Skip to comments.RUSH: Was Elliott Abrams Deceived on Newt?
Posted on 01/28/2012 4:00:15 AM PST by Yosemitest
RUSH: I mentioned his name yesterday --
Jeffrey Lord, who worked in the White House at the time, had not heard any of this stuff.
So he did some research and has written a piece that is now in the American Spectator, The Spectacle blog.
I just got it. It prints out six pages, and I have not had a chance to read the whole thing,
but it seems like Elliott Abrams has been had.
It seems like Elliott Abrams had a piece at National Review really ripping into Newt, was spoon-fed some out-of-context stuff.
"And who -- quite specifically -- did he single out for criticism?
You guessed it: ABC News.
"Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan's policies towards the Soviets are 'inadequate and will ultimately fail,'"
and this is the paragraph I read to you at first that references Jeane Kirkpatrick, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer
that Newt references without his words.
"In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern, prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Reagan's then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick,
not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Kristol and the late-Mondale aide turned conservative Krauthammer,
that Reagan's anti-Communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona.
"The entire [Newt] speech focused on suggestions of how to do just that --
to effectively institutionalize Reagan's conservative beliefs in the government.
Is Abrams seriously accusing Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan?
Of spewing 'insulting rhetoric' at a president everyone in Washington knew they staunchly supported?
Really? Of course not.
But ... Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol."
This is good news to get play on Rush’s show. It should undo most of the damage done by Drudge and maybe reverse the negative momentum. Not too sure why Rush ends that transcript reminding all of us that Santorum won the debate. He won it since no one was kicking his a** all day.
We ought to pray that Newt wins the nomination in Florida. This ugly nomination process is utterly disturbing and disgraceful. Lets get a Romney slap-down and coast our way into victory.
We have to get off of the defense and start up the offensive momentum again but it’s pretty difficult with all the money being poured into the Romney offense. I don’t think, even with the truth as our ally, we’re going to be able to pull of a Florida win. At this point, I want to make Romney pay heavily for every inch of ground that he takes between now and the convention. I want his war chest empty after Super Tuesday.
Ah sorry I will not be sold more deception. Elliot Abrams was ‘serving’ US in the White House, when Newt spoke on the House floor. Now if Abrams is senile and signed off on what some flack put in front of him, then retire him out so he does no more harm.
Abrams needs to issue a public correction and apology ASAP!
remind me of Palin’s first national interview after being picked for VP. The interviewer asked her a question using fake quotes from her
Gross injustice from the media giants. What has taken place this past week is nothing more that an deliberate attempt to destroy a human being. People should be responsible for their words when hey write and speak untruths. I had to take a break from Rush. He really has let me down. I pray Newt can overcome this.
This has caused a lot of damage to Newt’s campaign.
Gross injustice from the media giants. What has taken place this past week is nothing more that an deliberate attempt to destroy a human being. People should be responsible for their words when they write and speak untruths. I had to take a break from Rush. He really has let me down. I pray Newt can overcome this.
Rush was right in there on Thursday piling on Newt with some of these bogus charges. And he was laughing all the way through. He’s for Romney no doubt, and would be happy to see Newt implode.
Rush:”I wasn’t trying to defend Newt, as AP said.”
Why not show some guts, you Turd, and support the man.
Rush is nothing more than another gutless wonder. He can’t say enough about Rick Santorum? A good and decent man. Newt is well over 50% if Santorum drops out.
Folks, the world is upside down and crazy since Thursday in my mind. Newt is anti-REagan? And the Washington establishment is sitting back and not coming our for the man.
Shame on you all. Shame on you Krauthammer. You were there.
They think we're stupid
The problem is not with us Freepers as not only are we NOT stoooopid and can see right thru the thin veneer of these ad hominem attacks but realize where it's coming from and why...
The PROBLEM is that the majority of Republicans are not as informed as we are and much like the bottom-feeding, hate-monger Mittens and the elitist RINO, establishment did in Iowa, their attacks in Florida are taking a toll on Newt and it doesn't look good for the "home team."
I'm visiting here in Clearwater and since I arrived 3 weeks ago, there has been an incessant and non-stop airing (radio and tv) of vitriol and hit pieces (posing as ads) against Newt.
