Politics

Former Reagan Adviser Questions NRO Piece About Gingrich’s Gipper Critiques

Jeffrey Lord, former White House political director under Ronald Reagan, is slamming a piece in National Review Online that accuses Newt Gingrich of spewing “insulting rhetoric” about Reagan while he was president.

The National Review piece, written by former Reagan Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, has gained significant traction as many conservatives have come forward to question Gingrich’s electability. The former House Speaker has repeatedly cast himself as a “loyal lieutenant of Reagan’s bold conservatism” against the more timid, “Massachusetts moderate” Mitt Romney.

Writing in the American Spectator, Abrams, Lord says, has “been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries.”

But no more, he says, because Abrams has been “caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.”

Some of the top examples Abrams cites come from a statement Gingrich made on the House floor in 1986. Lord obtained a copy of the speech, which he said Abrams is “grossly misrepresenting” as “some sort of anti-Reagan jihad:”

Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says:

• “Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism.” Gingrich then goes on — at Newtonian length — praising Reagan for Reagan’s understanding of Lenin, Reagan’s understanding of the real “purposes of a Soviet dictatorship” and much more. He lists and applauds Reagan repeatedly for the President’s appreciation of “the threat in a more powerful Soviet empire” and the threats posed by Communist Cuba and Nicaragua. He ranks Reagan with the great cold war presidents in protecting freedom.

In short, time after time after, Newt Gingrich — true to form — is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Ronald Reagan. Is it any wonder that years later Nancy Reagan would speak so publicly and warmly about “Ronnie” passing the conservative torch to Newt? Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan has stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt?

• Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets are “inadequate and will ultimately fail.” This is shameful. Why? Here’s what Newt said — in full and in context:

“The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan’s strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.”

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 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 in apparent service to the Romney campaign, in order to make Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol.

You can read Lord’s full analysis here.

Comments (73)

  • ambrosia
    Posted on January 28, 2012 at 8:23am

    Listen to Mark Levin-
    Read why he says Conservatives must vote for Gingrich over Romney.
    Floridians, America is counting on YOU to do the RIGHT thing !

    http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Levin-talk-radio-GOP/2012/01/27/id/425764?s=al&promo_code=E0ED-1

    America’s Best
    Gingrich/West 2012
    http://www.newt.org

    Report Post »  
  • RDG013
    Posted on January 28, 2012 at 12:44am

    The fact that Mitt Rommey‘s father was inspired by Saul Alinski and Mitt based his political career on his father’s is enough for me to know not to vote for him. We cannot let the Presidential race come down to a Republican Alinskite vs a Democrat Alinskite! How have Karl Rove and his merry bank of pimps been able to keep the cover on this one for so long?

    Report Post » RDG013  
    • Stuck_in_CA
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 7:52am

      The Drudge-Romney axis . . .. . . of online media manipulation isn’t exactly new. In fact, it goes back well before Romney’s 2008 campaign got underway in earnest. It seems to date back to sometime in 2005, when RNC operatives arranged a meeting between Matt Drudge and Matt Rhodes — a highly placed operative in the Romney organization.
      Last year, a delegation of RNC officials flew to Miami Beach, where Drudge lives, for a dinner at the Forge steakhouse to introduce the Internet maven to Matt Rhodes, the party’s new opposition research director…
      http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/10/04/the-drudge-romney-axis/

      Report Post » Stuck_in_CA  
  • gemmeri
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:48pm

    Newt is consistent about talking down to everybody. I find it a privilege that I do not personally know the man. I guess it’s a good thing Ronald Reagan is dead now because a lot more people might take exception to the bashing being bantered in his name. Reagan was a good man & a great President when you compare him to what was in place & what came after. I will even go so far as to claim that Richard Nixon was a better President than some we’ve had & I have some doubts about that one. I am not impressed with any of the current Republican candidates but I will say that I will never vote for Gringrich or Romney. Santorum gets my vote for now unless they clear the field & start over with new choices. I would rather vote for Jeb Bush, but I will vote the lesser of the evils just to vote against corruption.

