in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| WSJ | World: Europe Girds for Greek Exit |
0 |
| Shark Tank | Developing: Wasserman Schultz On Verge of Being Cancelled at Temple Israel |
0 |
| T’graph | 0 | |
| NYT | Policy: Romney Calls Education ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Era’ and Urges Shift |
0 |
| RCP | Campaign 2012: Why Tuesday’s Democratic Primaries Matter |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Newt a “Reagan conservative”? Not so fast (UPDATED)
Was just on Twitter a few minutes ago and clicked on a link that my co-blogger Phineas Tweeted, which talked about how Newt Gingrich, who has claimed the mantle of “Reagan conservative” perhaps more so than any other GOP presidential contender this election cycle, was in fact not someone who always stood shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Reagan on key issues of the time – especially on Reagan’s signature accomplishment: his brilliant strategy for bringing down the Communist Russian empire.
This may not be a big deal to some of you, but it should be because, as part of the vetting process we’re all engaged in right now, it represents yet another example of a Newt’s near-pathological habit of misrepresenting himself and where he has stood on the issues – and with whom he has stood. For all of his notable accomplishments during the Clinton years, like welfare reform and a balanced budget, there is also a side of Newt that some of us are rediscovering: The shamelessly opportunistic side that sees him saying what he knows conservatives want to hear when it benefits him either politically, professionally … or both, regardless of whether or not it’s the truth. And while it’s accurate to note that most politicians have this unfortunate characteristic in common, Newt Gingrich could patent his ability to persuade skeptics to his side just by the power and conviction of what he says and how he says it. This is unlike Mitt Romney who, while being a serial flip-flopper when it suits him – and who you can see through like a cheaply made suit, wasn’t blessed with the gift of being able to tame the “beast” known as “the base.” (It’s true; Romney’s not winning the conservative base right now – it’s more “moderate” Republicans who have kept him in the race.)
The referenced piece was written by Elliott Abrams, who was an assistant Secretary of State during the Reagan years. Here’s what he had to say:
The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.
The fights over Reagan’s efforts to stop Soviet expansionism in the Third World were exceptionally bitter. The battlegrounds ranged from Angola and Grenada to Afghanistan and Central America. Reagan’s top team — William Casey at CIA, Cap Weinberger at DOD, and George Shultz at State — understood as he did that if Soviet expansionism could be dealt some tough blows, not only the Soviet empire but the USSR itself would face a political, technological, and financial challenge it could not meet. Few officials besides Ronald Reagan predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union entirely, but every one of us in positions of authority understood the importance of this struggle.
But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.
But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.
The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”
There are two things to be said about these remarks. The first is that as a visionary, Gingrich does not have a very impressive record. The Soviet Union was beginning to collapse, just as Reagan had believed it must. The expansion of its empire had been thwarted. The policies Gingrich thought so weak and indeed “pathetic” worked, and Ronald Reagan turned out to be a far better student of history and politics than Gingrich.
The second point to make is that Gingrich made these assaults on the Reagan administration just as Democratic attacks were heating up unmercifully. Far from becoming a reliable voice for Reagan policy and the struggle against the Soviets, Gingrich took on Reagan and his administration. It appears to be a habit: He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators. Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department.
Now, before anyone says it, let me borrow a phrase from our celebrity President and make something very clear: The issue here isn’t that Newt Gingrich dared to disagree with and criticize Reagan. Far from it – fellow party members are allowed to and should disagree and express those disagreements in public if they find it so necessary (but hopefully they’ll do it without sounding like the opposition, though!). The issue here is Newt’s, to put it charitably, exaggerations when it comes to his “close” relationship with President Reagan. Gingrich d*mn well knows that the base of the Republican party has yearned for years for Reagan-like leadership, especially in the deeply troubling era of Obama/Pelosi/Reid, and he’s taken advantage of that desire by saying what he knows will go over well with staunch conservatives, and he’s hoping that no one will dig into the Wayback Machine to see if his words from then match his rhetoric from today.
