Jeffrey Lord manages a two-fer in this piece: he slyly smears Elliott Abrams for allegedly prostituting himself for a job in a Romney administration on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. And he misrepresents the Newt speech he defends. Read Lord and you might think Newt cited some other conservative critiques of Reagan in an otherwise positive speech. Lord quotes Newt using the word “failure” only once and suggests it was wrenched out of context. Of course, Gingrich praises Reagan at times (no one is accusing him of being Jim Wright) and does it fulsomely (this is Newt after all), but the accusation of failure is peppered throughout the speech, indeed defines it. Consider this near the opening:
My second special order will outline a proposed transnational strategy for freedom and the
institutional and doctrinal changes it will require. The central difficulties in proposition two
are essentially intellectual, managerial, and political. That is, once we accept the reality in
proposition 1 of the Soviet empire, the Communist Cuban colonial army, and a transnational
strategy for tyranny, our problems in dealing with that, in responding to it are essentially
problems of intellect, problems of management, and problems of policies.
Proposition 3, measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge
the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic fundamental change
in strategy will continue to fail.
Then this:
President Reagan knows all this. He ranks with Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy,
and Nixon in trying to focus attention on the Soviet empire and in trying to protect freedom.
Yet President Reagan is clearly failing.
And then this:
Sincere, decent, committed anti-Communist Members of the House and Senate who
question $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan freedom fighters and ask in vain for a
strategy are fundamentally right. The Reagan administration has a huge gap between its
President’s correct visionary warnings of the transnational Soviet empire and the rest of the
executive branch’s incorrect, ineffective fumblings and inadequacies.
The burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan; he is the
President.
And this:
Second, the burden must be on his White House staff, which has systematically failed again
and again for 5 years now to understand that the real problems of developing a
transnational strategy for freedom of confronting the Soviet empire and the Cuban colonial
army are problems much more fundamental than a Reagan speech, much more difficult
than a Pat Buchanan editorial, much more difficult than once again using the CIA to
ineffectively manage to do the best it can when the best it can is simply not good enough. I
say this not as in any way a comment on any personality but on an institutional crisis of the
first order about American Government and the American Government’s inability as an
institution to meet the challenge of the Soviet empire.
Now, of all the reasons not to support Newt, this is far down the list, if it makes the list at all. But as Elliott said in his piece, this speech was an attack on the Reagan administration, at a time when it was involved in a brawl with Democrats over Latin America policy. It was an attack not just from the right, but from above–a grandiose, self-impressed performance calling (of course) “for revolution in American ideas, in American political understanding, in American policies, in American institutions” to match the Soviet threat. Elliott didn’t write the piece for us at the request of the Romney campaign. He wanted to push back against Gingrich’s exaggerations. Elliott worked closely with congressional Republicans in this period and knew Gingrich wasn’t a go-to guy on this stuff and occasionally directed his vitriolic rhetoric at Reagan, something he never mentions on the campaign trail. You can read it in all its glory here. (I suspect Newt’s fans will find it unerringly brilliant, while others will roll their eyes.) Gingrich spokesman Joe DeSantis called on NR today to retract Elliott’s piece. In light of all the above, I call on Joe DeSantis to retract his call for a retraction.
Translation: "blah blah blah (I'm for Mitt) ... blah blah blah (I'm for Mitt) ...
We get it, already. But you guys should really get outside the Beltway more. You are completely out of touch with heartland America.
Obama victus est.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell THAT'S a well-reasoned refutation of Mr. Lowry's argument . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYa, b/c if you aren't for Gingrich you have to be for Romney!! Uh, unless of course you aren't for either one but is that really possible? Ya, it is. I am not for Romney but I sure ain't for Gingrich. I am planning to vote for Santorum, come what may.
Gingrich is as much an establishment elite as he has tried to make Romney out to be (minus the establishment part, maybe). The guy has been in politics for nearly 30 years and has said and done things that are questionable at best and downright idiotic at worst. He may be good at debates but his actions show he isn't as conservative as he pretends to be. I appreciate this article b/c when Lord's rebuttal of Abrams' article came out, I had a hard time believing everything Lord was saying purely b/c he stated he had worked under Gingrich for a number of years. Regardless of what people say Gingrich's intentions were (whether he was trying to get Reagan to move farther right or whatever), the point is that Gingrich is criticizing Reagan and that's all Abrams has ever said Gingrich was doing - being critical.
Gingrich is a big govt guy, despite what he says and if he's elected those who supported him will come to realize that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only email I want to get from NRO from this moment on is the press release that announces when an actual adult is hired to run the place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only email I want to get from NRO from this moment on is the press release that announces when an actual adult is hired to run the place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe captcha crap is just the icing on the poo-pie that Buckley's home has become...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHa!
