Skip to comments.Gingrich Archives Show His Public Praise, Private Criticism of Reagan
Posted on 02/19/2012 9:56:45 PM PST by Steelfish
Gingrich Archives Show His Public Praise, Private Criticism of Reagan
By Jerry Markon February 19
CARROLLTON, Ga. In an unnoticed 1992 speech, Newt Gingrich in a single utterance took aim not only at a beloved conservative icon but also at a core tenet of the conservative movement: that government must be limited.
Ronald Reagans weakness, Gingrich told the National Academy of Public Administration in Atlanta, was that he didnt think government mattered. The Reagan failure was to grossly undervalue the centrality of government as the organizing mechanism for reinforcing societal behavior.
A review of thousands of documents detailing Gingrichs career shows it wasnt the first time he had criticized Reagan, whom he regularly invokes today in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
When Gingrich was in the House, his chief of staff noted at a 1983 staff meeting that his boss frequently derided Reagan, along with then-White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III and Robert H. Michel, the House Republican leader.
Gingrich assumed that hes the whole Republican Party, said the Gingrich aide, Frank Gregorsky, according to a transcript of the meeting. He knows more than the president, the presidents people, Michel, Baker. He calls them stupid all the time, and I think thats going to get him into big trouble someday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We're not talking about a major donation here, $5 a month. How much time do you spend on FR? Isn't that the best deal you've ever run across?
C'mon now, git 'er done, if some ham-n-egger like me can do this (and more) you can too. Donate!
I wasn’t a Reagan fan, but he couldn’t be worse than Carter. I had no respect for him until he fired the air traffic controllers for their illegal strike. Then I took a second look at him. He was good, but no saint. so what if Gingrich didn’t care for him too much...
Notice this is 'dirt' diggers at the Washington Post going through 'archives'.... Now IF Newt agreed with everything President Reagan said and did they would call Newt a cultist.... like the compost ever treated President Reagan with dignity....
Now I do wonder if the Washington compost checked out Judge James Rogan's book
Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment
Judge Rogan kept a diary and he has less than flattering description of how Ricky Santorum helped kill the impeachment proceedings against the gutter snipe Bill Clinton....
Now this last link has had some major help since this link was first posted here on FR. You will have to scroll down to read the words of Judge Rogan. (Judge Rogan was one of the ‘good’ guys and lost his reelection bid because of him fulfilling his Constitutional duty.)
You should be banned from Free Republic.
Reagan was a St.Bernard, Newt is Pit Bull..
Now is the time for a Pit Bull...
Oh! Santo is a Poodle.. Romney is a Chihuahua..
Its true... Sarah is a Grizzly.. Michele Bachmann is some other kind of Bear..
Ron Paul is Feral Dog, and Cain is a fighting Rooster..
American wants a warm and fuzzy lap-dog.. but end up with a Weasel..
Obama is the weaselist weasle that ever weasled..
>> Gingrich: “The Reagan failure was to grossly undervalue the centrality of government as the organizing mechanism for reinforcing societal behavior.”
Ironically a position Santorum is campaigning on today.
Santorum is a statist.
Why should he be banned?
I remember Rogan,he was good quite a young guy at the time
Still another hit piece.
They say Gingrich is dead- but yet, who do they continue to attack? Yesterday, Wash Times ran a story on Newt’s campaign finances based on reports of a Romney lobbying firm; yesterday, a nat’l talk radio host called on him to withdraw; now another 4 page story on how Gingrich is not a Reagan conservative ( how many more times is Romney going to get his lackeys to publish this misinformation?)
Mitt and Rick are the frontrunners- where are the front page hit pieces? No where. They’re reserved solely for the guy in 3rd place.
Today, Wash Post story on Rodney: “Mitt Romney, as a student at a chaotic time for BYU, focused on family, church.”-— What a guy. How touching.
The more they whine, accuse and distort— the more apparent is the fact that Newt is the only anti-establishment candidate in the race.
Do you work for the Romeny or Santorum campaign?
Who did you think was a good president?
Every time someone writes this, they should put, "This message is brought to you by Mitt Romney and his PR army."
Also, why do Gingrich threads devolve into bashing Ronald Reagan. Even Obama couldn't sully Reagan's reputation. Why this need to trash every conservative of the last 40 years?
His endorsement of Romney was to stop McCain. We got McCain anyway, and we all know how that turned out.
Someone actually took the time to go find the entire speech. As Reagan said, "Trust but verify."
You might want to start looking more deeply at Santorum.
Someone actually took the time to go find the entire speech. As Reagan said, "Trust but verify."
You might want to start looking more critically at Santorum.
