarah Palin.

Justusthem| 1.27.12 @ 8:54PM

I was a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1980 where we nominated Ronald Reagan. I worked in grass roots for years prior to that. Newt Gingrich was ALWAYS involved in Reagan politics and was EXTREMELY supportive of all conservative issues. The Bob Doles, the Nelson Rockefellers, the John McCains were ALWAYS THE LIBERAL WING of the GOP. Romney was and still is the LIBERAL wing of the GOP. Romney will LOSE to Obama in a landslide in November. He is another McCain.

Jimbo| 1.27.12 @ 8:56PM

Came here from Drudge and...surprise, this was not the headline like it was yesterday. Guess Matt can't stand having egg on his face.

Anyway, it's too late for Newt I'm afraid, he will probably lose Florida and Romney will go on to be the nominee and then have a nice respectable loss in the general against Obama. We have the Republican establishment to thank for this. I may not even vote for Romney at this point, this whole ordeal just makes me sick.

Justusthem| 1.27.12 @ 9:03PM

Have to remind folks, that Romnay has ran for president THREE times. Lost to McCain, McCain lost to Obama. Well.....

derek| 1.27.12 @ 9:04PM

Ha. You said frothings.

Darrel Hansen | 1.27.12 @ 9:11PM

How is Abrams misleading when Gingrich's printed speech clearly cites the gap between "Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail?"

PCP Smoker| 1.27.12 @ 9:12PM

The coordinated attack was pretty obvious. However, its success depended on Newt, and he went right along with it. Instead of discussing conservatism and hitting Romney on the issue of socialist medicine, he was engaged in infightings and contradictions. Time for Newt to go. Let's get behind Santorum and defeat Romney and the GOP establishment.

Controse| 1.27.12 @ 9:13PM

The only honorable thing for the honorable Mr. Elliott Abrams to do now is quote Ron Paul "I didn't write it. I didn't read it. I just signed it."

Dave O| 1.27.12 @ 9:22PM

Romney supporters are a commodity, bought at market prices. No surprise that the media dutifully reports attacks funded by Romney against his opponents. When will the media report the ugly truth about Romney / Bain and their fantastic investment returns achieved as they regularly had liquidation moneys funneled to them by bankruptcy lawyers who fraudulently hid their conflict-of-interest in the many bankruptcy cases? Romney has an easily understood history of bankruptcy misconduct which explains his illicit rate of return. Attack Newt and everyone else who stands in the way of the Romney machine. Then again, Obama's re-election campaign won't be so blind to the obvious.

Palm Tree | 1.27.12 @ 9:25PM

I have read the article from Abrams and the two articles from Lord. I am stunned at the poor, rambling argument from Lord. You simply took most of you argument out of context, and made a bungle of it! I would like to read what Newt said in toto myself. There are so many conservatives that oppose Newt, for the very reasons we have seen this week; temper tantrum because he had no clapping audience, then when he got it and not everyone loved him it was Romney stacked the audience against me wha wha! Newt did many good things for conservatives, but that will not make him a good president. He came into this trying to sell books and pump up his speaker fees. Then his ego took over. His time is past, and he is shaming himself. He needs to exit gracefully. He could have been the much loved elder statesman, instead, his narcicism took over. Now, he is a disgraced windbag, and it's hard to help your party when all your credibility is gone. Newt always trips over his own ego. Please start thinking for yourselves. This is the second time many, many people who know him have come out against him. People you were happy to agree with before are now all 'insiders, liars, RINO's and out to get Newt. He is playing you. He was on that sofa with Nancy Pelosi for the money. He knew there were millions of dollars to be gotten in shilling for "green" companies and the way to that money was through the democrats. Too bad he didn't get there earlier, before all the global warming baloney hit the fan and the money dried up. Think it through and you will get that sick feeling I am right. Newt is for Newt and you are a cog in his wheel. People who oppose Newt are capable of mature, thoughtful reasoning and it's not a conspiracy.

Aaron Levitt| 1.27.12 @ 9:30PM

So, Elliott Abrams is somehow "much, much smarter, [more] courageous and filled with character than" his actual behavior. Kind of like Newt. Was the Republican party always this horrible? I thought the Democrats could be pretty embarrassing, sometimes, but wow!

Tanya| 1.27.12 @ 9:50PM

I should have known I would like this artice. Moon Struck has so many good lines.

Matt| 1.27.12 @ 9:56PM

After reading this, it appears that Newt said everything he is accused of saying. The fact that Krauthammer, Will, et al are mentioned is irrelevant. Newt said what he said.

Of course, Newt was generally a defender of Reagan. I think we know that.

His statements prove what we also know. Newt is a volatile egomaniac who is persistently convinced he is not just the smartest guy in the room, but the only smart guy in the room.

He would be a terrible nominee because the only opinion he seems to value is his own.

He has all the markings of a terrible leader.

