Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich Archives Show His Public Praise, Private Criticism of Reagan
Washington Post ^ | February 19, 2012 | Jerry Markon

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 Reagan’s “weakness,” Gingrich told the National Academy of Public Administration in Atlanta, was that “he didn’t 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 Gingrich’s career shows it wasn’t 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 he’s the whole Republican Party,” said the Gingrich aide, Frank Gregorsky, according to a transcript of the meeting. “He knows more than the president, the president’s people, Michel, Baker. He calls them stupid all the time, and I think that’s going to get him into big trouble someday.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anothersmear; bobmichel; communityorganizer; criticizingverboten; gingrich; jimbaker; newt; newtgingrich; reagan; refightingsmear; ronaldreagan; smear; stupidparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: American Constitutionalist
Michael Reagan endorsed Newt and your still pushing a debunked tall tail about what Newt really said.

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.

21 posted on 02/20/2012 12:39:41 AM PST by newzjunkey (Santorum has baggage! Demand an inspection! Eyes Wide Open!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

“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!!!


22 posted on 02/20/2012 1:00:50 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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”.


23 posted on 02/20/2012 1:16:19 AM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Crazy Moon base...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=35264
Shackleton Energy Company: Humans to Return to the Moon by 2019

http://www.space.com/10619-mining-moon-water-bill-stone-110114.html
Mining the Moon’s Water: Q & A with Shackleton Energy’s Bill Stone

http://www.space.com/9430-solar-system-start-moon.html
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.
http://www.biography.com/people/christopher-columbus-9254209

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...


24 posted on 02/20/2012 2:03:37 AM PST by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

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.


25 posted on 02/20/2012 2:26:43 AM PST by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

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.”

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/russia-us-moon-base-nasa-dpgonc-20110119-to-_17194074

***

Chinese moon base 2002

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/22/181737.shtml


26 posted on 02/20/2012 3:41:16 AM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Relentlessly trying to bury our best hope. How about an occasional anti-Romney blurb for “balance”?
27 posted on 02/20/2012 4:58:50 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Thats an open end question: The president of the ladies society at church was pretty good....:O)

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

28 posted on 02/20/2012 5:02:56 AM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

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”.


29 posted on 02/20/2012 7:04:24 AM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
"Obama is the weaselist weasle that ever weasled.."

I prefer the term "feckless crapweasel", it just covers so much ground in two words...

CC

30 posted on 02/20/2012 7:07:44 AM PST by Celtic Conservative (Wisdom comes from experience. Experience comes from a lack of wisdom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

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 you’re 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

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/303905-1


31 posted on 02/20/2012 8:07:20 AM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Post5203

You see folks like you give all FReepers a bad name. We here discuss the records of all our candidates.


32 posted on 02/20/2012 8:48:20 AM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: trebb; American Constitutionalist

“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?


33 posted on 02/20/2012 8:52:28 AM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Not hardly. You are on a mission to throw everything negative you can find at Gingrich.

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.

34 posted on 02/20/2012 10:53:14 AM PST by Post5203 (Newter 0bama...The real Axis of Evil...Washington, New York City and Hollywood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
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?

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.

35 posted on 02/20/2012 11:32:53 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Post5203

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.


36 posted on 02/20/2012 11:42:50 AM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

what is this , more and more hit pieces attacking Newt as the elections near.

PATHETIC.


37 posted on 02/20/2012 2:02:07 PM PST by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

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.


38 posted on 02/20/2012 2:17:44 PM PST by parksstp (I pick Rick! (If he's good enough for Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, he's good enough for me))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Post5203

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.


39 posted on 02/20/2012 2:19:55 PM PST by Fishtalk (http://patfish.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: manc

Gingrich cannot score a comeback. It is not a conspiracy he is just done.

GO SANTORUM!


40 posted on 02/20/2012 2:22:51 PM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson