By The Right Scoop


Mark Levin said Newt had nothing to do with developing supply-side economics. Here’s a snippet from the audio:

I like Newt Gingrich a lot. But he had nothing to do with the development of supply-side economics. …It pre-dated his election to the House by several years. So he didn’t help Ronald Reagan develop supply-side economics. He wasn’t even on Ronald Reagan’s radar at the time. I’m not trying to be controversial or rude, but I want you to know the facts.

He then took a caller who challenged him on the fact that Art Laffer said on Fox News that Newt was involved in it, but Levin stood his ground and said it just isn’t possible. He said Newt may have promoted it as a Congressman, which he deserves credit for, but Reagan ran on supply-side economics and that he was talking about it in 1974.

Here’s the full clip:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

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.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    I guess talking about supply side and actually implemented are two different things?

    “He said Newt may have promoted it as a Congressman, which he deserves credit for, but Reagan ran on supply-side economics and that he was talking about it in 1974.”

    His above statement seem to contradict if you ask me.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      How so?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Fred-Lee/100000182470888 Fred Lee

      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.

      • hargis_pennington

        And now says that FDR is his favorite President.

    • http://twitter.com/volgeek Tim Jaggers

      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.

  • Anonymous

    I like Mark Levin at lot. But this is just silly; this smacks of a bit of ego. “Supply side” economics – like many ideas – has a long history and involved many many people. Even far-flung academics far out of the limelight somehow participated in it’s “development.”

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      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?

      • Anonymous

        It seems to me he’s always parading his “Reagan” credentials; and here trying to one-up Newt on this.

        • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

          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.

          • Anonymous

            Why do you think he made the statement? It certainly, if anything would help Mitty. I don’t think he supports Mittens.

            • http://www.facebook.com/salvatore.anello Salvatore Anello

              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

            • Anonymous

              Levin made the statement because it’s his responsibility to speak the truth and set the record straight.

              He’s said countless times that if he had to choose between Newt and Mittens that he’d choose Newt.

              • Anonymous

                What makes what Mark said here “the truth”? What record was set straight?

                Was it set straight because Mark said it? No way. He could not possibly know. He went off half-cocked. If you’re interested in the truth, try that on for size.

                He is no more infallible than anyone else.

                • Anonymous

                  You are correct sir. Finally some logic. Sounds too me that TRS feels it needs to play defense for Levin. I like Levin so I don’t want to get my head bashed in on here.

                • Anonymous

                  I understand that completely Ryan. When you’re “The Great One”, that surely gets to the head of he who is labeled “Great”, and he or she who agrees with that title. The kneejerk reaction, is to defend he who is “Great” versus he who might be Great down the road. Tonight, Newt is The Great One…tomorrow, who knows?

                  Newt’s acceptance speech was awesome. Wouldn’t it be “Great” to have a return of fireside chats, where Newt relates American History, American Greatness, and the very reasons, one by one, why we are exceptional indeed?

                  That is what many of us are hungry for, yearning for; the antithesis of the MSM.

                  For Levin this evening though…Four and twenty blackbirds, AKA Crow, baked in a pie…

                • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

                  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.

                • Anonymous

                  Does he want to help Newt or Mittens? I ask again.

                • Anonymous

                  I dunno, b/c Levin worked for Reagan.

                  Newt doesn’t exactly have the best track record btw. Just look at the distortions and lies his PAC did with the Bain movie.

                • Anonymous

                  Do you believe that will hurt him in the general if he is the nominee? I think it shields him a little from the Left myself. Newt’s political acumen is unmatched in the GOP and the people railing against him nearly destroyed the GOP…as they tarnished the brand so badly Republicans were unelectable in 06 and 08. They are saying very bizarre things about Newt considering.

                  I don’t worry about Newt destroying the GOP. I worry about the out of touch with not only the base but reality cocky idiots in the establishment…who highly underestimate the man who did the unbelievable and took down the Clinton machine.

          • Constance

            I concur. Levin knew Reagan and worked in his administration. Why people slam Levin for pointing out facts from that time is beyond me.

            • Anonymous

              Facts? How can you use that word here?

        • Anonymous

          His Reagan credentials are legit. He was there, working directl for Reagan. H would know more than most. That isn’t ego, that is fact.

    • PFFV

      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.

      • Anonymous

        You mean humble like McNugget was? How’d that work out?

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2GR77FIJZ2A2ZBKZFGRXYG7QY4 kim

          Humility is not weakness. Reagan spoke with humble confidence. I like Newt a lot but he does carry an arrogant air at times.

