-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Well, of course they’re going to smack me.
The other day I looked into a post at National Review on Newt Gingrich by the estimable Elliot Abrams.
In short, after reading the Gingrich Special Order cited by Abrams I found his post to be grossly misleading. And reporting what I found, so too did others who took a look at the same Special Order from start to finish. Mark Levin read it and agreed completely. He’s a Santorum fan… but he was incensed at the misrepresentation of Newt’s ties to the Reagan-era. He was there in the day, as was I. I heard from others as well, and not all Newt Gingrich people. Yes, Rush was so amazed he read a good bit of the piece on air, doubtless adding to the heat. Sean Hannity discussed, Mr. Levin was furious — and Mr. Hannity was more than kind to go on the Levin show moments before his own TV show to defend me. A personal and public thanks to all of them for not shying away from the issue and giving the piece and the news therein attention.
Doubtless Elliott Abrams, whom I in fact genuinely like and respect, is not thrilled. I’m sorry about that. But, as is now evident from people like Ed Rollins (who was there), Mrs. Reagan, and Michael Reagan — those best in a position to know totally disagree with the picture the Abrams post tried to present.
My point here, though, is to answer Rich Lowry, who posted “Jeffrey Lord’s Distortion” in response to all the heat. And to answer Jennifer Rubin, who cited me not to the good in her Washington Post column, “Gingrich: The Most Persecuted Man in America?”
First, let’s rebut the key points.
• Lowry says: ” Jeffrey Lord manages a two-fer in this piece: he slyly smears Elliott Abrams for allegedly prostituting himself for a job in a Romney administration on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.”
Response: Well aside from the fact that I had just had that suggested to me after the column posted — by someone who knows Elliott Abrams — Rich seems charmingly unaware of how this particular Washington game is played. Now and, doubtless, probably all the way back to George Washington’s first administration. It works like this.
X, who desires a role in a presumed/possible administration of presidential Candidate Y, needs to jockey a bit on the perpetually crowded race track that is teeming with Washington job seekers. How to do this? If Outside the Beltway, there are obvious ways — campaign contributions, volunteering for the campaign, etc. etc. But Inside the Beltway? What to do?
The time tested answer is to take to the pages of some venerable publication with a thumb-sucker opining on issue Z — positioned just so — to get Candidate Y’s attention, either directly or at least through a staff member. There is nothing either immoral or wrong here — it’s a decidedly well within the norm done-all-the-time kind of thing. In this case, of note, back on October 6, 2011 the Romney campaign announced their man’s foreign policy team. Whose name was not listed? Correct: Elliott Abrams’. It is entirely possible Mr. Abrams is sick of government and is done. Or maybe not. In my opinion, the most grievous result of his treatment by liberals and their special prosecutor enthusiasms (which distinctly waned after this weapon was turned on their own Bill Clinton) is that Abrams was on track to someday be Secretary of State. He was, in my humble opinion, deeply wronged. But he has fought back… serving with distinction in the Bush 43 era. Bravo! That’s great. The only point here is that his post simply was not accurate as all manner of Reaganites other than myself quickly verified. Was he writing to say, “Hey…Romney…I’m over here”? If so, no sin. But the piece itself well fits the oldest profile in the world of Washington job seeking. Elliott Abrams is the ultimate Washington veteran. He knows this game well, he can play it with the best. Rich Lowry may not have recognized the meaning of the Abrams piece, but one has to believe Elliott Abrams knew exactly what he was doing in a piece that could only be seen as an attempt to curry favor with front-running Team Romney.
• Lowry says: “But as Elliott said in his piece, this speech was an attack on the Reagan administration, at a time when it was involved in a brawl with Democrats over Latin America policy.”
