The Patriot's Trumpet

It was August of 2007. My friend Reed Skogerboe and I ware having a discussion of the Republican field of Candidates for President. I found the field lacking and held forth on several candidates. At former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, I stumbled. Governor Romney seemed to be right out of central casting for most any lead role as a good guy. He was handsome and carried himself with command and confidence. He had a storybook family compared to most anyone—notably Mayor Giuliani of New York. I did not actually know much about his term as Governor but knew he had started at zero and built successful businesses to a personal net worth of some $200 million. I also knew he had turned a Winter Olympics disaster into a notable success. But I said, “There is something, I just can’t put my finger on it.” Reed immediately popped a one word explanation, “Slick.” That was it, “slick.”

But now, as Romney seeks to close out the 2012 Republican primary/caucus process, we are learning more. Slick was an inadequate description. It turns out this central casting business success with the perfect looking family lacks character. 

Speaker Gingrich was castigated by conservative commentators (notably including Rush Limbaugh) for questioning the ethics practices at Romney’s company, Bain Capital. The assumptive position was any criticism of an American company is an expression of Socialism. The critics, while not as bright as Rush, are all very bright; way too bright to take such a stupid position. But, although Gingrich was on to something, his findings seemed washed away by the conservative blowback.

But as Sarah Palin, who gave Gingrich her second State in a row thumbs up, knows time will correct that. She knows that Romney’s contemptible character will catch up with him faster than Obama’s did.

For example, Romney was able to turn aside Gingrich’s charge that, while he, Gingrich, did have a customer named Freddie Mac, Romney actually invested in and profited by the “housing bubble.” No, no, Romney said, his assets are in a blind trust. He was prevented from even knowing what his money was doing. (Why didn’t the mob think of that?) Gingrich was not successful in refuting that false answer but I have a man who is—Mitt Romney. In 1994 Romney said, “The blind trust is an age old ruse. You can always tell a blind trust what it can and cannot do. You give a blind trust rules.” Watch him say it:

But, think what you will, the Romney investment and profit from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is legal. “Blood Money” or Medicare fraud as carried out on a grand scale by a Bain Capital company is Illegal. Call it “Blood Money” as this documentary trailer does. Watch it all—twice.

Think about this, George Soros observed, “There is very little difference between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama except the people they bring with them.”

The fathers of America, Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America), Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and many other American leaders knew that character is at the heart of a free America.

In the spring of 2008 a reporter interviewed President George W. Bush. He asked, “This is the final year of your Presidency, what do you hope your legacy will be?” Bush loved giving real answers instead of the one the reporter was seeking. His answer was, “The important thing for each of us all is, at the end of our life to leave behind more than you found when you got here. That, of course can be material production. Producing and saving is good. But I’m really talking about character. The mark of a life is the character that was added while here.”

Just weeks later, the President’s insight made all the difference for me. My son, Greg, barely past the midpoint of his life, suddenly died. I remembered the Presidents words as I surveyed the mountain of character Greg left behind. I also reflected on the lifetime of integrity my own father left. These lives, unknown to history, permanently and positively added to the world.  

Governor Romney? After his time, his family will carry the scars of his deficiency in character. Let us pray and work to prevent the same scars on our country.

Tea Parties across Florida have flooded Speaker Gingrich with endorsements in the past three days—a clear response to the Republican establishment lies that swept through the news media this past week. 

Here are two examples of large Florida Tea Party coalitions:

“The Florida Tea Party Coalition With Newt” endorsed the former House speaker on Thursday, saying they would “help defeat Massachusetts Moderate Mitt Romney and then President Barack Obama.”

“It is clear to me and many others in the tea party movement that Newt is the Reagan conservative that America needs,” said Peter Lee, founder and director of the East Side Tea Party of Orlando.

Lee was joined by statewide tea leader Patricia Sullivan, who said, “I stand with Newt because I know he will stand up to the establishment and insist on fiscal reforms.”

In all, more than 30 Florida-based tea activists signed on to the coalition. The geographically diverse representatives ranged from the Panhandle to Broward County.

Separately, the TEA Party of Florida, the only political tea party registered with the state Division of Elections, endorsed Gingrich.

Chairman John Long said Gingrich “articulated direct and serious steps designed to reduce spending, cut our deficits, pay down our national debt, and return liberty to our citizens in doing so.”

A Timely Response

There is no doubt the timing of Herman Cain’s announcement is a direct result of the fierce, vicious , vile, mean, nasty, ugly, cruel, lying, false treatment of Speaker Newt Gingrich by the Republican establishment. The announcement was made at the Palm Beach County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner where Gingrich was the featured speaker.

From the Daily Caller

In a statement at the Palm Beach County Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner, Cain explained why his former competitor was the right choice.

“Three very quick comments,” Cain said. “The founding fathers got it right when they said, ‘We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union’ — but the union is in trouble. The state of the union is not good despite what you heard the other night. That is point number one. It is not good, even though our president has convinced 45-to-50 percent of the people that is. You and I know that it is not. Point number two, we have become a nation of crises. And it is not going to get any better until we solve point number three, which is a crisis of leadership in the White House. That is our other biggest crisis and that is why I am happy to be here tonight because I hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for president of the United States.”

Gingrich Responded, “America’s challenges are too great for mere tinkering around the edges. Just like Herman, who ran his campaign based on big ideas, I am running on bold solutions that will boost job creation, cut bureaucratic red tape, and fundamentally transform Washington. I’m honored to have Herman’s support, and I look forward to working with him to help put the American people back to work.”

Cain and Gingrich have been friends for more than 20 years. In the early 1990’s they worked together to defeat Hillarycare, and as speaker, Gingrich appointed Cain to the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform (also known as the “Kemp Commission”).

Please help turn the Republican establishment inside out. Join Mr. Cain’s active support for Newt here.

Who said? That would be Elliot Abrams.

Abrams dutifully penned a hit piece on Gingrich at NRO Wednesday. In it he claimed Gingrich was not supportive of Ronald Reagan and, said Abrams, Gingrich “often spewed insulting Rhetoric at Reagan.” Michael Reagan strongly rejected Abrams claims as false.

Sean Curnyn, writing powerfully at The Cinch Review, blasted, “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.”

Lord would be former Reagan aid Jeffery Lord. Mr. Lord brought facts and one thing more, another former Reagan aid, Chris Scheve who researched the Gingrich’s statements and speeches. Here is the entire Lord piece. I would have said lying, not misleading, but he covers it all.

Elliot Abrams Caught Misleading on Newt

As Ronald Reagan used to say: Well…

Yesterday we took note of former Reagan State Department official Elliott Abrams’ piece over at NRO that went after Newt Gingrich on his relationship with Reagan. While voting regularly with Reagan as a young congressman from Georgia, Gingrich, claimed Abrams, “often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides and his policies to defeat Communism.” Abrams then goes on to cite ” a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986.”

Or sort of cites it.

In fact, I’m sorry to say, what appears to be going on here is that Elliott Abrams, a considerably admirable public servant and a very smart guy, has been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries. He is even being accused of trolling for a job in a Romney administration. No way!!!! Really????

What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan? The pieces invariably following the Romney line that Newt had some version of nothing to do with Reagan.

A piece like the one Abrams wrote depends for its success in garnering headlines — which it did — by assuming no one will bother to get into the weeds and do the homework. Usually a safe assumption when dealing with the mainstream media, particularly a mainstream media that, as one with Establishment Republicans, hates Newt Gingrich.

Not so fast.

Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.

Mr. Scheve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker. While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Scheve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.

Uh-oh.

That’s right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich’s long ago March 21, 1986 “Special Order” speech on the floor of the House, and aware “that most of [Abrams’] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order” — Scheve started digging. Since theCongressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of theCongressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me.

