Image 01 Image 03

Nancy Reagan 1995: Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt

Nancy Reagan 1995: Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt

There is something truly obscene about the full blown assault on Newt Gingrich’s strong Reagan conservative history from and on behalf of Mitt Romney, who unabashedly ran away from the Reagan legacy and conservative principles in his 1994 Senate campaign and 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Truly obscene.

The latest iteration comes from Elliott Abrams writing in National Review, quoting pieces of a single speech Newt apparently gave on the floor of the House on March 21, 1986, in which Newt criticized certain foreign policy decisions of the Reagan administration. Abrams does not link to the full speech or to other speeches of Newt at the time.

Instead much of the anti-Newt conservative media — including a screaming Drudge banner — accuses Newt of “insulting” Reagan.  It is part of a smear campaign which started when Newt surged in Iowa and National Review unloaded with it’s infamous “Marvin the Maritan” issue, and now it has resurfaced once again now that Romney is in electoral trouble.

A more honest assessment comes from Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator.  Lord, who was in a position to know because he witnessed first hand Newt’s interaction with Reagan, has written a critical column, Reagan’s Young Lieutenant,  Much like Byron York’s column debunking Romney attacks regarding Newt’s ethics charges, Lord’s column is a critical contribution to the truth in a sea of shameless lies.

Lord portrays Newt in a much more favorable light:

Newt Gingrich was part of the Reagan Revolution’s Murderers’ Row. And anybody who was in Washington in the day, much less in the Reagan White House or the 1984 Reagan re-election campaign (and I would make that particular cut of three), knew it….

…. time after time after time in the Reagan years, a number of those times which I had the opportunity to see up close as a young Reagan staffer charged in my duties with being the White House liaison to Gingrich and Kemp’s Conservative Opportunity Society, Newt Gingrich was out there again and again and again for Ronald Reagan and conservative principles. In his own memoirs, The Politics of Diplomacy, James Baker noted of his days as Reagan White House Chief of Staff that he always “worked closely” with the people Baker described as “congressional leaders.” And who were those leaders? Baker runs off a string of names of the older leaders of both House and Senate in the formal positions of power — plus one. That’s right: young Newt Gingrich….

…..But whatever happens, quite unlike the picture Romney is trying to paint of his prime opponent in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich was very much present and accounted for on the Reagan team. To borrow from Reagan’s farewell address to the nation and the men and women who served him, Newt Gingrich wasn’t just marking time. He made a difference. He helped make that City on a Shining Hill stronger. He helped make the City freer.

Quite to the contrary of the Romney message, Newt Gingrich was in fact one of Reagan’s Young Lieutenants.

One of the best.

At the 1995 Goldwater Institute Dinner honoring President Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich was the keynote speaker. Nancy Reagan gave a short speech on behalf of herself and President Reagan, in which she both spoke warmly of Newt and recognized Newt at the heir to the Goldwater and Reagan legacies:

The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century.  Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.

Nancy Reagan had it right, as does Jeffrey Lord.  Newt was part of the Reagan revolution and he was the heir to that legacy, not alone, but as someone to whom the torch had been passed.

That torch never was passed to Mitt Romney, and if it had been, he would have rejected it:

The promotion of Romney’s presidential aspirations has forced much of the conservative media to conflate capitalism and free markets with the Bain business model, a position we will live to regret.

So too, in order to promote someone who never was part of the Reagan revolution and opposed the conservative agenda of the 1990s, we are willing to reinvent and distort the history of conservatism.

We deserve what we get.


(Added) At the debate Thursday night, Romney completely backed away from the attack on Newt’s connection with Reagan, implicitly admitting that the attacks on Newt were without basis:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


listingstarboard | January 25, 2012 at 9:59 pm

Hard to fathom what is driving Drudge to attack Gingrich so relentlessly and unfairly.


    Bain Capital owns Clear Channel owns Premiere Radio Networks, which syndicates or has syndicated: Hannity, Beck, Huffington, Drudge, Limbaugh…

      L.N. Smithee in reply to janitor. | January 26, 2012 at 11:10 am

      Somebody’s got to own those media companies, and there are only two major political parties to which the principal owners could belong, so that doesn’t mean jack. Even in the course of trashing McCain on a regular basis during the 2008 campaign, Rush never made the leap to endorse Romney despite many demands that he promote him over the mushier Maverick & Mike Huckabee.

      Besides, Drudge’s nationally syndicated Sunday night program signed off years and years ago.

        celestechristi in reply to L.N. Smithee. | January 26, 2012 at 5:01 pm

        We can hurt Drudge. He makes about 4M per year – all from advertising. Read his page but never click on the ads. Hit him where it counts – in his pocket.

    Keep in mind that Governor Mitt Romney presided over the introduction of state-sanctioned gay marriage during his time in Massachusetts. Some people might expect he will appoint Supreme Court justices who will do the same nationwide.

