Skip to comments.Elliot Abrams Caught Misleading on Newt (Lying about Newt for Romney)
Posted on 01/27/2012 10:17:19 AM PST by KansasGirl
As Ronald Reagan used to say: Well. Yesterday we took note of former Reagan State Department official Elliott Abrams' piece over at NRO that went after Newt Gingrich on his relationship with Reagan. While voting regularly with Reagan as a young congressman from Georgia, Gingrich, claimed Abrams, "often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides and his policies to defeat Communism." Abrams then goes on to cite " a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986." Or sort of cites it. In fact, I'm sorry to say, what appears to be going on here is that Elliott Abrams, a considerably admirable public servant and a very smart guy, has been swept up in the GOP Establishment's Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries. He is even being accused of trolling for a job in a Romney administration. No way!!!! Really????
So now I've read the Gingrich speech that is the source of all the hoopla. All seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form. I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams. Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says:
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Now maybe Jeff Lords can turn his insight into an examination of his boss’s Newt-bashing.
How many of those organized to release anti-Newt material on Black-Thursday will end up with egg on their lying faces?
Were their actions the result of love/money or blackmail?
Let me see misleading and outright lying ads, and a health care plan. Sound like anybody else you know?
Yes, the damage is done. It is unforgivable, imo. Newt was one of Reagan’s biggest defenders and they smear him as anti-Reagan. LIARS!
Was it just me, or did Romney’s defense of ORomneycare last night sound just like Obama’s defense of Obamacare?
Greta is riding on Newt's bus today and her show tonight will feature Newt.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
I have difficulty understand why the anti-Newt people would get involved in a concerted effort to torpedo a candidate with lies. Could you expand a bit on the "blackmail" idea. Who would be blackmailing whom?
I have wondered if they are afraid of Newt because he probably knows "too much."
So I’m guessing Drudge has this up with a siren, right?
It wasn’t just you.
Similarly, Ann Coulter’s defense of Romneycare last night (on her Twitter feed) was just like Paul Begala’s defense of Obamacare.
Newt advises GHWB not to follow in Reagan's footsteps, because he will lose, and because "the country has changed."
Love/hate: It is no secret the Newt upended the establishment in DC last time he was there. Yes, he knows where the bodies are buried. Michael Reagan went into great detail yesterday of the conflict between the Goldwater/Rockefeller republicans. Also * above
There is always so many “relationships” in politics. Who's sleeping to the top with whom. Who's not what they profess to be. Always opens itself to blackmail. Clinton's extra activities were most damaging which of our enemies knew and could blackmail him into a conflicting action for our country. The lobbying also plays here.
My question is, why is anything coming out of the media being accepted as fact? I see it here on FR so damn often ( I have even been guilty ) the media are lying whores, period.....as my gramps used to say, “ On the ladder of morality, a reporter is two rungs below a pimp. You see, a pimp would never sell his mother, and a pimp would never sell his sister, but a reporter would sell both to get a story.”... gramps was smart
JOKE OF THE DAY:
The top two Republican candidates are Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
It’s not funny, though...it’s perverse.
When the Republican establishment resort to bald-faced lies, the rubicon has been crossed. I don’t see any way that the GOP is going to be able to put this humpty-dumpty back together if they’re successful in pushing Romney across the finish line. They’ve irreversibly poisoned the well. I predict a massive backlash against Romney if he becomes the candidate and a catastrophe in November.
What venue/link can viewers see Michael Reagan discuss the conflict between the Goldwater/Rockefeller republicans?
I am very disappointed in Drudge. Ann Coulter has been drifting into some strange territory for some time, but I’ve never seen Drudge push lies like this before.
Someone posted a thread last night saying that Drudge had posted Michael Reagan’s comments, but when I went there I couldn’t find them. But the lies were still up at the top.
Now Drudge has moved the anti-Newt stuff down his page, but he’s still not admitting that Eliot Abrams lied.
All these Skull and Bone morons are lying bastards.
We blame the GOP Establishment for relentlessly pushing Romney down our throats. And we also have noted the ideological similarities between the Alinskyites Obama and Romney.
Without getting conspiratorial, I think it’s worth considering who might be behind the Establishments of both parties.
Although Soros is routinely flogged, I don’t think he has the influence that some conservatives attribute to him. Nor is there a clear motive for the GOP and Dems to help Soros, even in the presence of financial incentives.
But there is a clear motive for the GOP and Dems to court China. Chinese officials have almost certainly made their preferences regarding the candidates known.
Drudge didn’t put Michael Reagan’s dispute of the liberal lies up. It was a paid Newsmax ad!
I confess to buying into Abrams story. I repent too.
What they are doing to Newt Gingrich is nothing short of DESPICABLE!
HINT: Check romney financial record....There’s a few posts tying his investments that he doesn’t know he owns into China
Also found links between Bain and Bilderberg....Does that merit foilware?
If anything you could say Newt was attacking Reagan from the right in this speech. Maybe his new tagline should be “Newt Gingrich: Even MORE Conservative than Reagan.”