AWLinNC| 1.27.12 @ 9:58PM

Abrams is a war criminal; little surprise this snake would do a hit piece. Newt and Mitt are both dwarves compared to Reagan. Perhaps the convention can draft Christie and save the party.

Bob Roberts| 1.27.12 @ 10:07PM

Might want to proof and rewrite: Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan? The pieces invariably following the Romney line that Newt had some version of nothing to do with Reagan.

Anders13| 1.27.12 @ 10:21PM

I just heard Rich Lowry, of NRO , on The McLaughlin Group say that the audience in last night's debate was pro Romney!
Did CNN and the DC RomneyBots stack the audience? It sure sounded like it. If so, then that is probably the reason Newt's debate was cooled down. Now that is scandal worth investigating.

deerjerkydave| 1.27.12 @ 10:21PM

And yet, FDR by far was the greatest president of the 20th century, according to Newt. Not Ronald Reagan. So which Newt is it? The Newt that is bosom buddies with Reagan or the Newt that considers himself a Wilsonian?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgdzZJePL04

Fred| 1.27.12 @ 10:23PM

Yeah, ol' Elliott is a man of great character. That's what they call neocons who plea bargained themselves into guilty pleas to two misdemeanors when indicted for lying under oath to Congress.

Commonman| 1.27.12 @ 10:24PM

Dear Mr. Lord,

So here is your full sentence that you say lets Newt Gingritch off the hook:

The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail."

So let me make sure that I am clear here: Newt says that Will, Krauthammer, Kristol and Kirkpatrick are "RIGHT" when they criticize Reagan's "weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail."

And just how does this additional context exonerate Newt?

Give me a break! Much ado about nothing.

DParke| 1.27.12 @ 10:24PM

Seriously people, Romney is as honest as any politician. He is a freakin Mormon for crying out loud! Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Moromons know they are honest, extremely nice (sometimes too sweet) and they are obsessed with family values. I don't think I can say their religious beliefs arent a little out there, but they are, by in large, good people. How can that possibly be bad for the white house?!? Seriously I dont get the hang up! So he is rich. So he isn't as conservative as some would like. He IS a proven executive leader. He IS electable. Hire the man already!!!

Kevin| 1.27.12 @ 10:54PM

Thank you Mr. Lord.

John Butler | 1.27.12 @ 11:06PM

I wish than the pro Romney PACs would back off their out and out lies and they will get away with it for a while. I am in Orlando and the number of false PAC ads against Newt is staggering.

James| 1.28.12 @ 12:02AM

Talking about taking out of context - listen to Nancy's speech. She actually passes the torch to Newt AND the other Republican members of congress. Yes, he was the SOTH, but she DID NOT pass the torch solely to Newt, as many of the commentators seems to truncate.

Eric| 1.28.12 @ 12:15AM

How can anybody possibly call Elliot Abrams an "admirable public servant?" He was an accessory to murder, torture, rape and some of the most vile human rights abuses of the last century. He should have been executed a long time ago.

C. D. Rossini, Jr.| 1.28.12 @ 12:19AM

This nonsense from Elliot Abrams. a man who has been the epitome or class and character for fifty years. The suborning of Abrams, a person who gives Harvard, the London school, Breed Abbott, and a plethora of conservative causes respectability, is sad. If they can get to Abrams, who has stood up to so much for us, and he ca purport that Gingrich was not a Reaganite, what are we to say, what are we to do?

Elliot, my hero, cannot we remember the words of Aristotle, "I love my friend Plat, but the truth still more."

WJ| 1.28.12 @ 9:05AM

What are you talking about? Abrams is a convicted liar and felon.

Allison Bricker| 1.28.12 @ 12:58AM

What a shock, Jeffrey Lord, propagandist of the Straussian Neo-Conservative philosophy attempts to salvage Newt's reputation.

This from the man who as illustrated by an article written by his editor LIED about the views of several of the most prominent members from the founding generation regarding Presidential War Powers.

Have you NO shame Mr. Lord?

Joker| 1.28.12 @ 1:28AM

Thank you Jeffrey for calling Abrams out on his BS story. Although I am shocked he would even engage in something like this. His reputation has always been solid.

Newt has been in the race for a long time and I find it curious how all these "haters" are now shooting their mouths off about how terrible the guy is. Where were they last year??? How come Newt is awful now, but hardly no one said sh*t before??? Reminds me when all those women came out to trash Hermain Cain. Cain was in the race for awhile, but as soon as he was picking up steam, these women came forward and accused Cain of things that have yet to be proven. When Newt started the surge, the GOP establishment started trashing him bad and when he won South Carolina, they crapped in their pants. The past week has been 24/7 Newt bashing at the level of the George Soros crowd. I was shocked to see Christie lie like a liberal on crack about Newt. The GOP establishment went as far as dusting the cobbwebs off Dole so that he could say something negative. The GOP is now ran by a bunch of RINOs and p*ssies who are trying to force a phony candidate down our throats. If RINO Romney becomes the nominee, you have no clue about the sh*t storm that will come his way by the left.