    Keep in mind Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge have been close friends for a long time and have shifted hard into supporting Mitt Romney. Ann Coulter recently became affiliated with GOProud, a gay conservative activist group. And Drudge, well, if you want to read about his “dalliances” with David Brock and Alec Baldwin, the dirt is right here:

      Occupied Territory in reply to JediJones. | January 26, 2012 at 7:18 am

      Jedi, yeah, Mitt was governor then, but he had nothing to do with it. We had an out of control state supreme court that ordered a supine legislature to pass a law allowing gay marriage, which they spinelessly did.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to JediJones. | January 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm

      I believe I heard on the radio that Barney Frank has announced he’s getting married in Massachusetts.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to listingstarboard. | January 26, 2012 at 5:30 am

    I’ve demanded Drudge apologies to the readership for lying to us. I also used his tip box to send him the links from Lord and Nancy. If he’s got A-cup riding herd in front (has she come out of the closet yet?) and David Brock pushing from behind, we can’t expect him to be anything but another news source that has forgotten the media’s role under the constitution. Romney is the worst and most dangerous liar in the GOP, an Alinskyite.

    wanderingbutnotlost in reply to listingstarboard. | January 26, 2012 at 11:13 am

    I read Prof Jacobson nearly everyday but haven’t taken the time to post here before. Having read your comment prompted me to register specifically to give you and others here an answer:

    Thre reason Drudge is doing this is because he is personally acquainted with Matt Rhoades, who happens to be Romney’s senior campaign advisor. And this isn’t the first time Drudge has done this on Romney’s behalf:

    Drudge tries very hard most of the time to cultivate the pro-conservative image of the guy who will report news biased media outlets won’t touch. The reality is he’s just as biased as any other news outlet on occasion and campaigns seems to bring it out in him….

    People who consider themselves the conservative elite, as well as the liberal progressives, love to control……They always seem to know what is best for everyone.

Here’s Drudge’s problem. He’s been famous so long and has so much traffic that a few million less hits isn’t even a blip. “You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become the Villain”

That video of Nancy Reagan (and even this entire article) would probably come in handy to the Newt campaign. Anyone know how to relay this to them?

The RINOs hate Reagan, I’m willing to bet: just like the David Cameron Tories hate Thatcher.

To understate Reagan’s place in history, he is the only successful Republican President in fifty years–and they hate him.

    L.N. Smithee in reply to gs. | January 26, 2012 at 11:25 am

    I believe that the Reagan Revolution was an anomaly. The party never wanted Reagan, but he was the last man standing when Ford refused to challenge Carter because of the stress it would put on his recovering addict wife Betty. Once Reagan was out, George H.W. “Voodoo Economics” Bush took over, and despite an overwhelming victory in the Gulf War, lost to Clinton.

    Since Reagan, all GOP POTUS candidates have given him lip service because they can’t argue with his success, but none of them have cast aside the country club mold that Reagan never fit. All are comfortable “leading from behind,” happy to try to limit damage caused by Democrats rather than stand at the front and charge. Gingrich as Speaker tried to do that, and caught hell, but he was not a Frist, a Lott, or a Boehner, unimpressive communicators mumbling insider babble while the Dems sent smooth hacks like Chuck Schumer to twist public opinion.

    Newt may not be able to win, but my suspicions about Romney were pretty much confirmed by his advisor Norm Coleman, who says ObamaCare won’t be overturned no matter what the GOP tells us.

      Giarretti in reply to L.N. Smithee. | January 26, 2012 at 7:18 pm

      Frist and Boehner are both backstabbers and complete failures as speakers. Lott wasn’t a great communicator, BUT he was able to do one thing Frist and Boehner couldn’t and can’t. That is get a deal done. My problem with Lott is he endorsed Romney early on when it looked like Newt didn’t have a chance, but if you go to the page for his company, it talks about what he and Newt accomplished together.

Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Reagan Nat’l Security Advisor Bud McFarlane:

Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Reagan Economist Art Laffer:

Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Reagan WH political director Jeffrey Lord:

Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials/Ask Reagan Policy Analyst Peter Ferrara

Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan bonafides. Ask Reagan media consultant Richard Quinn:

Dont ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Reagan’s Speechwriting Dir. Bently Elliott:

Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Reagan’s older son Michael Reagan:

Don’t ask NRO about Newt’s Reagan credentials. Ask Ronald Reagan’s beloved wife Nancy:

    Hope Change in reply to Josh Painter. | January 25, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    Thank you , Josh Painter. Thanks for all the links.

    Are you the one who runs ConservativesWithNewt?

    I LOVE that website.

    Conservative With Newt is my go-to blog, along with the Professor here, for great new information about Newt, his schedule and what others are writing and saying that’s positive and insightful about Newt.

    Also thanks to the person who suggested NewsMax.

    NewsMax is a great replacement for Drudge, who has apparently lost his mind in opposition to Newt’s candidacy.

I’ve forwarded a link to this post to someone I know who is connected to the Gingrich campaign.

    holmes tuttle in reply to Josh Painter. | January 25, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    if you only you could do something about Marianne sitting right there next to him. It’s pretty glaring and distracting in some ways, especially after last week. But overall a good video

This article needs to be circulated everywhere !!!

By the way, those “Don’t ask” lines above are tweets. Feel free to use them as replies to any tweets you see linking to the NRO article. Each one links to a positive article about Newt. I used the #ManUpMitt hashtag with mine 😉

StrangernFiction | January 25, 2012 at 10:25 pm

The squishy establishment will not go down without a fight. Oh the irony.

hey we go $15,000,000,000,000 in debt let’s go to the moon.

newtbots = paulbots – math

    Too bad you didn’t bother to watch the video of Newt’s speech. Newt proposed that we have the private sector go to the moon. NASA would offer cash prizes (think Lindy flying to Paris in the Spirit of St. Louis) at a fraction of the cost we now pay the Russians to hitch a ride to the space station.