Mittens has deep pockets and will stoop to any level to win in Fl as this appears to be his (and Newt's) Waterloo.
Rush is all over the place on issues
He has to fill up 3 hours and uses anything he can to do it and then later claims I told you so
I got tired of his BS back in 1998 when I got access to the internet and could get all the news and much earlier without depending on him
Yea. He’s been stale for quite some time. But so have a few others.
Here’s my list, in order of preference. It could be adjusted a little, depending on my mood.
“Not too sure why Rush ends that transcript reminding all of us that Santorum won the debate”
It seems that Rush—whether he knows it or not—is still acting as part of the anti-Newt agenda. One of the current strategies is to use Santorum to split the vote (if Santorum drops out most of his support goes to Gingrich in a Florida victory).
For Rush to give Santorum a bump is to give Santorum more reason not to quit. So the potential useful idiots in this game include both Rush and Santorum.
During the 80s, Willard was a democrat. This is amazingly ridiculous, more so coming from him.
"Eliot Abrams has impeccable credentials. He is beyond reproach..." If you heard that and weren't counting your spoons, I have a bridge to sell you.
The day before he kept repeating how surprised he was that Newt said this bad stuff about Reagan. He used Fred Thompson and others as examples of why he doesn't endorse, asking what they think now that they have heard all these quotes, quotes that are now shown to be cherry picked and out of context.
Either his show prep was bad, his loyalties conflicted, or he has simply lost his touch. To discover how wrong Rush was, all you had to do was read the articles posted on FR before Rush spoke so negatively about Newt one day earlier.
I've always defended Rush before, he now has me wondering about his core beliefs. His inability or unwillingness to rail against Romney early on, and often has been more than disappointing. Romney has not been a conservative in the past, has been running a scorched earth negative campaign from the beginning, and if he wins he will bring down everything that Rush has claimed to be for.
He's been more disappointing to conservatives in the past month than I can express.
I hope that the tea party is getting mobolized fast in Florida! If we have any chance of beating the establishment it has to start here and at the grassroots level!!!
Go FLORIDA TEA PARTY!! Do it for all of us! Do it for the cause! I do believe we are seeing something far bigger taking place than just a primary...but FLORIDA WE THE PEOPLE need you to RISE UP!!! This is an important moment in the struggle ahead!
I remember watching a televised press conference the first President Bush had. Some reporter asked a stupid question and President Bush basically told him that only an idiot would ask a question like that. I could feel the anger in my living room from the old media reporters. The old media didn’t just go after him because he was a Republican, they went after him because he insulted one of the kingmakers. President Bush went from a 90+% approval rating to losing a bid for a second term. The old media certainly shills for the Democrats, but if you insult them, and telling the truth about their shilling for the Democrats is insulting to them, they will spend every waking hour trying to destroy you. They are arrogant and they believe that they’re the kingmakers. They want the Republicans to fear them. Our free and impartial press, freely and impartially shilling for the Democrats with absolutely no self-examination. Any advertiser sponsoring the old media should only be paying 10% of what they’re billed.
I agree. Rush helped spread these Newt smears and now he is trying to reconcile with Newt supporters. I don’t trust Rush anymore. Oh well, with Romney as the nominee I have no reason to listen because I really just don’t care anymore. I am feeling disillusioned. I no longer believe that the GOP is the party of smaller Gov’t. Otherwise, why would they be pushing a candidate like Romney?
It says a lot that Rush Limbaugh had to publicize research that should have been done by the Washington Times, Washington Post, and the capital bureaus of other major national newspapers. It's not like Newt Gingrich's speeches in the Congressional Record were classified information. This was all there for anyone to find who cared to fact-check by visiting a library and looking at hard-copy records of the speeches.
This is why sound-bite journalism is dangerous. TV has a place, but long-form articles existed for a reason, and a big part of the reason was so reporters could check out allegations.
Since there's probably no future for print newspapers, I sincerely hope crowdsourcing and internet media will be successful at retaining the “long form” journalism that was once a major purpose for newspapers, namely, digging into stuff and doing fact-checking.
Please be careful with guesses that Santorum supporters are secret Mittbots. Many of us are not, but you are right — it does seem obvious that some in the national Republican Party leadership are trying to use Christian conservatives to split the anti-Romney vote.
Reality is that Christian conservatives have a long and bad history of naivete about the realities of politics, and our emphasis on high standards sometimes results in making perfect into the enemy of the good, with the result that horrible candidates win because politically active Christians backed somebody who couldn't win.
That's not a problem for me here in Missouri where Santorum is on the nonbinding primary ballot a week and a half from now, but Gingrich isn't. I can't think of any good reason why an evangelical or a conservative Roman Catholic in Missouri shouldn't vote for Santorum — we in Missouri won't be splitting anyone’s votes since Gingrich isn't on the ballot.
Who would you like us to vote for? Romney? Paul? One of the withdrawn candidates?
Rush Limbaugh's brother, David Limbaugh, is endorsing Santorum and next week Friday is speaking at the Texas County Lincoln Day Dinner, which is one county away from me and immediately south of Fort Leonard Wood. That's four days before the nonbinding Missouri primary.
This thread and another one today have made me decide I'm probably going to attend the Texas County event after all. Redistricting divided our rapidly growing county into three state representative districts and I've got a Texas County candidate asking me to cover him since some of my readers are now in the district for which he is running. I guess I now can tell him even if I didn't think his state rep race was important enough to drive down there, David Limbaugh's endorsement of Santorum is worth the drive.
If any other media are present I'll post a link on Free Republic to their article on David Limbaugh's speech and anything he says about Santorum/Gingrich/Romney. If I'm the only reporter present or if I think the other media totally missed the story, I'll post my own article on Free Republic unless the site owners object. I definitely **DO NOT** want to be accused of Gingrich-bashing or lose my account over accurately reporting what Rush Limbaugh's brother may say in my own back yard.
Gingrich was saying the same thing as Abrams's father-in-law, Norman Podhoretz, at the time, so there's some deception or disingenousness involved on his own part.
Elliot Abrams is very familiar with the position Newt represented at the time, and it's not exactly what he wants readers to assume it to be, and what deception there is is most likely his own and conscious.
On the other hand, few people would probably want Podhoretz for president, so maybe there's some sense after all in Abrams's attack (and nobody outside can really say for sure how Elliot might actually feel about Norman).
The statement that Newt's comments showed him to be reliably conservative in attacking Reagan from the right is a little iffy, though. In one way, there may be some truth in it, Newt was being more Reaganite than Ron Reagan.
But Newt's criticisms also showed some grandstanding and a desire to show off that might come out in other ways. There were plenty of Republican congressmen who had qualms about what Reagan was doing who didn't showboat as Newt did.
Finally some commonsense.
Rush was waving the bloody shirt in victory after his performance on Bloody Thursday.
Rush did his dirty work on Thursday, and this is how he rubbed our faces in it, he knew what he was doing, he teased us with the fact that he knew the truth, and then tossed the truth into the trash.
RUSH (on Bloody Thursday) But Ive got a blog here, guy named Dan Riehl. He claims that the video of Newt bashing Reagan is bogus, this 1988 audio that we played of Newt saying that Reagans wrong.
Heres the little blog post. Theres a short excerpt of a 1988 C-SPAN video purportedly showing Newt Gingrich bashing Reagan when talking about how Bush, Sr. should run his campaign, should not run as more Reagan, but do something new. Riehl writes, As I suspected, its edited to give a false impression. What you dont see is immediately after when Gingrich praises Reaganism and the Reagan platform. If you cant watch it all, it begins at about 2:30 in to confirm its the same segment. Its the minute or two afterward you also need to hear to understand that Newt wasnt bashing Reagan at all. He was merely saying, Bush isnt Reagan and the GOP needs something new to sell.
So I knew something like this was gonna happen. Its not really that its been doctored, but that it has been selectively chosen from. So I sent it up to Cookie cause I cant listen to it, I didnt have the time to listen it. Cookie said, Look, this thing is an hour long. Im sure he praises Reagan at some point or another, but I wouldnt say its doctored. So my expert says its not doctored. The blogger says its been selectively edited or chosen. So I just wanted to get it out there. I think Cookie is protesting having to listen to an hour of Newt, basically, in order to find (laughing) what I asked her to find. He-he-he-he-he-he.
