It’s What He Does: At The Height of Conservative’s Struggle Against Democrats in the 80’s Newt Attacked Reagan!

The second point to make is that Gingrich made these assaults on the Reagan administration just as Democratic attacks were heating up unmercifully. Far from becoming a reliable voice for Reagan policy and the struggle against the Soviets, Gingrich took on Reagan and his administration. It appears to be a habit: He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators.

Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means) and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department.

By Gary P Jackson

When you tell a Newt supporter the truth about the man, they will, unfailingly call you a liar. Claim you are just attacking a good man.

Thing is, I rarely talk about Newt Gingrich without reminding them that when it comes to the fight between Conservatives and socialist democrats, in reality, good vs evil, Newt always stands with evil. Worse, Newts stands with his socialist fellow travelers at the very time Conservatives are fighting them the hardest.

When Ronald Reagan wrote an Executive Order forcing the FCC to stop enforcing the Ani-American “Fairness Doctrine” Newt gathered up his socialist buddies and wrote legislation bringing it back. This passed legislation actually passed, and Reagan was forced to veto it. Reagan stopped Newt and his comrades from the continued destruction of Liberty and Freedom.

We all remember that at the time Conservatives were fighting the hardest against the global warming scam, Newt sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and begged Americans to fall in line and support the socialist “green” movement. In fact, Newt has never stopped backing the socialist greens. It was only after he became a presidential candidate that he fired the lefty who was ghostwriting the section in his book, due out in 2013, on global warming.

Then there was L’Affaire Scozzafava.

Obviously there have been more betrays of Conservatism, and America, by Newt, there is a definite pattern of this disgusting behavior.

You can read more about it here.

Elliott Abrams has more examples. This time Newt sides with the socialists against Ronald Reagan. The ultimate betrayal of all, except for maybe stabbing President George W Bush in the back during the lead up to war. [emphasis mine]

In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “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” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.

The claims are misleading at best. 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.

The fights over Reagan’s efforts to stop Soviet expansionism in the Third World were exceptionally bitter. The battlegrounds ranged from Angola and Grenada to Afghanistan and Central America. Reagan’s top team — William Casey at CIA, Cap Weinberger at DOD, and George Shultz at State — understood as he did that if Soviet expansionism could be dealt some tough blows, not only the Soviet empire but the USSR itself would face a political, technological, and financial challenge it could not meet. Few officials besides Ronald Reagan predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union entirely, but every one of us in positions of authority understood the importance of this struggle.

But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.

But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “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.”

Read more here.

What more do so-called “conservatives” need to know about Newt Gingrich? The man has a record of stabbing Conservatives, and by extension America, in the back. And that record spans over two decades!

Do you really think after all of this time Newt has changed?

If so, I have this wealthy uncle in Nigeria who needs your help!

A dedication to Newt and his fellow travelers:



Filed under In The News, Politics, Ronald Reagan

18 responses to “It’s What He Does: At The Height of Conservative’s Struggle Against Democrats in the 80’s Newt Attacked Reagan!

  1. NHConservative0221


    What you’re posting are hit pieces from Mitt Romney. Where was Romney when Reagan was in office? He was donating to Democrat Paul Tsongsas and called himself “an independent during Reagan-Bush”.

    You said liked what Mark Levin said about Newt when he said that Newt didn’t help create supply side economics.

    If you value Levin’s opinion, then you need to hear this:

    • Gary P

      Mark Levin just lost me. Last week he was pointing out what a liar Newt is, now, Mark is propping him up. Why? Just to beat Mitt.

      That’s despicable.

      Oh, and those people talking about what a liar Newt is, aren’t Romney’s people, they are people who were THERE!

      BTW, Newt’s history of standing with socialists when Conservatives are fighting them the hardest, is long and WELL documented.

      Like I said Levin lost me when he chose politics over the truth. Lot’s of people have thrown their honor away to support Newt. No surprise as character no longer matters in this country, especially among “conservatives.”

      Fact is, Romney is more Conservative on his worst day than Newt on his best. Newt’s words and actions simply don’t match up. For some reason people’s absolute hatred for Mitt Romney has made them completely stupid.

      Newt supporters have replaced the ObamaZombies. Doesn’t matter what Newt says or does. His past doesn’t matter. NOTHING matters but the slavish devotion to a man who would screw you over on a daily basis and not even offer a kiss!

      • NHConservative0221

        Levin playing politics over truth? Never though I’d ever hear that one! I’ve been listening to The Great One for the last 4 years and I’ve never heard anyone be more fair and objective in defending the principles of conservatism on the radio.

