Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war
If you asked me even a couple of weeks ago whether the Republican Party could heal from the wounds of this election cycle in time to unite against Obama, I would have said ”Yes.”
I’m not so sure anymore. After the South Carolina primary the Republican establishment, and media supporters like Matt Drudge, launched Scorched Earth II on Newt, while pro-Romney pundits like Ann Coulter heaped scorn on the conservative and Tea Party voters who sided with Newt.
It may just be “not-beanbag” to the Romney campaign and its supporters, but people hear them loud and clear.
Two lines of attack have exposed a schism between the Republican political haves and have nots which will not easily heal: The attempt to rewrite the history of the Reagan revolution and the embrace of Nancy Pelosi’s partisan ethics attack and blackmail.
As to Reagan, I have documented many times here how the story line espoused by the Romney campaign and its supporters was false. Newt was an important part of the Reagan revolution, and was not anti-Reagan as various pro-Romney pundits claimed.
This line of attack on Newt was pushed by Drudge even as the individual charges highlighted at the top of Drudge were disproved one by one.
There was a backlash on Thursday and Friday among talk radio hosts and a variety of people who were in a first hand position to observe Newt’s interaction with Reagan, culminating in Sarah Palin’s Facebook post on Friday afternoon denouncing the neo-Stalinist attempt to rewrite history.
That the attack on Newt’s Reagan bona fides came from someone who openly ran against Reaganism and against the conservative agenda in 1994 was an irony lost only on the pro-Romney Republican establishment and media.
Romney’s attacks on Newt’s late 1990s ethics charge also were distinctly from the left, echoing the talking points of anti-conservative Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. It took people like Byron York and Mark Levin to expose the truth that the charges were part of a Democratic Party vendetta, and that substantively Newt did nothing wrong and was vindicated.
But mostly, the Republican establishment and conservative media who howled with outrage when Newt and Rick Perry were seen (wrongly in my view ) as attacking Romney “from the left” were silent, even as the Romney camp openly embraced Nancy Pelosi’s blackmail and ran ads featuring Pelosi threatening to reveal secret information about Newt after Pelosi already had backed away from the threat.
The embrace of Nancy Pelosi by the Romney campaign should have met with an avalanche of criticism from the Republican establishment, but almost nothing was said.
Romney is back at it in Florida, with a last minute and massive ad buy running a clip of Tom Brokaw from 1997 about Newt’s plea to a single ethics charge. Romney not only attacked Newt again from the left in the spirit of Pelosi, but did so using a mainstream news media figure from a network notoriously hostile to conservatives. Yet again, near silence from the Republican establishment and conservative media.
As Palin pointed out, this no longer is about Romney and Newt. It’s a schism between the Republican political haves and have nots, with the have nots furious at the double standard applied to their candidate by the political haves.
The schism need not have occurred. It entirely is an outgrowth of the way in which the Romney campaign and Republican political and media establishments have conducted themselves.
Newt rose in the polls in the fall on a positive message of not attacking fellow Republicans. Newt’s great moments in fall debates were refusing to engage when debate moderators sought to pit candidate against candidate. The message of a united front against Obama and a bright conservative future resonated with the Republican electorate like nothing else.
Romney had no positive message to sell or at least was not good at selling it, so in Iowa Romney, his SuperPAC, and the Republican political and media establishment launched Scorched Earth I on Newt, what David Limbaugh appropriately called “relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery.”
The attacks on Newt were highly personal and deliberately demeaning, eiptomized by National Review’s notorious “Marvin the Martian” issue.
Even then, Newt tried to stay positive in Iowa until the last few days, and Newt paid the electoral price.
Ever since then, it has been downhill, with Newt launching negative ads in South Carolina and Florida and Romney unloading with far greater resources. Some of the ads run by or for Newt have been as negative as those run by or for Romney, if only in smaller doses. The rhetoric has escalated on both sides.
But make no mistake about it, the reason the Republican campaign has turned so nasty and so divisive is because the Romney campaign and its supporters decided in Iowa to win at any price, a theme which continues to this day even if it means embracing Nancy Pelosi and distorting the history of the Reagan revolution.
This will not be put back together easily. The smugness and condescension are salt on open wounds.
Romney may win his battles in Florida and beyond, a shallow vindication of his negative political strategy, but it has weakened the fall campaign against Obama. Time heals all wounds, supposedly, but not necessarily in a matter of a few months.
In pulling apart fault lines which are not easily put back together because they embody an emotional fissure in the Republican Party, Romney may win his battles, but he is losing our war.
Update: The NY Times just published a very revealing article regarding Romney’s Florida strategy, The Calculations That Led Romney to the Warpath. (added) The Times confirms what everyone suspected, the Romney campaign fed material (which we now know to have false and misleading) to Drudge in a plan to attack Newt which was approved by Romney:
A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.
The effort hit a peak by Thursday, when the site was virtually taken over by headlines assailing Mr. Gingrich, whose advisers said they eventually gave up on trying to persuade the Drudge staff to spare them, acknowledging, in the words of one aide, that “very little can be done.” ….