Response: Again, those of us who spent 24/7 looking after President Reagan’s political welfare never saw Newt Gingrich in this light — ever. Ed Rollins, The Boss in this regard, says this quite plainly. What was true of Newt in 1986 — taking issue with the President over this or that — was in fact true with all manner of conservatives quite aside from Newt. William F. Buckley thought Reagan was caving to the Soviets because he hosted Warren Beatty for a White House showing of Reds, Beatty’s Oscar-winning tribute to American John Reed and the Communist Revolution. Richard Viguerie and the late Paul Weyrich for a time quite openly pondered the thought Reagan was a failure as a conservative. George Shultz wanted to quit. Al Haig was finally fired after he threatened to quit so many times. Jack Kemp got into it with Reagan over TEFRA, with Reagan, at that point mistakenly taken-in by Bob Dole’s Establishment mentality on Democrat budget promises, telling Kemp bluntly he was “unreasonable.” Kemp left the White House, returned to Capitol Hill and promptly and quite publicly ginned up GOP House members to oppose Reagan and Dole. Jack Kemp disloyal to Ronald Reagan? Never. Ever.
On and on and on this kind of thing went. It’s hard, I guess, for Rich to get the deal here as he wasn’t there. But this kind of thing from our own side was every day and normal. Dan Riehl makes the point that Rich Lowry was 12 in 1980 when Reagan was elected, which makes him 18 in 1986 when this kerfuffle about Newt was ongoing. Not so with Elliott, very much a player. But for whatever reason, Elliott went out there and, as per Mrs. Reagan herself, Mike Reagan and Ed Rollins…not to mention people like Mark Levin and myself…he is just flat wrong as to how the rest of us saw Newt Gingrich.
Last but not least, Jennifer Rubin. Ms. Rubin…she too nowhere in sight in 1986…is a devoted Establishment Romneyite. The Washington Post’s designated conservative. Good for her.
• Rubin says: “Gingrich’s defenders are as careless with the truth as he is. Rich Lowry eviscerates one such attempt to smear a Gingrich critic:” Then she quotes Lowry as above, I being the “defender” who is “careless with the truth” about a “Gingrich critic” — meaning Elliott Abrams.
Response: I’ve answered Lowry, which answers Rubin on this. And Rubin herself has, not surprisingly, exposed her own vulnerabilities in becoming the officially designated conservative spokesperson as designated by The Washington Post. Something the inimitable Mark Levin discusses here. She manages in her column to seemingly cheer for Lowry without managing any effort whatsoever to examine in any serious fashion what he said. An attempt, as it were, to sniff the Establishment sniff at a topic not deigned worthy of discussion. By the Establishment.
There is one thing I would add about Ms. Rubin. To say that I was “careless with the truth” and that I smeared “a Gingrich critic” — implies that the person making the charge is open with the grounds for her criticism. That would be, in this case, Jennifer Rubin herself. But there was something missing from Rubin’s column, an interesting something well beside her standard defense of Establishment favorite Romney.
Notice that Rubin does not use Elliott Abrams’ name in her column. She refers to him simply as a “Gingrich critic.” Curious, no? Not unlike criticizing the Obama Administration without mentioning the name “Obama.” Why would Jennifer Rubin do such a curious thing?
Yes, I believe there is a reason.
A while back there was one of those eternally ongoing media kerfuffles when Rubin, in her post at the Post, re-tweeted a hotly controversial tweet from a blogger. The subject was the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held hostage for five years by Hamas. Critics jumped all over the blogger in a dispute not relevant here. Then they jumped all over Rubin and the Washington Post for printing the tweet. The identity of that blogger may well be directly relevant to Rubin’s going after me. Why?
The name of the blogger in question who caused such outrage out there was…Rachel Abrams. That’s right. As in Mrs. Elliott Abrams. In the course of this dust-up over Ms. Abrams and Rubin’s re-tweeting of Abrams’ views, the Washington Post itself received the predictable left-wing furies. Which in turn had the Post’s Ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, answering for the paper. Deep in his reply, he reported:
Rubin said that she admires Abrams, has quoted her a lot, thinks she’s an excellent writer and endorsed the sentiment behind the Abrams blog post.
Hmmm. There’s something else. Ms. Rubin came to the Post from Commentary, edited by the great John Podhoretz. A decided fan of Ms. Rubin’s, John wrote this nice tribute to Rubin when she departed.
The something else? John’s half-sister is….Rachel Abrams. All of which — the Rubin re-tweeting Abrams controversy, the Rubin stint at Commentary run by Rachel Abrams’ half-brother, the warm feeling from John about Rubin and Rubin’s admiration for Rachel hints at… gasp… actual friendship between Rubin and Rachel Abrams. If not a tie to Elliott Abrams himself.
