Thread: Gingrich lied! This time about Reagan!

The Town Crier
AuntB

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Gingrich lied! This time about Reagan!

Yesterday on his radio program, Mark Levin, who actually worked in the Reagan White House, reminded us that Gingrich did not, even though he is trying to take credit for being a planner of Reagan's 'supply side economics'. Newt didn't get elected to the house of representatives for several years after! Geeze...next he'll be telling us he invented the internet! This is not the first of Newts lies, and won't be the last. If you brain numbed republicans nominate Newt, OBAMA WILL BE RELECTED!

... "Mark Levin states that supply side economics predates Gingrich and was not
invented by Gingrich".....

Hot Air had the story on Jan 4th.
.

.. But Gingrich recently told Sean Hannity​, “I helped Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp​ develop supply-side economics …”

In Ronald Reagan’s autobiography, “An American Life​,” he writes extensively about supply-side economics. He cites Jack Kemp several times. He never mentions Newt Gingrich.

(However, in Reagan’s massive 784-page diary, Newt’s name does come up — once. On Jan. 3, 1983, Reagan wrote that he met with “a group of young Repub Congressmen,” and says that one of them, “Newt Gingrich,” proposed freezing federal spending at 1983 levels, which Reagan rejected out of hand because it would “cripple our defense program.”)

On to New Hampshire « Hot Air
Newt Helped Formulate Christmas - HUMAN EVENTS

Arthur Laffer did work with Reagan to develop the policy of Supply Side Economics and oddly supports Gingrich...maybe he should listen to what Liar Newt actually says.....
No where does Laffer mention that Newt was anywhere near the plan, that any of us can find.





Source: TheTownCrier: Gingrich lied! This time about Reagan!

RELATED

On to New Hampshire

posted at 3:55 pm on January 4, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Up to this point, the sheer size of the GOP presidential field has actually been somewhat of an asset. It’s a positive to have anywhere from six to nine national potentially presidential figures making the case for the conservative cause to voters across the country. Granted, some of the candidates have espoused conservative principles more accurately and/or more effectively than others, but, by and large, all the GOP candidates have, at one time or another, pounded the president on jobs and the economy and reminded voters they’re generally not better off now than they were four years ago.

But now that the primaries have more or less begun, it’s a different situation. Voters have begun to express their preferences. Candidates with paltry support serve only to keep their few diehard supporters — presumably folks highly dedicated to the proposition of a one-term Obama administration — from coming around to support a different candidate. Michele Bachmann made an effective attack dog, she spoke eloquently about Obamacare and she’s clearly hard-working, but she made the right decision this morning.

Now, on to New Hampshire, which should surely eliminate at least one more …

The picture in New Hampshire is significantly different than in Iowa, but some things are the same. Just as they did as of this weekend in Iowa, polls show Mitt Romney running in front, his supposedly closest rivals fading and Rick Santorum surging somewhat. Reuters reports:

The morning after Romney’s narrow victory in Iowa’s caucus, the 7 News/Suffolk University daily tracking poll of voters showed the former governor of Massachusetts holding 43 percent support, level with his results over the last two days.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul trailed Romney by a widening margin, with 14 percent support among voters polled on January 2 and 3, down from 16 percent in results released a day earlier. New Hampshire primary voters will go to the polls on January 10 in the second contest of the campaign to choose a Republican rival to incumbent President Barack Obama in the November general election.


Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator who trailed Romney by a narrow margin in Iowa’s party caucuses on Tuesday, ranked fifth among New Hampshire voters with just 6 percent support. But the poll showed he had gained ground on former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose support level fell to 7 percent of respondents, down from 9 a day earlier.

Elsewhere, the Reuters article indicates that Jon Huntsman — with 9 percent — remains in third place. Given his total absence in Iowa, it’s hard to imagine that he’ll overtake either of the front two, who finished well in the Hawkeye State. But it’s also perfectly plausible he’ll retain his third place position. That’s not enough to make his campaign, but it also doesn’t matter much if Huntsman manages to beat a soaring Santorum in this particular state.

That means — just as in Iowa — the race for fourth place will be more interesting than the race for the top. (It also means that Romney will again occupy the top tier with two candidates who aren’t likely to beat him out for the nomination itself.) If Santorum pushes Gingrich to fifth, that will be highly problematic for the former Speaker as he heads into South Carolina, where Rick Perry (whom Gingrich just narrowly beat in Iowa) will presumably make a concentrated push. For that matter, if Gingrich were to finish fifth in New Hampshire, he might not make it to South Carolina at all.

But — also as in Iowa — Gingrich sees himself not in a race with Santorum but in a race with Romney. Check out this New Hampshire newspaper ad Gingrich greeted Romney with this morning:



Gingrich clearly wants to do well in New Hampshire, even though he says the state he really needs to win is South Carolina. So he begins again the game of managing expectations.


That aside, New Hampshire — just as Iowa — will matter for the candidate(s) it eliminates and the momentum it builds for Romney.

Source: On to New Hampshire « Hot Air