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 inNRO 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. I think he personally understands the threat of communism.” Gingrich then goes on — at Newtonian length –praising Reagan for Reagan’s understanding of Lenin, Reagan’s understanding of the real “purposes of a Soviet dictatorship” and much more. He lists and applauds Reagan repeatedly for the President’s appreciation of “the threat in a more powerful Soviet empire” and the threats posed by Communist Cuba and Nicaragua. He ranks Reagan with the great cold war presidents in protecting freedom.

In short, time after time after, Newt Gingrich — true to form — is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Ronald Reagan. Is it any wonder that years later Nancy Reagan would speak so publicly and warmly about “Ronnie” passing the conservative torch to Newt? Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan has stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt?

• Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets are “inadequate and will ultimately fail.” This is shameful. Why? Here’s what Newt said –in full and in context:

“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.”

In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern, prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Reagan’s then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick, not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Kristol and the late-Mondale aide turned conservative Krauthammer, that Reagan’s anti-Communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona. The entire speech focused on suggestions of how to do just that — to effectively institutionalize Reagan’s conservative beliefs in the government. Is Abrams seriously accusing Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan? Of spewing “insulting rhetoric” at a president everyone in Washington knew they staunchly supported? Really? Of course not. But in apparent service to the Romney campaign, in order to make Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol.

• ABC News. Now here’s a little juicy tidbit. What’s been the big news with Newt’s campaign in the last week? That’s right. The ABC News “investigative” piece by Brian Ross in the form of an interview with Gingrich’s ex-wife Marianne. Aired two days before the South Carolina primary, the incident famously backfired as Gingrich launched an attack on ABC during that now-famous CNN debate hosted by John King.

All new, right? Wrong.

Five days previous to Gingrich’s speech, President Reagan had addressed the nation on what he called “the mounting danger in Central America” from Nicaragua. Nicaragua, which Reagan described as “a Soviet ally on the American mainland only 2 hours’ flying time from our own borders. With over a billion dollars in Soviet-bloc aid, the Communist government of Nicaragua has launched a campaign to subvert and topple its democratic neighbors.”

Typically, the liberal media of the day zapped Reagan. And sure enough, buried in that March 21, 1986 Gingrich speech on the House floor, Gingrich was tough on the liberal media’s handling of Reagan’s speech. And who — quite specifically — did he single out for criticism? You guessed it: ABC News.

Said Newt:

All too often the news media itself is grotesquely uncritical and grotesquely willing to use Soviet language to explain Soviet behavior. Possibly it reached its epitome when ABC News put on a paid Soviet propagandist following the President of the United States.

In other words, 26 years ago Newt Gingrich was busy incurring the institutional wrath not just of the mainstream media in general but ABC News quite specifically over the issue of their “grotesquely uncritical” treatment of the Soviet dictatorship.

What America is seeing in real time today in this 2012 presidential campaign in terms of Newt Gingrich taking on both the media in general and ABC News in particular is decidedly not new. There is a history here — a long one — of Gingrich calling out ABC. And, as seen in the now infamous ex-wife interview, ABC pulls no punches when dealing with Newt Gingrich.

One could go on here. This March, 1986 speech was a long, typically Newt presentation. Lots of history. Lots of constructive thought. Lots of talk about strategy, tactics, the military. At one point — a full 15 years before 9/11, Gingrich addresses the need for an American strategy that will support “Islamic freedom.”

The main point is that the Newt Gingrich who spoke on the floor of the House on March 21, 1986, was thoroughly pro-Reagan, honestly engaging in a serious intellectual effort to assess the strengths and weaknesses of American foreign policy in the day from a hierarchy of vision, strategy, operations or projects and then last but not least, tactics.

In grossly misrepresenting this speech as some sort of anti-Reagan jihad, Elliott Abrams has ironically only called attention to Governor Romney’s lack of strengths and experience in this area.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but this kind of stuff is getting out of control. Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum all have their strengths and weaknesses.