Is there anything wrong here? No. Life is short. And if Ms. Rubin is great friends with Mrs. Elliott Abrams or Elliott Abrams himself, God Bless.
The point is a simple one. There is that little slug line that reads something like this: “(Full disclosure….)” In this case, perhaps it should have read, “(Full Disclosure: the subject of this controversy is the husband of my friend Rachel Abrams.)” Or whatever. But for Ms. Rubin to be taking offense under the guise of Romneyism about a column involving Elliott Abrams — without letting readers know precisely what her relationship is with Rachel Abrams, or even Elliott Abrams himself is, well…Jennifer Rubin said it best:
Being “careless with the truth.”
Last but importantly not least.
Conservatives are fractious — this is part of what gives the conservative movement its intellectual and political energy, and what made the Reagan administration so historic.
Make no mistake. We wish Mr. Lowry and National Review well. Ditto Ms. Rubin. And certainly Elliott Abrams. And also Rachel Abrams….who years ago captured my heart when she wrote a priceless reply to the Clintons as Washington witnessed an epic case of people being hoist on their own petard — a special prosecutor.
But neither Lowry or Rubin — nor I — should shimmy in matters of this sort. Being thin-skinned in the conservative cause is never advisable. It dulls the intellectual blade. So in this corner, having others smack at me is just part of the job. Smack away. I understand and relish the debate and can read the stitches on a fastball. But accuracy — the facts — are important.
Hence, our disagreement on Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan.
That’s all, folks.
View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/01/the-fractious-rich-lowry-and-j
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Drek| 2.1.12 @ 5:09PM
Jeff,
You're far too charitable to 'em. Lowry, NR and Rubin are in no ways deserving of such consideration, after their disgraceful behavior of late.
Lowry throwing the whole weight of NR behind Romney has prostituted the brand, and will find his 30 pieces of silver little recompense for the enormity of his misdeed.
Romney's candidacy represents the Republican party repudiating position after position long and ardently held.
A disaster.
Butch| 2.1.12 @ 5:24PM
Well, it's a shame what's become of National Review. I have been a subscriber continuously since 1972, even published in it, but it has changed for the worse. I know it's un-PC to say anything good about Joe Sobran ever, but he carried NR well after Buckley turned the reins over to him. His firing started a long downhill slide.
As to Rubin, she's a Trojan horse, period. Just becaause WaPo says she is a conservative doesn't make her one.
Jack in Wi.| 2.1.12 @ 9:29PM
Joe Sobran was the best conservative writer since the WW2. I was a subscriber and financial contributor of National Review for 42 years. When Buckley let the neocons dictate policy, it ruined the magazine. The intellectual movement started by Buckley died 15 years before he did. The only intellectual heft left on the right comes from the Libertarians and paleoconservatives. They have been right on foreign and domestic policy for decades.
Vern Crisler | 2.1.12 @ 10:01PM
Sobran was a good writer but was bewitched by political and literary eccentricities.
Mark America | 2.1.12 @ 5:35PM
Well stated. It's not surprising to see Rich Lowry involved in furthering this smear, or extending it to cover you, Mr. Lord. It's part of what the establishment does. Stand by for this same crowd to defend Romney against this: http://wp.me/p1HGwx-2jR
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 5:44PM
Lowry and Rubin are the ones angling for jobs in a Romney Administration.
Paul McGrath| 2.1.12 @ 5:47PM
This seemed like a very interesting article when I started reading it, but the next thing I know the room was dark, my cigar had gone out, and my brandy was lying on its side on the floor.
Gadamighty will I be glad when all of this is over with.
WG| 2.1.12 @ 5:48PM
After Mitt called for automatic increases in the minimum wage today--I really don't want to hear one more word about his conservatism nor his ability to get Americans jobs. It is well documented in the economic literature that increases in the minimum wage result in higher unemployment which affect the poor the most. I heard it on the radio news during a Hannity break and I couldn't quite believe he could support such a stupid idea. Unfortunately, I checked the internet and lo and behold here it is.
http://www.boston.com/news/loc.....imum_wage/
Under such circumstances, in my primary, I will vote for whichever Non-Romney is in the lead. I would hope others do the same.