    Report Post »  
  • MacPharlan
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:50pm

    I am truly having a tough time sorting out who is right and who is wrong. Yet another person comes out against the Lord guy saying ‘he’ was not being completely honest:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289558/jeffrey-lords-distortion-rich-lowry

    I don’t think this is fair pointing this to Romney, these are folks that worked with and do not like Newt. Now you even have Sarah coming out and attacking Romney over this stuff, really? Just endorse him and quit your higher than though stuff already.

    Report Post »  
    • John Kettlewell
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:57pm

      well NRO is soft-conservative. They had an anti-Newt op-ed from “the editors”, they have been a ‘consesus’ pro-Romney from the start. There are some dissenters but it’s just another group think by those in control. I was enjoying the site when I first found it as opposed to random blogs, but I feel most of it is non-sense, with little insight. I got for bench memos, planet gore, home front, phi beta con, Steyn…or any other Brit really, they seem better than Americans. McCarthy is good too, a few others.

      Consider them establishment now, whatever is safe, Karl Rove type. They try to convince you against people and ideas, rather than convince you for the position.

      Report Post »  
  • ambrosia
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:23pm

    This is a TURF WAR,
    started by the RNC establishment, against,
    the Conservatives, the Tea Party & Newt Gingrich.

    Just, as the RNC continues to battle the Tea Party, disparage its candidates
    and newly-elected officials,
    they have waged war, on anyone who dare win the public favor
    & who isn’t in line, or chosen by the RNC.

    Listen, all you RNC bullies-
    YOU didn’t exile the American People……the American People exiled YOU !

    The RNC is just as corrupt as the DNC-
    they & Willard “Smit-Smut” Romney have their antiquated artillery, targeted at Gingrich,
    in reality, it is aimed at the American citizenry.

    To lose the presidential nomination to one, they do not control
    would be confirmation of their weak, worthless, waning power.

    The Tea Party got Nikki Haley elected,
    when the press called her a slut,
    Palin & the Tea Party came to her defense…NOT the RNC.
    How did she repay the favor ?
    She kissed the smelly azz of the RNC & endorsed Romney.
    Perhaps, THAT’S why her state gave Newt the primary in S.C.

    There are others, playing RNC Roulette-
    who owe their election to the Tea Party….can you spell R-U-B-I-O ?

    Romney-Ramjet is the darling of Wall Street & the RNC.
    He will never beat Obama & yet, the “Establishment” insists, otherwise.

    Willard, Rove, Beck, Coulter, Will, Stoddard, the media
    & RNC play their own card-
    the “INTIMIDATION” card.
    Two words-
    SHOVE IT !

    Gingrich/West 2012
    http://www.newt.org

    Report Post »  
  • planeofecliptic
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 8:02pm

    Romney voted for Carter over the Ronald. I was only an 18 year old kid at the time, and I knew better than that! And yes, most of the Tea Party is for Newt. We voted numerous time for RINOs, were sick of it.

    Report Post »  
  • demsrjackwagons
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:40pm

    Teapartyforromney……If you expect to use hospital services,then you should have insurance or
    pay for it yourself.I am sick and tired of paying high premiums because other people will not purchase it.I can afford to support my family but not yours.If you expect to use hospital services and the law says you have to be treated,then it should be mandated.So stop your bs.That is just common sense.

    Report Post »  
  • Mike N
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 5:14pm

    Got news for all of you Newt-wanna-bashers . . . despite his having stepped on so many toes to get the right things done, he got them done.

    That’s more than can be said for either Ron Paul or Rick Santorum (who I really like and admire).

    While Mitt Romney accomplished a lot in Massachusetts, Newt did so in Washington. More importantly, Newt managed to surrender very little of his position against an adversarial majority. Mitt managed his accomplishments in chameleonic fashion, largely by changing his stance and compromising much more.

    In light of those facts, one would certainly expect Newt to have made more enenmies than the rest.

    Remember, we’re trying the elect the candidate who can get the most done, and not the one who would compromise too much to the opposition.

    Report Post »  
    • waspanglosaxon
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:15pm

      Like what? What has Nutty-Newt gotten done? (Besides a whole bunch of slutty broads, some of whom he married.) G(ett)ingrich is nothing but a backstabbing, amoral, adulterous, opportunistic s.o.b. – and those are his good points! Here’s the specifics: (1.) he’s pro-illegal immigration, (2.) he’s crooked as a snake and was fined a record fine by the Congress, (3.) his personal life would make a porno star blush. If he gets the nomination, it‘ll be smooth sailing for Obama’s re-election campaign.