    An ignorant mind is a terrible thing to see wasted.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to newrouter. | January 26, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    Would you prefer for the Chinese to arrive there first?

    Spare us your idiotic statements.

I agree, professor. It is “truly obscene.” I’ve reached a point of revulsion with Romney I can’t say I’ve reached with any other political figure. There is something supremely morally offensive to me about a man who never took a risk or put himself on the line presuming to attack one who has and has suffered for it. And worse, employing the distortions and smears of the common enemy he can’t comprehend, has never dared confront and wouldn’t stand a chance against on his own. It is like a draft dodger distorting a soldier’s war record. But it’s even more than this, for Romney really represents a type and class, an elite whose innate smugness and contempt for ordinary Americans has been at last laid bare. If we didn’t know what Romney and the rest of them thought of us before, we don’t have that excuse anymore. The entire facade has collapsed. If we reward them now with power we’ve lost all self respect. In fact, it’s our moral imperative to beat them in a way they can’t forget.

    McCoy2k in reply to raven. | January 25, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    Romney is resorting to the scorched earth tactics of the radical Left. What Romney is doing is destroying the comity and unity the party will need to pull together to beat Obama.

    Romney, essentially, is poisoning the well. He’s telegraphing to the Republican electorate, if I don’t get this nomination, I’m going to make sure its not worth a red cent in going against Obama in fall.

      dmacleo in reply to McCoy2k. | January 26, 2012 at 11:56 am

      romney is doing what he does every election. letting his pacs do the dirty work and acting as if hes above it all.

    Tamminator in reply to raven. | January 25, 2012 at 10:51 pm

    Romney is Obama light.
    No skin reference, just policy reference.

    Occupied Territory in reply to raven. | January 26, 2012 at 7:24 am

    Raven: Smugness? Are you kidding me? I’m wondering if the earth will explode if Newt and Obama get on the same stage together. I’m not sure there’s anything that could contain that high a concentration of arrogance. Newt surely can go toe to toe with The One on smugness.


I can’t read NRO corner anymore. I don’t see how they could have any credibility in criticizing Newt. Not because they endorsed Romney, which they didn’t, but because of the cowardly manner in which they unendorsed Newt and Perry. The prof openly stated his endorsement and while he criticizes Newt’s opponents, I’ve read several post where he sticks up for Newt’s opponents when warranted.

I see some NRO have hedged their Romney support. Jonah Goldberg wrote an article saying that Mitt was not that good of a candidate. (I heard it on Rush.) This is also cowardly: no matter what happens they can go back and say: “I told you he wasn’t a good candidate.”

NRO is not conservative vanguard anymore; it is a collection of cowardly hedgers.

“…it is decidedly Gingrich whose “work product” as a card-carrying member of the Reagan Revolution is repeatedly marked with the contributions of the type that landed him in Michael Evans book of photographs of the most important players of the Reagan era.”

“Reagan put his arm around the young Georgia Congressman and said in his typically gentle fashion, “Well, some things you’re just going to have to do after I’m gone.””

“But to anyone who was present, awake, and paying attention in the 1980s — anyone who is listening to Newt Gingrich right now — it doesn’t take much to understand that some version of those gentle words from Ronald Reagan when he put his arm around a young Newt Gingrich is in fact driving the older Newt Gingrich in this campaign.”

“Newt Gingrich was very much present and accounted for on the Reagan team. To borrow from Reagan’s farewell address to the nation and the men and women who served him, Newt Gingrich wasn’t just marking time. He made a difference. He helped make that City on a Shining Hill stronger. He helped make the City freer.”

Gingrich is ready for his 3rd act in politics. Everything Newt has been through before is preparing him for this epic and titanic struggle against liberalism and progressivism.

Romney went for the early knockout with a series of broadcasted roundhouses … but even punches the media says landed do little damage, since he has no footing … no foundation in fact. When it comes to conservatism, Mitt is a pretender, not a contender.

So now Romney enters the fourth round, Gingrich is up on points, and Newt is connecting with voters, while Romney is still flailing with falsehoods. The talking head judges want to throw it for Romney, but it has been too obvious and the tea party crowd is booing them off the stage.

Stay tuned ….

And everyone here needs to email that story to their friends and relatives who doubt Newt.
This is vital.
Newt can’t win with the lies that have been preached as truth by the media.

Pass it on. The Professor can only reach so many people.

That’s what I was taught by a lefty who knows the machine.
Ground work to spread the truth.
Are you Legal Insurrectionites up to it?

There are 1000 reasons to not be for Newt and he has plenty of flaws. But I too am tired of the attacks on him with regards to Reagan or with regards to his service to conservatism or the Republican Party and his history with it. Of that, there can be no doubt. even his enemies would admit that.

If in Jan 2010 you were to have surveyed a group of every GOP member of Congress(and dem for that matter), the top conservative and GOP media pundits and analysts, as well as the top political pundits from the mainstream media, basically a who’s who of thos emost knowedgable and informeed about us politics over the last 40 years and you asked them to each name the 2 most important and influential conservatives/Republicans of the post-Watergate era, 99% or more of the ballots would show 1. Reagan 2. Gingrich. Some might even have those two reversed. But those would be the two.

