Newt Gingrich is striking back at a column by Elliott Abrams today, which revealed the former speaker had repeatedly criticized President Ronald Reagan during the late 1980s. The publicized comments – which headlined the Drudge Report for hours today – were especially embarrassing for Gingrich because he’s been leveraging his allegedly close relationship with Reagan to rally conservative support. (See Pete Wehner’s earlier column here:)
According to Politico, Gingrich pushed back on the column this afternoon, claiming Nancy Reagan said, “Ronnie’s torch has been passed to Newt” at an event in 1995 [emphasis added]:
Newt Gingrich, speaking with reporters after his impassioned performance in Mount Dora, Fla., defended his Reagan-praising credentials by noting that Nancy Reagan said her husband’s “torch has been passed to Newt.”
“You want to understand why I finally decided to just go and be this blunt? In 1995, Nancy Reagan at the Goldwater Institute says, ‘Ronnie’s torch has been passed to Newt. OK?” he said, via Politico’s Ginger Gibson. “Now to have somebody who is an independent in the 80s, who gave money to the Democrats in ’92 and voted in the Democratic Party for [Paul] Tsongas, to have his campaign take on a lifetime of work and lie about it, frankly I do find it infuriating.”
Gingrich is right that Nancy Reagan did say this at a 1995 Goldwater Institute ceremony honoring Reagan and Barry Goldwater, which both Newt and the former first lady spoke at. But he leaves out a few of her words in a way that slightly alters the meaning of her statement. Here’s Nancy Reagan’s comment in context, via YouTube:
“Just take a look at the extraordinary men and women who make up the 104th Congress, and, of course, this distinguished Speaker Newt Gingrich [gestures to Gingrich]. 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. I know that Ronnie believes it will succeed, and that the American people support their efforts.”
So yes, Nancy Reagan did say President Reagan handed the torch down to Newt – and the rest of the 230 Republican members of Congress that year. She doesn’t appear to be deeming Newt Gingrich the primary heir to the Reagan legacy, as he makes it sound to Politico. It was a gracious comment, but Gingrich seems to either have misunderstood or mischaracterized it.
If you go through the the entire text of Nancy's words the torch she is talking about is the ideal, "for government to simply get out of the way." Even if Newt held some small loyalty to that ideal a long time ago it is easily argued he doesn't have that as his dream today. And as for the rest of the republicans carrying the torch for "government to simply get out of the way" they have failed miserable in carrying on that Reagan legacy. There is ONLY one man still talking about "government simply getting out of the way" these days. n nRon Paul 2012 – The R3volution
If you read the congressional record from March 21, 1986 you will see the love and loyalty that Newt held for Ronald Regan and whata great supporter thet Newt was, in liht of the record ther is no other way to construe Nancy's remark. Newt held the torch and supported Regan while he was in office, Nancy simply acknowledged the rightful heir, so should you!
Good gravy! Does the author seriously believe that Newt Gingrich doesn't have greater conservative bona fides than Mitt Romney? n nNo one could possibly believe that! n nGingrich may not be as conservative as many of us, including me, but than Mitt Romney? n nNext thing you know someone will be asserting that Newt isn't as conservative as George W. Bush.
Romney wasn't mentioned in the article.
I think that it's disingenuous to mince words when it comes to Newt and then swallow Romney's garbage. I'm not accusing anyone per se, just saying that it's not intellectually honest.
Once again, Newt and his supporters get caught lying (by omission this time) about his connection to Reagan. One of 230 torchbearers is not the same as sole heir torchbearer by a long shot. Now the next question is how well has torchbearer #230 (Newt) born his torch?
How was that a Lie? He was the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE and was mentioned by name by Nancy Reagan..man you Romney followers are just like Mitt…full of S#*t. n n
What a stretch to try and water down what Nancy said. It was Newt standing there with her. Not Newt + 230 congressman. You anti-Newt people are derranged. It was completely in context. He was the leader of the Congress. He did not mischaracterize or misunderstand anything. MICHAEL REAGAN is endorsing Newt you losers. Nice try….
I agree it's like Holder said about Fast and Furious…Truth is just a point of view.