        You’re talking about people that were there? Well Levin was there too! And he’s not buddies with Newt, Levin said in December he’d vote for Bachmann or Santorum, now he’d go with Santorum. Levin would pick Newt over Romney. BTW: Levin has praised Sarah Palin from the start (there’s a reason she went on his show in October to announce she wasn’t running). Don’t claim Levin is a sell out, you don’t know what you’re talking about in that regard.

        BTW: what Levin said about Romney not repealing Obamacare is the truth. When has Romney ever been a fighter or reformed anything? Where is the evidence? Romney said in 2010 “let’s repeal the bad parts of Obamacare and keep the good parts of it!” Romney’s OWN advisors went to the White House to advise on how to implement Obamacare!!

        Newt sucessfully fought Hillarycare. He led the first conservative takeover of the House in almost 50 years. Newt helped balance 4 straight budgets and sucessfully fought and beat Clinton on welfare reform. There is no way Romney is anywere close to being as conservative as Newt. Again what’s Mitt ever done?? Where was he during Reagan? He was a self described independent during that time and donated to Democrats like Paul Tsongsas. In 2002, Mitt called himself a “Progressive”!

        As Levin says, if Newt was such a problem to Reagan, why is he only mentioned once in Reagan’s Diary?? Why woud Nancy Reagan, who was fiercely loyal to her husband and would disregard anyone who said one bad word about her husband, praise Newt? Especially at the time of this speech, Ronald was alreadly fighting Alzheimers, why would she take time away from him to say this:

        As Jeffery Lord puts it:

        “Newt Gingrich was part of the Reagan Revolution’s Murderers’ Row. And anybody who was in Washington in the day, much less in the Reagan White House or the 1984 Reagan re-election campaign (and I would make that particular cut of three), knew it.”

      • Gary P

        Again, just a week ago Levin was ripping Newt apart and saying he lied about his associations with Reagan. Said he wasn’t even on Reagan’s radar.

        BTW, Reagan’s mention of Newt is his diary isn’t exactly glowing!

        I’ve always enjoyed Levin myself. But was simply shocked he would do an about face in just a week. Was very disappointed. The truth takes one where it takes one, and if it hurts someone’s preferred candidate, so be it. There’s a lot of dishonesty in this campaign season.

        Sadly, more people are focused on destroy Romney at all cost to care about beating Obama.

        As I write here, if people want a “Not Romney” Rick Santorum makes a lot more sense. He’s the anti-Newt, which is a good thing.

        Of course I’ve come to believe Conservatives, at least a large group of them, are stupid. They let their off the charts hatred for one person, cloud their judgement. Romney is what he is, but to back someone as evil as Newt over anyone is simply unacceptable.

  2. Chad

    Yes I had learned this last year some time~ I had noticed that Newt cut down Reagan and I wasn’t to pleased to hear it honestly regarding the ending of the cold war~ I cannot find the same source now but I remember Newt also saying that he would have bombed Russia during that time showing me that none of us would be here now if that were the case~ Also said he would have bombed Iran when they test fired missile and again none of us would be here~ What I believe is that he wants to go into a bunker and let hell fury take over~ Warmonger along with everything else we now know~ I think it is embarrassing to support him~ Not good I see it clear as day~ Here is a vid I just found see what the hay this is supposed to mean and who it is behind it and who the targeted audience you think is~ It is a set up vid for later or something~ Reagan released Dec 22 2011

  3. Chad

    Love the ” Back Stabbers” video~ And we are talking about people stabbing millions of people in the back~ Thanks Gary P ~!

  4. IwjwI

    Newt has not changed. He has just gotten better at hiding behind an excuse. He says that he has changed and gives a list of plausible reasons why he has changed. His grandchildren have helped Gingrich change his perspective. He started thinking about what kind of world his grandchildren were going to be living in.
    It is a recent change. One of convience? What does he really believe?
    I’m not going to let myself get suckered into an abstract attitude of wishful thinking where Gingrich is concerned. I don’t trust him for all of the reasons that you listed here and more.
    Yes, actions speak louder than words. It is a record of anti-comservative deeds that Gingrich must answer for.

    I would like to see Gingrich take the time to string together a fair number of conservative actions/deeds/accomplishments before I truely believe that he has changed.
    It takes more than just a bunch of pretty words to convince me.
    BHO is the best example of beautiful words not matching a mountain of dastardly deeds done against the American people.
    Because of BHO, and kind, we have learned, the hard way, the lesson to measure a politician’s deeds against his/her words.

    Gingrich’s sudden conversion to conservatism is further proof that he was never a real Conservative. He was only pretending to be a conservative. Isn’t that called, “Pandering,” or lying?

