Now, NRO, Elliott Abrams Caught Misleading As Part Of Yesterday's Gingrich Attack

Yesterday, I exposed the bogus C-SPAN video attack on Newt Gingrich allegedly showing him attacking Reagan. That was manufactured with creative editing. Today, Jeff Lord at AmSpec teams up with another source to expose yet another bogus attack on Newt from yesterday's pile on.

These hacks act like new media doesn't exist - so much for NRO's credibility. Lowry's the editor. He should answer for this.  Read the whole thing and spread it around, broadly.

So now I've read the Gingrich speech that is the source of all the hoopla. All seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form.

I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.

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.

Comments

[soopermexican]

"I’m a great great deep believer in Ronald Reagan,...let me start by saying, all of us stand on president Reagan’s shoulders. And he, through his vision, re-established American morale, launched a decade of economic growth, and defeated the Soviet Empire and extended freedom."
-from a speech Newt gave in 1994 right before assuming the Speakership.

[soopermexican]

Forgot to add link to that speech: http://bit.ly/xAZV8c

[Ragspierre]

Rush is running with this...BIG...

This WILL backfire.

"Stunning", Rush Limbaugh.

[ljm]

The article illustrates Newt's problem with regard to leadership. He has the ability, as many thinkers do, to argue both sides of every argument. That was most certainly NOT a feature of Reagan's leadership. When a leader is trying to get something accomplished (like ending the Cold War) the last thing they need is some "ally" pointing out the flaws of their thinking on a regular basis.

This ability of Gingrich is the very thing that angers his detractors.

[Kaye]

Mr Riehl will you please use you considerable blogging powers to get NRO to retract and apologize for this awful hit piece coordinated by Romney

[Molon Labe]

NRO walkback will be epic. Klown-Kar GPO Establishment.

[Ragspierre]

"...the last thing they need is some "ally" pointing out the flaws of their thinking on a regular basis."

Another obvious lie.

When an ADMINISTRATION is drifting, we HAVE AN OBLIGATION to call on it to correct itself.

But, as we've seen, ljm is a troll. I very much doubt its ideology.

[p]

CNN & other news organizations are reporting on Romney's lie about investing in Freddie Mac.

CNN: Truth Squad: Did Gingrich, Romney invest in Fannie, Freddie?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/27/politics/truth-squad-investments/index.html

False. Some of Romney's investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were outside of his trust, which means he could have known about them.

Boston Globe: Romney pummels, profits from Fannie, Freddie
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/09/romney-pummels-profits-from-fannie-freddie

And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.

The investment was also not on Romney’s 2007 financial disclosure form. A Romney aide said the investments were made in the latter half of 2007, after he had filed the earlier disclosure form. That was around the time that the scale of the housing crisis was coming into focus.

The campaign declined to comment on the record. The Romney aide said the investment was made by Romney’s charitable trust.

[Kyle]

Andy McCarthy of NRO is the only honest guy they have left. He should publish a rebuttal and resign from NRO and publish his work somewhere else. NRO is a drive by media outlet; they try to manage the news and influence elections just like the MSM.

[Dustin]

"The article illustrates Newt's problem with regard to leadership. He has the ability, as many thinkers do, to argue both sides of every argument."

In what way was Newt's speech arguing in favor of liberalism or communism?

All he's doing is saying what Reagan was saying, only much more firmly, which is what you'd expect from a JR Congressman who is sincerely conservative.

Both sides? No. Same side, only cranked up to 11.

Both Sides is the problem with one other candidate, and it's so obvious I don't even have to name him... we all know who he is if you just say Flip Flopper.

This will backfire. This pushed me from liking Newt to signing up to volunteer for him and sending him a donation.

[tired of the b/s]

Let me see if I understand Jeffrey Lord correctly: he says he is in possession of "all seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form." Lord then goes on to tell you what it says but doesn't really give so much as ONE fine print page to read for yourself. I guess at best, we can say that Lord is computer illiterate and doesn't realize there is a website called scribd.com.

But Lord would not be the first to take actual documents and flavor them with his own opinion. Except that Americans are now computer saavy and want to read for themselves the documents in question, not be told by someone what it says.