It’s one thing I don’t understand why Newt doesn’t talk about more. His record and legacy in the conservative fight.

He just vaguely talks about the Reagan administration. He needs to be more detailed. He needs to talk about:

His work with the Conservative Opportunity Society and basically founding it and leading it. How members like Dick Cheney were brought on board

His opposition to Reagan’s tax hike compromise and attack on Dole as the tax collector for the welfare state

His pioneering use of CSPAN’s special orders and the way he got Tip O’Neill reprimanded over it and stricken. For the first time since 1795! The way Rush Limbaugh described his speechs as a master class in conservatism, how Reagan was the only other one on his level.

His leadership of the GOP over the Dems’ corrupt seating of Rep McCloskey from IN and leading a House walkout

His going after Dem Spkr Jim Wright and gettnig him to resign or ethics charges(the genesis of the later attack son him, the dems never forgave him for O’Neill and Wright)

His 1989 victory over the moderate Ed Madigan of IL for the GOP whip position that firmly put the House GOP on a more conservative path and set the stage for the 94 takeover

His 1990 leadership of the opposition to Bush41’s reversal of no new taxes pledge and defeating it.(Why the Bush family and establishment hates him. Witness Sununnu)

His leadership of GOPAC and his his use of it as a vehicle to recruit and train an entire new generation of conservative leaders and candidates. Hundreds of conservatives in Congress were weaned on his tapes, learned conservatism from him.

That’s just a small list. There are plenty of other things to mention.

Maybe he assumes that people know about htis stuff, but most don’t. Or that it’ll make him look like more of an insider by emphasizing how long his career was and how much time he spent in DC. I still think he needs to do a better job of pointing it out

These are all positive achievements and contributions to conservatism and to the republican Party. He doesn’t even need to mention anyone else but can use them as part of positive recitation of his record and history with conservatism. Just think there’s really so much there to bring up and highlight.

All of this while Romney wasn’t even a Republican and was consistently pro-choice.

The way some go after this guy who has arguably has a greater impact on politics and DC from the conservative point of view of anyone now living in favor of someone who wasn’t even a Republican during the Reagan golden years, wasn’t even pro life until 2004, and has absolutely zero record of doing anything for conservatism or the Republican party, of building the party, of contributing ideas and formulating policy and strategy, of leading fights against the left, against the dems, against the media, of anything…it’s really shameful on so many levels.

Hopefully it doesn’t work.

By the way, this entire speech is masterful. Not just the breif intro by Nancy. Although seeing him with her and Barry is great and the visual really says it all.

He goes on for nearly an hour, extemporaneously, some notes, on the history of conservatism and the party and Goldwater and Reagan and how the latter built on the former’s legacy and how they built conservatism and how now the new GOP Congress is carrying the torch. Just great to listen to. I can’t imagine any other candidate even coming close to being able to give a speech like this and I doubt many others even know the history as he does. This was really just a great speech that touched on so many themes, that brought it all together. Hopefully more people get to see it.

It was almost proohetic early on when he was talking about Goldwater in 58-59 vs the establishment and how they did everything to stop him. Could have been talking about himself today.

I think the debate tomorrow will be crucial. Seems like things are fairly close and could go either way. If he has another showing like th 2 in SC he’ll probably win. If it’s more like Monday’s…

Hopefully it’s more like the 2 SC ones. A lot is riding on it and I hope it turns out well.

    Tamminator in reply to holmes tuttle. | January 25, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    Holmes, I agree.
    But we live in a Nation of sound bites and Drudge tidbits.
    The only way to overcome that is by word of mouth.

    Newt can’t talk about his achievements in a debate. He can only debate what he is asked.

    Pass on this article. I implore everyone who supports Newt to spread the truth, and combat the lies of idiots like Drudge and Beck, who have themselves lowered themselves to the level of the left.

    Is Newt a perfect man? No.

    But I want a leader and a visionary, not some Leftist from Massachusetts who will say and do ANYTHING to get elected.

      McCoy2k in reply to Tamminator. | January 26, 2012 at 1:05 am

      That’s a truly great comment. It deserves to be published as an article in its own right.

      Newt Gingrich has already earned a place in American history; god willing his list of accomplishments isn’t close to being finished.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Tamminator. | January 26, 2012 at 3:07 pm

      “Holmes, I agree.
      But we live in a Nation of sound bites and Drudge tidbits.”

      $5 says a goodly number of folks didn’t read holmes tuttle’s post because it was too long, takes a good 60 second to read it.

    That’s a truly great comment. It deserves to be published as an article in its own right.

    Newt Gingrich has already earned a place in American history; god willing his list of accomplishments isn’t close to being finished.

    His problem may be the same problem G. K. Chesterton said a man defending civilization would have:

    “It is very hard for a man to defend anything of which he is entirely convinced. It is comparatively easy when he is only partially convinced. He is partially convinced because he has found this or that proof of the thing, and he can expound it. But a man is not really convinced of a philosophic theory when he finds that something proves it. And the more converging reasons he finds pointing to this conviction, the more bewildered he is if asked suddenly to sum them up. Thus, if one asked an ordinary intelligent man, on the spur of the moment, “Why do you prefer civilization to savagery?” he would look wildly round at object after object, and would only be able to answer vaguely, “Why, there is that bookcase . . . and the coals in the coal-scuttle . . . and pianos . . . and policemen.” The whole case for civilization is that the case for it is complex. It has done so many things. But that very multiplicity of proof which out to make reply overwhelming makes reply impossible.”
    Orthodoxy, The Paradoxes of Christianity, p. 126-127

Drudge has always been overt in his editorialism. In this case it appears he is either strongly in the Mitt camp, or possibly something even worse.

