Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Reagan and Gingrich

Assistant Secretary of State in the Reagan years, Elliot Abrams puts the lie to Newt's claims of being Reagan's twin back in the day. (Newt: “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” to name a few.)

According to Abrams, Newt was always questioning Reagan's policies, and predicting they would fail--and doing so at the most damaging times. (Sound familiar?)
Newt: “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.”
More:
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.”
Abrams writes that far from becoming a reliable voice for Reagan policy and the struggle against the Soviets, Gingrich took on Reagan and his administration.

Quite frankly this sounds more like the Newt we all know. Back then, as now, Newt was full of himself, and not exactly the great thinker / leader of civilization he fancied himself to be. Apparently, he was dead wrong on Reagan policy. Thank heaven Reagan was in control and not Newt (hint hint), and that there were members of Congress who were behind Reagan and giving him the support he needed at a critical time. (Henry Hyde, Dick Cheney, Connie Mack, Dan Burton, and Tom DeLay)

It seems to me that Reagan would have a problem with the way Newt is re-writing history. Newt just can't seem to tell the truth a lot of the time.


16 comments:

Terrye said...

Yeah, this is Newt..everyone else is dumbass and he and he alone knows what to do and say. The sad thing is there was a time when GOP voters would have caught on to that kind of rhetoric. Talk radio and cable news and charlans Sarah Palin have dumbed them down.

Terrye said...

That should be "charlatan" not charlans...at least I admit my mistakes.

Anonymous said...

Phony wannabe Gingrich has used "Reagan" 55 times in the presidential debates, Romney has referenced Romney 6 times. Right wing whackados are too stupid to know they're being brainwashed.


dd

Anonymous said...

Terry, that truly is the sad thing. There's nothing they can learn about Newt that will open their eyes.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Oops, sorry Terrye. (I'll correct mine too.)

-Martha

Ohio JOE said...

Yes, Mr. Gingrich is a Charlatan, but Mr. Romney is not a whole lot better.

Anonymous said...

Progress OJ! You admit Romney is better. At this rate, though, it will be a while . . .

-Martha

Ohio JOE said...

"At this rate, though, it will be a while . . ." Yeah it will be a while, you guys are naive after recent event if you think this is going to be a boom gone slam bam contest. It will be a while yet before we have an official winner.

DanL said...

Oh dang, I was hoping that OJ hadn't posted yet so that I could predict that he would come to this thread to make a comment about Romney that was both unrelated to the content of this thread, but also disconnected from reality. But he already did. The early loon gets the worm.

Anonymous said...

DanL,

Still time of the month I see! Then again you may be going through menopause. :)

A.J.R.

Anonymous said...

DanL,

I would be careful throwing around the loony charge after your "incarnation of evil" post on Saturday.

A.J.R.

Anonymous said...

AJR, it was not looney. Look at Newt, he is an example of the worst tendencies in men: lying, cheating, greedy, self-obsessed, incontinent, power-hungry, selfish, etc.

Dan was right on the money.

-Martha

DanL said...

Martha, it's ok. Some people believe that there is good and there is evil. Then there are others who scoff at these notions, calling them outdated. I think that those of us who believe that there is evil in the world are in the minority.

Anonymous said...

Dan,

Who said there isn't evil in the world? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is evil...Robert Mugabe is evil...Adolph Hitler was evil...Joseph Stalin was evil. To equate Newt (and I am no fan of his) with people like that is ridiculous. The fact that there were only 9 comments (the 10th one was yours) and only Martha agreed with your assessment shows that the majority of people on this site agree with me. I get that you don't like Newt but you are allowing you hatred of him to make you unhinged.

A.J.R.

Anonymous said...

Hey, OJ, DanL, and RW, would you please refrain from referring to "that time of the month" and "menopause" in my presence? Some of that just hits a little too close to home these days! I appreciate that nobody swore at each other, though. That's a step in the right direction! You see that we are making progress.

OJ, baby-stepping, baby-stepping, "Come to Mitt, come to Mitt!"

AZ

P.S. If you haven't seen "What About Bob?" you should watch it. You'll get what I mean about baby-steps.

Anonymous said...

AZ. Dan didn't say anything about that. Just FYI. :)

-Martha