Rich Lowry Was 12 When Reagan Was Elected And It Shows

That NRO's Rich Lowry would follow up his ignorance and sloppy incompetence as an editor over the Abrams, Lord dust up with a childish petulance suggests his temperament hasn't changed much since he was 12 years old when former President Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. Not only did he apparently drop the ball as a competent editor when publishing Elliott Abram's initial misleading piece, he seems to still have no serious grasp of the issue at hand on March 21, 1986 when Newt Gingrich addressed the House with the special order in question.

If Lowry understood the actual issue and pertinent history, he would appreciate that Abrams attacked Newt Gingrich from the Left, or soft side of national defense that was actually in opposition to Reagan in the sense it sought to undermine him at the time.

Gingrich, on the other hand, was a Reagan ally and his special order was, in fact, more in line with Reagan, than was it opposed to him. Actually, it wasnt opposed to Reagan at all. If anything, a knowledgeable individual would have understood Gingrich's speech as, in a very real sense, contextually cheering Reagan on to fulfill his own vision, while simply pointing out deficiencies inherent in Reagan's administration given the complexity of the political and administrative challenges at hand.

Gingrich was also echoing the sentiments of such luminaries and staunch Reaganites as those he invoked in the special order no one at NRO seems interested in pointing out, see below. If Lowry's ignorant premise in defense of Abram's is to be believed, then we must lump Will, Krauthammer, Kristol and Kirkpatrick in the bash Reagan camp, too. Does anyone believe that foolishness, beside NRO's currently less than esteemed editor? I don't think so.

From the Gingrich special order in question: The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.

It would seem to me per the above, Gingrich had a pretty firm set of thinkers in support of the argument he was making with his special order and I'd stack them up against Rich Lowry given the subject in question any day of the week. Would Lowry now purport to know the history better than they, as well? Or, will he retract his piece? Clearly, if one is going to take Newt to task over this, the above named must be taken to task for bashing Reagan, as well.

This from Lowry's latest bit of adolescent-sounding tripe.

You can read it in all its glory here. (I suspect Newt’s fans will find it unerringly brilliant, while others will roll their eyes.) Gingrich spokesman Joe DeSantis called on NR today to retract Elliott’s piece. In light of all the above, I call on Joe DeSantis to retract his call for a retraction.

In point of fact, Gingrich didn't only aim to support Reagan against some voices in his own administration in a highly charged debate going on at the time, he also criticized his very own House, suggesting it too needed to be gotten into order. The critical passages highlighting that are in bold below. If I'm correct, instead of functioning as a competent editor and seeking out the complete special order to acquaint himself with the full and appropriate context prior to posting, Lowry simply ran the Abram's smear of Gingrich, perhaps as it fit the days dump on Newt narrative on behalf of NRO Foundation benefactor, Mitt Romney.

The gap between Ronald Reagan's United Nations speech in which he courageously called for support for freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, and Nicaragua, the gap between that speech and the reality of our pathetically incompetent efforts is a gap that should be a scandal if only we took it seriously.

The change for which Gingrich was advocating was not a change in Reagan, it was a change with regard to foot-dragging and undermining going on in Congress and Reagan's own administration - he was also arguing for the institutionalization of Reagan's policy so it continued on without him once he left office, both because Newt thought Reagan was so right and that others were intent on preventing said institutionalization for the longer term to extend Reagan's own vision in the particular area of foreign policy. That was not happening, which is the root - and the only root - of Gingrich's criticism at the time.

Of course, as appropriate Reagan's name would be invoked. He was the President, after all, one Gingrich clearly supported and fully agreed with on the pertinent issue. Should Gingrich have slighted him and not acknowledged him as Commander-In-Chief while making a point in support of Reagan's own vision?

In fact, Gingrich's audience was other than Reagan. It's that context that observers of this silliness like Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Jeff Lord who recall it first hand get, that a then 18 year old Rich Lowry apparently does not. Obviously, he never bothered to fulfill his charge as a competent editor and acquaint himself with it. As to what Abram's actual motivations may be for writing his smear in the first place, I know not. But, clearly, he slipped a fast one past an evidently incurious and disengaged Rich Lowry.  

Fourth, the burden be borne by House and Senate Republicans who agree with President Reagan's vision and have not fought hard enough to force the changes in the executive branch. We can hardly expect our friends on the left who do not agree with this policy or our friends on the left who do not agree with this policy or our friends who are pressured because as Democrats they believe Reagan is right, they exist in a caucus whose majority clearly does not believe Reagan is right, to lead the way in forcing the executive branch to become competent or to lead the way in articulating the case to the American people.

Newt's special order was actually a call to arms in support of Reagan, not some genuinely harsh criticism of the man himself - NOT IN THE LEAST!

The burden must be borne by House and Senate Republicans who agree with the President's vision, who are afraid of the transnational Soviet empire, who understand the Communist Cuban colonial army, and who understand that what we are doing today simply is not good enough.

Fifth, the burden of responsibility must be borne by our own political supporters who have not held our feet to the fire and who have not focused on results rather than intentions.

Call it a bit of now rather old and arcane high rhetoric dug up out of context to smear someone, or call it silly rhetoric as Lowry would seem to infer, perhaps as he must be a rather silly man himself to have taken his editorial responsibilities so lightly, but to fully appreciate its genuine motive and intent one would also need to appreciate the precise debate that was taking place at the time. Because individuals like Levin, Limbaugh and Lord, Rollins and others were there and know the subject as participants, or observers, as I know it, they understand this and, consequently, take great exception to the fraud that Rich Lowry perpetuated.