He was on Megin Kelly program yesterday. There may be a link at the FOX. My computer is so slow, I usually just hang around FR alot or I’d go look.
BECAUSE, UNLIKE MANY, I'M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER MR. GINGRICH and RONALD REAGAN VERY WELL, AND KNOW THAT THIS RECENT "DUMP" IS ...BULLSHIT!
The post is well-deserving of a bookmark for the permanent record of Mr. Gingrich.
Why wouldn’t Bain and Bilderberg be linked? Their agenda for companies (globalize, outsource non-core functional areas, lean process) is basically the Bilderberg agenda for countries. Bain courts the C-suite, and it’s the multinational corporation C-suite that participates in groups such as Bilderberg and World Economic Forum.
Much of what freepers have found on the relationship has been recently scrubbed.....Just like BO’s records. But a gal who’s last name is pronouced Ga Deeeesh seems to be the missing link between Mitt and B’berg.
It doesn’t mean much to me cause I don’t even balance my checkbook, but if it’s relavent to the business community guess you need to get the information to them. )Freepmail maggie f for the information)
Somebody needs to send this to Charles Krauthammer!
Someone claimed that Drudge linked to it. But the moderators closed the thread, because there was already a thread pointing to the Reagan piece. Anyway, if Drudge linked to it, he shortly after pulled the link.
Thx much for that...vy good!
I think there should be a running master list of all of those participating in this smear campaign, starting with:
At the heart of both parties’ establishments is the quest for money and power, and that has resulted in a globalist outlook.
What is a globalist?
In the context used here, American power players and Wall Street interests have dominated international commerce and established monetary structures in a global network that requires military strength projected worldwide as protection from Third World aggression. It is commonly referred to in the media as ‘protecting US interests overseas’, but has grown far beyond that in reality as huge international conglomerates have developed and moved American jobs overseas. These conglomerates have become more international than American, going where the labor is cheap but the risks great. The requirement for security is escalating and the American people are paying for that through their taxes without any residual benefit to themselves. Globalists see themselves as being citizens of the world and don’t care about anyone’s rights.
It has in the past been neither conservative nor liberal in orientation and both Democrats and Republicans have been involved over the decades.
Basically, it is all about money and power.
The last thing that either political group wants is for conservatives with Bibles and guns asserting their God-given rights and demanding that Washington, D.C., changes how it does business.
So who else beside Bilderberg is involved? Soros? ????
Why would a conservative who should know by now the manipulative tactics of the media believe that a video clip cut off practically in mid-sentence was not being used to mislead? See the full video here:
Not buying that theory. Most of our labor has gone to China or India I think, and our military isn’t going to be able to do anything to protect companies in places like China if those countries decide to seize them. The military build-up around the world is much more a residual effect of the Cold War. It just wouldn’t be human nature to withdraw from all that territory unilaterally, except for the kind of liberal who would give up the Panama Canal. We have international free trade because producers will always be looking to lower costs and find new markets. Free trade means Americans have to study and work harder to compete and I don’t see anything wrong with that.
I think this is an ideological war within the party between the Rockefeller moderates and the Goldwater conservatives, plain and simple. It is the tax-hikers like Bush, Sr. and Dole and the social liberals who want no criticism against abortion or gays who are driving the anti-Newt campaign. Romney is one of them and Newt is not. I think this wing has become more and more socially liberal over the years, and gay marriage could become a huge dividing line in the party.
I'm not into conspiracies, though I certainly perceive one behind the emergence and promotion of BHO2, who is an anti-globalist (communist). Globalism is real, and for more information a good read is the book “The Pentagon's New Map” (2004), by Thomas Barnett, a former DOD policy wonk.
What I see happening in this nation is a core group of people with little in the way of Judeo/Christian morality or allegiance to the United States, using our government to enrich themselves. Among them are those who unfortunately see the United States and its Constitution thwarting the institution of a global government via the United Nations.
I believe this last statement to be true, BUT establishing a global government is an enormous undertaking and by its nature would be totalitarian and oppressive in operation and it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
The specter of a worldwide economic collapse is certain, and therein lies the danger. Our economy will follow suit, as it is closely interconnected with Europe's and the resulting chaos of a collapse will provide an opening for dictatorship and tyranny. We must be on our guard, because a dictatorship and tyranny is not inevitable in America, where the concept of God-given rights exists.
I strongly suggest you look over Thomas Barnett’s book, “The Pentagon’s New Map” (2004), written when Barnett was working as a policy wonk for GW Bush’s Department of Defense.
He goes into detail about the need for a military defense of aligned nations to promote globalism as the Cold War ceased to be a factor world wide. Barnett was working on a new goal for the Navy when 9/11 occurred, and that tragedy changed the military’s global projection of power post 2000.
Now you are in Ron Paul territory.
Try getting down on your knees and praying quietly to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and ask Him to see to it that Newt wins the election.
That sounds farmilar.....GG