      • Anonymous

        I totally agree. I have been for Newt from jumpstreet and am religious when it comes to “The Great One”. So, don’t have a gripe with either man. As this moves forward, I think it is vital that Newt balance the intellect and fight that our side needs with a more likeable delivery. It doesn’t bother me in the least, it is red meat for me. But, big picture…I would be delighted to see him be able to appeal to the block that we need. I feel that many are not far off from buying in to him as a candidate. Spoke to a handful of union members just today that are done with the same dogma that they are being force fed. They are looking for an alternative that Newt fits perfectly. Some just seem to have a disconnect that is fixable with a little better delivery of that message. As silly as it sounds, if some could see him as a bit more human, it could be lights out.

    • Anonymous

      Supply side economics, developed by Norman Ture, has been around since the 1950’s out of the University of Chicago School of Economics. Ture advised presidents over three decades and was the architect of Kennedy’s tax cut in the early 1960’s. Art Laffer picked up this concept by Ture and continued to refine it into the form that Reagan used for his major tax cuts. Ture seems to be forgotten in the grand scheme of things as he fought the initial battles against the Keynsians. Laffer and Newt deserve the credit for finally driving it through to implementation.

  • Anonymous

    Gee, I guess Art Laffer’s endorsement of Newt doesn’t carry any weight?

  • http://twitter.com/doorsxp Doors Xp

    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.

    • Anonymous

      That clip really doesn’t back up Newt’s statement that he worked with Reagan in 1974. Laffer says he remembers Newt from 1978.

      I think Mark is very protective of Reagan and Reagan’s memory and just won’t put up with anyone, no matter how well meaning they may be, who tries to use Reagan for political gain.

      • Anonymous

        What kind of “gain” is Mark using Reagan for?

      • http://twitter.com/doorsxp Doors Xp

        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.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for posting this RS. I was wondering if you would. Take cover- the Newt mania is now going to come down on Levin as not being conservative, lol! I heard this last night and Levin is simply highlighting the problems we might have with Newt if he does in fact become the nominee. We don’t check our brains at the door just because we are almost through SC. I’m not against Newt,but this thing is not a done deal-YET. Santorum is at LEAST as good a candidate as Newt. I want Romney stopped in SC so that his coronation isn’t shoved down our throat. I also don’t want a Newt coronation shoved down my throat either. If Newt wins SC and it seems likely, this thing is now a 3 way tie. IMO. I will have no problem voting for Newt if he ends up being the nominee.

    • Anonymous

      The thing that kills me is the rampant suspicion that is flying around here. People have been questioning Scoop, then questioning Mark Levin, Dredge, FOX, Glenn Beck, etc. All of these people and sources have been fighting the good fight for years. They are the enemy of our enemies. They are solid and faithful allies. But we all seem to have gotten so suspicious about motives and analytical of any misinformation that we lash out at the hands that feed us.

      Newt has been involved in politics longer than anyone and has a lot of skeletons. He’s doing well right now and that’s great! Dear God please don’t let Mittens be our nominee! And I agree with Jellybean… I still feel Santorum is our best candidate. But man, everyone is so quick to attack and slander, etc. Facts are facts and I think most of these honorable sources are trying to present information with good intentions. Let’s not lash out every time someone presents something that reflects poorly on our pick for the GOP nominee. I’ve been guilty too… and I’m trying to settle down. Mark believes he is correct. If he isn’t then he’ll find out and retract what he said. Simple as that.

      We have to beat Maobama. We have to take the Senate, House, Judiciary and state legislations. We are all trying to move towards the same goals. And we are all trying to get there the best way we can. But we cannot cannibalize or demonize each other getting there… that’s the devil’s way. That’s the demoncrat’s way. Let’s stick together and agree to disagree if need be.

      • Anonymous

        I mostly agree. But, agree to disagree is one thing. Some of the sources you mentioned have not struck me as “allies” in recent weeks. Regardless of our candidate of choice, there has been different turn. Excluding Levin because his comments are on policy matters. Those are always fair game. Some have rooted around lapping up the crumbs of the mainstream media’s grabage. That is the only part that I find disappointing. Keep the dialouge about policy not trash. Sadly, some of my respected media sources fell a little too hard recently and took a page out of the DNC playbook.

        • Anonymous

          Fair enough. There is some dog-piling going on in the media…

          I still take a lot of what Mark talks about as gospel. I’ll be a little more discerning to ensure I remain objective.

          Good response.

      • Anonymous

        “That’s the demoncrap’s way” (Sober_Thinking)

        Is it? Is that why they give their members standing ovations when caught in unethical behavior?

        It is NOT the democrat’s way. They rally around each other regardless, till “the last dog dies”. Right or wrong is nothing to them. There is no such thing. Right to them is progressivism and wrong to them is conservatism. That’s where it ends…the end justifies the means to democrats these days. You can not ascribe traditional ethics to democrats. It’s “honor among thieves” with them.

        If you want to reach out to someone, you might consider directing this towards Mark Levin, in this instance. We as conservatives place truth above all else, and let the chips fall where they fall.

        • Anonymous

          I agree with you to a point. Demoncrats can’t be trusted and progressives have a form of insanity. They are all indeed usually immoral from my experience.

          As I stated to another post, I trust Mark and usually give him a pass on almost everything. I’ll try to be objective with all personalities and especially with the media.

          I’ll have to research this subject more and see what the truth is. I honestly don’t think Mark was off base here… but if he’s wrong, I hope he’ll set the record straight.

          P.S. Nice victory for Newt! :)

  • Anonymous

    Mr Paul was contending for just weights and measures before Mr Reagan was involved in polititcs, or Mr Levin for that matter. ‘Supply side economics’ can only exist in it’s truest form, with a just currency. Mr Paul has true authority on this subject, and his record proves it. Mr Levin won’t credit him, but the facts are irregardless of Mr Levin’s approval. Supply side is simply allowing private citizens to determine the need and value of goods and services, based on their usefulness. Supply side from a central government is skewed. It may allow some short term results, but without honest money, many things will have values that are misplaced, because there was ‘money’ available that did not have any value. This is Mr Pauls principle stand, and has been from day one. In spite of this fact, the warmongers sill marginalize him, since you need to maintain a paper currency, to pursue and imperialist agenda. A just economy, based on honest money in the hands of the citizens, would preclude the possibility of intervention and agression. No nation can afford such a drain on their labor and production.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      Don’t you mean, ‘Dr. Paul’?

      • Anonymous

        The title isn’t necessary. ‘Mr.’ is respectful, and that is sufficient.

        • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

          But a true Ron Paul fan would say “Dr. Paul”

          • Anonymous

            Only defending the principle of adhering to the law. Not a “fan” of any person. Politics will not secure anyones eternal soul. My cousin is a medical doctor; I call him ‘David’. You are too presumptuous.

      • Anonymous

        I’m surprised you are not running interference for Santorum tonight. This is probaly the last chance.

    • Anonymous

      No such word as irregardless

      • Anonymous

        As a colloquialism, (non-standard speech) it is acceptable. ‘Regardless’ or ‘irrespective’ would be proper, but I was in a hurry. I left out some punctuation also.

        • Anonymous

          Just a pet peeve of mine…nails on the blackboard;)

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

        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.

    • PFFV

      Why am I hankering for some Mrs Paul’s Fish Stix all of the sudden? :)

      • Anonymous

        ROFL!!!!!!!!!!

    • KenInMontana

      “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.

    • Trust1TG

      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.

  • PFFV

    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 :~)

  • Anonymous

    “…but Levin stood his ground and said it just isn’t possible.”

    Why isn’t it possible? Because he was not yet elected to Congress? What the fig does that have to do with anything? I think it’s impossible for Mark to know any of this one way or the other.

    Surely Mark knows the definition of the word impossible, which is the same as “isn’t possible”, and should therefore, not use it here.

    Newt was 31 in 1974. Mark was 17. His clairvoyance is amazing, astounding, otherwordly even! His timing here is every bit as “good” as Newt’s ex-wife.

    If you are offended by this post, realize that I am at least equally offended by Mark’s presentation of this theory as fact.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, I was a little offended… but I’ll get over it.

      If Mark finds out he’s wrong, he’ll correct the record. I honestly don’t believe he is trying to hurt Newt’s chances here… Newt should win handily and good for him. We’ll see if Mark is right or wrong (he’s right at least 99 times out of a hyndred)… but again, he is the enemy of our enemies, he has been a great ally, and his opinion/news has been brilliant for many years. I hope you’ll cut him some slack… but still keep him honest.

      • Anonymous

        I usaully like Mark, but I dearly love truth. I have always liked Newt too but I berated him up one side and down the other last week over his Bain attacks. I consistently back the truth as I see it, and resist lies and blatant unproven propaganda.

