Posted on 01/26/2012 11:22:48 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
....Romney supporters have launched a last-minute attack on Gingrich seeking to impugn the former House speaker’s close working relationship with President Reagan and his dedication to Reagan conservatism. But efforts to cast Gingrich as anti-Reagan are doomed to fail, political observers say.
“There is something truly obscene about the full-blown assault on NewtGingrich’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,” William A. Jacobson, associate clinical professor at the Cornell Law School, writes on the Legal Insurrection website.
....And MichaelReagan said in his Jan. 20 endorsement of Gingrich: "Newt exemplifies the conservative principles my father championed — strong national defense, lower taxes and smaller government.
"In the 90’s Newt's leadership brought us the Contract with America which changed Washington. I’m confident Newt can do it again.”
One attack on Gingrich as anti-Reagan comes from Elliott Abrams, former deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration who also served in the Reagan administration.
In an article published Wednesday by National Review, Abrams says that Gingrich’s claims of being a Reagan conservative are “misleading at best.”
Abrams does acknowledge that Gingrich “voted with the president regularly,” but says that he “spewed insulting rhetoric” at some of Reagan’s policies to defeat communism.
Jacobson points out that Abrams’ assertion is based on a single speech Gingrich gave on the House floor in 1986, and he does not link to the full speech.
“Much of the anti-Newt conservative media accuses Newt of ‘insulting’ Reagan,” Jacobson writes. “It is part of a smear campaign that started when Newt surged in Iowa.”
The fact is, Gingrich was a strong supporter of Reagan in Congress, and a key figure in implementing his platform..........
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The “fix” is in. The Establishment is calling in every chip they have with the beltway media, and every stooge and tool they can find, in an all out allignment against Newt, for the last stand to hold Florida for Romney.
WE must be a machine to serve Newt well in Florida by not losing a moment indulging in “ain’t it awful...”, but get cracking for Newt and churning out what we can from kitchen tables, phones, email address books, etc. We are truly burning Newt’s daylight pondering the imponderable.
FIVE days.
....”For several days Drudge has been running almost around-the-clock negative banners against Newt, hyping negatives and burying news which contradicts the Romney campaign narrative that Newt was anti-Reagan.
Against the anti-Newt crusade stands a wealth of counter-viewpoints of people who were in a position to know and who share very differenct recollections of Newt and Reagan, via Josh Painter in the comments:
Reagan Nat’l Security Advisor Bud McFarlane: http://bit.ly/zd9eAF
Reagan Economist Art Laffer: http://bit.ly/xEDETi
Reagan WH political director Jeffrey Lord: http://bit.ly/zw2ZMb
Reagan Policy Analyst Peter Ferrara http://bit.ly/zq1QxI
Reagan media consultant Richard Quinn: http://on.msnbc.com/y2sPM2
Reagan’s Speechwriting Dir. Bently Elliott: http://thedc.com/xOkDvA
Reagan’s older son Michael Reagan: http://bit.ly/yYVy7L
Reagan’s beloved wife Nancy: http://bit.ly/zrWvAw
I’ll add to that Peter Robinson, former Reagan speechwriter, who wrote the historic Berlin Wall address in which President Reagan urged Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!”:
Newt shared the frustrations of many conservatives, including, from time to time, me, that the President permitted the bureaucracy to prove persistently feckless, undermining his program–as you’ll recall if you’re of a certain age, conservatives were always insisting that the President’s staff should “let Reagan be Reagan.” If Newt mouthed off, giving vent to these frustrations, so be it. He was in Congress. That was, in a sense, his job. And at one time or another, every conservative of any standing felt exasperated or worried–and urged the President not to go soft either on Communism or on our own bureaucracy. Newt’s comments here place him in the company of William F. Buckley, Jr.–WFB vented his frustrations more artfully, but he vented them–and I’d have thought that for our friends at NR that would be quite good enough.
Drudge has 30 million visits a day on his side. We have history on our side. Make it known.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/drudge-versus-history/
Bump!
Without Newt, we would never have got the proof that Keynesian economics was a fraud perpetrated on the citizens of America since Woodrow Wilson. Newt was the one who was bucking the RINO establishment to put Reaganomics in place.
Romney may have used a clever tactic in his attempt to minimize Gingrich's contributions or work during the Reagan years. The point may not be whether Reagan "mentioned" him, but where was Romney during that period and what contribution was he making to conservatism?
Methinks Romney supporters protest too much in their Pelosi-like efforts to discredit Gingrich. By doing so, they may discredit themselves and their authenticity as spokespersons for conservatism.
Hopefully, the unveiling of the video of Nancy Reagan's words might reveal Romney's misleading comments about Gingrich's links to Reagan and the conservative cause of that era.
Voters might ask, where were Romney's efforts in the conservative victories during those years. When Brian Williams asked about any such efforts, Romney seemed to think that raising a family and starting a business career in a "consulting firm" qualified as contributing to the "conservative movement."
In the meantime, during those same years, other business men and women were spending their dollars and their time out there warning citizens that if they didn't rein in their elected representatives in government and return to constitutional principles, the free enterprise system which allowed them the freedom to "raise a family" and "work in the private sector" might disappear from the earth.
Working in what Romney calls "the private sector" and working to preserve the Founders' "freedom of individual enterprise" principle which underlies all the other freedoms Americans enjoy are two very different things.
Romney has done the first: Gingrich has done the latter.
Krauthammer's frank assessment of the apparent incapability of Romney to explain conservative ideas is a telling evaluation. By the way, ordinary citizens out here know the difference between fast talk, blinking eyes, discomfort when asked to define "conservatism" and shifting to another subject entirely versus the Gingrich ability take a question, calmly set the answer in a context of understanding, and provide more depth of explanation than the questioner implied.
When viewing, it's like the difference between a used car lot salesman avoiding the CarFax question and a Lexus commercial. One just "gets" the difference.
OH WAIT FOX, DRUDGE, COULTER, HUME, etc, talk shows will all be mentioning this SEEING AS THEY DID ATTACKS ON NEWT FOR THE LAST FEW DAYS
COME ON FOX, DRUDGE, GET THE HEADLINES UP, GET NEWTS BACKERS ON LIKE THE GIPPERS SON OR FRED T.
Nah didn’t think you biased pieces of crap
The GOP-Establishment all came out of the woodwork today in a blatantly coordinated way, to attack the Tea Party via a proxy standard bearer named Newt!
I am fairly certain that Mitt Romney will not be elected president. I wish I were as certain that he will not be the Republican nominee.
I’m fairly certain Romney is not a conservative.
What Gingrich was really criticizing was that the Cold War Republican presidents all used the same kooky cabal to run the relatively quiet central and South American foreign policy office.
These incompetent, dictator supporting, anti-democratic types fouled up again and again, making the US look like the bad guy in the region, and were finally responsible for planning and screwing up the execution of the Iran-Contra affair.
And Elliott Abrams, the author of the hit piece, was smack dab in the middle of this cabal.
The problem was not Reagan. It was that this entire collective should have been purged back during the Nixon years. And if anything stained the Reagan presidency, it was this gang.
they must have all got a mass mail or a conference call and told them to get out with these talking points before tonight and then get out Friday saying Newt lost.
They know the weekend most will not be watching and seeing what the establishment has done this week has made me sick tot he core and I will not vote for Romney ever now.
FOX, DRUDGE has been all out today and this week and even most talk radio has protected Romney.
FOX and Drudge ran all this morning about Newt not agreeing wiht Reagan but they are not running wiht Romney disagreed with Reagan or how he ran to the left in MA against Kennedy and boy that takes some doing running to the left of him
Again, the truth contained in this post.
There is something truly obscene about Mitt Romney. There you go, fixed it.
It's the first closed primary and Mitt was struggling -- so they pulled the trigger.
Abrams hit piece was on Drudge. I’ve linked his bio for you.
I’m here in NE FL and I’ve got nothing off Newt due to him having not much money.
Every day it is Romney attacking Newt but he forgets my wife is from MA and she lived up there when he was GOV and she said he is a liar and he is more liberal than some Dems up there.
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.