Siam| 1.28.12 @ 1:40AM

Quick summary of last week's debate - Ok, I admit, I'm a scumbag. But you're even more of a scumbag.

Matt| 1.28.12 @ 2:51AM

Why is it that nobody who has worked closely with Newt has endorsed him?

Why is that?

In fact, they appear to despise him. Almost everyone who really knows the guy can't stand him.

He is a serial philanderer BS artist. Freddie Macs $2 Million baby!

At least Mitt has run his own company, held executive office and proven he can successfully lead.

The GOP was happy to be rid of him in 1998, so why should we want a second taste of a turdburger?

Mary Glasgiw| 1.28.12 @ 3:47AM

Well done! There IS honesty, fortitude & courage
still to be found. What troubles me is the complete lack of honor, honesty, trustworthiness & integrity in the man who would be President, the man who orchestrates the scurrilous attack on Gingrich.
If the American people elect Romney, "Then there are only four things certain since Sicial Progress began--That the dog returns to his Vomit & the sow returns to her Mire , And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire."

Nemo| 1.28.12 @ 4:45AM

Romney's behaviour, to quote Napoleon, was not just a crime, it was a blunder. Newt is the last man standng on either side with the ability to be president.

Nemo| 1.28.12 @ 4:48AM

To elaborate my last poibt: Romny is not morally wore than Obamas, but politically stupider.

Terry| 1.28.12 @ 6:48AM

I have said all a long that the Conservatives are being attacked by the Establishment -Liberals. The Carl Rove RINO's , and pundits Rush, Hannity, Boortz ( who sold his friend of 40 yrs. down the river), Beck, Coulter, Kruathammer, Krystol and etal have gone out of their way to destroy Conservatives and in the end the difference between the GOP candidate and Obama will be nothing but the letter "R" by his name.......
The Democrate could not have wished for more. Talk about creating a split you guys will not recover from!

GardenLady| 1.28.12 @ 6:59AM

Romney is so dishonest in going after Gingrich, if Romney wins, I will vote for Obama. And this is from someone who disapproves of everything Obama is doing.

Karen Watts| 1.28.12 @ 9:15AM

excellent article on how all this misrepresentation of the facts is really getting out of control, I'm not a big Newt fan, but I am disgusted, by whats being reported as facts these days. What happens when we finally choose a candidate and our opponent starts re-hashing all this false ammo against our guy...how do you now say the facts are a lie when you put them out there to start with. Come-on guys, lets save all this energy for the real fight in November!

Bloix| 1.28.12 @ 9:19AM

Elliott Abrams pled guilty to two counts of withholding information from a congressional committee while under oath. He was censured by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for lying to Congress. Why are your surprised that a liar tells lies?

Jake Sommervold| 1.28.12 @ 10:09AM

Awesome piece of work. We all have things in our past we are not proud of. Including Newt, but we aren't voting for a new Pope here. Were voting for a man or woman who can lead this country out of the hell hole the current administration has put it in. Newt Gingrich is the only conservative out there that is intelligent enough and strong enough in his convictions to do that's. Great article.

Joseph| 1.28.12 @ 10:21AM

Romney's problem is that he is a Mormon, and as such he lacks some basic Christian moral values. He believes that 'the end justifies the means' - and just like founder Joseph Smith , he will decieve and lie in order to rise to power. At least Newt has repented from his sins, but don't expect that from Mitt.

Paul '52| 1.28.12 @ 10:27AM

Some of us, based in the reality world, have been telling you for 30 years that Elliot Abrams is a liar.

Welcome to our side.

Now, all you have to do is learn to discern the difference between an Eric Cartman and a Winston Churchill.

I wish you all good luck.

Mark E Becker| 1.28.12 @ 10:33AM

Jeffrey, that is the most disjointed and inconclusive article that I have ever read.

Fog| 1.28.12 @ 10:41AM

Want to bet this story gets no additional coverage?

Hdandy| 1.28.12 @ 11:00AM

Alice: If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? Romney is a conservative/Newt is a Reagan hater. We are through the looking glass and it lies right at the feet of the Romney Inc and the "Republican" establishent. After this week I will never vote for Romney- to have his emissaries misrepresent Newt's conservative record is worthy of the left but not a supposedly good honest man who wants to lead the Republican Party. And I wasn't even a Newt backer.

Laker| 1.28.12 @ 11:31AM

Abrams is nothing more than a Romney hatchet man whose tactics are despicable. This is one Conservative who definitely will not vote for Romney if he is on the ballot in November.