On Reagan, it clearly does not.
Unfortunately, this is not just a one-time thing but a pattern of behavior with Newt Gingrich that is worrisome going into the primary season, which is now in full swing. He’s stood shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and other liberal Democrats (including notorious race-hustler Al Sharpton) when it has suited him professionally. He’s stabbed hard-working GOP Congressmen like Paul Ryan in the back at a time when conservatives in the party could have used his [Newt's] support. Most recently, his campaign ran a nasty ad in Florida which falsely accused Mitt Romney of being “anti-immigrant.” Haven’t we had enough race-baiting on this issue from the left without having to put up with it from the right, too? And don’t even get me started on Newt’s bizarre attacks against capitalism.
He’s also got some well-known personal failings, such as the issue of him cheating on his first two wives, that I could forgive him for if I felt he was sincere when he says he regrets his behavior – but when you couple that high level of dishonesty with his continued penchant for “cheating on the truth”, the willingness to move beyond the affairs diminishes. As I’ve said many times before: If you can’t be faithful to your spouse, why should I trust you to be faithful to America and the voters who put you in office?
A lot of us have latched onto to Newt Gingrich’s campaign more or less out of desperation; the GOP presidential field – once broad and promising even though flawed – has dwindled, and the thought of Mitt Romney being our nominee scares the hell out of us. Fortunately, not very many of us expect absolute perfection – such a thing doesn’t exist (and if you believe it does, I’m sorry to disappoint you). But the more you learn about Newt Gingrich, the more you realize that he’s not as different from Mitt Romney as he’s made himself out to be. In fact, in some ways Romney is more the “devil we know” than Newt Gingrich is. We know Romney is a moderate to progressive in Republican clothing, no matter what he says to the contrary. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, can be as conservative as they come one minute, and the very next minute openly sides with Democrats over his own party … and then later hopes everyone forgets about it in the interest of “unity.” Gingrich has become highly unpredictable except when he’s being predictable – in front of conservative audiences whose votes he wants in the primaries.
Just words, just speeches? Yeah, we’ve been down this road before. Recently, in fact.
Both Romney and Gingrich have proven themselves to be profoundly dishonest people when it comes to their political history. At this point, all that’s left for us undecideds to do is to figure out who we distrust the least, who we hope has the best chance of defeating the man whose picture should be right next to the word “dishonest” in the dictionary: President Barack Obama.
The lesser of two evils curse strikes yet again.
Sigh. 
Update – 6:35 PM: Several Twitter readers have pointed me to this piece published today by Reagan WH political director Jeffrey Lord, describing Newt as one of Reagan’s “lieutenants.” I read the article in full but it’s failed to persuade me that Newt had the “close” relationship with Reagan he’s claimed to. Again, the deception is clear, regardless of whether or not Newt was willing to work with Reagan some of the time. BTW, this shouldn’t be mistaken as a call for blind loyalty, either. Just that the level of vitriol displayed by Gingrich at the time is a far cry from the loving way he describes Reagan today. A genuine reversal in opinion, political opportunism, or a little of both?
I report – you decide.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I like ya Sistah – but this is incredibly poor and irresponsible “journalism”.
First Elliot Abrams was one of the acknowledged moderates (Like Jim Baker) that Reagan allowed under his wing.
Second, the one sided attack on Gingrich without acknowledging Reagan’s OWN endorsement (as well as that of Michael Reagan his son) goes completely unmentioned as being more than a little odd.
Third, you throw out the Al Sharpton and Peolsi thing as if Gingrich wss trying to “switch sides”. Perhaps you should read how Gingrich “reached out” to liberal GOP and Democrats to get CONSERVATIVE legislation signed.
The Sharpton thing was an appearance and he even had to reprimand REAGAN for not showing up at an NAACP opportunity. He and Jack Kemp BOTH were committed to try and create friendships that would enlarge understanding of conservative principles instead of act like stereotypical, ignorant fundamentalist Baptists who were to afraid to order food where liquor is served.
