Thursday, January 26, 2012

If He'd Deny Congress the Truth...


Like I say, folks... piling on.

(*SMIRK*)

Elliott Abrams writes in National Review Online today, "As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years - and I was an assistant secretary of state - Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong."

Hmm... Elliott Abrams... wasn't he convicted in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress? (Oh, well... never mind...)

But, hey... my "problem" with Mr. Abrams isn't his history of ly... er... "withholding information from Congress," nor is it his loyalty to his last boss... George W. Bush. Nope. Abrams is clearly on a "team" and that "team" is the GOP Establishment. I get it!

No... what bothers me about this (latest) hit piece on Gingrich is simply this:

Where's the record of Abrams' "letting us in" on this "shocking" info in the '80's... in the '90's... in the '00's?

Where are the quotes; what exactly did Gingrich say "against" Reagan?

What "insulting rhetoric" is Abrams referring to and why are we only hearing of it now...???

(*SMIRK*)

Folks... there's a clear pattern here.

(*SHRUG*)

Again... I ask you: What does it say about Newt Gingrich that he's so hated and feared not by just the Democrats... not by just the mainstream media... but by the GOP Establishment - the same GOP Establishment which has betrayed conservatism time and time again?

If Ronald Reagan were on record making these accusations against Newt Gingrich... well... then I'd be anti-Gingrich too.

But Ronald Reagan clearly WASN'T anti-Gingrich!

Folks... again... and again, and again, and again... what's the record here? The record is of a man - Newt Gingrich - who "criticized" Ronald Reagan for not going as far RIGHT as the young firebrand Gingrich wanted to go!

Folks... Gingrich is being criticized - from the supposed "Right" - for having been more ambitiously conservative than... RONALD REAGAN!

(*SNORT*)

That's the complain from the GOP Establishment. That's what they'd have us believe.

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

Folks... again... again, and again, and again... look at what Newt accomplished in little more than a decade starting as a back-bench member of the (then) Republican (minority) House: He organized conservatives into movement which achieved power in the 1994 Republican Revolution! He came up with and got much of the conservative Contract With America passed! He fought - and lost - a battle with President Bill Clinton where Gingrich's position was he wanted to shrink government and government spending... and yet having lost the battle he still ended up with his ideals "winning the war" (if only temporarily) via the balanced budgets of the late '90's and early '00's!

Folks... is what I'm pointing to - the facts I'm outlining - getting through?

I pray to God it is.

There are BAD people going after Newt Gingrich. People who obviously prefer to be "Big Fish" even in a polluted pond.

Look at who the people who oppose Gingrich are and look at the tactics they're using.

Ron Paul criticizes Gingrich.

Ron Paul doesn't LIE about Gingrich.

Romney...? Romney's surrogates?

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Don't be fooled, folks. Don't let the pile on stampede you. Gingrich should be the GOP presidential nominee. As GOP presidential nominee Gingrich would win. As President... I have no doubt whatsoever that Newt Gingrich would put Country and Constitution first and foremost in every policy coming out of a Gingrich Administration.

15 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/26/coordinated_avalanche_against_newt_doesn_t_match_my_memory_of_reagan_years

* JUST READ THIS TRANSCRIPT, FOLKS...

(*SHRUG*)

* RUSH IS CHANNELING ME!

(*GRIN*)

William R. Barker said...

* OH... AND FOLKS... WHEN TOM FRIGG'N DELAY IS BROUGHT IN BY THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT AS YET ANOTHER "VOICE AGAINST NEWT" YOU KNOW WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING - AND WHAT RUSH LIMBAUGH HAS BEEN LARGELY ECHOING - IS FAR BEYOND MERE SUPPOSITION.

* FOLKS... DELAY IS A SCUMBAG! THE FACT THAT HE'S AGAINST NEWT... JUST ANOTHER REASON TO BELIEVE IN NEWT!

* WHO ARE THEY GONNA "HIGHLIGHT" AS THE NEXT ANTI-NEWT VOICE... TRENT LOTT...?!?!

(*SNORT*)

William R. Barker said...

* OH...

* OH... OH... OH...

* AND THINK ABOUT HOW THE PRESS IS PORTRAYING ALL THIS! THEY'RE EATING THIS ALL UP NOT AS THE USUAL TABLOID FUEL TO JIGGER UP RATINGS, NO... IT'S BEYOND THAT: THE MEDIA - BOTH MAINSTREAM AND CONSERVATIVE ESTABLISHMENT - IS CLEARLY ROOTING FOR ROMNEY AGAINST NEWT!