N Waff| 1.28.12 @ 11:59AM

-----

Obviously Elliott Abrams is a fool

somnolence| 1.28.12 @ 12:00PM

I notice that the American Spectator has not invited Abrams back for a rebuttal. Until then, even in light of the above information, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He was there during the Reagan Revolution, the author is clearly in the tank for Gingrich. It is not only the silly season, it is the desperate season now. First Gingrich almost cries because he doesn't sense an audience favored toward him the other night, and now he can't stand biting information which can be verified, thrown his way. The fusillade works both ways, chump.

Not Newt| 1.28.12 @ 12:54PM

"What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned...?"
- Maybe that he's remembering it the way HE remembers it?
- Maybe that Newt, Sarah and Rush really aren't the arbiters of "all-knowing"?
- Maybe Newt really IS the one with the honesty problem and it's not ALL these other candidates?
- Incredulity can be a symptom of blindness in my opinion...
NOT NEWT!

Ted White| 1.28.12 @ 12:55PM

"What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan?"

I can't make sense of this sentence. It is early on in the piece and seems important to the writer's point, but I am baffled. Are there no editors for on-line journals?

GoldenEagles| 1.28.12 @ 4:46PM

Here let me help ...

"What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was, all of sudden, being mysteriously targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan?"

tropicgirl| 1.28.12 @ 12:58PM

It really is important to do a minimal amount of research rather than just accepting someone's opinion, if the issue is important. This one is...

Goldwater was a true conservative and libertarian-leaning candidate. So was Reagan, basically, if you compare him to the likes of Rockefellar.

Rockefellar was a middle-roader, insider, profiteer of government. He was a founding disciple of the New World Order. He really doesn't care about being conservative that much. THAT IS WHY Gingrich worked with him, was influenced by him and so on. Newt is also an observed attendee and admirer of the New World Order, and doesn't much care if his views are conservative or not (i.e. immigration and so many others). A deal-maker.

Reagan was more along the lines of Goldwater. But somewhere in his presidency he was strong-armed. Perhaps around the attempted assassination of him. Who knows?

But Goldwater and Reagan, ideally, and originally, were much closer to Ron Paul. Goldwater, on record, would have stopped the Vietnam war and did not favor nuclear war with Russia. Both preferred negotiation, even with Russia, but a strong military nevertheless.

Rockefellar (Foundation) was a funder of the New World Order, wants/wanted nuclear war with anyone. The Rockefellar Gingrich was a devotee of, was closer to a Nixon or McCain-type "war conservative". A deal maker for the masters. Just in it for the world domination and war profit, with no real convictions. Gingrich is on record back then, urging aggression.

You can google all of this. Its pretty clear.

But none of the criticism means that Mittens is any better. He is right in there. So is Santorum's ideal of world dominination via force. Its an internal spat having nothing to do with what is good for America. And, it doesn’t mean that the Democrats are any better. They are currently much worse. And they are all willing to lie. Ron Paul is the only real sane alternative.

Patrick| 1.28.12 @ 1:05PM

Nothing to see here. Same old dirty politics since before America was a thought.

Slade| 1.28.12 @ 1:06PM

According to Wikipedia, Elliot Abrams was convicted in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra Affair investigation.

Jim DeHaan| 1.28.12 @ 1:13PM

Thanks...American Spectator for allowing this article to be published.
Thanks especially to Mr Lord for his relentless pursuit of the truth and efforts involved in locating the relevant articles to illuminate that. We, non establishment, Republicans are indebted to both of you. Keep up the good work!

John| 1.28.12 @ 1:15PM

Referring to Romney as the 'establishment' republican and not Newt is hilarious.

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 1.28.12 @ 1:18PM

Newt Gingrich didn't like the ads leading up to the Iowa Caucus (which by the way were largely true, focused of their positions on the issues and not of a personal nature) so he went scorched earth and drove his attacks to include personal attacks.

Now Newt Gingrich complains that there is a response to these personal attacks. Being in Florida this past week on business, I noticed the ad on television.

The Pro-Newt/Anti-Romney ads are far more personal attacks than the Pro-Romney/Anti-Newt ads and although they say Mitt Romney is spending more than Newt Gingrich I found the number of Pro-Newt/Anti-Romney ads easily out numbered the Pro-Romney/Anti-Newt ads at least in the Gainesville area.

There was quite a bit of talk/buzz regarding the debate complaints of Newt Gingrich, that he wanted audience participation and then Newt Gingrich's complaint that the audience was more Pro-Romney than he wanted in Jacksonville.

The general conclusion was that Newt Gingrich was whining and needed to grow up. My own informal "poll" indicates that Mitt Romney has much more support than Newt Gingrich and Newt Gingrich is losing previous supporters. This sampling is of a couple dozen high tech sector employees such as engineers and software developers.

stubob| 1.28.12 @ 1:19PM

Mr. Lord, Thank you for vindicating Newt. I would love to hear your comments regarding R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr's anti-Newt piece.