RUSH: Cookie is defiant. Shes giving me a minute and a half after of the Newt bite and shes insistent that nobodys doctored this and nobodys changed and Ive read the transcript, thats true. Newt still says look, the eighties were great but we gotta look forward, people people care about the future, da-da-da-da-da. He praises Reagan in the bite, which the first the the excerpted bite doesnt include any of but it doesnt change the fact that while praising Reaganism, he still says to George Bush, you youre wasting your time if you campaign on Reaganism. Nobody wants more of the past. We want to look forward, nothing changes about that. So the the Cookster was right.
Newt was a part of the Reagan revolution, he was handed the torch as it passed from Goldwater, to Reagan, to Newt Gingrich.
Romney was anti-Reagan, and anti-Republican, anti-conservative, and pro-democrat, abortion, homosexual agenda, and the rest of it.
Instead of running an a stealth anti-Newt campaign, why don’t you just come out and promote Mitt Romney straight up?
... and dropped it?
Instead of running an a stealth anti-Newt campaign, why dont you just come out and promote Mitt Romney straight up?
Like a lot of people I have reservations about Newt. I have reservations about Mitt, too. But I don't hate either man and I'm trying not to oversimplify either candidate's career and positions. It's pretty clear from your posts that you can't say the same.
I’ve lost confidence in Drudge’s reporting. I hope Drudge is the one most damaged by these stories.
x, as a long, long, time, romneybot your attacks on Newt are just a way to push Romney in a childlike, cowardly way while avoiding confronting us about Mitt Romney.
You are single mindedly devoted to Mitt, and never let up.
I have reservations about Mitt. I expressed them when the campaign started and during the 2008 campaign as well. I'm not sure that he's that good a candidate or that he'd make the best President. But one can decide not to vote for someone and still not malign and vilify him or her. One can disagree with a candidate without trying to destroy him or her.
You've got so much hatred for Romney, his family, his religion, that people are going to react to it -- assuming anybody's paying attention that is, which isn't the case most of the time. Some people will be spurred on by your venom. Others will react against it.
But it's not really about Romney himself. I can see that he's not the best possible choice. But given the imperfect alternatives, some conservatives -- people I've respected -- have settled on him. Even if it were okay to slam Romney himself, burning bridges with people who chose one poor alternative over another was foolhardy and wrong, and it's something we'll regret.
I wish I could be one of the many who just ignore your posts, but since I paid attention to them, I can't help reacting as I have. If there's a lesson in this, it could be that sometimes less is more. A more modest discussion of the available facts does more to convince than efforts to demolish people.
Me too. I have seldom seen such hate from freepers. I wonder if they really are conservatives. Newt is really getting bombed and mostly with lies or the stretched truth. I have gone to praying now. I did e-mail Santorum and asked him (nicely because I like him)to drop out and let the conservative vote do the deciding between Mittens and Newt. Then this AM I saw on TV that his daughter was rushed to the hospital and not doing well. She is 3-1/2 and really should not have lived past infancy. Have a good day.
Romney is a disgusting monster of a man, a failed Governor, a great power within the Mormon cult.
Romney has devoted himself to corrupting people, and converting them from Christ.
We can see Mitt on video in interviews and TV appearances selling abortion with great passion and convincing sincerity.
Romney is a true, natural born liberal, who has never serve conservatism in any way, he has only fought it.
Abortion, pro-homosexual-radical agenda, anti-Reagan anti-guns, dishonesty and compulsive lying, Romneycare, left wing judges, anti-American, anti-military service. Romney covers the full range of true liberalism.
There’s a clip being played of Newt apparently describing himself as a “Wilsonian progressive.” He better explain what context that soundbite was in because as it is it sounds bad and Beck has been playing that unrefuted for weeks.
I stopped listening to Rush years ago when he started throwing in with many knee-jerk pundits and spouting nonsense that didn’t help our side at all. I lost respect for him then, after 20+years of being an ardent supporter.
Glad to see he can admit to being wrong and will correct the record.
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.