Skip to comments.Pat Buchanan: Reagan White House saw Newt as ‘something of a political opportunist’
Posted on 01/28/2012 4:58:46 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Over the last week, several people that worked in the Reagan administration have come forward and countered former House Speaker Newt Gingrichs claim that he is a Reagan Republican. These people say Gingrich wasnt on board with a lot of what President Ronald Reagan tried to accomplish during his two terms.
And although that claim has been disputed by other Reagan administration officials, former Reagan communications director Pat Buchanan told The McLaughlin Group this weekend that Gingrich wasnt seen favorably by those in the administration.
[I]n the Reagan White House, Newt Gingrich was considered quite frankly by a lot of folks to be something of a political opportunist and who was not trusted and who had played no role whatsoever, Buchanan said. He was a Rockefeller Republican in the great Goldwater-Rockefeller battle, where conservatism came of age.
Later Buchanan reiterated his criticisms of Gingrich, recalling his opposition to Reagans 1986 veto of a South African anti-Apartheid sanctions bill and about how Gingrich used it to score points against Reagan.
I dont think he has a core, Buchanan said. I dont think he has a fundamental, ideological and political core. I think, look he moved, he was a Rockefeller Republican, he comes up I remember meeting him in 78 when he came to town, you know he is knocking Reagan.
Reagan believed that sanctions on South Africa would cripple the economy that the Africans would inherit. So it was a tough decision. Reagan vetoed it. And he scored points off us by you know voting for the sanctions and doing that. I dont think he has an ideological core. I think he moves from one issue to another to another.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That was an intelligent post. Not.
How’s this one? I’ve been carrying around the pain of that day for 14 long years.
He is calling them out. The man is on his game and Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Occidental, or whatever has no answer. Hell, I relish debate from the idiots fresh out of school. They cannot deal with facts.
That’s rich. Thanks for the brief history lesson(s) too, as I went digging with a search engine for clarification, to no avail! ha!
Buchanan disappoints me. I always had alot of respect for him, but not now. He was on Catholic TV the other day praising Newt and said the average voter can identify with him and has a hard time identifying with Willard. Guess Willard has offered Pat a job. I thought he was a better man that this. Guess he didn’t want to go against his crazy ass sister who thought belonging to a cult started by Joe Smith was better than being a Catholic, started by Christ. Bythe way Pat Buchanan endorsed Ron Paul in 2008. So that’s really all you need to know about anti-war Pat.
So as not to be confused by anyone as to whom I was referring to as a rino in post #23...
Here is the facts. Leaving Gingriches personal life aside, which he himself has said has been a disaster in the past, Gingrich was the one at the very tip of the spear and brought a conservative landslide into power in the mid 90s. He then forced the POTUS at that time to accept welfare reform-(which later congresses ripped apart) and Gingrich was at the tip of the spear to submit and balance budgets which resulted in huge economic growth. Then after Lindsey Graham and a few others lead the mutiny against him, they managed to get him removed from office and put in another establishment speaker who promptly went to work lining the pockets of every interest group in DC.
The result is that after Gingrich was hoisted from office, and under GW Bush, the elites spent like drunken sailors to line their personal pockets and it really skyrocketed when the democrats took power back over in the 06 election. In short, after Gingrich, the GOP establishment lost everything that was gained under a Gingrich speakership and managed to squander both houses, losing them back to the democrats. All because of their elite establishment mentality.
Gingrich managed to do what Ronald Reagan did not do. He balanced the budget, got a conservative majority in congress, and managed to get reforms passed. Imagine what could have been if Gingrich was speaker under Ronald Reagan. We would have not had Bob Dole rolling over to the democrats when the first balanced budget amendment came to the floor and maybe, just maybe, we would have never had to suffer this crap that we have the last few years.
If Gingrich looses the nomination, he should run as a third candidate. Screw em..ALL OF THEM!
I was never a big Newt fan, and you can call him whatever you want, but - like Mark Levin said, Newt did more for conservatism during the 80’s-90’s than anyone with the exception of Ronald Reagan - and.... he actually achieved RESULTS!
And we are to be wanting and appreciating an opinion on Newt from Pat Buchanan, because???
