It doesnt really matter to Rush what Newt meant by that...Rush was furious that the words were uttered and that by a Reagan guy, Newt Gingrich.
He didn't say those exact words at all. And the context and meaning of the words isn't even CLOSE to what people spinning it to bash Newt want to make you believe. Below is the interview where that came from. Newt was simply talking about looking for new issues for a new Contract with America-style platform, because obviously the issues of Reagan's campaigns like the Soviet Union, Iran hostages, Equal Rights Amendment, etc. did not exist anymore. And Newt referred to G.W. Bush's presidency as well, but oddly enough the people spreading this quote never tell you that.
The standard pattern when you look into these smears against Newt is that you find a long interview where Newt talks on and on about conservative issues and principles in an extremely articulate manner, then says one line which sounds totally innocuous as you're reading the interview, but which is then quoted or misquoted and taken out-of-context to make it sound like it means something that it didn't originally mean at all. Conservatives should be absolutely livid and incensed about the way Newt's opponents continuously try to mislead them away from someone who is one of the staunchest conservatives we'll ever be able to find.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4128020&page=1#.Tw3KmoEeW9x
TRANSCRIPT Newt Gingrich Talks with George
January 13, 2008
Look, I think there are dramatic changes we need in this country.
We produced a platform of the American people at American Solutions. And its at the back of our book Real Change. Its also at Americansolutions.com. Every single item on the list has a majority of Democrats, majority of Republicans, majority of independents favoring.
The easiest one is making English the official language of government.
Look, I think the first two things the president and the Congress can do on the economy is cut spending. If youll notice, you have a primary in Michigan, a state which artificially had a recession, because its government is so bad, its taxes are so high, its unionized work rules are so destructive, that Michigan was in a recession when the rest of the country was growing.
Part of real change focuses a long section on Detroit.
The truth is, large bureaucracies are destructive. High taxes are destructive. The system weve built discourages any business from opening up in Detroit. The schools dont deliver. They do deliver paychecks. They do take care of the union. But they dont deliver for the kids. And this is at a time when if youre an African- American male and you drop out of high school, you have a 73 percent chance of being unemployed and a 60 percent chance of going to jail.
So I think we need dramatically deeper and more fundamental change.
So but lets take things the American people agree on. The American people agree you ought to make it easier to build oil refineries in the United States if you want to bring down the price of oil.
The American people agree that you ought to set up prizes for major breakthroughs. And that would be very different than the system weve used since World War II.
The American people, in fact, agree that we ought to have tax credits for people who are willing to go to greater conservation for their homes. I mean, far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil?
The Congress and the president do have an opportunity to listen to the American people, who are saying that real change does matter, and the real change is what they want.
The way the McCain/Feingold law currently discriminates against the middle class, is it sets up a system by which, you know, if youre the mayor of New York and youre Bloomberg and youre worth $11 billion, you can contemplate buying the presidency and get away with it. If you are a self-, you know, a multi-millionaire governor and you want to, you can buy a nomination.
And so, I just think theres nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era.
Were at a point in time where were about to start redefining as a number of people have started talking about, were starting to redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.
Rush has all the access in the world to the same context you posted, in regard to Newt’s statement.
I’m saying just that the words were uttered, and were “out there” for use in soundbites to put down Reagan, rather than to continue lifting him up, by taking them out of whatever context they were in, apparently raised Rush’s hackles forevermore.
At the time it happened, Rush went apoplectic, and does so any time it’s brought up again.
I think he nurses that grudge.
He hasn’t cut Newt off, just still nurses the grudge, imo.
Has interviewed him, and even revealed he had been on Golf outings with Newt and Callista.
Now Rush will say he hasn’t, and won’t, endorse anyone.
True, he hasn’t said he endorses, and he won’t.
But his wild attack on Newt for the Romney and Bain Capital thing was imo another glimpse into the soul of someone who holds a grudge.
Contrast Michael Reagan, the Gipper’s own son, wholeheartedly supporting Newt.
And I believe...unlike those who think Rush is for Romney...if he is stealthily for anyone it is Santorum.
We also know his brother David is openly and officially for Santorum.