        If Mark is going to correct himself, the time for that would be before he said this. What research went into his statements here? He’s going to say something that is possible crap on election eve and then apologize after the SC primary vote? Please!

        He had no business saying anything at all about this. He is calling Newt a liar on election eve in SC. I’d like to smack him in the mouth for this. It isn’t right!

        By the way, Fox is already predicting a Newt victory!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Anonymous

          I like Levin and, certainly he is anti-LSM, but the more the media people make these statements (revelations) just prior to big events (ie, elections) and they backfire, the sooner this type of thing will end.

          Now, Levin may be right. He may be wrong. I don’t know yet. I would tend to believe Laffer on this subject over anyone. But, that be as it may, it probably shouldn’t have come out at this point. Right after the primary (tomorrow or Monday) would have been a fine time to analyze this. Just before an event tends to smack of derailment to me.

          Beck, Rush, Levin all have great thoughts, in their own rights, and I listen to all of them. But each and every one of them could very possibly be wrong, once in a while.

  • Mary Beth House

    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.

  • B-Funk

    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.

    • Anonymous

      I think you’re right; I trust Romney far, far less though.

      • B-Funk

        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.

    • Anonymous

      He admires the politician from a historians standpoint not the policies. My goodness stop parroting Beck’s stupid dumb inane talking points. Beck thinks you’re stupid and tosses you red meat.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=775953507 Berend Lienemann

        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.

        • Anonymous

          Not! In case you haven’t noticed Newt wants to do big conservative things like reform DC. Newt’s admiring the politicians abilities not the policies. My goodness stop eating the red meat without seeing if it’s cooked first. :)

          • B-Funk

            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.

  • Trust1TG

    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.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      If you play the audio, you’ll hear his words.

      That’s why I provide the whole clip.

      • Trust1TG

        Thanks – I went back and transcribed it after listening carefully a couple of times.

  • Anonymous

    I’ll take Laffer over Levin on this.

    Mark Levin can be a big dope sometimes like how he parrots ABO! ABO ABO!

    Then gets POed the establishment is forcing Romney.

    Um duh Mark they are using ABO! using “they’ll fall in line” and support Romney ie ABO to justify it.

    DUH! Mark, it would have been nice if you made your adversaries in the establishment at least sweat the decision to push Romney. You know Mark you could have went with ABO after he won if he wins. DUH!

    Why does Mark think its bad strategy to advertise intentions to our adversaries in Aghanistan ie pullout dates and such. Yet he thinks its good strategy to advertise his intentions ABO! ABO! ABO! to the establishment(adversary) he is POed about pushing Romney.

    Sorry the man is not Jesus and he’s a big dope sometimes. Mark can think its a good idea to act like a big dope and a hypocrite when it comes to ABO! when he says he won’t vote for Paul if he won the nomination. I don’t like it. And no I’m not a Paulie. Just calling Levin out on his hypocrisy and stupidity.

    Kiss my butt Levin you big dope of a hypocrite. Like somebody said Mark Levin basically told the used car salesman he’ll pay full price then wants to haggle the price.

    • Trust1TG

      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.

    • Anonymous

      If not a Paulite…please post that RP is also a big dope, hypocrite with no chance of getting the nomination. He has no stable footing on Afghanistan and proclimation of war. If you can’t admit that, move on.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t think Paul is a big dope on domestic policy but he sure is on foreign policy.

      • PFFV

        Paul finished 4th in South Carolina, there you go Paul drones…. HAAA HAAA!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=775953507 Berend Lienemann

        What good is stable footing on Afghanistan if we are pushing ourselves over a domestic financial/legal cliff?

    • Anonymous

      What other radio host criticizes RINO’s more than Levin?? When even Rush and Hannity were giving serious consideration to Trump, Levin tore him up calling him Donald Chump.

      The others are nice to RuPaul… but Levin created the RuPaul nickname and calls him out for being a dangerous crackpot.

      Levin has been all over Romney too. He said what conservative would implement Romneycare?? He’s said what conservative things has Romney done??

      Levin is just being accurate. He did work for Reagan himself you know. He’d pick Newt over Mittens, but it’s his job to speak the truth on the air and to set the record straight.

      • Anonymous

        I think he wouldn’t have been a big dope if he had said to the used car salesman(establishment) lets haggle before he told him he’d pay full price not after. I like Mark Levin but its my job to call him on his stupidity and hypocrisy. Also, there is no need to even say “I won’t vote for Paul” because Paul doesn’t have a chance of winning the nomination anyway.

