Posted on 01/26/2012 1:54:56 AM PST by w4women
There is something truly obscene about the full blown assault on Newt Gingrich’s strong Reagan conservative history from and on behalf of Mitt Romney, who unabashedly ran away from the Reagan legacy and conservative principles in his 1994 Senate campaign and 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Truly obscene.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
“Could not find the requested content.”
must be bad link
From the article:
At the 1995 Goldwater Institute Dinner honoring President Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich was the keynote speaker. Nancy Reagan gave a short speech on behalf of herself and President Reagan, in which she both spoke warmly of Newt and recognized Newt at the heir to the Goldwater and Reagan legacies:
“The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” ~Nancy Reagan
******************************************************
This should go viral.
I know one place we won’t see this: The PHONY, RINO, ASSHAT, Drudge.
And Faux News.
copy/paste this into Drudge Send a Tip
get a clue Matt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ec_Nunb6izo
Did or did not Gingrich repeatedly say on the floor of this Nation’s House that President Reagan, his administration and his foreign policy was a total failure?
Sorry, but when a GOP Congressman stands up and says things about President Reagan that are no different than what Harry Reid said about President Bush, it’s going to be talked about.
One can dispute the political implications of the facts, but the facts are the facts. Gingrich said what he said, more than once. There is nothing “obscene” about having facts brought up.
Did anyone actually think that we’d get through a Newt nomination WITHOUT all this stuff (and much, much more to come) having to be “dealt” with one way or the other?
This is the type of thing, not Newt’s three messy marriages, that people were warning about all along when they talked about Newt’s baggage.
Instead of whining about the fact that people are bringing up the fact that Newt does, in fact, have the baggage that his supporters were warned about all along, why not spend time and energy trying to “deal” with that baggage in a substantive way.
He did not "repeatedly" say these things and if you'd read instead of getting your lawyer BS going you'd know it.
I know you've been of FR and were a military person but because you are a lawyer you can not be trusted.
Any lawyer can argue either side with no feeling of guilt nor right or wrong, just win for "their client".
Read the whole transcript don't do what lawyers do for a living, and cherry pick out of context.
Kill all the lawyers...excellent advice from...willy shakespeare...
Read the transcript? Singular?
I hope you realize there is more than one transcript. There is the speech on the floor of Congress. There is at least one television interview.
And how many times in even that one transcript did Gingrich call President Reagan, his policies, his administration a failure? Are you claiming he said this only once?
You're the one who sounds like your prejudiced, resentment-laden view of a lawyer: quibbling over the word "repeatedly."
All that aside, there is NO EXCUSE for a GOP Congressman calling President Reagan, his administration, and his foreign policy a failure. Or are you willing to "argue [the other] side with no feeling of guilt nor right or wrong, just win for "[your] client {Newt Gingrich}"?
This is yet another example of a Gingrich incident where it's appropriate to ask "what conservative in their right mind would do this, in this way, at this time, with these words?" The man sounds no different than Harry Reid.
Are you willing to defend that or do you want to quibble about how many times Gingrich said these things and whether or not that number of times constitutes a technical definition of "repeatedly"?
You're going to need a better defense for this in the campaign than your present argument that Gingrich only said that President Reagan was a failure one time.
Reagan's Young Lieutenant - By Jeffrey Lord on 1.24.12 @ 6:09AM
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director
Excerpts:
Newt Gingrich was part of the Reagan Revolution's Murderers' Row. And anybody who was in Washington in the day, much less in the Reagan White House or the 1984 Reagan re-election campaign (and I would make that particular cut of three), knew it.
The Gingrich work product? Making certain that Ronald Reagan was not put on record leaving the door open for any more ill-fated tax increases. Dole was furious with the young Newt -- and, it might be noted, recently made a point of endorsing Mitt Romney. Hmmmmm.
That said, time after time after time in the Reagan years, a number of those times which I had the opportunity to see up close as a young Reagan staffer charged in my duties with being the White House liaison to Gingrich and Kemp's Conservative Opportunity Society, Newt Gingrich was out there again and again and again for Ronald Reagan and conservative principles. In his own memoirs, The Politics of Diplomacy, James Baker noted of his days as Reagan White House Chief of Staff that he always "worked closely" with the people Baker described as "congressional leaders." And who were those leaders? Baker runs off a string of names of the older leaders of both House and Senate in the formal positions of power -- plus one. That's right: young Newt Gingrich.
Oh, good grief. Please show me where I “fell for” anything.
All I am saying is that Gingrich did, in fact, make the remarks that were reported. Therefore, whining about how unfair and awful it is that remarks he actually made were reported is futile and embarrassing.
That has nothing to do with commenting on the nature of Gingrich’s relationship with Reaganism.
As I repeatedly said, in my view, there was no excuse for HOW, WHEN, WHERE and with WHAT WORDS Gingrich used to make his points. And, again, that has nothing to do one way or the other with whether or not Gingrich was or was not a “trusted lieutenant” of Reagan’s.
It’s just another typical example of being politically boorish and tin-earred. Congressman Gingrich stood up on the floor of this nation’s Capitol and said the same sorts of things about President Reagan that Harry Reid said about George Bush and his foreign policy.
If you would like to dispute that conclusion, have at it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.