Elliot Abram’s piece on Newt’s attacks on Reagan is an interesting read. While it does muddy Gingrich’s claims that he was sort of Reagan’s junior partner, I’m not sure everyone will see it as an all-out indictment. As Josh Treviño writes on twitter: “I’ll take ’80s Gingrich attacking Reagan from the right over ’80s, ’90s, and ’00s Romney attacking Reagan from the left.”
But my question is, Why are we hearing this from Elliot Abrams now and not from Mitt Romney weeks ago? Seriously, Romney spends a lot of money on consultants. They couldn’t prep the boss to mention a floor speech by Gingrich excoriating Ronald Reagan?
The other night Romney had a good zinger about Reagan’s diary barely mentioning Gingrich. But it would have been far more effective if he could have followed up by “Newt, you denounced Reagan from the floor of the House for his foreign policies.You said ‘the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.’ As a historian, you should at least remember the history you were part of.”
I didn’t remember this stuff about Newt (in fairness the day Gingrich said that I was celebrating my 17th birthday). But then again, I’m not on a six figure retainer for the Romney campaign either.
With all the criticisms of Reagan that Mitt mounted from--as you point out--Reagan's left, why in heaven would Romney want to go down that rabbit hole? It's a fight he can't win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly. Romney would have no advantage in such a fight, and any manufactured outrage he might muster could be easily trounced by Gingrich, who hasn't personally waded into the mud the way Romney did during the last debate. The vast majority of Romney's attacks constitute misdirection, revisionism, exaggeration or outright falsehood, and I expect that Gingrich will be well-prepared to go for Romney's patrician throat next time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Jennifer Rubin is writing circles around you regarding Newt especially as it relates to Rubio's recent rebuff of Newt:
External Link
For example saying Gingrich uses "suck-uppery" tactics is brilliant. It perfectly captures the kind of man Newt is. I'm sure this suck-uppery tactic was used when he was being paid as a "historian" for Freddie Mac. Thank heavens John Bolton chose more wisely by backing Romney:
Gingrich’s misstep — in essence, forcing Rubio to comment on the race, in which he pledged neutrality — is not unlike Gingrich’s suck-uppery regarding former U.N. ambassador John Bolton. Gingrich declared Bolton to be his choice for secretary of state; Bolton shortly thereafter robustly endorsed Romney, citing his “executive temperament.” Gingrich apparently overestimates his appeal among named conservatives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNowhere is "suck-uppery" on greater display than your daily Jennifer Rubin column.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice try James....but the true meaning of the phrase is clearly lost to your ignorance.
Quick lesson for you: When someone "sucks up" it is usually (make that always) to gain favor.
I want for nothing. I've never met Jennifer Rubin. I just like her writing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSW - the "newt is a suck up" line seems just as weak as all the other arguments being made. There's a bitter streak through all this I can't quite understand.
Is there any doubt that Romney is the moderate guy backed by the establishment in the party and the media? Just like Charlie Crist.
There's a core problem here you can't get past this way.
Gingrich is a conservative. Romney is a moderate.
The party is conservative.
That IS the Romney problem.
(And that's the Daniels problem and the Jeb problem and the Huntsman problem too btw)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich has committed as many conservative apostasies as has Romney, but many of his have come much more recently. The "Romney is Crist" nonsense isn't going to work; read Rubio's statement about the valuable support he received from Romney (and a lot of candidates have said the same). Of course, Gingrich can always fall back on his character, ethics, discipline, and winning personality to attract votes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSuck Uppery is hysterically funny because it's true. Ann Coulter would be so proud.
BTW, Marco Rubio disagrees with you. He thinks Romney is a true Conservative and I agree with Marco Rubio.
Also, John Bolton another very respected man didn't back Newt he backed Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJennifer Rubin's conservative "conversion" occurred even later than Romney's.
Sorry, but a Jean-Francoise Kerry hack like Rubin hardly has credibility evaluating a Republican field.
Says everything about MittBots that they keep trotting out liberals to lecture conservatives though. Don't you people know any conservatives? Can't you at least hire some?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCalm down Teflon. I'm only agreeing with a point of view...not lecturing. Are you lecturing by stating your opinion?
The problem with ideology of the Right wing (like yourself) is that you would do to the Left what they are doing to you..and that is ramming their belief system down the throats of the people who disagree with them.
