Conservative by Association? Gingrich Channels Ronald Reagan
Email
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum
Conservative by association? That seems to be the tact GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is taking in his effort to paint himself as the conservative alternative to fellow front-runner Mitt Romney.
The former House speaker has mentioned conservative hero Ronald Reagan 55 times in the past 18 debates, more than every other Republican candidate combined, according to an analysis by the New York Times’ Nat Silver.
From touting the work he did with Reagan as a member of the House, to drawing parallels between Reagan’s underdog upset of former President Jimmy Carter and Gingrich’s own resurgent campaign, the candidate has made no secret of his admiration for the former president.
“I am much like Reagan,” Gingrich told CNN in November. “I’m such an unconventional political figure that you really need to design a unique campaign that fits the way I operate and what I’m trying to do.”
Gingrich drew an even closer connection with the Gipper at Monday’s debate , saying he “met Ronald Reagan” and “helped Gov. Reagan become President Reagan.”
But while Gingrich has aimed to draw close parallels between himself and Reagan, a pro-Romney super PAC has tried to put daylight between the former speaker and the former president.
An ad released today by the Restore Our Future super PAC attacks Gingrich’s plentiful Reagan references, claiming “Gingrich is no Ronald Reagan.”
“From debates, you’d think Newt Gingrich was Ronald Reagan’s vice president,” the ad’s narrator says. “Reagan rejected Gingrich’s ideas. On leadership and character, Gingrich is no Ronald Reagan.”
As the ad points out, Reagan mentions Gingrich only once in his diary and clearly does not hold the same esteem for the then-young congressman as Gingrich obviously has for the former president today.
Reagan’s only mention of Gingrich is a reflection on a meeting with “young Republican congressmen” during which Gingrich proposed freezing federal spending. Reagan said the idea was “tempting” but would “cripple our defense program.”
The Romney campaign’s criticism is echoed by Elliot Abrams, who served as an assistant Secretary of State under Reagan.
Abrams writes in a National Journal column that Gingrich “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,” Abrams says in the article.
Gingrich’s Republican opponents also channel the Gipper, but their references are comparatively few and far between. Silver’s debate-transcript analysis showed Rick Santorum name-dropping Reagan 14 times throughout the past 18 debates. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney each referenced him six times.
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
I was on the ground knocking doors in South Carolina leading up to the election, and no one in the media is talking about what I think is the single biggest factor contributing to Newt’s victory: Mitt Romney’s faith.
My assignment in SC was to knock doors to speak with voters who had previously identified as undecided or leaning toward Mitt Romney. Most of those I spoke to who flipped away from Romney in favor of Gingrich agreed they thought Romney was more electable. Not one indicated that she cared about Romney releasing his tax returns. Almost every single person who would share with me her reason for voting for Gingrich cited Mitt Romney’s faith as the principle factor. In fact, even those who supported Mitt Romney would often tell me they did so in spite of his faith.
South Carolina shifted the momentum–no question. But Newt has not magically transformed himself from unelectable to electable. He is still an adulterer, he is still unethical, and the Democrats would still prefer to run against him rather than Romney. Mitt lost because South Carolinians were searching hard for an alternative, not based on legitimate policy differences, but based on a deep-seated and generational bias against Mormons. Unfortunately, few are willing to be candid about this bias with the media, and the media is therefore not accurately reporting about what I believe actually happened.
Maybe South Carolina demonstrated that Mitt Romney is not as electable as the public was beginning to think. Maybe Romney’s faith really is an insurmountable obstacle. (I tend to believe that evangelicals will vote against Obama regardless.) But Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina absolutely does not speak to his electabilty in a general election. Rather, it shows that evangelicals will vote for almost anyone (other than President Obama) to avoid voting for a Mormon.
Posted by: Bill | January 25, 2012, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
I doubt Reagan could get elected today – he raised taxes and spent more than any President before him.
Posted by: pksk531 | January 25, 2012, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm
Newt invents history. He says he balanced the budget four times. He was out of office two of those years and President Clinton had to shut down the government to force Newt to balance the budget in the other two years.
Romney is just as bad, he doesn’t re-write history because he doesn’t know any history or about the Constitution. He slammed President Obama for being a “lethargic legislator. Sorry Mitt, the president is not supposed to be a legislator, that the job of the “do nothing” republicans in Congress.
.
Posted by: tmferretti | January 25, 2012, 1:49 pm 1:49 pm
Gingrich saying, “I am much like Reagan” makes me want to vomit. Reagan never had the immoral character issues like Gingrich or his adulterous mistress that thinks she should be first lady (?). Go ahead you hypocritical Evangelicals vote for Gingrich because you have forgiven him, we haven’t.
Posted by: Indymind | January 25, 2012, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
Newt compares himself to Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy all the time. He has absolutely nothing in common with either of them. It seems the evangelical Christians don’t care what your morals are as long as they think you have a chance (no matter how remote) to beat President Obama.
They want an honest family man, who prays, doesn’t cheat on his wife, cares about the poor, and doesn’t think being rich is a prerequisite for heaven. If they’d look he’s right under their noses, his name is Barrack Obama.
Posted by: tmferretti | January 25, 2012, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm