Gingrich was saying the same thing as Abrams's father-in-law, Norman Podhoretz, at the time, so there's some deception or disingenousness involved on his own part.
Elliot Abrams is very familiar with the position Newt represented at the time, and it's not exactly what he wants readers to assume it to be, and what deception there is is most likely his own and conscious.
On the other hand, few people would probably want Podhoretz for president, so maybe there's some sense after all in Abrams's attack (and nobody outside can really say for sure how Elliot might actually feel about Norman).
The statement that Newt's comments showed him to be reliably conservative in attacking Reagan from the right is a little iffy, though. In one way, there may be some truth in it, Newt was being more Reaganite than Ron Reagan.
But Newt's criticisms also showed some grandstanding and a desire to show off that might come out in other ways. There were plenty of Republican congressmen who had qualms about what Reagan was doing who didn't showboat as Newt did.
Newt was a part of the Reagan revolution, he was handed the torch as it passed from Goldwater, to Reagan, to Newt Gingrich.
Romney was anti-Reagan, and anti-Republican, anti-conservative, and pro-democrat, abortion, homosexual agenda, and the rest of it.
Instead of running an a stealth anti-Newt campaign, why don’t you just come out and promote Mitt Romney straight up?