      Report Post » waspanglosaxon  
    • READRIGHTHERE
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:02pm

      Notice in the full text of the statement that Gingrich stated, albeit eloquently using 10th grade level speech and longer sentences, that although Reagan spoke a great policy, it was only talk. That sounds like an insult to me. Romney and those that worked with Gingrich are dead on. Gingrich will step on anyone at the moment to appear the wiser, smarter, more accomplished and more respectable. He is an elitist. When an obviously intelligent man levels a slamming critique on a target, his words may sound calm and collected, but he is performing the emotional equivalent of a simpleton reveling in the even greater stupidity of a peer. The polish on Gingrich’s turd is beginning to dull, and the stink is coming back. Do the right thing Florida.

      Report Post »  
    • spreadthefaith
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:42pm

      Americans are facing religious intolerence and soon it will be a hate crime to speak out against homosexuality even church leaders will face fines/prison. Newt is the only candidate bringing up the religious bigotry in this country. The democrats and republican establishments hate him like they hated and lied about Reagan.Newt plans to defund planned parenthood, believes in protecting traditional marriage. I couldn’t find on mitts website what HE plans to do to protect the social/moral values of this country. If he has no moral backbone why do Americans think he will act in our best interest even on the economy? What lengths will Mitt go to in dealing with China or the UN in order to help our economy? People should look at Newts voting record before labeling him a “progressive” or maybe a progressive isn’t so bad if they want to reduce taxes,spending, defund planned parenthood,protect traditional marriage,respects the military,respects religious freedom, education choice, encourages the youth to invent and make scientific discoveries.

      Report Post »  
  • deerjerkydave
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:48pm

    Tom Delay also came out saying that Newt is not a consistent conservative. Senator Coburn has also said it. Newt can hardly find anybody who served with him when he was speaker to endorse his candidacy. Newt has very high unfavorable ratings which means it only takes a few attack ads and his poll numbers plunge as we saw in Iowa and now in Florida.

    Report Post » deerjerkydave  
    • waspanglosaxon
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:17pm

      Right on! Gingrich isn‘t a ’conservative’ at all and never was. He may be a ‘neo-con‘ but that’s hardly the same thing. Now they‘re even talking of a ’Gingrich-(Marco) Rubio ticket’! Great! That’s 2 big reasons not to vote for the GOP ticket if this happens. (Third parties here I come!)

      Report Post » waspanglosaxon  
    • spreadthefaith
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 8:12pm

      The fact that so many Republicans (like Mccain) have endorsed Romney should encourage voters if it comes down to Gingrich and Romney..vote Gingrich.Nancy Pelosi seems to be more threatened by Newt than Romney as well.

      Report Post »  
    • spreadthefaith
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 8:24pm

      I find it refreshing that the republicans have a hard time supporting Newt,Santorum or Ron Paul. It should make it easier for people to see who the real anti-establishment candidates are.

      Report Post »  
  • gramma b
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:09pm

    The Newt defender picks out one quote, and gives it “context,” which doesn’t really change the ultimate meaning of what Newt said. Newt was a blowhard, with delusions of grandeur, even then. Reagan was right. His policies were right, not “inadequate.” There were a lot of other denigrating remarks made by Newt in the Elliot Abrams piece.

    This is a typical Gingrich non-defense defense. Like when he claimed to have witnesses who could “prove” that what his second wife said was not true. There were no such witnesses. Even if he had ultimately named someone, they couldn’t “prove” anything. They weren’t there.

    Report Post »  
  • dgremark12
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:53pm

    The Rino’s want Mitt or BO to win!

    Report Post »  
  • TeaPartyForRomney
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:46pm

    I am saddened that there are Tea Party groups that back Newt Gingrich, for I personally don’t see him as the Conservative people like Palin say he is. The Tea Party was for cutting taxes, balancing the budget, cut spending, but also against crony-capitalism, for term limits, stopping earmarks, rejecting global warming, etc.

    Gingrich is about the first three but not the last four.