Jullou| 1.28.12 @ 1:30PM

And what will these establishment types do when they have no credibility with the people? We are very tired of them picking our candidates. The truth of the matter is, their idea of a great candidate is a moderate one. That's why conservatives are rarely in power. But conservatives are what is needed to clean up this mess.

Jullou| 1.28.12 @ 1:36PM

We are in a era where Obama hase almost taken over our country with socialism/Marxism while he smiles into the camera reading from the teleprompter. Moderates cannot and will not fix the disaster that Obama and the leftists in Congress have caused. It will take a conservative that can outsmart them. Romney's track record is very liberal. So you establishment types quit trying to screen out conservatives.

Leslie| 1.28.12 @ 2:57PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....rich-lowry

The distortion going on here is by Jeffrey Lord.

Jim| 1.28.12 @ 3:15PM

Amazing how two candidates, who present serious flaws from what Conservative Republicans want in their leaders, are attacked on their unique strengths in a way you would expect from progressives.

Romney would bring with him a wealth of private sector experience where he was involved investing in and resurrecting failing companies. Newt has 10+ years of being a legitimate general fighting the war against liberalism on Capitol Hill.

And this is what they get attacked on?

Newt's last ten years are easy enough to pick apart. Heck, go watch his last CPAC speech where he wanted nothing but Solyndra-style "investments" in green energy.

Mitt's idiotic calculation that MA healthcare would catapult him to the WH in 2008 was just as wrong as Hillary's choice to support the wars. It is something every conservative has to get over to vote for him, and a lot are not.

Steve R| 1.28.12 @ 4:00PM

The statements is Abram's article were in quotes, not general attributions. Therefore, he said those things or he didn't. Easy enough to verify, wouldn't you say?

rdman| 1.28.12 @ 4:03PM

Lord is full of disingenuous, obfuscating CRAP!!!

The following link is the transcript of Gingrich’s March 21, 1986 speech on the floor of Congress.

In this speech, using a tactic known as “Damning by Faint Praise,” Gingrich repeatedly condemns President Reagan and his Administration as “weak and incompetent.”

This is quintessential Gingrich, an arrogant, megalomaniac loose cannon who likely would have started World War III if his policies had been enacted. Throughout this speech, Gingrich second guesses and undermines President Reagan and his Administration. Its all about Gingrich and how everybody else is stupid and incompetent. Throughout this speech, he inappropriately invokes others to bolster his superior grandiosity.

Yet, under President Reagan, the old Soviet Union fell without a shot being fired. The Eastern Bloc countries were freed. The Berlin Wall fell. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua failed and Nicaraguans enjoyed democracy, freedom and growth under freely elected Mrs. Chamorro. Cuba as gone nowhere and remains little more than a failed gulag.

And at the same time, under President Reagan, the United States experienced unprecedented
economic growth and prosperity, while Gingrich went on to FAIL as Speaker.

The transcript of Gingrich’s speech should open with Google:

March-21-1986-Freedoms-Future-The-Free-World-and-the-Soviet-Empire.pdf

spotswoode| 1.28.12 @ 5:13PM

Levin has the definitive take on this.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01.....s-defense/

Paul Wilkinson | 1.28.12 @ 8:27PM

The 1986 speech makes for pretty interesting reading:
http://paulwilkinson.com/2012/.....et-empire/

steve| 1.28.12 @ 11:24PM

jefferey lord, LOL u mad as shit? nice long-ass article, fanboy.

somnolence| 1.29.12 @ 1:14AM

This whole article and even the presentation the other day of it by Rush, is a laughable hit piece. Just tonight NRO says that Jeff Lord has "deliberately distorted" Abrams account. Pick your reliable source at your own free will. As I said above I give Abramas the benefit of the doubt since he was there.

Dave| 1.29.12 @ 2:39AM

How odd that it takes Lord several paragraphs to actually develop a substantive argument. Instead it's front loaded with unfounded, sneering innuendo that wastes the reader's time. Then when he finally gets around to awkwardly broaching his argument, the reader can't help but wince for Lord because he is being so obviously intellectually dishonest in his claims.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

Newt Gingrich had been dropping Reagan's name left and right, like the two of them were once buddies. (In reality, Reagan had very little interaction with Gingrich. And there is no indication that Reagan especially liked Gingrich.) In many debates and interviews, Newt has repeatedly made it sound like he had personally coordinated with Ronald Reagan to defeat the Soviet Union. Newt has been _using_ Reagan as a huge selling point as to why he, Newt, should be the nominee.
Now we learn (once again) that Newt is an outright liar. Far from being on the same page as Reagan in how to go about fighting communism, Newt emphatically declared Reagan's approach a failure.

And yet until he was called out on it, Newt had been luxuriously adorning himself with Reagan's mantle as though he and the Gipper had been on the same page on how to fight communism. Indeed, Gingrich has been taking Reaganesque credit for defeating the Soviet Union.