Gingrich to equate that somehow Gingrich has misled ANYTHING about his past accomplishments – much less to equate them to Romney who is misleading people on EVERYTHING shows an incredible lack of diligence to get your facts correct.
Gingrich has admitted attempts to reach out to Pelosi so that liberals didn’t own the “global warming” message was boneheaded. Who else even tried?
Wowsers. Another maverick.
PoJim. ! Newts favorite pres was FDR, do i need to continue? Okay, drum roll 2. Newt recently said he was a wilsonian, blah blah blah.
Okay, I do enjoy the idea of him debating Obama. I should not, but would find that quite satisfying. His big head contains a brilliant mind that does not require a teleprompter. However, a conservative IMO does not look to the gov. as a resource. Just in the tampa or maybe SC debate he worded a rebuttal to Mitt’s success as a result of his own influence in policy and presence as speaker. I don’t think a true blood conservative would ever say something like that. Maybe a small point but to me it says a lot.
Hi New World Order.
Yes, FDR. The guy who was Commander in Chief over creating a strategy to fight two major wars, mobilized, equipped, fought and ended them in FOUR YEARS and sent everyone back to work. Oh. By the way. You might want to read Reagan’s memoirs. FDR was Reagan’s favorite President too.
If you actually STUDIED the subject, you would find that Kemp, Webber, Gingrich all used Teddy as a model of how to figure out what to do with a majority when you didn’t have it before and FDR as a model of how to get things done. If you read my last article at PolitiJim I quote Gingrich at FIFTEEN walking the battlefields of Verdun in France – where he realized that ONLY governments can get nations into wars and save them from them.
Gingrich has NEVER praised Socialism and as REAGAN’s former National Security Chief says of Gingrich, “there was no better friend of Reagan in Congress against Communism than Gingrich.”
You guys who watch Glenn Beck for all of your news need to buy a vowel. In fact, go ahead and splurge on a whole sentence.
Sister,
Thanks for the discussion on Twitter earlier. Sorry, I had to meet ppl for dinner and now need to get back to my REAL job.
But a couple of points slightly longer than 140 characters.
- I never called you a RINO even DEFENDED YOU FIERCELY when Palinista’s and DeMint “hold the line” backers were doing so to you last year. I like you although i don’t agree with you.
- I don’t mean to insinuate you are a “bad” blogger, or even USUALLY wrong (although you seemed pretty blind to the Perry’s deficiencies :) ), and i agree with you none of us are served by defending a personality rather than the FACTS. For instance – on PolitiJim you can find 3 critical posts about Gingrich ESPECIALLY on immigration and his former squishyness on Global Warming. (When the charge and data was new, he suggested that IF TRUE govt could get involved but was the KEYNOTE REBUTTAL to AL GORE against Cap and TRADE when it went to the floor.). He should have waited (like my company did) until the data was more conclusive.
3. Regarding Reagan. My umbrage with your “slant” is that you take NRO – who wrote an “anyone but Newt” endorsement before Iowa and is stacked (as Rush puts it) with Establishment types is all the proof you need. You somehow conclude from one letter (from moderate Elliot Abrams no less) that the entire sum of Gingrich’s “Reagan” credential on national security is wrapped up in one very obviously slanted letter.
Of course then it is hard to explain why Bud McFarlene, Reagans REAL National Security Adviser, not only endorsed him – but publicly state on camera in New Hampshire that Reagan had no better friend in National Security matters. He also went on to tell Newt he would help him ANYWHERE he could. (video is from NH rally in front of tank – i’ll find it for you if you can’t).