Thom| 2.1.12 @ 7:08PM
I guess Mitt doesn't understand who has to pay for those minimum raise advances? The ones not getting the Federally mandated 50% raise in pay over a few years…. This sounds a lot like mandating that others buy insurance in order to give some free “healthcare”.
Romney Republican| 2.2.12 @ 11:26AM
Well, its obvious that you just don't understand capitalism, because...bbl
sickoftalking| 2.1.12 @ 6:13PM
Ms. Rubin is the pro-Romney version of Paul Krugman. A day doesn't go by that she doesn't write a column attacking Newt Gingrich. She must have Gingrich Derangement Syndrome.
Vern Crisler | 2.1.12 @ 10:04PM
Man, comparing someone to Paul Thugman is one of the worst insults that can be made.
Bob Grant| 2.1.12 @ 8:06PM
Hey, come on.
Any Site that features Mark Steyn Victor Davis Hanson, and Thomas Sowell...well, how bad could it be?
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 8:23PM
Very bad...when it also features Ramesh Ponnuru, Rich Lowry, Kathryn Lopez, Mona Charen, Mark Krikorian, Katrina Trinko, and Jonathan Adler.
But what can we expect from a masthead that previously boasted David Frum, Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, Rod Dreher, Kathleen Parker, and other former conservatives who now bask in the glow of Strange New Respect?
PCP Smoker| 2.1.12 @ 9:25PM
Rod Dreher... that was the" crunchy conservatism" guy. As I remember, this cc was supposed to be an eco-friendly conservatism. One had to buy a house in the ghetto instead of building a "macmansion", go to a fundamentalist church, buy "fair-trade, fair-treatment, organic" colombian coffee, but not from the local big box store. It had to be from a local and specialized shop, with the Colombian (read brown) behind the counter and salsa playing in the background. It had to be authentic, don't you know?
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 9:32PM
Your memory is spot on.
PCP Smoker| 2.1.12 @ 9:20PM
Expand your searches a bit. All three of them have their own websites. You no longer have to go to NRO.
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 9:34PM
That is great advice. I finally cancelled the NR subscription I've had since 1991; hitting their websites provides all the value without the expense of the litter box liner around it.
W| 2.1.12 @ 10:03PM
You are missing great satire by Rob Long.
Vern Crisler | 2.1.12 @ 10:06PM
I cancelled the Drudge Report. It is no longer part of my reading list. Any conservative news compilers out there?
I haven't given up on NR yet, because I see some of the Mitt-boosters are suffering from Romney-remorse.
kf451| 2.2.12 @ 2:31PM
There's badblue.
http://badblue.bitnamiapp.com/trendr8.htm
PCP Smoker| 2.1.12 @ 9:19PM
Classy and well written. This is a rerun of the 08 elections, with the DC Conservatives in a tizzy over any criticism of John McCain. Good smack down, especially of little boy Rich Lowry.
Rosie| 2.1.12 @ 9:28PM
I used to eagerly read Rubin's tidbits every morning in Commentary. There was a wonderful synergy between her and the other contributers. Once she moved to WaPo she lost her edge. I can't stand to read it anymore and the commentaries are frightful.
It was a bad move on her part - she sold her soul.
former Republican| 2.2.12 @ 11:31AM
I stopped looking at Commentary when they banned Comments at their online site. All you need to know. They are delivering wisdom from on high, and don't do dialogue.
Chaucer| 2.2.12 @ 2:41PM
Comments are no longer banned.
W| 2.1.12 @ 9:29PM
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.."
I enjoy your articles and generally agree with you but do not understand your criticism of Abrams.Abrams was on the firing line defending Reagan's policies on the Contras and was indicted by misleading Congress. As you know Reagan's men, like Abrams, North, Poindexter, McFarland, and others were all indicted, and the Dems wanted to get to Reagan. They thought they had another Watergate. I can understand Abrams' bewilderement at Newt's criticism while Newt is a backbencher and Abrams is in the trenches.
Please explain how this speech is not criticism of Reagan. He has every right to criticize Reagan, but be honest that he is criticizing Reagan instead of attacking Abrams and his wife.
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 9:37PM
Gingrich's criticism is that the buck stopped with Reagan; it is hardly controversial. He was calling on Reagan to rein in the RINOs. You might remember at that time there was open warfare between the Establishment foreign policy "realists" and the true realists--the conservatives.