    Then again people question me for supporting Romney, who is all of the above. He has always fought for term limits, killing earmarks, cut cap and balance. Yes he is not sure about Global Warming but he is consistent on that. Then he is also the strongest on the Social Issues, equal to or more than Santorum, if you go back in history. Look at him taking on Gay Marriage and Abortion as governor. He pushed abstinence teaching in schools and the Arizona law, 4 years before they did. Romney seems to be the most Tea Party, right there with Santorum.

    I have started to look into a group that I named myself after TeaPartyForRomney.com and they really set out Romney’s record for all to see. Amazing. This weekend they are suppose to come out with a video about how he is the Tea Party candidate and hopefully it is right. Time will only tell.

    Report Post »  
    • Blackhawk1
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:58pm

      ROMNEY CARE! Nuf said.

      Report Post » Blackhawk1  
    • TeaPartyForRomney
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:04pm

      GingrichCare was a federal individual mandate. (Pushed it up till May 15, 2011, then flip-flopped)
      SantorumCare 1994 was a federally push mandate on the employer to provide insurance to employees.
      RomneyCare was a statewide individual mandate. (Supports it as a state right, inder Mass. Constitution, it is constitutional)
      ObamaCare is a federal individual mandate.

      NUF SAID…

      Report Post »  
    • onetruepatriot
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:25pm

      The REAL Tea Party overwhelmingly backs Newt.

      Romney is against everything the Tea Party believes in. He is a RINO. RomneyCare? Really?

      Report Post »  
    • READRIGHTHERE
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:09pm

      @ Blackhawk1,

      Not enough said. Romneycare as instituted by the Governor was declared conservative by the Heritage Foundation. What remains of it today is adulterated by the liberals in his 85 percent democrat state. Romneycare is no longer it is masscare and it is a glowing example that no matter the good intentions or designs, liberals will make it evil and a drain on the people who go to work.

      But go ahead and repeat the same old garbage like Romney=Obamalite. Anybody who posts that tripe=Completely checked out of reality. In what universe is Romney anything like Obama other than they are both still married to their first and only wives?

      Report Post »  
    • spreadthefaith
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:11pm

      For those that care about social conservative issues…How do you know Mitt is conservative on social issues? I can’t find anything on his website. All I see under issues are jobs,healthcare,foreign policy. Santorum for sure is socially conservative and good choice. Newt voted socially conservative on most issues and will defund planned parenthood and restore Mexico City policy -the Reagan policy regarding funding to mexico for abortions. Mitt is spending a lot of time in the debates avoiding his social issues because Newt,Santorum and Ron Paul are more conservative. It was our faith, respect for God and even natural law that kept this country safe and prosperous.I hope if Mitt is the nominee he is socially conservative but since he doesn’t like to discuss it with Newt or the other candidates we will have to wait to find out.kinda like the healthcare bill. Speaking of healthcare didn‘t mitt tell Santorum new healthcare plan isn’t worth getting angry over?

      Report Post »  
    • spreadthefaith
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:17pm

      Right now Santorum is still in and Ron Paul so I’m not sure why teaparties are at this moment setting up sites for Gingrich or Romney..there are still better conservative options. At least Santorum,Newt and Paul are willing to compare themselves on social issues.

      Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:38pm

    The Republican elite picked our candidate years ago. They don’t like anyone questioning their judgement. Hey Blue Bloods, we’re sick of the RINOS you keep pushing on us! Looks like you’ll win this one but be warned, we‘re storming the castle and we won’t be fooled again.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Hobbs57
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:05pm

      Yeah, they pick him to fail against McCAin, your right. Mean while, 20 years ago, Newt is divorcing wives because they aren’t pretty enough to be the presidents wife. Seriously, what is wrong with you people ?? We have a candidate who we are trying to get elected, one that the party supports and we are trying to bring to the White House so we can push out Obama. Yet, for whatever Godly, or should I say most likely UN-Godly reason, you can’t stand Romney. Newt has consistently supported ideas centered around the government being the solutions. What is so complicated trying to figure out that when people only know Government, believe in government, eat and sleep government, the only answer they ever have is GOVERNMENT ?? IS this really that hard ? A person only knows what they know. I am a a working stiff, who is currently breaking through college levels so I can have that stupid piece of paper needed to do what I plan to do. These people, like Obama,Newt, even like Santorum, have no clue what it is like to work a real job. What real job have they had besides campaigning ? At what point would not staying awake for nights on end have lead to the real possibility of their family not being fed ? None ! Instead, they were spending their time mainly concerned with making the connections that would ensure they never had to work again. Like playing popular in high school, dumping their girlfriend for a better one, saying what they need to position themselves, and so on and so on.

      Report Post » Hobbs57  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:22pm

      I‘ll tell you what’s wrong with “us people” Romney’s plan to cut federal spending is to reduce it by $500 billion by the end of his first term! That‘s 4 YEARS from now and it’s ONE THIRD of our ANNUAL deficit!
      What’s wrong with YOU PEOPLE?

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • Babeuf
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:35pm

    How can someone be progressive when they are for more States Rights, making block grants to states for education (no conditions), limiting the size of the Federal Government, less government regulaiton in business, lower taxes, a more consitutional court system, and a return to consitutional rights and freedoms???

    How can someone be a progressive when they say I will fire all the unconsitution Czars that Bush and Obama hired (ALL OF THEM) and within his first 2 hours in office resend 40% of all the Exectutive orders that Obama has put in place over the last 4 years??

    How progressive is a person that wants to push for school choice, is pro life, and believes in limiting the power of government, auditing the FED, and firing Ben Bernanke?

    Does that sound progressive to you???

    Report Post » Babeuf  
    • TeaPartyForRomney
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:39pm

      Who are you talking about? This is what all three of them are supporting right now.

      Report Post »  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:43pm

      ROMNEY is NOT a TEA PARTY PATRIOT!!! HE is the OPPOSITE !!!

      Report Post » PATTY HENRY  
    • TeaPartyForRomney
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:49pm

      That’s right, it isn’t Tea Partish to support eliminating earmarks, pushing term limits, balancing the budget, shrinking government, cutting subsidies, cutting taxes, rejecting emissions trading, pushing responsibility for individuals… YOU‘RE RIGHT THOSE AREN’T TEA PARTY PRINCIPLES.

      Report Post »  
  • MacPharlan
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:32pm

    Glad blaze has this, I am a Romney supporter but I don’t like falsehoods, speak the Truth. I hope Romney was not directly involved in this, I have not seen evidence that he was, and by the way, this is not the only info that came out on this subject, 3-4 did, but I only saw this one shown in error.

    There is a lot of baggage on Newt, no need to twist the facts.

    Report Post »  
    • I.Gaspar
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:44pm

      That’s the problem here.
      I can understand why many would not like Gingrich, but he is being hit by all sides with everything but the kitchen sink…and most of it is false or totally misleading.
      Romney has done these attacks before, and I believe it’s in his DNA, just the way it‘s in obama’s.
      The Reagan/Gingrich lie is a lie…nothing more. And if that’s the real Romney, we don’t need another obama.
      Nancy Reagan spoke very highly of Newt Gingrich in 1995, and had he been what Romney says he was, she would never spoken to him or given him praise.
      Gingrich is a d*ck, but a very smart d*ck…and he beat not only the dems when he was Speaker, but also the establishment “republicans”. And they teamed up to run him out of congress.
      My support of Gingrich grows with every attempted smear. The people who hold sway in DC don‘t like him because he is a threat and Romney isn’t.
      What does that say?

      Report Post »  
    • MacPharlan
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:06pm

      @gaspar,

      I don‘t see the ’establishment’ supporting him, I see very respectable folks supporting him as well as the old guard. These attacks on newt for the reagan mantle are not from Romney directly, they are from folks that were around in that era that support Romney. Glad the one that was false was shown to be so, but their are 2-3 others that complained about things. I don’t think it so much is the support of Reagan but rather the contentiousness of Newts leadership, it was the ‘conservatives’ that did not like him.

      You complain about the romney camp attacking, but what of Newt, he has been caught in several flat out lies and yet they don’t even get mentioned (ABC lie about providing witnesses, giving depositions are the latest). He is asked to take down a dishonest add about immigration, now Huckabee (that I am pretty sure does not love Romney) is telling Newt to not use his words out of context to attack another candidate.