Yes, back in Buckley's day there weren't these captchas. Because there weren't reader comments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCall the cops! Someone has detained trotter against his will and is forcing him to read NRO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you ever going to give it a rest? We get it. You hate Newt and anyone who supports him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJeffrey Lord provided the Newt speech in it's entirety in his recent piece. It's clear that the reference was not aimed towards President Reagan, rather his administration.
Could there be a motive behind Mr. Abrams insulting and misleading article? Is there a motive behind Mr. Lpwry's full-throated defense of Mr. Abrams? I believe the answer is yes on both counts and the motives are malignant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo was Ronald Reagan so stupid that he didn't know what his administration policy was? If so, wouldn't someone who cared about Reagan and his policy take it up with Reagan himself, rather than in public?
BTW the speech reads like some pompous Master's thesis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou obviously have not read the Lord article. The most curious thing about it was that he did not provide the entire Gingrich speech, despite alleging that he had a copy. Instead, he ironically criticized Abrams for selecting excerpts, and then proceeded to select (just) two excerpts from it himself. The first provided some additional context, but ultimately confirmed what Abrams had written. The second was supposed to make readers think that ABC news has held a vendetta for 26 years that it ultimately visited upon Newt's head by airing the interview of his second wife on the eve of the SC election.
Lord should have released the entire speech, and the fact that he did not speaks volumes, as does the fact that the best selection he could cite against Abrams ultimately confirmed what Abrams had said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis came straight from Newt's Special Order:
"The burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan; he is the President."
How, exactly, was that NOT aimed towards Reagan?
BTW, Lowry included a link to the entire Special Order in his post...it just doesn't work because it includes an extra "http://" at the beginning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's an inane observation. Aren't Gingrich boosters angling for a job in his administration? Childish style of argument. After how it went last time I seriously doubt Abrams will be appointed to anything ever in a future Republican administration. Those are the breaks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs the above poster clearly shows, though he/she/it didn't have that intention, it's now not only a fight between the Reagan and Rockefeller wings of the GOP, it's a culture war as well.
Note that there are no facts whatsoever in the post. Like Old Fan, there's nothing but innuendo and baseless speculation to be found.
"Aren't Gingrich boosters angling for a job in his administration?". A speculation with no facts and no answer. Who are the boosters and what evidence do you have that they are after precisely what you think they are 'after'?
You see, people without honor or solid comittments to accurate reasoning just assume that everyone is exactly like them. Since their friends are like them, they assume the entire world is. That there are real people with real discipline doesn't make sense to folks like"WinstonSmith9".
Because they are con men at heart, they figure everyone else is one, too, and the only difference is that the other people are just lying about their intentions.
This person is only here, trying to disrupt a Republican Establishment venue (formerly a conservative one), because he's not good at it yet. The people at HuffPo or Daily Kos would eclipse him since they've driven the personal attack, Alinsky methods to grand new heights.
Our little troll has a lot to learn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy else to put your reputation on the line and print outright lies about Gingrich during Reagan administration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a motive and/or reward without a doubt!
I totally agree with you, MNMIKE.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe cannibals (thank you Sarah palin for accurately characterizing them!) are sickening. Now they are showing their disappearing .....parts of male anatomy ( I was prevented from naming it!!) !!! Where were they when when it was the time to have them????
If there was a hint of any disrespect towards "Ronnie" from Newt Nancy Reagan wouldn't take very kindly. Those vultures in republican establishment who despised Ronald Reagan (only now they are embracing him and his legacy for obvious reasons) are showing their real colors at last. Something we, grass roots ordinary Americans knew all along and that is why we are fighting their anointed one.
Nobody who sesrved during Reagan administration and saw the situation first hand EVER said anyhting negative about Newt who created a special group rotating on regular basis to give intervews at the Capital to the press at times as late as 9pm to protect and push Reagan's agenda.
If I despize some demoraps I despize the republican establishment even more...notice how all the losers came out of their rat holes- Bob (the ED commercial)Dole, McCain....
I agree with you- with all the losers now coming out to support the cunnibals (thanks you Sarah Palin for accutarely naming them) - never thought I will see such "unity" among republicans. Where was it when we needed it? No, when our country needed it!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a disgrace we have in the face of republican party , they fail to see how despised they are by the majority of the base....
Anyone they fighting against -I am for!
Isn't that the same speech where Gingrich informs us that he was an organizer for Rockefeller in the South?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Sincere, decent, committed anti-Communist Members of the House and Senate who
question $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan freedom fighters and ask in vain for a
strategy are fundamentally right."
Obviously this is in retrospect, but it makes me like Newt more, not less. The contras were no saints--nobody is, but they certainly weren't--and their relevance to our foreign policy was dubious at best.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse