It appears that The American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord has, reluctantly I think, been thrust into the role of being one of Newt Gingrich's chief defenders. The truth's defender is perhaps more accurate. For all we know, Lord may well be a Romney man.
The last few days I've posted both for and against the former Speaker. Full disclosure: My inclinations are mostly in the latter camp. But even so, I think this long week of the long knives for Newt has been a bit much. We do have a real foe in this contest after all, a clear and present danger to the country in fact, and he ain't Newt Gingrich.
Anyway, among the more serious stabs at Newt came from Elliott Abrams in the pages of NRO. Abrams not only challenged Gingrich's claim to be a legitimate political heir to Ronald Reagan, but also charged him with being even at the time a caustic critic of the Reagan and his Administration.
Lord, a former Reagan White House insider himself who just the other day was moved to challenge this surprising anti-Gingrich blitzkrieg, has risen again to challenge specifically Abrams' account of Gingrich's role in the 1980s. And from what I read, he seems to have the facts on his side.
Alas. Makes you want to throw your hands up in the air, pronounce a pox on each of their houses, then turn away and walk off in disgust, doesn't it?
You can't. The stakes are to high.
Look, virtually all of the players here, pols, pundits, and wannabes alike, have huge egos the care and feeding of which the rest of us would find off putting if we had to witness it up close and personal every day. But please know that thus has it ever been.
Keep your eye on the ball. No matter how flawed or how wounded our eventual nominee ends up being, replacing Obama is the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment