You know, I had originally prepared a relatively lengthy discussion about the events that occurred yesterday with some disturbingly truncated and rather misleading videos making their way around the internet, primarily due to the establishment's disdain for a particular contender to their prescribed choice. Before I elaborate any further, let me just preface this by saying that I have no illusions. I realize that to some degree, we're all idealists. And with any political candidates, we are certain to find some degree of agreement with one, while perhaps disappointment with another. With the current crop, but honestly any for that matter, perfection is unattainable. However, without the fight for the ideal, conservatism, or for that matter, Americanism, is ceded to something foreign, invasive and perhaps even tyrannical if given the opportunity to fester and grow.
Certainly, all our presidential candidates are fighting to get elected. And the more you dig, the more you can find something to consider hypocritical. All I would point out to the Romney supporters, and the Drudgeons, is that it's very 'peculiar' (to use a word that Gingrich used in one of the truncated videos floating around) that the more establishment-prone Republicans, politician and pundit alike, particularly those wielding the power of the pen, lob what can rather blatantly be considered coordinated attack stories out there, all in a single day, disappointingly distracting from Obama's disastrous SOTU speech! Do they hate Gingrich more than they want to defeat Obama?
Per those isolated videos snip-its, it seems to me that Newt is pragmatically commenting, in one, on Bush's ability to win in a situation in which "the country's changed" such that "the American people are 'peculiarly' addicted to the future." Even out of it’s full context, it’s not trashing Reagan, it’s making a tactical assessment if you listen to the words the man is saying in the isolated segment provided. In the other video, Newt explains that he was a Rockefeller state chair in the South at the time of the Rockefeller-Goldwater fight, and then gestures, as if he's about to further explain that internal conflict, but...well, we're not permitted to view the rest of the piece. Why? Might it be that we'd come to a different conclusion if seen in its full context? Probably.
I find this pile on targeted at Newt both disturbing and astonishing, particularly at a time when one of Romney's own advisers has boldly stated that NONE of the Republican candidates will repeal Obamacare in its entirety! Knowing what we know about his other advisers of the MA healthcare law in conjunction with their later advisement on Obamacare, it doesn't fare well for the former governor. What of being advised to support a $2 gas tax, a VAT or opening Taliban talks? Or what of the fact that Romney advisers lobbied for Freddie Mac? Wasn't the man just criticizing Gingrich about 'lobbying' or “influence peddling?!” It's peculiar that Romney not only lob these negative attacks only when he's in political trouble, but equally peculiar that he surrounds himself with so many 'advisers' seemingly willing to sell out ANY principle. It's also peculiar that Newt's obvious contributions towards conservatism, however imperfect through the years, are being questioned by a man and his campaign of whom never embraced Reaganism, and an all-to-willing establishment elite ready to buy in.
None of the smear merchants seem to want to acknowledge that while Nancy Reagan, on behalf of Ronald, was handing the torch off to Newt and the Republican members of Congress in 1995 “to keep that dream alive”…
…Mitt Romney was openly rejecting it.
I don't argue that Gingrich has some questionable areas within his repertoire, but I stand by what Rush said as a general statement, “People see Gingrich fighting for an ideal, and they see Romney fighting to get elected.” The intended ideal is one of conservatism, however imperfect his path has been at getting there. And the perception of Romney, not just mine I'd add, is that the man will do or say whatever it takes to get elected.
You know, I'll take it from those who were there, in the conservative trenches, like Mark Levin, who opened last night's program dispelling these ridiculous accusations and putting those videos in full context...
As well as Jeffrey Lord, former aid to Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan.
UPDATES: 'Uh oh' for the Romney camp...Friday vindication for Newt (unfortunately, after the last televised FL debate). And in full agreement with theRightScoop, "ask yourself where this misinformation came from. My guess it was part of an opposition research file dug up by the Romney campaign." Yep. And what does this campaign remind me of? Oh yeah...
In other news over the weekend, Gingrich received an outright endorsement from Herman Cain and a pseudo-endorsement from Sarah Palin.
