Thursday, January 26, 2012

Baghdad Bob Rides Again

Emmett Tyrrell, Elliot Abrams, Matt Drudge, and the other tapeworms who joined in the coordinated big lie attack on Newt Gingrich should just shut up. In their attack they have demonstrated an appalling lack of integrity and a commitment to conserving nothing more than the status quo. Combined, these clowns cannot muster the veracity of Baghdad Bob.
First up on the murders row of idiots is R. Emmett Tyrrell. In a column for Town Hall R. Emmett's main contention is that Newt was a cad like Clinton, a disastrous leader, and a false conservative. He concludes that while Romney, Santorum, and Paul have character, Newt has none. R. Emmett must have been looking in the mirror when he wrote his column.

The great accomplishment of R. Emmett was to use his magazine, The American Spectator, to expose Clinton's womanizing and to lead the campaign for his impeachment. He claims to be aware of dalliance's of Gingrich's that have yet to come to light - but he doesn't expose them. In this he is the mirror image of Nancy Pelosi. Gingrich has confessed his sin and claims to have repented. It takes a man with character deficiencies of his own to spurn another man's confession and repentance. One of those character deficiencies is, apparently, making vague, unsubstantiated attacks on the character of another.

R. Emmett's next line of attack is that Newt was a disastrous leader because he mismanaged the impeachment effort against Clinton. In order to make this accusation R. Emmett has to simply ignore Gingrich's orchestration of the Contract With America that resulted in the recapture of the Senate and the capture of the House by republicans for the first time in 40 years. It is hard to read R. Emmett describe the revolution that resulted in the only real overhaul of welfare ever accomplished, and the only balanced budgets most living Americans have ever known, as a “disaster.” Like Baghdad Bob, R. Emmett doesn't really think the facts support his words, he is just serving a master.

Shoveling what he wants to sell as compost, but anyone else knows to be manure, R. Emmett makes the bizarre statement that Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul are conservatives Gingrich is not. R. Emmett has no coherent definition of what it is to be a conservative. Few people do because such labels are of no value. They only serve to short circuit intelligent discourse. Such labels appeal to emotion rather than reason. Is Romney a conservative because he supported abortion rights and appointed extremely liberal judges? Is Rick Santorum a conservative because he opposes Right To Work and is generally supportive of government coercion of personal behavior? Is Ron Paul a conservative because he is a non-interventionist who would dramatically reduce military spending? One must define conservatism before declaring who wears the label and who does not. More appropriate would be to simply consider the various issues on their merits. R. Emmett avoids this labor because doing so wouldn't not serve his goals of misleading the voters.

In closing, R. Emmett concludes that all the other candidates have character whereas Newt does not. It is a bold judgment coming from one who shares character traits with Nancy Pelosi. Each of the candidates have their character flaws as does their eventual opponent. It is indisputable that Gingrich had massive character flaws in the past. Flaws that he has admitted and evidently corrected. R. Emmett said that Newt Gingrich has no character. Present tense, not past. It takes character to admit ones flaws and turn from them. Gingrich has done this. Until R. Emmett does the same, and stops flinging mud in pursuit of political gain, he should just shut up.

“Honest Abe” Elliott Abrams' hit piece was of the same low level of integrity as R. Emmett's. You have to laugh at the audacity of Elliott Abrams claiming that Newt Gingrich's claims to being a supporter of Ronald Reagan are “misleading.” Misleading is something that Abrams is expert at. He mislead the world when he testified before the U.S. Senate that the charges that the El Salvadoran government murdered hundreds of civilians at El Mazote. The Salvadoran government has admitted the massacre and apologized. Not Elliot. Honest Abrams pled guilty to charges of twice withholding information from congress. In 1997 the D.C. Court of Appeals publicly censured Abrams for falsely testifying to congress on three occasions.

What is the substance of Honest Abrams' charge that Newt is misleading in claiming to support Reagan? Not much. Newt voted to support Reagan's request for $100 million to support the Nicaraguan Contras. Abrams whines that Newt argued that Reagan was being too timid and not doing enough. How devastating! Honest Abe adds a couple more snippets (with no context) where Newt Gingrich argued that the Reagan Administration wasn't being hard enough on communism. Using these snippets to argue that Gingrich didn't support Reagan has as much veracity as Abrams' congressional testimony.

Honest Abrams' real complaint is that Newt didn't pay enough homage to the strategies and policies that Abrams' was involved in. It seems that personal pique might play a roll here. Abrams concludes that Gingrich was wrong because Reagan was successful. Logic seems as foreign to Abrams' as straightforward testimony. The fact that Reagan succeeded in opposing the Soviet Union does not mean that Gingrich's call for a more aggressive strategy would not have been equally or more successful. Nor does referring a different policy mean you worked against Reagan as Abrams misleadingly implies.

The final idiot in the lineup is Matt Drudge. It is clear that this latest attack portraying Gingrich as a Reagan antagonist was coordinated. It is completely false. Drudge had a reputation of providing visibility to important stories of interest to conservatives. He just jumped shipped and became part of a concerted effort to influence the republican primary with scurrilous attacks. He now has the credibility of ABC News.

Those who participated in this attack lack integrity. There is no telling what their motives are. Perhaps R. Emmett is just grasping for something to bring readers his way. Perhaps Abrams is feeling disrespected. Perhaps Drudge is just following orders from his gal pal Ann Coulter. Who knows? Who cares? Real conservatives are determined this year to fight the powers that be, whether in government, the media, or in the establishment think tanks and shadow organs of government, and to roll back the intrusion of the government. They won't be taking orders from intestinal parasites like R. Emmett, Elliott Abrams, or Matt Drudge.

Return to Home

No comments:

Post a Comment