“The Reagan failure was to grossly undervalue the centrality of government as the organizing mechanism for reinforcing societal behavior.” Allegedly Gingrich, 1992
Those archaic words epitomize Santorum’s 2012 platform. So who, twenty years later, is doing the sullying?
Go Newt 2012!!!
Newt has to be for big governemnt. Because only a giant powerful central government could impliment ideas like Newt’s “Mirrors in Space....” Or Moon Base “NEWTron”.
Crazy Moon base...
Shackleton Energy Company: Humans to Return to the Moon by 2019
Mining the Moon’s Water: Q & A with Shackleton Energy’s Bill Stone
Want to Mine the Solar System? Start With the Moon
Columbus took his plan first to Genoa and then to Venice but was rejected there too. He then went to the Spanish monarchy of Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon, in 1486. Their nautical experts too were skeptical and initially, Columbus was rejected. The idea however, must have intrigued the monarchs, for they kept Columbus on a retainer. But their focus was on a war with the Muslims and Columbus would have to wait.
Columbus continued to lobby the royal court and soon after the Spanish army captured the last Muslim stronghold in Granada in January of 1492, the monarchs agreed to finance his expedition. In August of 1492, Columbus left Spain in the Santa Maria, with the Pinta and the Niña along side. After thirty-six days of sailing, Columbus and several crewmen set foot on an island in the present day Bahamas, claiming it for Spain.
The failure of Roanoke was expensive, and, with the war against Spain still raging, Elizabeth made it clear that there was no money for colonization ventures. When peace came in 1604, private funds rather than the royal treasury financed English settlement in North America.
I’m sure glad these fellas didn’t get laughed at...
Seems to me Columbus being backed by the monarchs is similar to our gov’t backed apollo 11 mission in 1969.
The English settlement of North America through private investments would be similar to Shackleton Energy, Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites using private investments to man the moon.
The money that gov’t/tax payers would contribute would be after the mission is accomplished—they win prize money—that prize money would come from existing NASA budget, apx 10%.
I think if NASA quit doing Muslim feel good stuff, all sorts of Global Warming bunk, trim a few other areas, NASA probably wouldn’t even feel the pinch at all.
How about learning a little bit about what is actually going on in the world before you bot off with the anti-Newt stuff... there is a very serious national security issue at the heart of it...
(excerpt) “Russia is talking with the US and Europe on plans to create a manned research base on the moon, the head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos said Thursday.
Roscosmos is discussing the possibilities for a permanent moon base with officials from NASA and the European Space Agency, the agency’s chief, Vladimir Popovkin said.
“We don’t want man to just step on the moon,” Popovkin told Vesti FM radio station, according to the Ria Novosti news agency. “Today, we know enough about it, we know that there is water in its polar areas ... we are now discussing how to begin [the moon’s] exploration with NASA and the European Space Agency.”
He said the plan was either to set up a base on the moon or launch a station to orbit around it. Russia also is planning to send two unmanned mission to the moon by 2020, Popovkin said. The comments come after a string of high profile space failures by the Russians.”
Chinese moon base 2002
I would have to go back to Eisenhower. As president he started the interstate highway system that has been great for all the citizens of this country...
After the war, and as president he knew the problems of bad road and the transportation of equipment and men in a hurry...this being a large country, he wanted a system to move men and machinery quickly if necessary... GG
Sounds like you’re the one that needs to learn a little. Start with learning how to count. Right now over 40 cents of every dollar the U.S. spends is borrowed. The amount of debt piling for future generations is almost incomprehensible, and yet we have big government morons and proposing multi-trillion dollar moon bases. Within 20 years, entitlements alone will exceed total tax revenues.
I know, I know, but we’ll get spin off technologies like Tang, and Space blankets.
If the Russians have a trillions of dollars to blow let ‘em. It’s not like the first one to put a bubble on the moon owns it. If all your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you do it to.
Of course maybe Newt can self-finance it with those millions from Fannie Mae in “Historical consulting fees”.
I prefer the term "feckless crapweasel", it just covers so much ground in two words...
IF you knew what you were talking about, and that is obviously a big big IF, you would know that Newt’s proposal is for the private sector and free market to enter - for the first time - the space race, to foot 90% of the bill, and for the govt to only provide incentives, such as tax breaks, deregulation, and monetary prizes.
Sounds like youre the one that needs to learn a little, or at least get a clue - and barter in facts before you bot off and post things you can’t back up or verify.
Don’t tell me, you support Sanctimonium... the nonthinking, name-calling, hateful, angry evangelical’s choice...
Watch and learn something:
Newt Gingrich space policy townhall
You see folks like you give all FReepers a bad name. We here discuss the records of all our candidates.
