A few more notes on some Newt Gingrich critics (Abrams, Tyrrell, Coulter)
Elliott Abrams should be deeply ashamed of himself, and ought to apologize, for his distorted slur against Newt Gingrich which was published by NRO the other day. The editors of NRO should also be ashamed. Jeffrey Lord at the The American Spectator exposes just how distorted were Abrams’ allegations that Newt Gingrich slammed Reagan and opposed his policy towards the Soviet Union during a 1986 speech on the floor of the House. The import of Gingrich’s remarks was almost exactly to the contrary; he was pointing out—as were such other supporters of Reagan’s policy as Jeanne Kirkpatrick and George Will—that Reagan’s vision was not being implemented strongly enough by elements in the administration. Whether Elliott Abrams was aware of this when he wrote the piece or was being treated as somebody’s stooge, the fact remains that it amounts to a despicable hit, breathtaking in its audacity and dishonesty.
…
I also wanted to add something to my comments on R. Emmett Tyrrell’s hit piece from yesterday (Newt Gingrich critics go thermonuclear). It is in reference to the following paragraph of Tyrrell’s, when he steps aside from slamming Gingrich to explain why he is picking Mitt Romney:
Contending with Newt for the Republican nomination are Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney. All three are truer conservatives than Newt. I like them all. But John Bolton, former ambassador the United Nations, and John Lehman, President Reagan’s secretary of the navy, are for Mitt, and they are solid conservatives. Governor Christie and the economic pundit Larry Kudlow laud Mitt on taxes, on spending, and on attacking crony capitalism. Mr. Kudlow calls Mr. Romney “Reaganesque.” Ann Coulter seems to loathe Newt. That is good enough for me.
It is noteworthy, in my opinion, that someone as smart and experienced in matters political as R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., when it comes time to give his reason for endorsing Mitt Romney, refers to not one single fact about Mitt Romney and his record that makes him worthy of support. What is the reason he gives for supporting Romney? It is the fact that these other conservatives support him. Is that sufficient for R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr., in picking who he supports for the presidency? Is that the level of intellectual rigor he applies to his decision? “Well, these other guys support him, and I think they’re smart … so I will too!” And is the fact that Bob Tyrrell therefore supports Mitt Romney—based simply on the fact that these other people support him—supposed to move his readers to support Romney too?
What a wonderful world! We don’t need to do our own thinking. Let’s make our decisions based solely on the judgments of these other fine fellows who have done our thinking for us. At least, maybe they’ve done the thinking, or maybe they also are making their decisions based on someone else’s thinking. Well, no matter; I’m sure someone down the line has really thought all of the issues through in careful detail, and concluded that Mitt Romney is indeed a reliable and strong conservative and a superbly competent candidate. Hell, that’s good enough for me!
|
|
Except it’s not. No one has made a convincing case for Mitt Romney as a reliable and winning conservative based on his record. Ann Coulter’s case for Romney amounts to the notion that he “fooled” Massachusetts liberals into voting for him, and she likes that notion a whole lot. Yeah: tell it to the liberal judges he put on the Massachusetts courts, Ann. He sure fooled them, huh?
And please forgive those of us who plan to continue thinking for ourselves.
[...] Curnyn, writing powerfully at The Cinch Review, blasted, “Whether Elliott Abrams was aware of this when he wrote the piece [...]