An now it's not Gingrich's fault that he's been caught in another ego-aggrandizing lie. No, it's not his fault. Rather, it's the fault people who quote Gingrich and point out his deceit.

Unlearned Hand| 1.29.12 @ 8:41AM

Wasn't it Eliot Abrams who was cited for misleading congress and pardoned by George the First? Maybe a character flaw?

Gregory K. Laughlin| 1.29.12 @ 9:38AM

This would be a fine refutation of Abrams if what is recorded in the Congressional Record is what is actually said on the floor of the House. It is not. Just watch C-SPAN. Congressman almost always ask permission to "revise and extend" their remarks, which is uniformly granted. This is used to permit wholesale revisions of floor speeches for inclusion in the C.R. Famously, Hale Boggs is recorded giving a speech in the House days AFTER the plane on which he was a passenger disappeared in Alaska. Neither he nor the plane were ever found, but there he is in the C.R. giving a speech after he presumably was dead. Since Mr. Scheve worked from Rep. Gingrich, one can't help wondering if Mr. Scheve knew what he would find in the C.R. since he was its actual author. In any event, the only way to verify what Gingrich ACTUALLY said is to find a recording. I wonder if one exists.

Carolyn Spaulding| 1.29.12 @ 11:55AM

We need to stand up for Newt with this onslaught of "THEY" know Newt can go in there and undo this corrupt mess they have helped create. That means Republican's that are only under the banner not the standards and the Democrats. The gray train will stop and end the ride we have been on to destruction. Wake up America DO not listen to the media so few you can trust. Trust at least the history of Reagan.

Mediaspork| 1.29.12 @ 12:31PM

What no one seems to be commenting on from Newt's special orders speech, which seems the most interesting to me, is that all of the conservative pundits (who now back Mitt) and Newt were wrong. They were all wrong! Reagan's policies did defeat the Soviet Empire, and less the four years later. This is why Reagan turns out to be the real genius, and all the rest are just idiots.

Mark Kay| 1.29.12 @ 3:48PM

Good article -except for standing up for Abrams as asuccesful and honorable public servant.
I am old enough to remember the Reagan days too--and I distinctly remember Abrams as a smug--Harvard educated-elitist--who often arrogantly lied or msishaped the truth-(in fact he is a convicted liar--convicted of lying to Congress). Further -his initiatives almost always turned out badly--(Venezuela-Israel-and many others).
So as I said early on when he made these comments-"consider the source"--It makes sense that a man with dubious character-(Romney)--would be close to the likes of Abrams. He associates with convicted liars and middle of the road losers (and the middle of the road in Texas is said to be full of dead rattle snakes )--moderates-the likes of McCain and Dole who had their shot and were found lacking by the American voters.

GoldenEagles| 2.1.12 @ 2:40PM

I would ask you to read Jeffrey Lord's Spectacle Blog entry for January 26, 2012:

Attention Elliott Abrams on Newt: Did Daniels, Barbour, Rollins Know?

Jeffrey Lord was an employee inside the White House Political Office during the Reagan years, and had experience working with Elliot Abrams, and gives him high marks as a spokesman for the Reagan Administrations foreign policy agenda.

Matt| 1.31.12 @ 11:43PM

The republican logic regarding the "mainstream media" continues to baffle me. Republicans never miss an opportunity to show how the "mainstream media" is biased against conservatives. In this article, we have the notion that the media "hates" Newt Gingrich, and is doing all it can to destroy him. Given the fact that everyone knows that Romney is the biggest threat to Obama, why in the world would the "biased" media want to destroy Newt and prop up Romney???
This whole notion of "mainstream media" got absurd several years ago, but Republicans still hold on to it. It's sort of funny at this point.

GoldenEagles| 2.1.12 @ 3:34PM

A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION
FOR ABRAM’S FEUD WITH
NEWT GINGRICH

There is an important theme in the Special Order for March 21, 1986, from which Elliot Abrams is quoting Newt Gingrich, and quoting him out of context. And this might explain why Elliot Abrams picked this particular speech to find fault with.

One of the most particular complaints set on the record by Newt Gingrich, was the fact that the term "Sandinista" was a Communist created propaganda term designed to put a nationalist mask upon the government in Nicaragua, which was purely Communist, Marxist-Leninist to the core, and a Soviet client, and this for the purpose of making the Communist government look legitimate, i.e. nationalist, in the eyes of the world.

Newt pointed out that this Nicaraguan hero, Sandino, was a nationalist, and moreover, that he was ANTI-COMMUNIST, contending therefore, that this was a total fraud for the Communists to use the term Sandinista to describe themselves.

(Note: The wikipedea article on Sandino is interesting. He was a real character, and the communists wooed him from the onset, but he rejected their advances. Sandino actually had some religious beliefs that were not compatible with communism, which is atheist at the core. Overall, I think that Gingrich’s thumbnail sketch of the issue was correct, that it was a fraud for the Communists to pull the Sandino mask over their faces, and that we should not have cooperated with that, we should not have helped them to promote that idea.)