“Bury our best hope”?
Have you seen the polls lately? And you don’t think this stuff will come up during the debates? What, sweep all this under the rug?
Most people are wise to your crap on here.
There was a guy who did everything he could to bash Sarah Palin, and they finally rid this site of him.
Hopefully you're next.
Seen the polls and rue the results. Can't wait for more debates because Newt usually shows his intellect and focus on broad-spectrum issues and will not confuse freedom of religion/contraception/abortion with the real issues as Rick seems to be doing. While Rick is taking some heat, his "rug" won't be exposed and slammed until/if he becomes the candidate. I don't think he has the intellect to make a cogent argument without falling back of his religion. I'm a Christian and prefer same as a candidate, but acknowledging it and making it your main platform are different deeds. Rick's tunnel vision, as exhibited of late, will bite him early or devour him later. I prefer early. That sadi I'll vote for Rick if he's the guy, but will regret that it came to that.
You see its people like you who give FReepers a bad name. We are trying to stop Romney at any cost. This is the central mission at hand. If you think why a Gingrich withdrawal will not assist this goal argue your case. Who know’s you may have a point. But simply engaging in visceral stuff shows a lack of intellectual grasp on your point. Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have all but endorsed Santorum as the last remaining viable candidate to beat Obama, and even conservative publications like The Washington Times, The American Spectator, Townhall, and National Review have come around to saying the same thing. The question for all of us is not Gingrich’s politics, although that does matter, but at this stage of the game its a question of electability. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we got to war with what we have. And if Santorum is within reach of beating Romney in his home state, and making this a 2-person race, it befits Gingrich to strategically withdraw in MI. I would have said the same thing if the numbers were reversed in Gingrich’s favor. This is not and never has been in your foolish words about “bashing” Gingrich or anyone else. It comes to down to the best options we have to defeat Romney. If you cannot productively participate in this discussion, then its okay. Some of us here do understand the spectrum of IQ levels.
what is this , more and more hit pieces attacking Newt as the elections near.
That’s funny you call Santorum a statist, considering Mark Levin, the foremost expert on what statism is from his Liberty and Tyranny book support Santorum.
I agree with you. When you get these posters always posting negative things about a candidate you got to get suspicious. Especially when they use what we all know to be the very partial Lamestream media.
That being said.....nobody accused Newt of having a dearth of self-esteem. But you got to have some self-esteem to even put your self out there to be President of the free world. In the case of Republicans, it’s rather nice to have someone with a bunch of confidence to better fight all the crap the LSM will throw at them.
Newt’s an opportunist but imagine that, an opportunistic politician. If the occasion was upon for Newt to declare himself better than Reagan I imagine he’d do so.
It’s so not important.
Gingrich cannot score a comeback. It is not a conspiracy he is just done.
I’m fed up of the crap of hitting two candidates who are better than Romney and I’,m sick of the crap from certain usual freepers who think they have to do the attacking.
Also the 2 of them have all been damaged especially Newt after the way the establishment went after him and he was on a role.
We have Sarah, Allen West , NM Gov etc and we have these 3 though Newt would have destroyed obama in a debate.
Only the establishment could have screwed this year up
I don’t understand why he should be banned? The article he posted bashes gingrich, so what? Its from the washington post, but the point in the article is what Newt gingrich himself said, not the spin of the author. If you don’t like the content, then why don’t you argue in favor of gingrich instead of just name calling? I am of the opinion that none of the candidates will be strong enough to beat barack obama, which is a shame that we have this many weak candidates going up against someone who should be rather easy to beat. On a personal note, what really bothered me about gingrich was that he spouts all this nonsense about family values as if he has any.
A good trait of leadership! Criticize in private, praise in public.
It’s not funny, nor did Levin invent the word.
lets see who is keeping newt down
ricky s..who is mitt's stalking horse
paul..who is mitt's stalking horse
the debate moderators who wont let newt talk...all 18 of em
the stupid voters who don't know how great and special newt is...
Better to be social justice Rick or Mittens than to dismantle the Left’s social power structure in the US government as Newt was speaking of, and replace it with a constitutional doctrine and structure.
Reagan and many libertarian conservatives did not quite get that Liberals (social marxists) are embedded in the government and need to be evacuated (defunded and replaced) because they have total power over society’s institutions which always leads back to socialism and denies the public knowledge and institutions of constitutional freedom. No vacume will be left unfilled. Defunding the left and not replacing it with a constitutional, individual liberity social doctrine is stupid because nothingness will not maintain space.
Yes, I know. That’s a demonstration of how politically astute some of these folks are.