A mere eighteen years old when the floor speech was given, perhaps Rich Lowry was too overly fixated upon finding some next best acne medication at the time to have paid much attention to political and world events in March of 1986. Certainly, we can forgive the lad for that. But as he now holds the title of Editor at what was once a prestigious conservative publication such as NRO, hopefully it's not too much to expect Rich Lowry to do his homework before publishing Mitt Romney's oppo research next time out. Perhaps he could simply pass it along to Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post, then no one would notice or care about it, as she doesnt appear to have any standards at all these days, given the insane garbage that she routinely spews out for Mitt Romney day in and day out.

Comments

[Kaye]

Dan I saw the gawker article about Romney baptizing his dead father-in-law into Mormonism. There is also another article in the wapo titled Under God, Mormon and Jews contend for the souls of the dead. it is a real zinger. Also at Catholic .org we see Vatican warns of Mormon baptism of the Dead. The Vatican actually ordered diocese not to release info to the mormon geneological society. Do you think this will play a factor in the general if Romney is elected? If so should this come out now?

[Ragspierre]

As I observed elsewhere...

How different would our history be if MORE of us vocally disagreed with the wrong-headed policies of W's ADMINISTRATION...???

Isn't that ONE of the essential lessons of the TEA Party movement...that WE must be ready to criticize those who WE elect to high office???

Are we NOT to push them, pull them, prod them to adhere to their BEST potentials and promises to us???

Why, YES...I do believe we ARE!!!

[Dan]

KAYE,

It's ALL going to come out. IF we go with Romney, we're ALL going to learn more about mormonism than any of us ever wanted to learn.

[Kyle Smith]

"Call it a bit of now rather old and arcane high rhetoric dug up out of context to smear someone, or call it silly rhetoric as Lowry would seem to infer, perhaps as he must be a rather silly man himself to have taken his editorial responsibilities so lightly..."

Obviously, Bill Buckley and the powers that be at NRO weren't too concerned with editorial responsibilities when they handed the torch to Lowry. I wish Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh would finally call him out someday instead of thinking that the have to be nice to National Review. I couldn't believe that Levin was saying what a dear friend Ann Coulter is, and how he often complement National Review. I know Levin used to contribute articles their, but he don't need National Review no more; so why does he still kiss up to them?

[mike191]

"...overly fixated upon finding some next best acne medication.." is priceless.Moreover, it leads to:A strong back is a terrible thing to waste.

[jeannebodine]

Thanks Dan. I couldn't believe Lowry's response...wait, who am I kidding, of course I could. What is hard to believe is to watch the path NRO has taken over the past few years, trying to distance itself from what it sees as the "yucky" conservatives. The editors are standing athwart history and shouting "SINK".

Thanks for all you do!

[OCBill]

National Review magazine was being published at the time of Newt's comments. It shouldn't be hard for someone with back issues or access to a good library t determine WFB's and/or the magazines actual position on both Newt's comments and the Reagan administration's policies at the time. We should remember that Reagan had to overrule a lot of voices from within his own administration to include the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" comment in his speech in Germany.

[Ragspierre]

"Let Reagan BE Reagan", was a common refrain at the time among his CONSERVATIVE backers...

who, BTW, had to vaunt him OVER the GOP moss-backs of the day.

And, I seem to recall, we where hearing about his ENORMOUS negatives right up to election night...

and then we had to watch the puuuuurrr, puuuuurrr network types show what it looks like to be poll-axed (pun)...

[javau]

Mark Levin will call a liar, a liar; Rush won't. Mark doesn't care if he's well thought of by the swells at NRO, or by Krauthammer, or by Will etc. Mark's main contribution is not his radio show but his books and ideas. His radio show is icing on the cake.

All Rush and Hannity have is their shows. That is their main occupation and claim to fame. This does not mean those shows aren't important but they can't afford to burn bridges so they hedge and waffle when criticizing. This is particularly true of Hannity who relies on guests for his shows.

Mark is fearless. NRO too relies on its popularity and ability to please its money sources. Lowry, in particular, appears on TV shows, for which I guess he's paid. But how frequently would he be asked to appear if he told the truth?

And if it's true that Romney financially supports NRO, NRO is truly a corrupted enterprise. Hey Lowry, try to buy Levin!

[ltw]

I do think tactics of the left are being used by some in the conservative media to not just "demonize" Gingrich in particular but to distract from focusing on Mitt Romney's main problem RomneyCare vs ObamaCare.

When I saw Florida AG Pam Bondi interview on RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare I wonder if this is the GOP "replacement" for ObamaCare that has just started making it into the news cycle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SF2YB4pGrjk

The cloak for RomneyCare problem appears to be the mantle of State's rights. Apparently, it was the Staples guy....Tom Stemburg (Staples guy, Romney friend, presidential council at Mass General, Romney transition team to governor) that gave Romney the idea resulting in RomneyCare.

Time to call my representative Monday who came out in support of Romney and see if that's the plan.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-30/lifestyle/29600244_1_health-care-mitt-romney-individual-mandate

http://nymag.com/news/politics/mitt-romney-2011-10/

[Neo]

"... publishing Elliot Abram's initial ..."

I know that Elliott Abrams really, really hates it when his name is misspelled.

Good job Dan.