You Are Right Sir ! I am a Avid Reagan Fan – and Many are Stretching Also that he and Reagan often Argued = they did because Reagan was head strong & Newt was afrais As so was much of the Congress that going after USSR was going to back fire – And Yes I honestly can't beleive anyone who watch that Video & not see Nancy was Clearly giving the "Torch " to Newt . . . As many People Choose to Ignore Art Laffler the Economist who Helped Reagan with Reagnomics is Supporting Newt – As is Michael Reagan Todd Palin Chuck Norris & Mark Levin has said it's incredible for people to try to Discredit him- How can you argue with Facts ?
Who do we believe? You or our lying ears? I vote for my lying ears. Now you will have to excuse me as I just ate 2 dozen hot wings and need to take a wicked Goodman.
Splitting hairs are we? My God he was mentioned by name by Nancy Reagan! You establishment types really want Romney don't you. Newt must really have you all running scared that your house of political cards
Exactly, all of the establishment RINO crooks who have their cushy gov. jobs, and under-the-table dealings are threatened by Newt coming in and shaking things up….
Didn't dear Nancy say the above before Newt was ousted from Congress?????
stop parsing. nancy reagan did not mention the majority whip or the senate minority leader. n nrewrite history while you are at it.
Ms. Goodman, n nI was at the revolution and I can tell you Gingrich was among the staunchest and certainly most vocal defenders of Reagan's policies. I also remember the 1994 senatorial race Kennedy v. Romney and I can tell you that Romney spent the entire campaign trying to get to the LEFT of Kennedy. n nYou wave off the facts in an attempt to make some kind of point; I know not what.
AGREED.
We here in California cannot believe all you eastern establishment writers, and this included nThe Drudge Report. We think Newt is quite capable and wish you all would quit nitpicking him. nWe plan on voting for him, and perhaps we better send him some money to help him. At least he speaks for a lot of us, and for sure Mitt doesn't! We believe he is the more qualified then the rest. nIn fact he started out not bad mouthing anyone, until Mitt started bad mouthing him. We wish it was all over with before things get any more out of hand between the candidates.
Add another Californian who plans to vote for Newt.
Newts got our vote in Georgia. Thanks for yours.
I've never heard Nancy Reagan endorse the Newster, if Pres Reagan thought Newt was the torchbearer or such a wonderful conservative….I do believe Nancy would be endorsing Newt…but she's doesn't and she's NOT…
Hey Rocky you got a mouse in your pocket? speak for yourself "we are not all voting for Newt..or and you are as big a cry baby as the Newter is. If only Romney wouldn't have been mean Newt wouldn't have had to be mean…dude get out of the kitchen its way to hot for you
Fig Newton is so full of himself that he practically breaks his arm patting himself on the back. He is like the ultimate book smart nerd that loves to hear himself speak and spit out an idea a second. Thank God he is starting to implode…it was not a question of if, but when…and if it happened in the general election it would have been a disaster.
Eliot is a senile old fool that is being spoon fed this drivel. Even at his age there is no excuse for not doing your homework.
this is schlop journalism. the very statement itself, singling out Newt by name, when he was clearly the leader of that congress and it's movement, is sufficient anointing with the charter. ridiculous
I LOVE it! A drawn-out primary. The fait accompli and GOP's darlin" is no longer the front-runner. And every has- been politician, media, and the punditocracy are in a veritable meltdown-panic-attack about the possibility of the "Mitt fix" being upended. I haven't witnessed such precision firepower on one man (Newt Gingrich) since watching tracer rounds during an FPF exercise (Final Protective Fire) in the US Marine Corps. You just can't write stuff like this. The only thing better will be watching Mr. hope and change moving out at 1600. The next best thing would be watching the guy who LOST to the guy who LOST to Barack Hussein Obama, go back to Taxachusetts. That's where McRomney's REALLY needed.
Really? Really? Isn’t this a bit like splitting hairs? Not only was Newt given the torch as Speaker…he’s the only one carrying it today! Spare us the semantic gymnastics. Our country is in the throes of authoritarian.
Oh," She said it, but she didn't REALLY mean it.". n n STFU seriously guys She said it, she named Newt specifically, and the Republican congress in general. n nNewt is nobody's first choice or even second or third choice, But for conservatives he is a damned site better than that Northeast liberal Willard Mitt Romney… HE is now calling himself a conservative, what's next? do hookers get to refer to themselves as "Chaste"? n
Fat Boy is dishonest and disgraced. I will vote for Romney in the general election but third party if the GOP is stupid enough to nominate this clown
That Nancy only mentioned Newt sure sounds like she meant the leader of the band…she didn't mention Willard at all that I can see, LOL.
