ping
The political problem for Gingrich, which is not insurmountable IF his supporters would focus on overcoming it rather than wailing about how unfair and awful it is that someone brought up a speech Gingrich actually made, is that Gingrich did actually make this speech. He did actually say the words he's being "accused" of saying. It is actually in the Congressional Record.
Which presented a two-pronged problem:
(1) Explain the context of Gingrich's statement, and --
(2) Persuade people that, even if criticism of Reagan was well-justified, this is not just another example of Gingrich shooting off his mouth in the wrong way at the wrong time, a trait that is holding MANY people back from *enthusiastically* supporting him.
IOW, persuade people that the WAY Gingrich handled his opposition to some of Reagan's policies was not like the stupid WAY he handled his opposition to some of Paul Ryan's plan (going on TV at the most inopportune time and calling it "right-wing social engineering").
Too bad so many seem to want to focus only on their emotional reactions to the politics of this race.
Why not try to figure out WHY the tactic may hurt Gingrich politically and then ADDRESS and UNDERMINE where the "power" in the accusation is coming from?
The power was coming from the fact that Gingrich actually said those things. Focusing on who is saying Gingrich actually said those things does't get you to the actual threat posed by throwing this out there.
In sum, instead of wailing about Elliot Abrams or whoever, and their SPIN on what Gingrich said, why not focus on the fact that Gingrich actually said this (quoted here) --
Here is what Gingrich [in a floor speech] said: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing and without a dramatic, fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail. … The burden of the failure frankly must be placed first upon President Reagan.”
This was after Gingrich, as reported in the Congressional Record, had found Reagan responsible for our national “decay”: “Beyond the obvious indicators of decay, the fact is that President Reagan has lost control of the national agenda.”
-- and explain the context (why this criticism, especially when and how made, was valid or at least appropriate, in one's view) --
and explain how the HOW, WHEN and WHERE of this criticism was not evidence of the same political brainfarting that, for example, led Gingrich to go on TV and call Paul Ryan's plan "right-wing social engineering."
The bottom line is that Gingrich's own words here, and how and when he chose to say them, is what had/has the potential to disturb those voters who already are queasy about his political instincts.
Failure to understand that is not helpful.
Yes, some voters will not look at the underlying statements actually made by Gingrich, but will, as you're suggesting here, only "consider the source" that reported the statements actually made by Gingrich. But you're missing an opportunity to help Mr. Gingrich if you fail to understand that the key problem here is how the HOW, WHEN and WHERE of what Newt actually said plays into his reputation for a lack of political discipline.