The bottom line for Drudge is Drudge’s bottom line, and for that he needs eyeballs…

    Drudge used to date Ann Coulter, and they’re still very good friends. She’s not just a Mitt supporter, she’s hysterical about it, as anyone who watched her on The O’Reilly Factor this week could plainly see. She had a meltdown while attacking Newt. JMO, but I ‘d wager Mitt money (If I had $10K to spare) that’s she’s putting some pressure on Matt.

      MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Josh Painter. | January 26, 2012 at 12:14 am

      It’s really hard for me to watch Coulter’s completely unsupportable assertions that Willard is the most conservative candidate. She knows it is not true. Yet when she continues to repeat the lie it just shows how much contempt she has for the audience and how easy it is for her to insult the intelligence of those watching. I can’t take watching her anymore. I’m either going to mute the sound or change the channel when she’s on from now on.

      It all causes me grief because I’ve admired her since I bought “Slander” about 9-10 years. I also bought “Treason”.

      I suspect she’s done alot of harm to her brand and there are others who feel the same way I do. I know, personally, I do not plan to ever buy another one of her books.

        I’m sorry? Are you saying that Ann Coulter is claiming Romney is the most conservative candidate in the field? Did I read that correctly?


        I’ve never liked her. She’s mean spirited and hateful. Anyone who is friends w Bill Maher is no one I find the least bit credible on conservative matters.

          L.N. Smithee in reply to wodiej. | January 26, 2012 at 1:19 pm

          That’s an excellent point.

          On her late-’90s pre-HuffPo website, Arianna Huffington helped uncover the fraud of Larry Lawrence, the Clinton donor and phony veteran who concocted a fraudulent tale of WWII heroism that temporarily got him buried in Arlington. At the time, Arianna was still married to closeted gay RINO billionaire and failed GOP CA Senate candidate Michael Huffington, and she would appear on Maher’s old ABC Politically Incorrect show as a token conservative.

          On the show, she once participated in a skit in which she and Maher laid in bed together, pretending they were married. God only knows if anything actually happened between she and Maher (and I don’t want to think about it), but we do know that with Michael’s boy on the side, there couldn’t have been much going on with Arianna.

      JediJones in reply to Josh Painter. | January 26, 2012 at 2:25 am

      I was so hoping O’Reilly would open up a can of Bawney Fwank whoop-ass on her during that segment. He got close at one point, but obviously backed off because he couldn’t believe how much she was raging against a conservative Republican. Google this video to see that Ann started down this path last year and was already subtly trying to push other candidates out of Romney’s way: Ann Coulter Sours On Sarah Palin: ‘I’m Starting To Dislike Her Because Of Her Fans’

notquiteunBuckley | January 25, 2012 at 11:18 pm

Lucianne is in on it by posting a fake ‘quote’ type thing that Newt never said.

It’s all just a joke, you see!

Ha ha.

New York Mag. by some jerk Dan A. posted at 9:12:18 pm today.

Next article?

“…Is Newt Gingrich Trying To Turn TV Debates Into Campaigns Rallies?” like that isn’t THE DAMN POINT you nitwit.

Did the Patriots try to score against the Broncos?

Do tigers eat meat?

Hmmm. Some interesting polling out today. Following is the opening excerpt. You have to download a PDF for full report.

Suffolk University/7News Florida Poll Shows Romney Stronger than Gingrich in General Election vs. Obama

* Fewer Floridians Say Nation Is on Wrong Track

* Rubio No Longer a VP Game Changer, But Clinton Boosts President’s Numbers

BOSTON – Despite Newt Gingrich’s momentum within the Republican Party, he would be a weaker contender than Mitt Romney in a general election contest against President Barack Obama, according to a Suffolk University/7NEWS (WSVN-Miami) poll of likely voters in Florida.

Romney led Obama by 47 percent to 42 percent in the Florida survey, while Obama topped Gingrich by 9 points, 49 percent to 40 percent. Among independents, Obama led Romney 44 percent to 38 percent and opened up a 56 percent to 29 percent advantage over Gingrich. Gingrich grabbed 12 percent of registered Democrats, while Romney secured 18 percent of registered Democrats.

“Newt Gingrich is weak among Florida independents and likely Democratic voters compared to Romney,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “If Florida is one of six key states that swings the national election, independents in Florida hold that key, and this poll suggests that Newt won’t be able to secure Florida for his party.”

In the popularity contest, Gingrich again did not fare well. He holds a 29 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable rating statewide among all likely voters. By contrast, Romney had a 44 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable rating. Romney’s popularity was lower among independents: 37 percent favorable and 36 percent unfavorable, while Gingrich’s popularity among independents imploded to 19 percent favorable with 70 percent unfavorable.

In the head-to-head matchup with Obama, Romney has risen from 42 percent to 47 percent (+5 points) since a poll taken in late October by Suffolk University/7NEWS (WSVN-TV) Miami. Obama polled at exactly 42 percent against Romney in both surveys. However, in that same October poll Obama led Gingrich 45 percent to 38 percent. He has since gained 4 points, and Gingrich 2 points.