It does no one — least of all Elliott Abrams or Governor Romney — any good to try and say that Newt Gingrich, as loyal a friend and ally to Ronald Reagan as could be found in the day — was somehow some crazed anti-Reaganite who got the Cold War wrong. Not only is this not true, its laughably untrue. Quite noticeably in last night’s debate, on the heels of the release of that video showing Nancy Reagan herself praising Newt and the news that Michael Reagan is endorsing the ex-Speaker, Romney sheepishly began to back away from all of this zaniness.

He should.

So should Elliott Abrams — who is much, much smarter, courageous and filled with character than that shoddy NRO piece conveys.

In the immortal words of Cher: “Snap out of it!”

Excellent in 1560 well chosen words. Here is Former Reagan campaign manager, Ed Rollins summed it up nicely, “Ya, [Gingrich] was one of the 10 or 12 most loyal members of congress and Romney wasn’t there. He was an independent. Rollins in 26 seconds:

Former U.S. Senator and fine actor Fred Thomson “[Newt]‘s not afraid, and he’s tough, and he’s experienced. I don’t think anymore that it’s an advantage to be able to say I know nothing about the operation of the Federal government.”

First report at the Daily Caller:

On Monday night’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel, former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson, a 2008 candidate for president, threw his hat in the ring for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.  

Thompson first explained what his criteria were in making his decision.

“The way I view the strength of these candidates had to do with the way I view the status and direction of our government,” Thompson said. “We’re in deep trouble. I probably think, I think that probably we are in greater trouble than most people do. Even these numbers that are coming out of Washington that look so bleak are understated.”

“I think we’re at a tipping point in this country,” he said. As far as that tipping point, Thompson described some of the things that might trouble the country in the future.

“There are going to be more people in the wagons soon than are pulling the wagon,” he predicted. “I think we’re there. Almost half the people are the recipient of some federal program. Almost half the people pay no federal income tax. I think this president is taking us down the road of a genuine welfare state full-fledged, even when we have the example of Europe to teach us and guide us. And I think the American people see what is going on there, see what’s going on in their own country.”

Thus, Thompson said, he was supporting Gingrich because he considered him the best at communicating what was important to Thompson.

“Newt Gingrich is the guy who can articulate what America is all about, American exceptionalism, can make the case and not just read the talking points or do it off the teleprompter, can make the case for free markets and our basic case that lower taxes can be good for everybody, and bring about growth, it’s good for everybody,” Thompson said.

Watch the full Hannity segment:

You can join Newt in the fight for America with your contribution here.

Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, “I am proud to endorse Newt Gingrich for president.”

Rev. Donald E. Wildmon is founder and chairman of American Family Association (AFA) and American Family Radio (AFR). The American Family Association is widely regarded as the most influential and relied on family support organization in America. Rev Wildmon endorsed Speaker Gingrich before the Iowa Caucuses and reaffirmed his support before the South Carolina primary.

In a strong statement December 20, 2011Rev. Wildmon said:

“Newt Gingrich recognizes the threat to our country posed by judges and lawyers imposing values upon the country inconsistent with our religious heritage, and has proposed constitutional steps to bring the courts back in balance under the constitution,” Wildmon said in announcing his endorsement today.

“We need someone in the White House who can balance the budget and get the economy moving again. Newt has done it before, and I believe he can do it again. I am proud to endorse Newt Gingrich for president.”

Last week, amid rumors he was switching his support away from Gingrich, Wildmon, who now serves as co-chair of Gingrich’s Faith Leaders Coalition, made this even stronger statement of support:

“Perhaps you have heard a rumor that I have changed my support from Newt Gingrich for President to another candidate. I want you to know that is not true. To suggest that I have switched my support is inaccurate.

“Without question, this election is the most important in the history of our nation. Our culture has become saturated with corruption and immorality. I firmly believe the future not only of our nation but all of Western civilization is at stake. Voters in South Carolina will help decide if we can return our nation to its Judeo-Christian roots, or continue to slide down the slippery slope?