Basically what we have is Lord found an article that didn't agree with his support of Newt Gingrich. So he disputed no only the words in the article, but in the process slammed the author, questioning the authors agenda. It's no more than putting the messenger to the rack because Lord didn't like the message. So OK, that's his opinion, and in a nation that is still semi-free, he is entitled to it. But put up the pages and let the chips fall where they may.
If Lord is so certain he is right, let him post ALL seven pages to Scibd, provide the link and let readers judge for themselves what Gingrich was saying and what the meaning of those words were.

[ljm]

Rags,

The difference is that Gingrich did it publicly again and again which only served to undermine the cause.

I have asked you to "correct" yourself several times here or to at least provide an argument for your false assertion that Section III item C of the ethics report is a lie. You don't seem to appreciate my efforts nearly as much as you expect Newt's detractors too.

[Ragspierre]

"The difference is that Gingrich did it publicly again and again which only served to undermine the cause."

Still another lie.

But why break form, right, ljm?

How often do we regret that there was not MORE open criticism of Bush's wrong-headed stuff?

[Dustin]

"I have asked you to "correct" yourself"

Without evidence. Based entirely on saying you aren't convinced.

You are too entitled.

Make your case. If you can't, don't insist others who haven't made your case for you are obligated to do so.

The ethics thing was a witchhunt, and those promoting that are no friend of conservatism.

[Dustin]

"So he disputed no only the words in the article, but in the process slammed the author, questioning the authors agenda"

and he succeeded. If you can't see the dishonesty in this attack, then you are in the tank, I suppose for Romney.

[Ragspierre]

"Without evidence. Based entirely on saying you aren't convinced."

Ezzzz-actly....!!!

You cannot convince a troll.

And ljm has proven to be a troll.

A lying troll, in several demonstrated instances.

[ljm]

James Cole and the ethics committee made the case, Dustin. Newt ADMITTED to misleading the committee and continues to admit it to this day. For some reason Rags and now you say that it was all lies. Cole, the committee and Newt were all lying.

I haven't made that charge. I agree with James Cole, the ethics committee and Newt.

Since Rags refuses to support his charge. Would you mind stepping in and assisting him? Make your case. You could go down in history.

[Ragspierre]

ljm, you've self-identified as a lying troll here.

Beating that dead horse with you would be a total waste of time.

[tired of the b/s]

Dustin, try looking behind the curtain. Lord made his argument by indicating that Abrams was a mouth piece for Romney. Now he comes up with some guy who used to work for Gingrich as a foreign policy advisor and even names the company that Scheve works for. And who is AquaTerra Strategies?
Well, their mission state includes this little diddy:

"Strategic lobbying efforts targeting Member, Senators, Leadership and staff of the United States Congress."

Scheve parlayed his connection to the former speaker into a tony position as a K-Street lobbyist. And while that is legal, and in some circles acceptable, ask yoursef this:

If Scheve had a problem with Abrams article, to the point he would go to the George Mason Library and dig up the Congressional record from 22 years ago, why didn't Scheve take his complaints directly to Abrams? Why did he take his complaints to Jeffrey Lord? Was it because he knows that Lord is willing to report just enough to slam Abrams and claim that Gingrich is the innocent by stander? Scheve is in possession of the '81 Gingrich speech. Lord claims to be in possession of the '81 Gingrich speech. Put it up on Scribd.com, provide the link and let the chips fall where they may.

Too many times political hacks are giving us just enough information to steer us the way they want to go. I'm saying that the American voter deserves ALL the information, not just the parts that people like Lord want us to have.

[ljm]

It very well may be a dead horse, rags, since after his poor performance last night, Newt has become a non factor. Pelosi will never get the chance to make Newt's attempted cover-up an issue in the presidential election.

[Ragspierre]

Hey, b/s...

plug different names into what you wrote. It is what I call the "turn-around-test".

Turn it around, and see if you can answer any of the questions you pose.

Do you figure Abrams could answer affirmatively that he ran his charges past Gingrich and gave him a chance to go on record?

Hmmm...???

[Ragspierre]

"Pelosi will never get the chance to make Newt's attempted cover-up an issue in the presidential election."

Why would she get in your way, troll?

"Cover-up" what, you lying POS...???

The IRS found that the witch-hunt was baseless.

Again.

Another time.

To repeat what you already know.

Liar.