Conservative moderates like myself and Independents (who are in the majority) think both sides of the far left and far right are pretty scary places and they are the real reason for the division in this country.
Face it Teflon your belief system IS part of the problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd another liberal---oops--RINO---oops again--"conservative moderate" backs Romney.
"Conservative moderate". Lord.
The captcha was 'fifth column'. says it all really. who'd you vote for in the last election SW1?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah-
You answer your question in the post. It seems to me that debate is like chess- it is less about the current move, and more about the followups. If Romney says "Newt criticized Reagan," then Newt's remark would be "Yup, on these specific instances I thought he was not supporting conservative values. You on the other hand criticized him, me and most republicans for not supporting Liberal values. How's that history for you Baby? Boomshackalacka." And then he would do a little "Touch Down Dance" and be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct.
It is the only logical outcome.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah - almost all of these Gingrich attacks feel like they're coming from a crowd of people all talking to themselves. It's like the argument against him is so apparent why do we even have to marshal a strong, considered story. It's all a drive-by shooting. "Newt isn't a Reagan conservative, in fact in a floor speech in 1986 he criticized Reagan!!!"
For conservatives who were around in the 90s and watched Newt take the house ... then fight with Clinton for balanced budgets and welfare reform ... there is absolutely no way you're going to convince me he was somehow working at cross-purposes with Reagan.
Wow that's a tough argument to make.
I'm sure there are really smart arguments against him. Why doesn't some one make them?
Instead of:
- He's not conservative. Really?
- He made money lobbying. Hello ... politician ....
- He one time criticized Reagan. Hmmm ... context please
- He has an angry ex-wife. Yea .... well .. nufff said
- He's too fiesty ... we need a milktoast.
- He has too many ideas. Huh?
- He can't stick to a stump speech and just repeat it endlessly. Like Romney?
- His lieutenants kicked him out. And then did what for the next 15 years exactly?
- Democrats ran him out of town on ethics. Hmmmm I seem to remember quite a few republicans they've done that to.
Seriously .....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis post captures the problem perfectly - the Romney acolytes have no legitimate arguments to make in support of their man and in opposition to Gingrich, so they resort to regurgitations of the calumnies launched at Newt when he was "the most hated man in America" simply because he the Republican champion against the liberal media and the progressive excesses of "the first black president." People who remember the past don't accept your arguments that Gingrich is not, at heart, a conservative, just because he sat with Pelosi "on the couch." Similarly, most people reject the notion that slavish devotion to laissez-faire capitalism is the sine qua non of the "conservative". The consensus at NRO seems to be that the general public is stupid, but your condescending writers generally demonstrate none of the intelligence one would expect to see from folks who make money from punditry.
For a lot of people, Newt was a heroic conservative who was brought down by a poisonous media and complicit government. Mitt? The rich liberal guy who's been running for president for the last decade.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"How many times is Mitt Romney mentioned in Reagan's diaries?" one immediately wonders.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe difference is that Mitt Romney doesn't go around pretending that he was Reagan's indispensable sidekick.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe said he worked with ronald reagan to pass tax cuts and the reagan agenda. That seems like a fact. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
He did not say he was reagan's indispensible side-kick.
This is yet more of this shrill .... bitter stuff.
If you have an argument ... please make it
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt is being disingenuous about his past, but I recall Romney on youtube denouncing Reagan in some Massachusetts race (probably the Senate).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's something to the fact that all of the garbage in Newt's past seems to work in his favor. I suspect part of it is the fact the current president remains a mystery man. Obama is the least known public figure in American history. The wacky birth certificate stuff from Trump got a lot of traction with voters. Not so much for the details, but it underscored the fact Obama is an unexamined man.
In contrast, Newt is no mystery. Everything you want to know about him is right out front. Even pics from his college days are floating around on-line. Newt is the ultimate known quantity. Throw in the fact he is the opposite of urban smooth and you have, for many voters, a real alternative to Obama.
I've made the comparison to Nixon and I think it works well. Nixon was the rough around the edges fixer who could make things work again. After a decade of beautiful people screwing things up and reducing large swaths of society to rubble, Hephaestus looked pretty good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBill, You think The buffoon Trump's birther garbage got a lot of traction with the voters? Doesn't say much for your view of the average voters intelligence, I mean, how stupid do you have to be to buy into that nonsense? Then again, seeing Newt's fall and rise, you might be right. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse