The Right Scoop
Gosh, I see you have a pretty strong opinion in this matter. Don't take it the wrong way, but we're not- most of us- parroting Beck. He does bring up useful points, and items for consideration. To be quite honest, I would like Newt to explain why he believes in FDR so much. If it is, as you say, just from a historians standpoint, then that's fine. Honestly, though, someone dedicated to conservatism won't really appreciate FDR, as he was a tyrant and one of the sources of our current problems.
Anyhow, if you don't think Beck knows what he's talking about, that's perfectly fine. From where I'm standing, he's been right on so many things that I cannot just toss his analysis aside. I want to like Newt, but I won't trust him or any other politician again. Something in me tells me he's going to reform some things, and leave a lot of other things a mess. I could be wrong, though, so I'll wait and see. Like Levin I will vote for anyone or anything over Obamao. I hope you can appreciate our skepticisms, though.
I was under the impression since I have my own mind and use it that newt was talking about being in support of it as far back as in 74........I don't remember Newt saying he was in congress then. Supply side economics was something different back then. Maybe Mark just wasn't listening or maybe I missed something but I think Mark needs to take a breather before he slams a guy for saying what he saw on TV. Levin doesn't like to be questioned much it seems.
I don't give a damn about this controversial issue. Gingrich is the man for the presidency, his win in SC proves it and he will win Florida as well and win the nomination and become president against that bum Obama who deserves to be in jail.
For what it's worth, Newt's comments upon the death of Jack Kemp in 2009:
"I first worked with Jack in 1976. His courageous and disciplined commitment to
lowering taxes and increasing economic growth and opportunity for all
Americans was a key factor in the Reagan revolution.
In 1980, then Governor Reagan adopted Jack's ideas and history was made."
Reagan nor Gingrich didn't 'develop' anything, supply side economics were implemented during Calvin Coolidge's administration in the 1920's. The theory was just largely ignored by the democrats throughout most of the century. They're all wrong by a long shot.
What good is stable footing on Afghanistan if we are pushing ourselves over a domestic financial/legal cliff?
A historians standpoint is typically determined by the policies made by the President. Beck brings up some very useful critiques that should be taken with a grain of salt.
I love Levin but he's making a mistake here. Newt said that he helped Jack Kemp and others with the development of supply-side economic NOT that help Reagan develop it. He is attacking Newt for something that he did not claim.
If sweet, gentle Bret Baier scares and upsets Romney, he is not the candidate to face Obama.
Hi - from the first debate, Newt recanted global warming...said it was the stupidest thing (or one of the) he has ever done, but after learning the 'science' was rigged, he knew he had been had by the liberals... a lot of people are STILL fooled. Romney was also for GW/CC in some of his flip/flops. It's on video.
There's no shame in being wrong, if you can admit it.
I'm not defending what he said, per se, but I am defending him against those who seek to besmerch him simply because they disagree. it's like the caller who said he was disappointed in Levin, but then couldn't back it up.
It's fine to disagree. But impugning his motives because you disagree without backing it up is a sign of immaturity. And yes, I'll defend him against that.
I hope I am wrong but Santorum will not win. He has to get the fire in his belly and start being aggressive if he wants to make a serious move. I agree he is the best Conservative in this race but he needs to grab peoples attention and make them go "Wow!" Only then will he have a chance to overtake Newt and Mittens.
Newt isn't above stealing someone's thunder. In the last debate in which Herman Cain participated, he promoted the Chilean Social Security model as his Idea. Cain had been promoting it for months. What a ghoul; Cain was standing right next to him.
They are all sharing ideas and praising one another's good points, skills and experience and have done so from the first debate.
It's not all competition...they are learning from one another. Newt and Cain go way back...
I HEARD that interview with Laffer. Art was adamant that Gingrich not only was involved, but was DEEPLY involved. I think I'll take the word of the architect behind the greatest economic policy of our time versus the oft emotional and reactive Levin
All politicians take credit for a lot of things that they have little to do with. Unless they publish racist newsletters. Then they try to convince people they never read them.
We can make words mean whatever we want them to mean, as long as we're willing to put a bonus into the words' paycheck the following week.
You're right, this clip doesn't address the 1974-1978 period when Newt ran for Congress twice unsuccessfully. Mark is probably right that Newt is spinning this connection to a level of exaggeration. It seems unlikely that Newt had any significant interaction with Reagan before Newt went to congress in 1978. Perhaps Newt means that he "starting working with Reagan in 1974" in that they both advocated economic conservatism. So, Mark is probably right on this part. But, Mark contradicts Laffer and likely exaggerates in saying that Newt "had nothing to do with the development of supply-side economics". Hopefully Mark (or Laffer or Newt) will clarify this point on Monday.
Well, if Mark Levin says it, I don't doubt it. He's always been straight up honest, and nobody knows Reagan history better than Levin.
Last I heard Mark Levin say on video, is that he would vote for Rick Santorum if he had to vote that day. That was 2-3 days ago.
Hard to say about Romney- which is the problem. I'm with Levin, though. I'd vote for orange juice before Obamao. I'm just sad that this is our list of candidates. Here's hoping Santorum pulls off an upset.
What did Newt actually claim/say and when did he say it?
Did he actually claim to conceive of supply side economics or did he just cheer for it when he was teaching, running for office, while in the GA House, or in the US House?
It would be helpful to have some quotes and citations from Newt's books or speeches. That would clear this matter up considerably.
Newts statement was that he helped develop it. Not create it or anything of the sort. Paul Ryan is helping to develop it right now. If Reagan was in office now, Paul Ryan would be helping to develop supply side economics with him. This is the only time I can think of that I can say Levin is just wrong here.
develop- to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state
As a matter of fact, Newt was talking about hard money recently:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gingrich-goes-gold_617167.html
Hope he means it.
I'm furious, disgusted and sick of the 1% (Soros, I mean you, you vile ego-maniac) manipulating and destabilizing various national currencies, banks, etc. and playing with our morality, religion, shaping society to his/their beastly, inferior standards.
Humility is not weakness. Reagan spoke with humble confidence. I like Newt a lot but he does carry an arrogant air at times.
"Mr Paul was contending for just weights and measures before Mr Reagan was involved in politics..." You are aware Reagan was first elected in 1967, which predates Paul's political career by 9 years. However, Reagan's exposure to and involvement in politics goes back much further.
Well... I can either believe Art Laffer, who worked on that kind of thing...or Mark Levin, who is The Great One, but who didn't work in that area.
In this case, I'd have to give it to the guy who worked on Reagan's economics.
The Tea Party needs to be careful with this guy. The things he says and does make me very wary of him. He loves FDR, and thinks of himself as a Wilsonian (Woodrow) politician. At best, he's a political animal. At worst, we're being taken for a ride here. I dunno for sure, but I'm really really wary of him.
I got the same vibe too, I agree but still love 'The Great One'. I don't think he was wrong to say what he said though. He has his reasons for it I am certain. Have a great weekend fellow RS fans :~)
I don't think this is a competition to him and I'm not sure how you get that. He just doesn't believe it happened the way Newt is suggesting and voice his thoughts on it.
Sorry, I just hate it when people constantly impugn the motives of someone like Levin just because they don't agree.
I concur. Levin knew Reagan and worked in his administration. Why people slam Levin for pointing out facts from that time is beyond me.
I love Mark, he is a real intellect in my opinion and I agree with him nearly every time he makes a point. I was listening to his show last night and thought it was a little odd that he said Newt had nothing to do with supply side economics being implemented. I guess he is right but it sounded like he was trying to take Newt down a notch. Maybe because he really wants Santorum to gain traction? On a side note I do see Gingrich is getting a little to carried away with the arrogance at times. I wish he would be humble but still remain confident at the same time. He needs to balance his knowledge and confidence with humility. People will start rejecting him if he appears snobby and flippant.
Ego? Really?
He's just giving his opinion. He's not trying to take credit for it. How in the world do you get 'ego' out of this?
The caller is right. Art Laffer, the architect of Reagan's economic plan, disagrees with Mark on this:
Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyk01qInsug
Skip to about 3:35 for the relevant response.
I agree with you . Also it is well documented that Newt was a REAGAN supporter as early as 1974 and work on Reagans campaign in 1978.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.