      I am sorry, but I don’t see anything but low low lower as Newt drops in the polls. Today he is saying the debate was the most dishonest in history, I think if that were true you would see that on the headline all over the place. Big stretch saying romney is lying and now supports Newts amnesty plan by saying he won’t go round up grandmas. He is for self deportation by locking out the workforce of illegals, a very very good thing, and guess what, prob not to many grandmas in that category (workforce).

      Report Post »  
    • neverending
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:34pm

      The baggage is real and not made up unlike some of the things newt has said on debates and on the campaign trail. Pretty amazing when one finally admits they lied in the debate.

      Report Post »  
    • MSGT
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:57pm

      It’s ok to put up now. Newt’s behind in the polls and Drudge is doing the dirty work

      Report Post »  
  • Cosmos102
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:29pm

    You people are digging a ditch for this country so deep, we will not be able to get out in 4 more years if Obama is reelected. I question the arguments Glenn Beck is making against Newt, and especially because they are made on his show and therefore get no rebuttal. The only person who was able to rebut Glenn’s false claims against Newt Gingrich was Mr. Bill O’Reilly when Beck was on his show. Dennis Miller even made a quip on 1/25/12 on The Factor, about how angry and looney Glenn is sounding. Glenn paints a portrait of Newt as a Progressive when the same arguments can be made against Santorum and Romney. But if you only listen to Beck’s show, you‘ll only hear Glenn’s hysterical claims. I was a Glenn Beck fan once, but I have to power to think for myself and did not believe what I heard.

    Bottom line folks, if Obama wins another term, our country will be gone forever. Made into a substandard Socialist country. Please get off your ideological hatred for Newt Gingrich and aim it at the President WHO is responsible for this mess.

    Report Post » Cosmos102  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:32pm

      Why dont you put down your hatred for Ron Paul? hmmmmmmmmmmm

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • neverending
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:33pm

      Then why listen.

      Report Post »  
    • MacPharlan
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:33pm

      Agree, and I think Romney has the best chance at beating him, pulling the moderates and disenfranchised dems AND best shot at getting the economy back online.

      Report Post »  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:46pm

      Very well said Cosmos102.
      I, too, think Newt is a stronger candidate, but I am sure we will vote for whoever gets the nomination and AGAINST Obama. A non-vote, or a vote for anyone else will ensure an Obama win.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:58pm

      Right on Cosmos. Glenn said on the radio last week that he would vote for a third party or for Obama if Newt got the nomination. That’s nucking futs.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • spreadthefaith
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:59pm

      The progressives don’t even want Newt and he is suppose to be a progressive.

      Report Post »  
  • acovenantinblood
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:23pm

    Newt Gingrich = Obama 2012

    Report Post » acovenantinblood  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:27pm

      Mitt Romney is Obama 2008.

      Report Post »  
    • TeaPartyForRomney
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:38pm

      Neither of them are Obama. But for those that are worried about RomneyCare, GingrichCare was worse. It was an individual mandate forced by the federal government. Romney never wanted the federal government to force the mandate and again Romney’s mandate was “Pay for your insurance or pay your own bill.” That is libertarian in nature. Why do we allow the government to force hospitals and taxpayers to pay for freeloaders.

      GingrichCare was a federal individual mandate. (Pushed it up till May 15, 2011)
      SantorumCare 1994 was a federally push mandate on the employer to provide insurance.
      RomneyCare was a statewide individual mandate. (Supports it as a state right, inder Mass. Constitution, it is constitutional)
      ObamaCare is a federal individual mandate.

      OBAMACARE = GINGRICHCARE – Santorum started to connect these last night and Newt tried to lie about his past support… history is easy to check online.

      Report Post »  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:41pm

      NEWT is our CHURCHILL!!! He may have a few misguided thoughts…but he had GUTS and he is A PATRIOT. I get him. I understand him. I support him. WHEREAS I despise ROMNEY …to me ROMNEY is just another McCain…ugh!!

      Report Post » PATTY HENRY  
  • NoMarxist
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:02pm

    Even if Newt were a full blown progressive, he would still be a better president than Mitt McRomney. Any moron that buys into the RINOs argument that only Romney can beat Obama is asking for a repeat of the 2008 election. Remember that McCain wiped the floor with Romney and Obama cleaned McCains clock. Now we’re supposed to believe that a more “moderate” version of McCain can beat Obama? Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Mitt McRomney or the clown from Texas in that order. That‘s what we’re stuck with.