In the Obama-Romney matchup, the poll showed that 83 percent of Obama voters would cast votes “for Obama,” while 17 percent said they would vote “against Romney.” On the flip side, 52 percent of Romney voters classified themselves as a vote “for Romney,” while 48 said their votes were “against Obama.”

Link to download:

    If I recall correctly, Reagan was behind Carter by 30 points at this stage of the 1980 campaign. So these head to head matchups with Obama don’t really have much meaning 9 months out.

      JediJones in reply to Josh Painter. | January 26, 2012 at 2:27 am

      John Kerry was ahead of W by 7 points 4 months out. These polls are meaningless now. Also, I dug into one of those “favorable/unfavorable” polls and it was for all Americans, not even limited to people of voting age let alone likely voters.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Josh Painter. | January 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm

      Exactly. The GOP candidates are running against each other right now, as they should be, while Obama is already running and is essentially unopposed at the moment. The polling will change drastically once a GOP candidate is chosen and that campaign begins.

The thing about Romney I hope Newt understands by now is that he’s completely unable to support his smears mano-a-mano. He’s evasive even hapless when pressed in person. We’ve seen this throughout his “career” and most dramatically and disastrously in his debate with Ted Kennedy. In short, he’s a coward. Newt needs to call him out in this last debate. Make a moment, Newt. It’s time.

Newt reminds me of this quote from Sir Winston Churchill about democracy: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Is Newt the best possible candidate? No. But he is what we have and is much more conservative than Mitt.

As Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.” Newt knows how to march to sound of guns.

My take on Romney is that he is such an idiot-Rino that he would make Obamacare work. I don’t want it to work, I want it to go away.

Professor, yesterday you stated, “It’s probably not a good idea for any Republican candidate in Florida to cross Rubio…”

I will expound on that statement: It’s NEVER EVER a good idea for any Republican to cross Reagan.

Elliot Abram’s assessment is based on a speech which Gingrich gave on the House Floor, a speech which is certainly documented in the Congressional Record.

On the other hand, I have no way to verify whether Jeffrey Lord’s assessment of Gingrich is more honest because it is purely anecdotal.

Woe to the one (the Blitz?) who dares to make this the first question of the debate tonight.

Good luck explaining this one, Newt. And may the best man win.

Note to Newt: I will not root for you if you utter the word “absurd” in your defense.

Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson defended Newt against Abram’s attack:

“tabula rasa: Peter: Given your great respect for President Reagan, I though you might be interested in Eliott Abrams’ challenge on NRO to the narrative that Gingrich and Reagan together defeated communism.

“[Peter Robinson:] Newt shared the frustrations of many conservatives, including, from time to time, me, that the President permitted the bureaucracy to prove persistently feckless, undermining his program–as you’ll recall if you’re of a certain age, conservatives were always insisting that the President’s staff should ‘let Reagan be Reagan.’ If Newt mouthed off, giving vent to these frustrations, so be it. He was in Congress. That was, in a sense, his job. And at one time or another, every conservative of any standing felt exasperated or worried–and urged the President not to go soft either on Communism or on our own bureaucracy. Newt’s comments here place him in the company of William F. Buckley, Jr.–WFB vented his frustrations more artfully, but he vented them–and I’d have thought that for our friends at NR that would be quite good enough.”

from the comments section here:

Newt looking like Republican leader in defending Gov. Jan Brewer against Obama’s charges on Hannity tonight. And his points were all well taken. Beginning with Newt pointing out that in the video Pres. Obama is taking Brewer to task rather than being cordial upon meeting her.

[…] Stemple FNC Blog GOP eyes new faces as Newt Gingrich stays in front Chris Cassidy Boston Herald Nancy Reagan 1995: Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt William Jacobson Legal Insurrection 2,000 attend as Gingrich fires up crowd at townhall Don […]

The problem is the fact that the lies do hurt. Look what happened in Iowa. They may already be taking a toll in Florida.

The Pink Flamingo

[…] From Legal Insurrection: Nancy Reagan 1995: Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt […]

Excellent post and rebuttal.

If we can only keep him from his own mis-steps, we’ll be in good shape.

Here is one that is a potentially big oooff! before the primaries. I’m digging in a bit further, but the Univision boycott was a big deal down here. However, this could be the move that prevents any further surge for Newt in FL. is a good place to go to get the pulse of S. Florida politics, Javier is a very good conservative commentator.

The onslaught against Newt is turning the tide. He is showing up behind in Florida in poll after poll. They are attacking all aspects of his biography and it’s sad to watch.

There are Republicans who will be forever damaged by this. I have no idea why they want to savage Newt but it is not strategically smart.

Trying to line up behind a soft candidate like Mitt is making them look silly.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 26, 2012 at 7:59 am

Let me say this with the absolute utmost importance-

IF the Reagan Republicans, with the Reagan Tea Party Conservatives, allow Mitt Romney to be the Republican Party Nominee, because of the constant incessant smears and lies about Newt, from the GOP establishnment elites, along with their collusional liberal Obamacrat buddies, and especially if Romney loses to Obama, the GOP Republican Party will cease to exist as a viable and worthy opposition political party, period.. And the Nation will have suffered it’s greastest defeat as a Constitutional Republic, in the history of the United States of America, and may never recover politically, let alone economically, again.