        • Anonymous

          YOu’re barking up the wrong tree going after Levin.

          • Anonymous

            Why?

          • Anonymous

            I’m not going after him just calling him out on his stupid behavior and hypocrisy regarding ABO and the establishment pushing Romney.

            Do you think he is Jesus or something? Mark Levin is never wrong? What is it? Do you worship him? Does he do your thinking for you? What?

            I like Levin, I learn things from him. His book Men in Black was fantastic as I’m sure his new one is and I’m going to buy it. But it doesn’t mean he wasn’t a big dope on what I called him on.

            • Anonymous

              Don’t get mouthy with me.

              If Levin’s wrong I’ll say so. In this case I think he’s right. He’s pointing out the truth although it could end up hurting Newt.

              He worked for Reagan, he knows alot more about who did what than you or me.

              • Anonymous

                And Michael Reagan knows far more about his father than you, me or Mark Levin.

                Gingrich is “a man who fought in Congress for my father’s programs, a man who believes that President Obama’s vision for America is a dangerous one and must be stopped and reversed.”

                Recounting Gingrich’s amazing career, Reagan says that, after he was first elected to Congress in 1978, he “began to confront the usual politics and became a leading ally of my father, Ronald Reagan. He
                helped Congress push through massive tax cuts. He worked to secure a military buildup that helped defeat the Soviet Union. Under his leadership, Congress also limited the welfare state. As a leader in the
                Reagan revolution, Gingrich began to confront both Republicans and Democrats in Congress for their cozy insider deals.”

                Michael Reagan also reminds viewers that House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the key conservative figure behind the Contract with America, which helped the GOP gain control of Congress in 1994 and led to the first balanced budget in decades. And since leaving Congress, Reagan adds, Gingrich “has remained at the forefront of an American political scene” and “helped keep my father’s legacy alive.”

                http://tinyurl.com/7a3gq8e

  • Anonymous

    The polls just closed seconds ago and FOX is projecting a win for Gingrich already. Hooray!

    • Anonymous

      Newt just may be Mark’s orange juice can this time around :-)

  • Constance

    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.

    • Anonymous

      Is that why Michael Reagan endorsed Newt? That doesn’t jibe does it?

    • StNikao

      But. Laffer worked for and with Reagan first hand, didn’t he?

  • Anonymous

    I like Newt. Who else would show his lighter side and do this interview. Certainly not that stuttering stumblebum Romney. I have a better time understanding Mel Tillis

    • StNikao

      If sweet, gentle Bret Baier scares and upsets Romney, he is not the candidate to face Obama.

  • http://twitter.com/Seanmj63376 Sean Johnson

    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.

  • http://twitter.com/politiJim PolitiJim

    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

  • Anonymous

    I don’t trust Newt or Romney any more than Obama. They are both supporters of mandated healthcare — how on earth is this something anyone can overlook? And Newt has taken his stand supporting the AGW myth.
    Santorum is the only conservative candidate remaining who I can support.

    • PFFV

      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.

    • StNikao

      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.

  • Anonymous

    post script– those who are taking this opportunity to bash Mark Levin apparently do not fully understand the vital nature of his task. He speaks the truth as best he knows it, and he knows history, politics and economics better than most. It is his truth-telling that precludes him from being able to sit by while Newt ingratiates his campaign with half-truths and myths. I don’t intend to reply or argue about this post with any Levin-haters and naysayers.
    God Bless Mark Levin. He should receive thanks from liberty loving individuals for telling it like it is rather than receive boos and taunts from the “cheapseats” by those who know less than nothing!
    Thanks, RS, for posting Mark’s program pieces here on your site.

  • Anonymous

    So what?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Edward-Murphy/100002732255294 Edward Murphy

    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.

    • StNikao

      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…

  • Anonymous

    We can’t have Newt as the nominee. Barack Obama will run as the family values candidate. Mitt will be 100x better!

  • Anonymous

    We can’t have Newt as the nominee. Barack Obama will run as the family values candidate. Mitt will be 100x better!

  • http://twitter.com/slvrser Frank

    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.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/4225215

    • Anonymous

      Way to go Frank. Nice history lesson. The big thing that Laffer contributed was his napkin curve. It made low marginal tax rates easy to understand as a good thing for growing the economy and providing benefits for all.

  • http://twitter.com/mjh4259 Mary

    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.”

  • bobemakk

    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.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

    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.