Newt running as Washington anti establishment outsider, is a believable as obama saying he nis for energy development. n nHow can newt be conservative when he proposes huge government programs like moon colony nand lobbied for 11 trillion unfunded medicaid part D program? Also every position newt has taken nin this campaign is far to left of Rick and Mitt. Newt is a progressive wolf, in conservative sheep's clothing. n n Next Newt will probably say debates don't matter, since he bombed last night.
Romney was not one of the 280………………
I would say that this barrage against Newt Gingrich is reaching bizarre propotions. Newt Gingrich has problems with immigration reform, shifting positions on climate change, etc. However, these issues are not seriously addressed by many of of his critics. Instead, you get obtuse theological articles on torch passing like this one. MItt Romney's backers risk achieving victory over Newt Gingrich at the expense of losing the war to Barack Obama. The level of alienation being generated through these shock and awe tactics against Newt Gingrich will remain long after he is out of the race. Mitt Romney is at risk of becoming the Bob Dole of 2012. I will not vote for President Obama. In fact, I might not vote at all if things do not start looking better.
The only Nancy that has ever truly passed something on to Newt was Pelosi and it sadly was most likely an STD!!!
oh thank God you published the entire text! It was nice to see the author TOTALLY undermine his point. It would have been nice if everyone would have been splitting hairs about the man who led a Communist Coup of the United States Government when he took the Presidency instead of eating their own. Disgusting.
Elliott Abrams was far closer to Reagan than Newt ever was. Nancy was praising the entire Congress, not annointing Newt savior. And although Nancy is a perfectly nice lady, Nancy wasnt Ronald Reagan so I dont know why her short clip is being portrayed by Newt as proof that Ronald Reagan even though much of him, let alone would support him. n nAlso, Nancy Reagan has remained neutral in this election, not endorsing anyone. So if she's such a big fan of Newt as Reagan's apparent heir, dont you think she would endorse him?
I agree. Most conservative types agree with Paul. He could not win though (media portrayal, isolationist foreign policy, too old). But us conservatives are behind 90% of his ideas. I have thought about one of the candidates announcing they had cut a deal with Paul to be the Sec. of Treasury. That would be a great thing. n nI'm not happy with the whole primary. Romney is a MA version of McCain, who I can't stand. Gingrich has never really lived in the private sector. Santorum could also never win. n nI wish Sarah Palin had ran. The media has beat her silly, but she just bounces back. Her opinions closely align with Ron Paul, other than foreign policy. Is she an ivy league alum – thank god no. She has solid grounding in the real world. She kicked butt in Alaska. She makes the entire political establishment tremble. n nAnd we need to take out the political establishment. All of them.
You Newt supporters are starting to sound as rabid as Ron Paul supporters. The premise of this article is that Newt distorted Nancy Reagan's words to make it sound as if Ronald Reagan had designated Newt to be his direct and sole successor. Now YOU are making it sound as if Ms. Goodman was making a specious and personal attack on Newt. Gingrich is a GOP candidate for president. He MUST answer for his own statements. He MUST explain his moral lapses. Newt HIMSELF said that the primary process was the time for airing out closet skeletons, not the general election when it is too late to find another candidate. This IS THE PROCESS. Your drive to silence and discredit everyone who questions Newt is, frankly, identical to tactics used by the Obama campaign team. n nRon Paul's supporters are doing a great job getting him the nomination, aren't they? So, keep up the personal attacks on anyone who opposes or even asks too many questions about Newt. I'm sure it'll work for YOU.
Lots of emotions in the posts here but I think it still boils down to this. It is important we vote for whatever candidate the republicans finally choose. A vote for any other candidate is a vote for Obama. I really don't get this logic that if my candidate doesn't win we are not going to participate or we are going to vote third party. Why would someone chose to help OBAMA be elected by taking these options. My commitment is that I will vote for a candidate that has the best chance of beating Obama regardless of how I feel about them at this stage of the game. If a person feels strongly that Obama is taking us down the wrong path then the objective should be to vote him out of office, period.