Posted on 01/25/2012 9:52:02 AM PST by T. Jefferson
In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.
The claims are misleading at best. In the Reagan years I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.
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.” “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.”
Gingrich’s called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in Munich.”
Far from becoming a reliable voice for Reagan policy and the struggle against the Soviets, Gingrich took on Reagan and his administration. It appears to be a habit: He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
That was essentially what the book Reagan’s Secret War covered
Thank you, Josh. Newt and Jesse Helms were among the truest bluest supporters of the Gipper. These Romney people are amazing liars.
Of course this was written by the noted “leftist” Eliot Abrams
for the record this is sarcasm
... or, a liberal Democrat until he married Podhoretz's step-daughter.
That's all that matters now.
Reagan’s Young Lieutenant. Gingrich a star on Reagan team...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2837275/posts
The NR article incensed me to the degree that I read every comment to the NR article. They were almost equally pro- and anti-Newt. I found the pro-Newt comments to be fact-based and rational and the anti-Newt comments to be the opposite, not because of my views, but because of the prevalence of ad hominem and judgmental comments from the anti-Newters. One of the first comments was the best, in my view. It addressed likely bias on Abrams part. Abrams was in Jim Baker's circle. Baker and his group detested Newt. Thirty years later, they still nurse a grudge.
The strength of opinion about Newt is really off the charts. Many of those opposed to him are more vitriolic than I could imagine they ever could be toward Democrats. This is all the more reason why they must be defeated.
You’re very welcome. It’s an important article - pass it on/around if you can.
If you object to being treated like an idiot, stop acting like one.
And then when President Newt, turns out to be much more like Nixon/Bush then Reagan, you all will be racing around here whining hysterically about him
Now Reagan is now not so perfect. And Newt will be even worse because he will govern to the left of Reagan?
I'm confused.
And then when President Newt, turns out to be much more like Nixon/Bush then Reagan, you all will be racing around here whining hysterically about him
Now Reagan is now not so perfect. And Newt will be even worse because he will govern to the left of Reagan?
I'm confused.
Speaking of idiots, I see you still haven’t figured out how to make your comments as “replies” to posts, something I believe every other freeper knows how to do.
Maybe you should figure that out before you embarrass yourself calling other people names.
Of course this was written by the noted “leftist” Eliot AbramsYes, Abrams is a conservative, or more precisely a neoconservative, and while I do not support neoconservative foreign policy I respect Abrams for his foreign policy analysis and his commitment to the analytic process, but do you know what's really conservative?--or what really serves the cause of conservatism?--supporting even with your silence the only movement conservative candidate available to us at the moment, which would be Gingrich, and not lending your good name to a group of editors committed to the candidacy of the man whose only achievement as a failed one term governor is a program of policy functionally identical to ObamaCare, viz. RomneyCare.
for the record this is sarcasm.It's always a shame to have to explain a joke. Keep working on it. It's all in the delivery.
I clearly like that observation. None of us are right all the time and there are always those who will remind us when we have been wrong.
Well if you are not an idiot, why do you spend so much time posting like one?
Nice comeback. What’s next? “I know you are but what am I?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.