And then there is this:
Reagan WH Political Dir. Jeffrey Lord: http://bit.ly/zw2ZMb
Reagan Economist Art Laffer: http://bit.ly/xEDETi
Reagan Natl Security Advisor Bud McFarlane: http://bit.ly/zd9eAF
Reagan’s Dir. of Speechwriting Bently Elliott: http://thedc.com/xOkDvA
Reagan’s older son Michael Reagan: http://bit.ly/yYVy7L http://bit.ly/xEDETi
Reagan media consultant Richard Quinn: http://on.msnbc.com/y2sPM2, http://bit.ly/xEDETi
Reagan Policy Analyst Peter Ferrara http://bit.ly/zq1QxI: http://bit.ly/xEDETi
Reagan WH political director Jeffrey Lord: http://bit.ly/zw2ZMb
(via @Josh_Painter)
So when Newt simply repeats Ronald Reagan’s SON and self described “defender of my father’s legacy,” you can see where it might seem less than accurate to conclude he wasn’t a conservative on military matters.
There is very good insight on my post from yesterday rehashing a PBS interview from 1989. – http://www.politijim.com/2012/01/newts-was-hated-but-elected-anyway-in.html
There you have Lee Atwater (Regan’s equivalent of Karl Rove) quoting that Newt is the future of the GOP. And he was the conservative who fought Reagan on some of his appointments.
It also describes Jeffery Lord’s showdown with John Warner on DEMANDING US Sovereignty be in Reagan’s platform.
Now back to REAL work.
Let’s see, you have one endorsement posted twice (Jeff Lord – an endorsement noted in an update to my post, which you obviously didn’t read), an endorsement from a former Huntsman backer who defected once Huntsman dropped out (Quinn). Laffer may have endorsed Newt, but he said this of Romney: ““He’s a good man. And he would make a good president.” And the rest really don’t mean much of anything to me nor do they go to the heart of my point, which is that Newt is almost pathological in his misrepresentations and distortions of his political career – endorsements and/or praise from a few Reagan-era officials don’t change that.
BTW, Romney’s also been endorsed by Reagan-era peeps – 34 at last count.
Nice try. Again “Reagan era peeps” are not all equal. Bob Dole was a Reagan “era” and as the Lord article reveals (and we already know) he’s certainly not a true conservative.
Are you sure you want to argue “numbers of peeps” You have always seemed to be a little more intellectual about your opinions than what you are displaying here.
You don’t address the Bud McFarlane (who would trump nearly EVERY Reagan era official on national security by the way).
You also don’t seem to mention that Elliot Abrams roomed with, and wrote college papers, with the founder of the Young People’s Socialist League. Nor do you mention how badly HE hurt Reagan in Iran Contra.
You don’t address the issue of Michael Reagan AT ALL.
This leads me to believe one of two things. A) You are intellectually dishonest and don’t care about discussing REAL facts and truth (which I know can’t be right because I follow you and Phineas religiously), or
B) You simply don’t want to be “wrong” rather than intelligently discussing the facts.
Don’t forget. YOU WROTE
There is no way you actually READ the links I gave you or the 100 hours of research I that was put into MY Articles on my blog regarding Newt’s background since I made the post of links.
That would require a little work and research. That wouldn’t allow you to glance at a few facts lob a bomb back at me and move on”
ANd yet YOU were the one wondering why people were getting so out of joint rather than coming together.
I give you an honest opening to intelligently discuss facts and you act…like a main stream media news reporter who just takes what others say as fact.
As I posted in my article (which you obviously did not read) Gingrich has every right to claim a “close” connection to Reagan. You think Adams and Jefferson couldn’t make the claim they knew each other just because they attacked each other during a Presidential run?
It is this kind of emotionally blast first and then think later THAT YOU ARE ACCUSING GINGRICH OF!!!
Don’t you see the hypocrisy?
But people can read and decide for themselves which one of us is trying to simply “win an argument” and which of us is trying to “get to the truth” and come together to fight the real enemy.
Barack Hussein Obama and liberal encroachments of freedom.
My hand is open in friendship to learn and discuss. You go ahead and slap it away if you want.
I’m afraid ST’s right on one point: this comes down to which of the two is less likely to stab us in the back once elected, or which one will do it more quickly. Not a pleasant prospect at all.
As for endorsements, I usually don’t put a lot of stock in them. I looked over the list from ST’s link to Romney’s site, and I have to say I’m unimpressed. I mean, the Former Acting Chair of the NEH? I didn’t see one recognizable conservative stalwart or top-level official on that list. Gingrich’s list as posted by Jim has better quality (McFarlane, Laffer, Michael Reagan) on that score, but it’s also much much thinner.