Gingrich was working the ref.
W| 2.1.12 @ 9:46PM
I usually agree with you Teflon.
I am not questioning Newt's right to say what he wanted, but Lord and the rest are misleading because they say that Newt was not criticizing Reagan. I don't know how one can read this and say that Abrams was misleading in his criticism of Newt.
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 10:30PM
Perhaps it is that the hit on Gingrich went far beyond mere criticism of Reagan---and remember that YouTube with Romney in 1994 hotly denying he wanted to return to Reagan's policies and that he was an independent in the 80s---and claimed he was anti-Reagan?
Vern Crisler | 2.1.12 @ 10:11PM
Newt's criticisms of the Reagan administration were spot on. A lot of us were disappointed that sometimes Reagan listened to Establishment Republicans when it came to policy. Newt was trying to break through the wall of the Establishment staffers who surrounded Reagan and get the ear of Gipperus Magnus himself. This is friendly criticism from Newt, not leftist destructive criticism.
W| 2.1.12 @ 10:23PM
You may be correct, but Lord, Rush, and company seem to deny that Newt was criticizing Reagan, whether friendly or destructive.
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 10:33PM
Lord and Rollins and Levin and other Reaganites are saying that Newt was not in the anti-Reagan camp that Darman and others of the GOP Establishment clearly inhabited. He was onside, which is why Nancy Reagan---always fiercely protective of her husband---had such glowing things to say about Reagan's torch being passed to Newt.
Newt was being grandiose in claiming a larger role in Reagan's conservative policies than he played at that time, but that doesn't mean he wasn't seen as a leader for conservatives during the Reagan Administration, much less that he opposed Reagan.
W| 2.1.12 @ 10:44PM
I agree that Newt accomplished much in Congress such as getting rid of Jim Wright, working on electing the 94 House majority, and working on welfare reform/budget balance.
He had a great team with Kasich, Armey, Bob Walker, McCollum, and others. Newt wasted a good opportunity to do more by getting sloppy with his book deals that landed the ethics fine, and not getting along with his team resulting in him giving up the Speakership.
He should have been more focused on his job as Speaker. I don't believe he opposed Reagan or was anti Reagan.
Wasn't Darman in the Bush 41 administration that recommended that tax increase that cause Bush to lose in 92?
Did you start to read any of the Blackford Oakes novels by Buckley?
teflon93| 2.2.12 @ 8:22AM
I confused my Stockmen with my Darmen.
I haven't gotten to them---but they are in my queue.
rightasrain| 2.2.12 @ 8:15AM
Could you ever imagine Nancy Pelosi giving such a speech about Obama?
Clint| 2.1.12 @ 10:11PM
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Nevada& Maine.
smokedaddy| 2.2.12 @ 12:31AM
Beautiful piece Jeffrey! Honestly, your work here of late has really been out of this world. Now, in a partial defense of NR (not Abrams), I honestly don't know whether they had an obligation to go and dig up the original transcript of Newt's floor speech. Abrams being a reputable guy, and this being , of course , an opinion piece, I'm inclined to give them a partial pass on the original publication. Still you'd think they'd have someone there over 50 yo who would raise an eyebrow. I do see they pulled the piece from their front page after your takedown got noticed. Now, as for Lowry's response to you- pathetic.
teflon93| 2.2.12 @ 8:23AM
Lowry doubled down attacking Lord though.
Your Excellency| 2.2.12 @ 1:18AM
NRO is losing ground every day with that silly beta-boy Lowry as editor.
kf451| 2.2.12 @ 2:35PM
Great article. Thanks for standing against the onslaught of the establishment against Newt.
Brooklyn| 2.4.12 @ 5:03PM
When I read Lowry's piece, I sent a post to NR that was never printed. I thought it was a worthwhile post. I started by writing that if you read the special order which Mr. Lowry so kindly provided, you would see of course that Eliot Abrams was dishonest; Gingrich was not anti-Reagan or undermining Reagan. But what was disturbing about Gingrich's special order is that it showed a top-down, big government mentality, both in his analysis of the Soviet Union's power and his proposed solutions; both of which were seriously flawed. This would have been a legitimate line of attack on Mr. Gingrich, but Mr. Abrams chose not to do so. Why?