“In the past, Christian conservatives have split their votes among three or four candidates. This has allowed the moderate-liberal wing of the Republican Party to capture the nomination. It appears we might do the same thing again.

“The only way to prevent this from happening is for evangelical Christians to stick together and vote for the same person. I have decided to support Newt Gingrich and I hope you will rally behind him. I believe that the former Speaker of the House is the best qualified electable conservative candidate to make the changes needed in Washington.

“If conservatives split their vote three ways, then liberal-moderate candidate Romney is a cinch to win.

“I fully realize there are other very good candidates in this race. But if you have not already made a decision, I hope that you will consider Newt. If we will vote as a bloc, we can defeat the moderate-liberals.”

You too can serve in the Gingrich Faith Leaders Coalition. Get started here.

This is the second in a series of posts on key  endorsements.

Thomas Sowell, Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and long time Creators Syndicate columnist is recognized as one of America’s intellectual and economic giants over the past 50 years. His endorsement of former Speaker Newt Gingrich came in the form of two columns. They can be found here and here at NRO. Dr. Sowell lays out our condition, a broad outline of remedy, and the available talent to meet the challenge. Here are key sections of Dr. Sowell’s important analysis.

Thomas Sowell, Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and long time Creators Syndicate columnist is recognized as one of America’s intellectual and economic giants over the past 50 years. His endorsement of former Speaker Newt Gingrich came in the form of two columns. They can be found here and here at NRO. Dr. Sowell lays out our condition, a broad outline of remedy, and the available talent to meet the challenge. Here are key sections of Dr. Sowell’s important analysis.

If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.

What the media call Gingrich’s “baggage” concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the coming weeks and months.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of the nation?

This is not just another election, and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama’s broken promises, glib demagoguery, and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: “We are going to [fundamentally] change the United States of America.”

Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.

Internationally, it is worse. A President who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences may be beyond our worst imagining.

Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics’ claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance. . . .

While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich’s candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it “the Clinton surplus” but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was speaker of the House.

Speaker Gingrich also produced some long-overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody now claims that they were. . . .

Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.

In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared with what Gingrich accomplished as speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time. . . .

In this, as in many other aspects of life, we can only make our choice among the options actually available. So Republican voters who want to be realistic need to understand that they are going to end up with qualms and nagging doubts about whomever they pick this time.

Not all voters want to be realistic, of course. Some voters, whether Democrats, Republicans, or independents, treat elections as occasions to vent their emotions, rather than as a process to pick someone in whose hands to place the fate of the nation.

Barring some astonishing surprise, the contest for the Republican nomination for president boils down to Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. It is doubtful whether either of them is anyone’s idea of an ideal candidate or a model of consistency.

Romney’s talking point that he has been a successful businessman is no reason to put him into a political office, however much it may be a reason for him to become a successful businessman again.

Perhaps the strongest reason for some voters to support Governor Romney is that the smart money says he is more “electable” than the other candidates in general, and Newt Gingrich in particular. But there was a time when even some conservative smart-money types were saying that Ronald Reagan was too old to run for president, and that he should step aside for someone younger.

Washington Post editor Meg Greenfield said that the people in the Carter White House were “ecstatic” when the Republicans nominated Reagan, because they were convinced that they could clobber him.

Much depends on whether you think the voting public is going to be more interested in Newt Gingrich’s personal past than in the country’s future. Most of the things for which Gingrich has been criticized are things he did either in his personal life or when he was out of office. But if we are serious, we are more concerned with his ability to perform when in office. . . .

There are no guarantees, no matter whom the Republicans vote for in the primaries. Why not vote for the candidate who has shown the best track record of accomplishments, both in office and in the debates? That is Newt Gingrich. With all his shortcomings, his record shows that he knows how to get the job done in Washington.