It will then time to start a new major conservative politcal party to replace the GOP.

I cannot be adament about the paramount seriousness we face as a Constitutional Conservative Nation in our Representative Democractic Republic.

listingstarboard | January 26, 2012 at 8:04 am

Who hasn’t Ann Coulter dated? Sheesh.

Drudge Report has a box on lower right page to send “hot tips” to him. Just sent a “hot tip” to him to check out the possibility that Drudge Report is anti-Newt, pro-RINO.
Hope they “investigate”:)

here’s a bit of info re: Elliot Abrams (wikipedia)
“During investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair, Lawrence Walsh, the Independent Counsel tasked with investigating the case, prepared multiple felony counts against Abrams but never indicted him. Instead, Abrams entered into a plea agreement with Walsh. Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanors of withholding information from Congress. However, Abrams was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush, in December 1992 (as he was leaving office following his loss in that year in the U.S. presidential election). On February 5, 1997, the D.C. Court of Appeals publicly censured Abrams for giving false testimony on three occasions before congressional committees.”
So, we should believe him because …

DINORightMarie | January 26, 2012 at 8:25 am

Excellent post!!! I linked this on my FB page, and I sent this to Rush Limbaugh via Rush 24/7 member email, asking him to put this LI post in his “stack of stuff.” I mentioned the Jeffrey Lord link, as Rush has mentioned Lord before on his show. (I am sure I’m 1 of thousands, if not millions, so…..who knows?!) 😉

Let’s hope that Rush will use his time to stomp on this attempt to smear, and re-write history, against a Reagan Republican. He disclosed his EIB link to Clear Channel, but I would hope he has the sense and legal prerogative to speak the truth without any pressure to “go along” with the memes. If Rush is “for sale” or under someone’s thumb, then talk radio is dead, too, IMHO.

And, shame on NRO. I can understand Coulter, she is an opinion columnist as well as writer; and Drudge – it’s his site, so he can do what he wants. But NR (esp. NRO) has a staunch Conservative foundation, and these twits are destroying it! For shame, NRO. For shame!

Thank the Lord for YouTube and the Internet! Otherwise, we’d have to depend on these clowns who call themselves journalists to be accurate. And thanks to you Professor, for putting TRUTH out there for all to see!

NC Mountain Girl | January 26, 2012 at 8:32 am

Poltico has a killer quote from Geroge Soros about how the 2012 presidential race might shake out.

“If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference,”

Newt was critical of Reagan’s foreign policy and DID say Reagan’s administration was a failure and was causing American decay. There is NO dispute about that. Newt DID say Rep. Ryan’s budget was right wing engineering. Newt said MANY times he was FOR an individual mandate and global warming. We all know Newt is/was a womanizer and a cheater. He does not contest that. What we have here are two NOT Conservative Republican candidates. (God, how did we end up with these two?) OK…we are stuck with these two…who can beat Obama…that is a decision our party HAS to get right. We cannot take another four years of Obama! I grudgingly am going to vote for…gosh this is hard to say…Romney. There…I said it. There, that wasn’t so bad.

    The only issue that matters is ObamaCare, i.e. it’s the only issue where there’s likely to be a significant difference in performance between Gingrich and Romney. Romney likes the mandate. He is convinced it’s a “conservative concept” (his words). Romney is on the record as saying we should keep the “good parts” of ObamaCare (it’s on YouTube). His adviser, Norm Coleman, is saying that attempting repeal is a waste of time. With Romney, you can forget about repeal. That’s a given.

    Romney says he’ll issue waivers for all 50 states, which sounds good, but does nothing to address many of the other evils of ObamaCare, like the stifling of innovation in medical devices, the restrictions on who can own a hospital, etc.

    Gingrich has repudiated his former stands and can explain convincingly why he’s changed his opinion. Romney has not changed his opinion and can’t convincingly explain anything.

    I’m sticking with Thomas Sowell, Art Laffer, Fred Thompson, and Rick Perry. I’m backing Gingrich and have already kicked in $100 to his campaign. It’s not much, but it’s what I can do right now.

Romney’s scorched earth campaign is making me sick. I’ve never seen anything like it except maybe for some of the stuff dating back to Linocln’s times where he was characterized as an ape (National Review should be proud since their Newt cover echos the same level of discourse).

Newt tried to follow Reagan’s commandment. He stayed positive all through Iowa until it became clear that Romney was going all negative all the time. Romney has to go negative because there is no affirmative case for Romney.

– He got dragged into Bain Capital. It was not his brainchild.

– He did not discover Staples, the source of most of the 100,000 jobs he supposedly created all by himself. Bain was neither the first nor the largest investor in Staples. Romney went in once he knew others were taking the same risk, i.e. he figured it was a safe investment (sound familiar).

– He did lead a company, Bain. Great, John Edwards also led a company. Bain was the epitome of capitalism (so we’re told). John Edwards was the epitome of our adversarial justice system. Does it qualify him to be President? Don’t like lawyers? You must hate the rule of law. Love capitalists? Great, then we should have Warren Buffet as President since he’s been way more successful than Romney.

– He did “lead” a state, Massachusetts. But what did he do there? Is that where we really want to go?