Oh, that’s right, we don’t need or care about his opinion.
I remember Buchanan best for the many alliances of convenience he made with anybody, no matter their politics, if they’s add themselves and their crew to his third party organization, the organization he revived from the carcas of Ross Perot’s movement.
Talk about “oportunist”!!!!!
The entire operation was a politcial self-employment scam where Pat’s third party organization kept his food and logging and travel and expenses paid on his 365 day continual Presidential campaign, for a number of years, even when it wasn’t a presidential election year. He never at any time polled anyhwre near striking distance, but that didn’t matter, it kept him “working”, it provided the financial means to keep his face in the public eye. It didn’t hurt either that another large recipient of the organization’s coffers was Pat’s sister, hired to manage his perpretual campaigning. For both Pat and his sister, not a bad “oportunistic” job when you can get it, no?
So again, Newt is the victim of another GOP “pot calling the kettle black”.
Talk about opportunist, PB ran for President with a communist in a scheme to snatch campaign funds!
He may be right. Newt may not have a “core”. As I remember him and Nancy on the sofa and his support for the wrong candidate in NY’s 23rd.....
With that said, Pat, no matter what you say the GOP elite nor msnbc will take you back.
I agree. This election has a subtext of social class, more so than any election since 1960.
The class divisions in the US have become much more ossified since then. JFK and his brothers had a common touch despite their family wealth; the Kennedys never quite fit into the Boston Brahmin set because of their Catholicism and the fact that they were only one generation into money.
The new upper class doesn’t set these sort of obstacles for entry, mainly because so much economic growth and opportunity is outside the US, and the old social distinctions have ceased being relevant.
Obama and Romney were accepted into it because they had the right social capital, and the money to back them. And of course they make sure to repay other members of their class.
What is also different is that the new upper class portrays itself as a meritocracy. Romney talks about starting as an entry-level consultant at Bain, but what he doesn’t say is that his father’s connections got him the job and helped him get the client engagements that would secure him a partnership there in just a few years. Obama portrays himself as an outsider, but his astonishingly connected benefactors were behind him from an early age.
Gone are the days when class was independent of money, and John Cheever and J.P. Marquand could write poignant stories of the sons of upper class patriarchs fallen on hard times.
Gingrich and Santorum (but Gingrich especially) do not have the right social currency. The new upper class likes to see itself as a post-ideological and transnational elite. Talking about the imperatives of the Constitution or the Bible is ridiculous to the new upper class, but they will not come out and say that they think so. They are merely human, so their true beliefs slip out despite their best intentions.
I put Romney in the same boat with Gerald Ford. Never elected vice president and never elected president. Yet people praise him as though he was one of the greatest presidents in history. All I remember about him is “Adjust your thermostats” and “Get a W.I.N. button.” (W.I.N.=Whip inflation now)
Newt ain’t perfect but he’s the best we’ve got in this race.
Et Tu Pat Buchanon.
hey Pat go up yours.
“25 years ago is a lifetime in politics.
Reagan was a democrat 25 years prior to him becoming president.”
True on both counts. However, When RR was a Dem, it was a far cry from today’s stinkers known as Democrats.
Still, I think Newt should be considered for who and what he is today and the liklihood he may have the cajones to lead us out of this mess we’re in.
You desperately need to sharpen your search skills.
A little hint: not history but a Robert Graves novel
Yes, back them, the Dems actually represented blue collar working men.
Also yes, electing Newt, and many Tea-party congress people, would send a strong note to the establishment.
>>> You desperately need to sharpen your search skills.
A little hint: not history but a Robert Graves novel <<<
Ha! I first read about a BBC show titled Claudius from the 70’s. Next was an article on Claudius (lots of executions) and how he met his fate via poisoning, then off to learning about Sejanus the leader of the Praetorian Guards (even more executions,) and then a dead end with Senator Gallo. Nice to learn about a Sen. from New England named Gallo, though, so all in all it wasn’t a total loss.
The “really bad breath” quote did stymy me and I must admit defeat.
I might have been trying to hard to decypher the quote in a literal context.
Ya’ takes your chances...
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.