At this point, Santorum is the best of the lot remaining, but I’m not delusional enough to think he has a legitimate shot. What I absolutely do NOT want is another rerun of 1996 or 2008 when conservatives were called on to shut up, sacrifice our principles, and support someone the party functionaries anointed.
Here we have the most failed presidency ever – even more than Jimmy Carter. Any solid conservative with a sound policy track record should be able to win convincingly. Instead, we’re having these discussion about which of the front-runners is less awful. Pathetic.
Jim, I don’t think this supports your point. Adams and Jefferson, at the time they attacked each other in the first decade of the 1800s, actually WERE bitter enemies and did disagree vehemently on policy. Knowing someone is not the same as having a close connection.
It’s true that Adams and Jefferson later became good friends and corresponded regularly right up to July 4, 1826 – the day they both died. But twenty-five years earlier, they were certainly NOT “close”
This all reposted on PolitiJim (with answer to the Jack Abramhoff issues as well) – http://www.politijim.com/2012/01/fooled-by-fools-who-say-dont-be-newt.html
Also included in post? Nancy Reagan saying Ronald Reagan passed the torch to Newt Gingrich.
ST is absolutely correct and in the future we’re going to see what Newt Gingrich is all about… Newt. He blatantly stated during the last debate he supported Goldwater but in 1988 he admitted he worked for and supported Rockefeller. In the SC debate even an amateur “gumshoe” noticed his statement about all the people that knew him “at that time”, referring to his second wife’s allegation that would come forward and say it was false. What? A private conversation between a man and a wife can be disproven? Now I see he admits that he was only referring to his daughters and embellished the amount of people. And, once again how does that disprove what wife #2 said? He eviscerates Romney on “Romneycare” but he supported it and “one upped” him and wanted a Federal mandate similar to Massachusetts when Romney didn’t.
Newt is the Reagan conservative because HE SAYS HE IS DAMN IT! Newt is the most conservative BECAUSE HE SAYS HE IS! The fact he’s left of Romney on almost every issue should be dismissed by all us dummies. He’s the “Washington Outsider” BECAUSE HE SAYS HE IS. You see it’s not a past governor of a state and lifelong businessman, it’s a lifelong politician in Congress that rose to Speaker of the House who set up shop on K Street and then lobbied after he was asked to leave that is the “Washington Outsider.” What exactly is his claim to fame if you take away the fact he was a Congressman?
How about claiming to “balance budgets” and so on as if he has even governed for one single day? He voted, he supported, he lobbied. That’s it. Romney governed, Romney started a business and prospered on his own merits, not on the backs of taxpayers. They asked him to turn around the Olympics and he did it in marvelous fashion. They didn’t ask the “genius” to do that did they?
Finally, as a 36 year detective with a little experience in actually figuring out truths or lies, when a candidate states that something is “blatantly false” yet cannot tell you what is “blatantly false” you don’t accept that as fact. Newt railed against a Super Pac ad in Iowa and called it blatantly false but everything in this particular ad was accurate. A normal person might be offended and state same. They will tell you their reasons for doing these things and offer them. Normal people will not be confronted by true things and publicly call them “blatantly false” on a stage where millions of people are watching unless they a narcissists. Narcissists are very accustomed to lies rolling off their lips without hesitation. I give you Newt Gingrich as an example.
GWR, excellent points – especially on the Reagan endorsements. Neither list is all that impressive to me, and goes to another point: That getting an endorsement from a Reagan-era official does not equate to you being a “Reagan conservative.” If it did, Romney would have more “Reagan conservative” bonafides than Newt claims to, which is laughable.