* AGAIN... BOTH THE MAINSTREAM LIBERAL AND (SO-CALLED) CONSERVATIVE MEDIA ARE "ALLIED" IN TRYING TO BRING NEWT DOWN! THE LEFT AND RIGHT "ESTABLISHMENTS" ARE OPERATING IN TANDEM TO BRING NEWT DOWN! SURELY THIS TELLS YOU THAT THERE'S SOMETHING ROTTEN GOING ON HERE.

Rodak said...

Romney's a lock. Loose cannons crush the shins of hard-working swabbies. Santorum cuddles dead babies and makes his kids do the same. He's a freak.
Newt's right about the moon base, though. We should already a thriving city on Mars--never mind the moon.

William R. Barker said...

@ Rodak

That's fine, Rob; you're not alone in believe Romney is a lock.

But on the wider question... responding to my various comments on the topic... what's your opinion of my analysis?

I mean... take Tom Frigg'n DeLay coming out against Newt. Surely you agree with me that who Newt's enemies are tells a tale all in and of itself... or don't you?

I'll of course be putting up another post (perhaps more than one) today dealing with the GOP presidential nomination race, but just based upon my ANALYSIS of "why" Newt gets so much opposition vs. "why" Romney is GOP Establishment support and at the very least relatively "gentle" treatment by the mainstream media whose membership tilts overwhelmingly democrat in terms of how they report their own voting records and ideological grounding in survey after survey.

Hey... as always... you don't have to agree with me. If you disagree... fine. But I am curious as to where you stand with regard to WHAT I'VE SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN over the past few days (weeks) on the "anti-Newt" thing.

Thanks in advance!

BILL

Rodak said...

Newt's enemies may be suggestive, but what is even more suggestive is the near total absence of those who one would intuitively expect to be his friends--i.e. those he served with in Congress. Where are they?
As for the left media, they are being just as hard on Romney, imo. They are constantly pointing out his 180-degree shifts on issues; his hypocrisy about his wealth; his wooden delivery; etc. He just doesn't have Gingrich's personal baggage to defend. Newt to obviously a heel; Romney is not. That's factual. The people being hardest on Newt are in his own party. They don't like him. You'll have to tell me why--I'm no expert on Republican inside baseball.

Rodak said...

Btw, I fully agree that Romney is a liar. But this is politics, so...what's your point?

Rodak said...

Chris Matthews just spent the first 20 minutes of "Hardball" tearing Mitt Romney's performance in the last debate apart--the debate most everybody say Romney won. It's not that "they" are anti-Gingrich (although they, of course, are), but that they are anti-conservative. Would they rather see Romney than Gingrich, if Obama didn't win? Yes. But they would MUCH rather have seen Huntsman than either of the front-runners.

William R. Barker said...

Hey Rob! Thanks for the feedback.

Addressing your latest comments in order...

1) You apparently haven't read a few of my earlier posts (and comments within posts) concerning Newt's relationship with the GOP Establishment. Therefore, allow me to reiterate:

Newt WAS the "anti-GOP Establishment" back in the post-Reagan '80's and early '90's.

(Just as REAGAN was the "anti-GOP Establishment" up until the very moment he won the GOP nomination in 1980!)

As I've noted in several posts and much commentary, the folks who DO support Gingrich are the TRUE Reaganites - those who REAGAN actually counted as "his own" back when the GOP Establishment was supporting the likes of Ford, Pappy Bush, even Rockefeller.

(*SHRUG*)

The folks who hate Gingrich...?

ONE MORE TIME...

Tom Frigg'n DeLay.

Lisa Frigg'n Murkowski.

(And so on and so forth...)

Remember, Rob, the Contract With America - NEWT'S Contract With America - was as much an assault against entrenched GOP "old bull" interests as it was upon the "business as usual" Democrats under Wright and Rostenkowski.

Anyway... hopefully this rings a bell with you. (After all... YOU were there just like me; to us "old guys" this is stuff we lived through.)

BILL

William R. Barker said...

@ Rob's comment #2:

I guess my point is that Romney's lying goes "beyond the pale" in terms of what I'm able to "accept" as politics as usual.

Remember, Rob... remember who you're chatting with here!

You're chatting with the guy who turned his back of Al D'Amato...

You're chatting with the guy who turned his back on Trent Lott and Tom DeLay...

You're talking to a guy who you KNOW constantly blasted Bush (particularly in his second term) and in the end got so frustrated with the Establishment GOP that I switched Parties (and registered AND VOTED) as a Democrat in order to "punish" the Establishment GOP for "betraying" me and my ideals.

Why a guy like ME hates a guy like Romney while a guy like TOM FRIGG'N DELAY supports Romney...

(*SHRUG*)

And, Rob... it's not as if I didn't blast Gingrich left and right all through the '00's whenever I felt he deserved it...

(*SHRUG*)

If I'm not the poster child for principled, "independent" conservatism I don't know who is.

(*GRIN*) (*CHUCKLE*) (*WINK*)

Anyway...

William R. Barker said...

@ Rob's comment #3:

Perhaps Matthews believes that Romney is the greater threat to Obama?

(*SHRUG*)

I of course disagree... but if that's what Matthews truly believes...

(*SHRUG*)

In other words, this could well be tactical on Matthews part.

Rodak said...

Sure, Bill, but Gingrich was a congressman back then. He needed only a local constituency. In order to play on the national stage, he has to have party support. He ain't got it. If the reports are true, he is being funded by ONE GUY--a very nasty casino owner. I heard this morning that Gingrich has already spent every cent he had on Florida. If this guy doesn't give him a hundred mill, or so, immediately--he's gone. And it looks like he loses Florida, big time.
So, I still say he's toast. Mitt is a lock, unless the establishment dumps him because they don't think he can win, and choose somebody else at the convention (if possible...?)
Gingrich seems to be pretty much without friends. I mean, Sarah Palin likes him. (So, I guess Glen Rice is in his camp, too.) And he has that guy out in Cali endorsing him from the slammer. That should help.

William R. Barker said...

@ Rodak

Well, Rob, they're ALL "just local congressmen" until... er... they're not.

(*SHRUG*)

Gingrich got to be Speaker not in "the usual way," by slowly rising up through the ranks and "waiting his turn." Nope. Newt literally TOOK power. He took power based upon his personality, his leadership, and the SUCCESS of that leadership in creating a true conservative faction within the GOP which became the spear-point for destroying Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski and then taking control of the House for the first time in what... 40 years... and this control lasted till the RINOs finally wore out their welcome in 2006 - long after THEY had stabbed Gingrich in the back.

I agree with you that back in the late '90's Newt and his faction weren't able to win against a combined force of Democratics and Dempublicans... but lots has changed since the '90's, Rob.

The technology... the way media and communication works today as opposed to then... that'll make all the difference. Newt will be able to defend himself as President in a way he was never able to as Speaker with Clinton as President.

Now I hear ya... you're saying the GOP Establishment won't back Newt... you're echoing what I've been saying... BUT... I offer you this caveat:

IF Gingrich can win the nomination... I guarantee you that the GOP Establishment will fall in line.

Yeah... I know... it sounds kooky. And you know what, Rob? It is! But the GOP is a "top-down" Party at heart (with is why Gingrich's rise to the Speakership in the '90's was so unique) and if Gingrich can "pull the sword from the stone"... the Establishment WILL rally to him.

As to the rest... hey... we'll see!

My guess... let's say you're correct and Romney beats Gingrich in Florida.

WELL... even if he does... I bet you he beats Gingrich by LESS of a margin than Gingrich beat HIM in South Carolina.

In any case... we'll see.

What I don't see is Gingrich - or Santorum - pulling out anytime soon.

Again... we'll see if I'm right.

Rodak said...

That wasn't my point. My point was that to get to be a congressman in the first place (so that one can then SEIZE power) one only needs a local constituency--part of a state. To get to become POTUS (so that one can again SEIZE power), one needs a national constituency. That can't be done under our current system without party support. Newt doesn't have party support. He has as many enemies in his own party as he has in the other party. That's what comes of ruthlessly climbing up on the backs of less ruthless others.
And the press likes him only in the same way that it likes train wrecks.
If what I said about his funding is accurate, he won't be around much longer, unless he pulls a miracle in Florida.
I don't see that he has anything going for right. And he's falling in the polls.

William R. Barker said...

Think what you will, Rob. We've reached the "dead horse" segment of our little chat here.

(*GRIN*)

One point I will however note because it just made Drudge (and is reposted here on my blog) is this:

Apparently SARAH PALIN gets where I'm coming from.

(*WINK*)