Bombshell from National Review and Drudge makes Newt Gingrich’s Reagan conservatism claim look phony

After his great win in South Carolina, his campaign now according to various polls out of Florida today show Newt Gingrich in a nosedive.  Though I love Newt’s clear and forceful articulation of conservatism, it’s things like this and other things he has said in the past that make me doubtful of anything he says.  I am alluding to an article given by Elliot Abrams to National Review.  Mr. Adams worked in the Reagan adminstration and cited a very key time in our nation’s history and Reagan’s presidency where one of Reagan’s chief critics was Newt Gingrich.

But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.

But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Some other notables highlighted by Drudge are that in 1983, Gingrich stated that Reagan was responsible for national decay and in 1988, Gingrich stated that if George H.W. Bush ran as a continuation of Reaganism he would lose.

I thought Newt wouldn’t be able to win a general election because women wouldn’t vote for him because of his infidelities.  However, this recent revelation is something that just cannot be ignored.  This is just as bad as Mitt Romney changing political positions he has taken in the past.  When throwing support behind a presidential candidate I always look at the man, character and convictions first.  This is why I really wanted Rick Perry to get the nomination.  He had all that plus the record of accomplishments.

For all the faults that both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have, though I have serious issues with where Romney has stood and flipped on over the years, he is a solid individual (exception being political convictions).  He is a generous charitable giver by looking at his tax returns, earned his success with hard work, and doesn’t have all the personal baggage of marital infidelity.  I admire that.  Sure, we can be ticked off at the establishment for their gutless watering down of conservative principles and fiddling around while our country burns.  We can continue to change Washington by nominating and electing solid conservative candidates for Congress to keep Mitt Romney in check should he become president.  It does look like Mitt Romney will win Florida and like the nomination unless Newt has a standing ovation moment tomorrow night.  However, given the fact that Marco Rubio scolded Gingrich for immigration ads that Gingrich has been running and Romney hammering Gingrich on his Freddie Mac ties, this looks like it is not going to turn out well for Gingrich.  The Rubio remarks will really hurt Gingrich’s chances. Not to mention that Romney will no doubt use this and some other potent ammunition tomorrow night in the final debate for Florida.

However this shakes out,  bottom line conservatives should get behind wholeheartedly whoever the nominee winds up being.  Staying home in 2012 means casting a half vote for President Obama.  I’m willing to give Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt if he does get the nomination.  That may make some people in here angry and it’s okay to disagree with me.   I would also hope that Mitt has received the message that we want a fighter who will take on President Obama with some passion and purpose, inspiring the GOP.  We cannot have a wimpy candidate for this election.  I don’t want to go through a repeat of a wimpy candidate like we had last time not taking the fight to Obama.  We also cannot afford to not show up in November.  That is what President Obama is counting on.

P.S.  Sure wish Mitch Daniels had run for President.



Get Alerts