[tired of the b/s]

rags, Abrams has no responsibility to run his article past Newt prior to publication any more than Lord has the responsibility to run his articles past Mitt prior to publication. Or any other pundit has the responsibility to check first with the candidate they are about to bash. Silly me, isn't that why it is called the "free" press?

What I do question is how Lord just happened to be contacted by a K-Street lobbyist who used to work for Gingrich who was sooooooo outraged by Abrams article. What was Lobbyist Scheve's ultimate goal? Truth and honesty? Spare me. Those two things are sorely lacking this campaign season.

[Ragspierre]

“I’m going to tell you something. Newt Gingrich was the former Republican Speaker of the House, the first Republican Speaker of the House in almost half a century, and he was fighting the Democrats and to win the House of Representatives before most of the people writing on the Internet about him and trashing him and going with talking points from other campaigns were old enough to wipe themselves,” Levin said. “[W]e can certainly criticize Newt Gingrich, but do not count me among those who are going to destroy the man. I saw that attempt already by the hard-left Democrats led by [Michigan Rep.] David Bonior.” …

“I’m supposed to sit here, read all this crap on the Internet, listen to purported Reaganites and others tell me that he didn’t do these things?” Levin said. “I was there. I lived it. I saw it. Or let me put it this way — Newt Gingrich, if he does nothing else, did more for the conservative movement and to stop the liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives than virtually everybody today who’s criticizing him.”
--Mark Levin

Me, too, Mr. Levin.

And we have a Junior Bonior, right here. Apparently assigned to this blog.

[Ragspierre]

"Truth and honesty? Spare me. Those two things are sorely lacking this campaign season."

MmmmK...

They are certainly lacking in your posts. Along with integrity.

"Or any other pundit has the responsibility to check first with the candidate they are about to bash."

Is Abrams a pundit? Or was he a Gingrich contemporary...a guy who was nominally on the same team during the Reagan years?

But, yes, anybody who writes stuff SHOULD try to get the other side's read on a claim before publishing it...in a way that seems calculated to smear, especially.

[tired of the b/s]

rags, you really are delusional, aren't you? As well as insulting toward those who do not agree with you. You question my integrity when you have shown none? That has got to be the joke of the day. You seem to take things posted personally. Why is that? Are you that insecure?

No, someone writing any article does not have the responsibility of checking with their opposition before publication. Of course, in this era, presidential candidates cannot challenge reporters to a duel when the reporter writes something they don't like. Is Abrams a pundit? In the respect that he was giving his opinion of facts, yes, but no more so than Lord.

You seem to think I have a dog in this hunt, as you have expressed you do. I don't. All the remaining candidates are equally unacceptable to me.

[ljm]

Yes, rags, cover-up or if you prefer subterfuge, deception, snow job. Take your pick. Newt is guilty of it. He admitted to it. Now he calls it a "mistake." This "mistake", however, is an even bigger political liability than his other personal "mistakes" because it concerns his duty as an elected official. His basic duty to perform his responsibilities in a way that upholds the public trust.

You don't understand that. You call it a dead horse. I find that troubling.

[Ragspierre]

I'll just rely on people to read the thread and draw their own conclusions, b/s.

Folks and judge who has integrity and who does not.

[Ragspierre]

We have a Junior Bonior, right here. Apparently assigned to this blog.

Trolls never stop telling the same lie, over and over.

[Ragspierre]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/if-this-is-what-the-conservative-movement-has-become-then-count-me-out/

Listen to Levin. Passion, and integrity.

[Dustin]

b/s

I wouldn't argue either side here is saintly, but on this one specific issue, I Would argue that Newt has nothing to be ashamed of and has been smeared.

I think this issue shows a lot about Newt's core beliefs, and they appear to be conservative. Newt's done much for the movement. He's got baggage, he's deviated, and I think he can be just plain ridiculous. Love him I do not. He's just the best that remains. Folks wouldn't listen to me when I urged folks not reject Perry for minor stuff. Now we need to pick among what remains.

[tired of the b/s]

Dustin, look, Lord was spinning. And that is undeniable. Now, it just so happens that the entire 3/21/86 Gingrich speech has been put up on Scribd.com. There is a lot in it that could be considered as not favorable to Reagan. But it was Newt being Newt, the contrarian that NO one uses one word to describe; trustworthy.

Romney is just a northeastern progressive and coming from where I sit, there is nothing in his gubernatorial record that does anything but show that to be true. But why should I think that Gingrich would be any better when he has proven, time and time again, that he will wander off in some direction that is not in the best interest of conservatives? Trust, Dustin. There's the key. I don't like Romney but I don't trust Gingrich.

But most of all, the people who are former Palin supporters, then Cain supporters are now all jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon. They don't ask any questions (like who is Chris Scheve) and they just blithly follow where they are being led, and if you try to suggest to them that they really need to stop just accepting what all the pundits are saying and do their own research, you get attacked like they were just a bunch of hungry wolves. Not one of them mention, including this blog, that Gingrich had to pull a disingenous ad that claimed Romney was anti-immigration when Marco Rubio came out and said to stop, that neither candidate was anti-immigrant or against legal immigration.

The lines are being drawn and I am of the opinion that all this snipping and fighting between the two camps will do nothing but turn off the independents needed to defeat Obama. I can't tell you how many really core conservatives (not necessarily Republicans) I know that are saying they are already sick of this election and just want it over.

The Romney hacks are trying to smear Gingrich and shove Romney down our throats. The Gingrich hacks are trying to smear Romney and shove Gingrich down our throats. And frankly, they both disgust me since all they are doing is providing fodder for the Obama campaign to beat the eventual nominee to a bloody pulp.

[ljm]

No mention of the ad that Rubio complained about. Much worse than that was the King of Bain movie from Gingrich's superpac. Newt promoted the ad in the debate prior to its debut and then after the damage was done to free enterprise; after it was roundly exposed as a hoax it quietly went away.

Yet, Newt continues to whine about HIS bad treatment. He complains when the debate audience is silenced and then, unbelievably, accuses last night's liberated audience of being disproportionately pro-Romney.

Can he really be so delusional to believe that the rules in the presidential election debates will be skewed in his favor? That the moderators will be intimidated again by his own version of pious baloney?

The DNC would love to have Newt beat up Romney and present himself as the Republican candidate. This is why they continue to campaign against Romney and virtually ignore Newt. They know they can beat Newt. They have been building a case against him for 30 years.

Read the archived Newt articles in Mother Jones. Gail Sheehy's devastating novella length article published in Vanity Fair from 1995. Articles and interviews from the 90's in WAPO and NYTs. Google L H Kip Carter or Dot Crews. There are dozens of people, past friends, family and associates from his past who have gone on record and are presumably still out there. They don't like Newt. They use words like amoral, reckless, heartless, ego maniacal, unprincipled, without a conscience and cruel.

If you can read the material and still make the case that he can beat Obama well then...I'd be astonished.

There is a reason that the republicans who know him best are speaking up. Sarah Palin calls it the politics of personal destruction. She should know but the Democrats have much much more on Newt and they won't be shy about using it.

I've heard Newt tell people that he wants to teach a romanticized view of America. He is a romantic. He makes that very clear in the Sheehy interview. I think Newt is attempting to teach America a romanticized view of himself. Some people are buying it. I'm not one of them.

[Ragspierre]

We have a Junior Bonior, right here. Apparently assigned to this blog.

Trolls never stop telling the same lie, over and over.

Referring to Mother Jones as a source authority to slime a Conservative.

Well, and his/her idiot sidekick, b/s...

[ljm]

Rags,

You miss the point. The information in Mother Jones and the other mags and papers is what the Democrats will use to slime Newt. The people quoted in these publications are still around. They will speak again. Consider this quote from Kip Carter in Mother Jones:

"He's probably one of the most dangerous people for the future of this country that you can possibly imagine. He's Richard Nixon, glib. It doesn't matter how much good I do the rest of my life, I can't ever outweigh the evil that I've caused by helping him be elected to Congress."

Newt is a fascinating man. He is a gifted thinker. As a historian he tends to be romantic and revisionist. That's fine. I don't have anything against romanticizing history. As a campaigner and leader he uses demagoguery which is a big problem. It is one of the reasons many (it appears to be a majority) of the people who have served in government with him don't want him to be the republican nominee.

[Ragspierre]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/were-screwed-florida-ag-pam-bondi-claims-mitt-wants-romneycare-in-every-state-video/

Well...isn't special...

"Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Romney supporter, let the cat out of the bag last night. The Florida Republican told Greta Van Susteren that Mitt wants Romneycare in every state.
She also said she would be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president."

Somebody has some 'splaning to do...

Posted by: Ragspierre | Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM

[ljm]

I saw that on Greta last night and watched it again via your link.

you said: The Florida Republican told Greta Van Susteren that Mitt wants Romneycare in every state.

Please provide that QUOTE or the point on the video where she says that.

[Ragspierre]

"She says Romney’s health care plan is not the same as ObamaCare and, in fact, Romney’s plan reduces costs. She goes on to say that Romney wants all states to impose similar laws (including mandates) and that she and is all for it.

She went on to explain that she’s going to be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president!"

from the GatewayPundit.

Seems consistent with what I heard her say, AND Romney touting his RomneyCare just the other night.

[ljm]

You provide no quote from the video to back-up Gateway Pundit's silly assertion. You comeback with another silly assertion from GP's blog that being this:

She goes on to say that Romney wants all states to impose similar laws (including mandates) and that she and is all for it.

Please provide the quote or point on the video tape where she says anything close to that.

Limbaugh and Greta were comparing Romneycare to Obamacare prior to Bondi's appearance. Bondi was simply pointing out the errors in that exchange.

As you should know Florida Atttorney General Bondi has lead the charge to get the federal mandate in Obamacare overturned.

Here's Bondi on another Greta segment: Is it to much to expect you to actually watch a segment or read an official report rather than relying on the talking points of your favorite pundits?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwI8fCeEWcw

[Ragspierre]

"As you should know Florida Atttorney General Bondi has lead the charge to get the federal mandate in Obamacare overturned."

I am quite aware, troll.

As an attorney, I understand we OFTEN make frog-fur arguments on issues.

How the FLUCK does that change anything?

About WHAT was Mr. Limbaugh mistaken, apart from Ms. Bondi ASSERTING he was (without support, BTW)?

[Ragspierre]

Does Mittens assert there is NOTHING wrong with RomneyCare?

Yes or no.

Does Mitten assert it works as intended?

Yes or no.

[ljm]

Well this ham sandwich has no bite.

Hopefully counselor (and I use the term loosely) you support your claims with better arguments in your legal profession.

[Ragspierre]

Huh.

No response to the points and questions...

well...

except bullsh!t ad hominem.

As we could have predicted.

Troll.

[ljm]

As Romney has said repeatedly and Bondi confirms in the video (that you provided) on his first day in office he will begin the process of overturning Obamacare. That may not be necessary as Bondi's efforts may lead to the supreme court doing the job before November. So the idea that Bondi and Romney want to "impose similar laws (including mandates)" is ridiculous.

In answer to your questions

1. no
2. no

[Ragspierre]

"That may not be necessary as Bondi's efforts may lead to the supreme court doing the job before November. So the idea that Bondi and Romney want to "impose similar laws (including mandates)" is ridiculous."

Really...?!?!

Why? PRECISELY???

And you lied in answer to the questions.

Romney said just the other night that RomneyCare WAS working, and WAS a success.

I can recall NOTHING he has said that indicates he believes there is anything wrong with it (except that it has been expanded beyond its original design).

[ljm]

You bein' a lawyer and all...do you really need me to explain why the supreme court over-turning Obamacare would make the idea of Romney imposing a similar mandates a mute point?

You demand yes or no answers to your leading questions then you respond with your memory of what Romney has said. No quotes. No video. No support. Did you go to the Sean Hannity school of law?

BTW if it takes me more than 13 minutes to answer it is because I actually consider the counterpoints, watch the video, read the contents of links. It takes a little extra time but I find it useful when trying to make a point.

[Ragspierre]

"Really...?!?!

Why? PRECISELY???"

Ummm...

stupid...

you didn't answer the question. Because, as we BOTH know, you can't without exposing ANOTHER of your BS LIES.

There is no bar to RomneyCare in the U.S. Constitution, idiot. It is IMPOSED on a state level.

And you answered the questions NO and NO. I'm saying you are lying.

Again.

And we both know you are.

[ljm]

I'm going to lunch so I'll make this brief. (no pun intended, counselor)

How does Romney if elected president force states to impose mandates?

I know I'll get a very well sited response showing legal precedent. I'll give you some time. I'm going shopping after lunch.

[Ragspierre]

Stick it.

How's that?

Liar.

How does any federal official impose edicts on states...you lying SOS...???