And Newt put a lot of effort into explaining how such propaganda terms cloud the mind, which is to say, keeping the mind of the opponent from focusing on, and getting a grasp on, the true nature of the threat, and thus, keeping the opponent from mounting an effective challenge.

The Communists are masters at this kind of deception. We are seeing this happen today in Red China, where these Marxist-Leninists have put a Capitalist mask over their face. And the whole world goes to sleep. But that’s another story, or is it?

At any rate, Newt points out how the entire Reagan administration refused to stop using the word "Sandinista" to describe the Communist threat in Nicaragua. And he mentioned a speech Reagan gave which used the term "Sandinista" 15 times!

Regarding the importance of using right language, Gingrich said, "If the State Department, the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency cannot think of using right language, then as George Orwell put it in his Essay on Politics and the English Language, it is impossible to think clearly about it. The failure of right words leads to failure of right policy."

And so, I am thinking that this might have been one of the sore points that poisoned the relationship between Newt Gingrich and Elliot Abrams.

As part of the effort to help the Congress, and to help the American people, understand why President Reagan wanted to act against this threat, Elliot Abrams tasked his office in the State Department to produce lots of material exposing the truth about what was going on in Nicaragua.

I personally read every one of those publications, and I still have the file box full of them, and I thought that they were all very well done, and that is one of the reasons that Elliot Abrams has a place in my heart as a hero of that day.

However, we should note that these publications were filled with the term "Sandinista"!

And I think it would be reasonable to speculate that Newt Gingrich was on Abram’s case on this point on a regular basis. And we see that the Reagan Administration did not budge on this point. They knew the truth, but insisted on using a term the Communists themselves adopted as a propaganda mask. How stubbornly self-defeating is that?

We see that in 1986, the U.S. Congress had already voted in 1983 to cut off funding for the Nicaraguan Resistance. Yes the infamous Boland Amendment. Put this fact together with Newt’s strong belief in the importance of the proper use of language when you are talking about the Enemy, and you can see why he used the word “failure”.

Yes, the Reagan Administration has already failed to persuade the U.S. Congress to support the fight against communism in Nicaragua. And one of the factors is that, the Congress was convinced that this was not a threat, and one of the reasons that they believed it was not a threat, was because the Reagan Administration helped in the process of indoctrinating the members of U.S. Congress into the view that these communists were really benign nationalists, as the term “Sandinista” implies.

For myself, at that time, I was not aware of the history of the term Sandinista, nor clearly aware of how the Communists would use such propaganda terms to confuse people, and thus reduce the size of the population of people who were willing to stand up and challenge them. And so, I have learned something here. And there is a lot of additional good history in that Special Order.

Clearly, if the Reagan administration had followed Newt’s advice on this point, it would have been far easier to consolidate a powerful opposition against the Communist threat that was then spreading into Central America.

I think that if they would have followed Newt’s warning, that Reagan’s laudable Anti-Communists principles, were not being adequately institutionalized, we would not find ourselves in this position today, i.e. of what appears to be a Red China growing into super power status (on our dime), and having substantial leverage over us, due to their large scale holding of U.S. Debt.

GoldenEagles| 2.1.12 @ 3:47PM

Two source documents for Newt Gingrich's Special Order for March 21, 1986 are available.

1. A Scan of the Actual Congressional Record Document in PDF format.
(This was provided to me by Jeffrey Lord, as he received it from the former Gingrich staffer, and I have taken the liberty to post it for the benefit of all who are interested in the truth. It is a large file at 11mb)

2. Text only PDF, formatted in regular letter sized pages, in PDF format.
(a much smaller file 182kb)

The scan of the original congressional record document is easier to read in my opinion. The speech was constructed intuitively for reading in the congressional record which has its own unique format.

GoldenEagles| 2.1.12 @ 7:32PM

Newt Gingrich’s Contribution
to Reagan’s Strategy of
Peace through Strength

We known that the basic Reagan strategy of peace through strength, was made workable, only because the U.S. Congress gave strong and visible expression to Reagan’s Anti-Communist principles. The stronger we became, through the defense buildup, which only Congress could approve, and the implementation of the Strategic Defense Initiative, again, which only Congress could approve, the better Reagan’s strategy would work.

Newt Gingrich’s Special Order of March 21, 1986, went exactly to this point, expressing a strong voice in Congress, that there was a strong desire to give full expression to Reagan’s Anti-Communist principles, underlining the need to institutionalize strongly, those principles.

The more the Soviet’s believed that we were determined and motivated to stand up against them, the sooner they would come to the conclusion that they could never hope to challenge us, without being utterly annihilated. The stronger we appeared, the more the Soviet’s would back off from their expansionist designs. And the safer our freedoms would be.