  5. Joy

    My opinion of Newt hsn’t changed in all the years I’ve been watching & listening to him: I’m no fan and little about him attracts me – except to the extent that he COULD or MIGHT be a “Conservative” and/or do Conservative things and push conservative ideas & values. But I’m also not vehemently against him – just view him as a politician, just as I view Dudley “My Turn Next” DoRight. I won’t give one thin dime to either candidate, no matter who turns out to be the GOP nominee. I’m focusing on down-ticket candidates and waiting to see who Sarah Palin endorses DOWN TICKET, so I can give a few shekels to SarahPAC for Conservative candidates of her choosing.
    I want Ovomit out, alright, but I can feign NO/ZERO/ZILCH enthusiasm for any of ’em – except, if longshot Santorum magically manages to rise to the top, at least I’ll know there’s a Conservative as the GOP standard-bearer!

    • Gary P

      You and I are certainly in the same boat!

      I’ll vote for Romney or Santorum in the general. If Newt [God forbid] is the nominee, I’ll vote down ticket. I have to live with myself long after the 2012 vote is over.

  6. AJSteele

    Romney was a lib for a long time. I’m glad he’s changed but the consistency is not there. The word Hitler can actually be used in a sentence without pulling out the devil. At the time, it was understandable that meeting with Gorbechev was dangerous. Your pretty words analogy should also be applied to Romney who is talking a lot of conservative stuff. He can change, but Gingrich can’t? Double standard?

    • Gary P

      Thing is Newt HASN’T changed. He’s the same lying, corrupt, Big Government socialist enabler he has ALWAYS been.

      Reagan was a real leader and knew exactly what he was doing. History proves his Soviet policy was right. Newt did what he always does. Attack Conservatives. It’s who he is and what he does.

      • NHConservative0221


        Eliott Abrams was either in on it or tricked. It wasn’t even the entire quotes from Newt! Jeffery Lord already outlined this. It’s nothing more than a disgusting hit piece, The same thing Mittens always does. What Levin and Rush are doing are standing up for the truth and common decency. Levin is no fan of Newt, but will not stand for leftist smear tactics.

        Both Newt and Mittens are bad, but Mittens is worse. First, he’s the Establishment pick. The same Establishment that hates Newt. That should tell you alot right there.

        Newt actually has a record of cutting gov’t and reform with the Contract With America, again what has Mittens done?

        I’m afraid that Mittens won’t repeal Obamacare. He said in 2010 “let’s keep the good parts and repeal the bad parts!” His own advisor Norm Coleman said it’d be too hard to repeal it. Mittens said during the last debate to Santorum that Romneycare wasn’t worth getting mad about! Ummm Mittens, to some of us who love freedom it damn sure is worth getting pretty mad about!! Mittens has no record of being a fighter or a reformer. I don’t think the Establishment wants to repeal Obamacare and Mittens will fall in line.

        Newt has a better chance of listenting to conservatives plus he played a major role in stopping Hillarycare.

        I hope Santorum makes a huge comeback and wins. Hell, I’d love for Sarah to jump in, but that ain’t gonna happen. If it comes down to Newt vs Mittens, it has to to be Newt. We need to stop the Establishment.

        Sarah Palin seems to agree with her latest post. She also resents the despicable attacks on Newt and asks who is the Establishment really fighting against??

      • Gary P

        Pat Buchanan pretty much backs up what everyone else has said about Newt. Sarah is completely wrong on this issue. It’s not the “establishment” trying to stop Newt. It’s people who know what a despicable human being Newt is.

        He certainly wasn’t one of Reagan’s favorite people.

        Look, Newt is a very bad man. He’s a lying, corrupt, Big Government Statist. He is NOT the sort of person to lead the nation.

        He whines about everything. Never seen anyone cry like a little baby so much. He’s more thin skinned than Obama. And Obama will eat him alive.

        Newt is erratic, unstable and unreliable.

        I’m tired of talking about what a loser he is. There are far better candidates out there who actually say what they mean and mean what they say.

        Newt is a socialist collaborator, has been since the 1970s. It’s time to forget this modern day Benedict Arnold, this Quisling, and move on.

  7. Great post! I had the opportunity to actually meet Newt last week and was not very impressed– personally. His speech was fantastic, but what he says usually doesn’t match what he’s done in the past. He really comes across as arrogant.
    BTW, I wrote up a post about Ronald Reagan last night on my blog! Would love for you to check it out! Thanks! 🙂

  8. ajsteele

    Do you remove posts that you don’t like?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s