ST: Not so fast my friend. Romney is more Reagan than we give him credit for and much more than Newt for sure. Reagan was a Democrat that worked in the private sector but saw the error of his ways. Romney was an Independent that turned Republican. Both men ran for office because they wanted to change something going on in their states. Neither ran because they were “opportunists.” Both Reagan and Romney became governors. Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul have never governed a day in their lives. Both men changed their positions on abortion and became advocates of pro-life much like a reformed addict that works tirelessly to make sure it doesn’t happen to someone else. Both governors did things that the people in their states wanted done despite what they personally thought was best. Both men ran for President and lost because the “establishment” didn’t like their conservative positions at the time and wanted someone else. Both men held positions in their past that made them vulnerable yet offered present positions that were solid and conservative. Both were gentlemen in their demeanor and didn’t try to offend voters that might vote for them in the general election at the expense of winning a primary battle. Both men were and are perfectly suited to address the existing problems in the country on their second time around created by left wing Presidents. Both men ran against Washington politicians that were popular with entrenched politicians in power. Neither Reagan nor Romney needed or need the job. They were both ready to do what had to be done at that time regardless and were committed to it. Both men made their fortunes outside of Washington and were better suited to reform things inside the Beltway. Both men were and are unquestionable with respect to their character. Both men were and are “Presidential” with respect to the way they carried and carry themselves. Both took and take bold stances on foreign enemies when others don’t. If we, as conservatives, want to take an honest look at history and what actually happened as opposed to a nostalgic look, we might want to re-think who is the “Reagan conservative” and who is not.
Dave, so was Jimmy Carter. Being a governor should give someone an edge in experience, but it doesn’t always work out that way.
Precisely what worries me about Romney. I don’t think governing by polls is a good idea. We expect leaders to take charge, have beliefs, and then try to persuade us if we have doubts, not change policies based on the latest Gallup findings.
And by the way, when did Reagan do as you described?
You DO know that this time around, Romney is the candidate of the establishment types, don’t you?
We know this was true of Reagan. What’s your evidence that it’s true of Romney?
Contradicts your previous claim that Romney will abandon his plans if the polls aren’t favorable.
On that score, Gingrich and Santorum are much closer to Reagan than Romney. Can you, without going back to the Romney campaign web site, give me ONE statement he’s made in a debate or elsewhere that shows he would take a “bold stance”? I think he was even muted in criticizing the way Obama is decimating the Armed Forces.
And by the way, “timid” was NEVER an adjective that came to mind when discussing Reagan.
Look, the fact is, Reagan is NOT running, and NONE of the candidates measure up to his legacy. Out of the candidates left, I’d prefer whichever one has the strongest track record of holding to, and fighting for, conservative principles of smaller government, and a robust capitalist economy. Romney is probably very good on the second, but he’s by far the worst of the lot on the first.
Some perspective from Pete Robinson;
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/From-the-Front-Lines-in-Florida
Never forget that the Republican establishment was completely opposed to Reagan when he ran for President. I vividly recall George Bush’s line in one debate, calling Reagan’s approach to fiscal issues, ‘VOODOO ECONOMICS.” The Bushes, then and now, were no fans of Reagan (or Mrs. Reagan) and paid lip service to Reagan because they had to, in order to pursue their own ambitions. James Baker served Reagan loyally, admirably and ably, but he was, and will always be, one of George H.W. Bush’s oldest and closest friends and confidants. Although George H.W. Bush had the best resume of any President in recent memory, he was better at being Vice-President than he was in the oval office and his loss to Clinton still rankles.
Thanks for the link, Miguel….some interesting perspectives there.
One part, especially, is relevant to the original point of ST’s post here (Gingrich’s criticism of Reagan during the 1980s). Peter Robinson sheds some light on the nature of the attacks:
In other words, when Gingrich lit into Reagan in the 1980s, it was from the right. It was because he wanted Reagan to ignore the moderates and stay true to his own beliefs.
On the other hand, I read somewhere – I think it was a piece by Jonah Goldberg – Romney was critical of Reagan in the 1990s and 2000s. And always from the left.
So while it’s certainly reasonable to question Gingrich’s claim to be a “Reagan conservative”, there’s no way Romney can realistically make that claim.