The voice of Newt Gingrich was heard in Moscow. Here was a voice, in the U.S. Congress, that was pointing to some of the more wish-washy elements in the administration’s implementation of Reagan’s Anti-Communist principles. And this gave the Communist leadership the understanding that there was yet a will to do even better, and become even stronger against them. Of course, Gingrich was not alone. There were many strong voices in those days, at least on the Republican side, and many strong voices make up a very strong chorus.

Make no mistake about it. Gingrich was fully at one with the Reagan strategy, of peace through STRENGTH, and he had his own shoulder firmly to the wheel. This Special Order of March 21, 1986 proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. His message was basically, to the U.S. Congress, and to the administration bureaucrats, "Come on, BE as strong as Reagan wants us to be." And to Reagan, "Come on, BE as strong as you say you want to be." To Be or Not to Be, that is the question. It was all about becoming stronger against the Soviet threat.

But no one in those days, not Reagan, not Gingrich, no one, really understood how well, and at what levels, that this strategy was actually working. We can surmise this now, only with the benefits of hindsight.

In hindsight we know that the basic Reagan strategy, that of strong confrontation with the USSR, proceeding forward with a strong U.S. Defense buildup, and proposing a technological advance, in the Strategic Defense Initiative — that had the potential of making the Soviet nuclear arsenal of no effect — together, struck the Fear of God into the Soviet leadership. They finally understood they could not keep up with us technologically, and it forced them into a new propaganda initiative.

They needed to persuade America to back down, not through direct confrontation, but through deception. Gorbachev had to PUT ON A MASK (see the above discussion) and make himself look to the whole world like a great reformer, making people believe that the beast was melting into a pussy cat, and that there was no need for all of these missiles and guns and lasers and all of that.

On the one hand, Gorbachev did such a good job, that Reagan himself fell for it, and traded away the most important element of our nuclear deterrent in Europe, the intermediate range missiles which Reagan himself had earlier deployed there. And Gingrich was rightly focused on this truth, that Reagan was being taken in by Gorbachev.

However, and on the other hand, Gorbachev had done such a good job of making himself look like a reformer, that he actually ignited the fires of hope in his own people, something that the Soviet Leadership did not factor in, or thought they could manage.

But this was a true hope for freedom, which GOD could use, and did use, to expand, to motivate the people to stand up for the reforms that Gorbachev himself had promised.

In this respect, God worked through Reagan to stand strong against the Soviet Empire, a strong stance which created Gorbachev THE ACTOR, who would play the role of reformer so well — because the survival of the Soviet Union depended on it — that he would not only convince Reagan to pull those nasty missiles out of Europe, but would be so convincing that he would fan the flames of hope in his own people, not intended of course, which could be used by God, as tiny candles, to raise up whole populations to stand up and demand the reforms Gorbachev had promised.

Well, Gorbachev was trapped by his own act. If he cracked down, his whole game would go down the toilet, and America would continue with its determined military buildup. He had to keep the reformer charade going as long as possible, he needed time to fully persuade the U.S. to abandon its military buildup, while at the same time, he was greatly challenged in trying to figure out some way to keep the Communists in power. Events eventually spiraled out of his control.

So, in hindsight, we see that Reagan’s strategy, of peace through strength, which was, at its root, a God-Inspired determination to stand strong against the Communist threat, played a key role in the collapse of the Soviet Empire. As Reagan said, “In God I Trust.”

But in 1986, no one conceived of, let alone predicated such an outcome. The Soviet Union showed no signs of collapse. At the time this Special Order speech was given, the Soviet Red Army was still in Afghanistan with no sign of departing, as Gingrich so poignantly notes. Indeed, they were actually expanding their holdings around the world as Gingrich pointed out so well. The threat loomed over us as it had always done, and the dark clouds stretched as far as the eye could see.

Now, having said all of that, this is the bottom line as far as Newt Gingrich is concerned. The ONLY thing in this Special Order that Gingrich was doing, was standing strong, providing one of many of the strong voices necessary for the success of the Peace through Strength strategy.

In this Gingrich clearly can take credit, along side Reagan, for the final outcome. It was a team effort. And Gingrich was a strong member of that team, along with everyone else who chose to be inspired by God in those days to stand strong against the global totalitarian ambitions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

But, we need to be clear about this. Mitt Romney was not one of those people. He was not. He was an “independent” wanting nothing to do with Reagan and his Anti-Communism.

Douglas Nusbaum | 2.1.12 @ 4:57PM

Gingrich, Romney and Santorum, and ... and ... you know ... the man with more contributions by actual active military than all other republican candidates combined. The only one to actually wear a military uniform and serve, as opposed to the chickenhawks. Ol whats is name?

Now, in view of this blatant censorship, 1984 unperson newspeak, explain how you are any different from those about whom you complain

The American Spectator