– You’ve seen how he runs a campaign. If you liked the “politics of personal destruction” under Clinton, you’ll love what you’d get under Romney. Do you miss Nixon’s paranoia? You’re in luck because you’ve got your man in Romney.

After the dreaded only 1 mention in Reagan’s diary for Newt per Romney’s debate aspersion, I see the mention was really pretty neat. Very conservative, and libertarians would probably be impressed as well. Wonder who the rest of the “group of young Repub. Congressmen” were?…..18549.html

[…] Lord at the American Spectator, Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection and I are leading the fight to prevent the anti-TEA Party candidate, Mitt Romney, from getting away […]

[…] the Romney-Gingrich fight intensifies (see Bob Tyrrell's story over here), a video is surfacing of Nancy Reagan talking about Newt at the Goldwater Institute in […]

[…] TRUTH: Nancy Reagan: “Ronnie turned the torch over to Newt” (Legal Insurrection) […]

[…] From Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection: Against the anti-Newt crusade stands a wealth of counter-viewpoints of people who were in a position to know and who share very differenct recollections of Newt and Reagan, via Josh Painter in the comments: […]

[…] Continue Reading:  Take that Romney! Nancy Reagan 1995: Ronnie turned the torch over to Newt Gingrich […]

theduchessofkitty | January 26, 2012 at 1:05 pm

Would you prefer for the Chinese to arrive there first?

[…] Right Scoop on January 26th, 2012 in Politics | Leave a CommentI’m picking up this quote from our friends at Legal Insurrection who seem to be one of the few, and I do mean few, who is stepping out to defend Newt as this […]

Besides getting a $300,000 fine (nearly 2-years’ salary) for eithics violations imposed by a 395-28 House vote, Newt dipped his hand into the Freddie-Fannie pot and took $1.6 million of our money. But that’s not all. ABC News has taken a look back at Gingrich’s record on the issue of so-called earmarks — a common congressional practice of inserting taxpayer money for special projects into big appropriations bills — and found a startling spike under Gingrich’s leadership as speaker. Not only did earmark spending in Congress increase between 1994 and 1998, when he departed, the overall dollar amount roughly doubled. And Newt was in charge.

“Speaker Gingrich set in motion the largest explosion of earmarks in the history of Congress,” said Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste.

    Guvhog in reply to R. Freedom. | January 26, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    For your information, Newt Gingrich was later cleared of all ethics charges so lets stop with the falsehoods.

      R. Freedom in reply to Guvhog. | January 27, 2012 at 2:03 am

      And did they give him back his $300,000 & reinstate him as speaker? Or was the fine & resignation part of a negotiated deal to avoid prosecution?

      Sure, Newt’s tax-exempt organization was audited & determined to be qualified for such status. That’s all that investigation was about. That’s routine and rarely (if ever) raises ethics charges. Doesn’t that suggest there was something besides that?

      Certainly his connections to Fannie & Freddie and his fanning the flames of pork barrel spending & earmarks has to raise an eyebrow or two.

[…] links to other articles defending Gingrich and separating out of context words written recently. Read it here. Make sure you also read what I had to say below, complete with videos. […]

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. I have never seen a more disgusting smear. I already opposed Romney as an opportunist and socialist. Now the mere thought of him and his camp disgusts me. Thank you for telling the truth.

I don’t think Drudge is attacking anybody – he’s reporting the reports. Kind of like shooting the messenger.

However, we also have Newt sitting on that bench with Nancy Pelosi and ripping Paul Ryan’s medicare plan than walking it back.

Gingrich and his Super-Pac haven’t been kind to Romney either and I’m not a Romney backer simply stating facts.

It will be interesting to see Gingrich respond to what may very likely be the first topic on the CNN debate tonight. Newt is very well prepared to attack back and he has to forcefully respond with the recent polls in Florida turning for Romney and this latest plot.

If Gingrich implodes and leaves the race does Santorum have a chance? Hmmm…

Politics ain’t beanbag ~ Mr. Dooley ~

What is really obscene is that there are immoral people out there who will actually CHEER when a serial adulterer and wife abuser like Gingrich LIES in a debate, announces to the world that his WIVES both lie about him when they say he is a cad and that he has witnesses.

Its further obscene when these same immoral RINOs claim that they are true conservatives and back a big government, social interventionist like Gingrich.

And its the final obscenity when they accuse others of bringing out the truth — Gingrich is NOT a Reagan Conservative.

    Guvhog in reply to Overdubbed. | January 26, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Newt Gingrich most certainly IS a Ronald Regan Conservative so once again let’s stop with the falsehoods, they are way past getting old.

[…] for the evening at the Goldwater Institute event. The video is courtesy of Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection. Please read his piece quoting former Reagan staffer Jeffrey Lord, liaison for Reagan between Gingrich and Jack Kemp. We are in the middle of a heated race. If we […]

[…] told! Get in line and back the RINO! Ann Coulter loses her conservative street cred by pushing Reagan-basher Mitt Romney, of Romneycare fame, as the true conservative in the GOP race while bombing Newt. […]

[…] That torch never was passed to Mitt Romney, and if it had been, he would have rejected it. “William A. Jacobson” Read complete Story. […]

[…] County posted an editorial with a a full response from the Gingrich team enclosed. It’s an article from Legal Insurrection, written by former […]