    Report Post » NoMarxist  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:23pm

      Clown in Texas? You mean the only Candidate that is a true Constitutionalist? I suppose you would call our Founding Fathers clowns too.

      Huffpo called and they are missing an idiot.

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:26pm

      Elliot Abrams is another Jewish neocon who has subverted the American Constitution for the sake of Israel. His involvement dates back to Iran-contra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeB_gIgIB9Q

      He was an author of a letter written to then President Clinton advising him to go to war with Iraq, for Israel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeB_gIgIB9Q

      When Clinton did not take the neocon bate, they went into the Bush administration; as written by Israeli author Ari Shavit: http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

      It’s all out there for public viewing.

      Report Post »  
    • NHwinter
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:26pm

      It looks like the establishment Republicans are afraid of Newt. All the more reason to vote for him. They don’t want their cozy little world disturbed by the changes Newt is talking about.

      Report Post » NHwinter  
  • marvlus
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:59pm

    Sounds like Romney is hiring hit squads to make Newt out to be anti-Reagan (which he isn’t). And Romney has just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar !

    Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:04pm

      The Truth has been exposed. But no evidence , yet , of Mitt being directly involved. The campaign laws are creating unforseen problems , for All candidates, with anyone cherry picking past statements and portraying them any which way.

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:51pm

    the republican establishment is freaking out, they are looking for their Dole-McCain… To usher on in…its just not working this time…….

    Report Post »  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:31pm

      This is going to be a brokered convention in the end. Newt and Santorum cannot get enough Delegates because they are not on the ballot in many States. Romney still has a chance to win the nomination outright if he wins Florida..maybe. Ron Paul is focusing on caucus States and will pick up a whole lot of Delegates. He is very well organized…The power will shift to Ron Paul at the Convention. He will have his say finally and not be locked out from speaking as he will have an awful lot of Delegates that are committed to him. They will not stray from him after they are released to vote for someone else.
      This is going to be very interesting to say the least. Someone may even be raised up at the Convention that isn’t even on the horizon yet.
      I do know who would be a good choice in that situation…
      RAND Paul….

      Eat that Republican establishment!

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • texanpatriot
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 5:01pm

      @doggy – this is my only hope that we will get a real conservative. If it appears that no one can will outright and the establishments wants to avoid a bloodbath (they sure don’t now) then we may just get someone who will make us proud.
      Our sitting Muslim is beatable with a solid conservative with a good organization behind him but, with the current batch of limping candidates, I just don’t know. As I said earlier on this blog, this is looking a lot like 2008.

      Report Post » texanpatriot  
  • texanpatriot
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:47pm

    It seems to me that the Establishment is having a hard time selecting which of these poor conservative candidates it wants to select.

    This so reminds me of 2008. The result last time was disastrous…

    Report Post » texanpatriot  
  • Sirfoldallot
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:47pm

    Newt = Progressive . He will say anything 2 get wat he wants. Ask his Ex’s wifes.

    Report Post » Sirfoldallot  
    • marvlus
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:00pm

      He has one ex wife who is living and she is a bitter old woman.

      Report Post »  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:07pm

      Yes he is and there’s plenty of video of Newt extolling the virtues of progressivism on the net,but some people are obtuse to that fact and simply won’t get it.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:19pm

      The same could be said of Romney.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • jujubeebee
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:22pm

      Wives have a bias….either way and should not be listened to.

      Report Post »  
    • Blackhawk1
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:24pm

      Romney= Watered down Obama.

      Report Post » Blackhawk1  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:30pm

      JUJU Ignore the ex wife. Newt is crystal clear that he‘s a progressive he says so himself and there’s lots of video out there to prove it.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:02pm

      Slayer, are you saying you support Romney? Because that guy is as progressive as you can get and still have an R next to your name.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:34pm

      Gonzo Ron Paul is my first choice but he won‘t get the nomination and Mitt will be the likely winner and I’ll worry about how I’ll vote when that happens.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • Baddoggy
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:42pm

    Newt, I knoew Ronald Regan…and you are NOT Ronald Regan.

    More like Ronald McDonald…

    Report Post » Baddoggy  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love