Mr. Romney was still in South Carolina when the team, led by Mr. Rhoades, presented the plan to him. “He was on the road, and there was a call with him on Sunday morning where we laid out all the different pieces of what was going on,” Mr. Schriefer said. “He asked questions, but it wasn’t a particularly long call; it was very calm, sort of ‘O.K., guys, let’s go win in Florida.’ ”
And, Jennifer Rubin is a WaPo blogger closely associated with the Romney campaign (they even quote her calling Newt a “well of sleaze” in a mailer). Here is her tweet tonight upon hearing that Herman Cain was endorsing Newt, exuding the type of demeaning attitude which unfortunately typifies so much of the pro-Romney punditry. That the Romney campaign embraces such people is one of the reasons a large segment of the Republican electorate is moving to a position they never thought possible:






Comments
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/herman-cain-endorses-newt-gingrichand.html Great article and I linked to you. Florida is not the end for this. This battle is going to the convention and likely well beyond that.
This election was the GOP’s to lose…and by having the weakest field in 70 years, we’ve lost it. Obama will probably win reelection this fall, and that really depresses me to no end. The only way we, as conservatives can do anything, is to elect conservatives to the House and Senate in “veto proof” majorities (i.e. 2/3rd’s) to over the vetoes Obama will in record numbers.
The GOP political “elites” in Washington have pretty much gutted the party as it is today. They have become the problem (by going along to get along) instead of part of the solution. They are as corrupt as any politcians in this country can be. They have become wealthy, flabby and fat through thier use of earmarks and insider information. It’s time to run them ALL out of office.
Rich Vail
Pikesville, Maryland
http://thevailspot.blogspot.com
As a president, my take on Mitt Romney is that he is a loose cannon who is not in control of either his mouth or his aides. He uses unverified opposition research, and says things that turn out to be the kind of lies that demean him. At Bain Capital, he was either involved in criminal fraud, or was not alert enough to detect it, or detected it and failed to report it. None of those results speak well of him. I wouldn’t even voice this criticism of him, if his campaign hadn’t engaged in scandalous lying. If elected, this man is going to have an administration poisoned with the stench of corruption.
Valerie
Everything you just said about Romney can you produce a link validating it?
At Bain Capital, he was either involved in criminal fraud, or was not alert enough to detect it, or detected it and failed to report it.
Just two weeks ago we were criticizing Gingrich for making false accusations about Bain. Mark Levin threatened to reject Romney as a candidate. Rush Limbaugh was extremely upset with Gingrich on this too. If there is some back up for this, please let us know. Otherwise, there is plenty of real things where Mitt Romney betrayed conservatives. We do not have to argue fake DNC talking points for them.
Here’s the back-up.
http://www.mittsbloodmoney.com/
“Just two weeks ago we were criticizing Gingrich for making false accusations about Bain.”
Gingrich got nailed for making false accusations. How it was determined that Gingrich was wrong is still a mystery to me, even though I was watching closely. As near as I can tell, everyone just took Mitt Romney’s word for it. (A privilege Newt doesn’t enjoy.)
Gingrich pulled his ads and asked his PAC to do the same. Romney’s PAC and Romney were (and had been, for weeks) running ads with huge untruths about Gingrich, but refused to pull them.
Gingrich changed gears: let’s see what the record says about Bain while Romney was CEO. In short, let’s verify Romney’s claims. Fair enough, one would think.
The “conservative” media then accused Gingrich of hating capitalism and working for Obama. The same folks who uncritically dish every piece of dirt on Gingrich shut down any critical review of Romney’s most-touted qualification.
The fix is in.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/RomneyWasManagerandBoardMemberofCorpGuiltyofMedicareFraud/2012/01/27/id/425817
The writers looks at the PAC ad, then delves into the background story, and uses Forbes, Boston Globe, ands The Deseret News as sources. Read the part called What Did Romney Know and When.
“…is that he is a loose cannon…” I am sorry, did you mean to type “G-i-n-g..” oh no, the rest of your comment… that WAS intentional.
“…who is not in control of either his mouth…” Well, this is new. And here all we have heard is that Romney was too scripted, too robotic, too planned, too in control.
I genuinely like both men. For different reasons. Why some of us are so intent on manufacturing rage at a process that is, and always has been, ugly is beyond me. Perhaps some of us are already preparing our excuses for why we just *can’t* bring ourselves to support whomever wins this primary? Perhaps we will stamp our feet, “sit this one out,” and prove to one and all why nominating this (or the other) was foolish from the start? Self-fulfilling prophesies and all…
Before we all get ourselves worked into a lather, burn bridges which will not be recrossed (and three other cliches I cannot think of at the moment), we should remember this is not us against ourselves, but rather, us bringing out the very best in ourselves so we can take Obama down in November.
I have a proposal (knowing full well no one will listen). Why don’t we lower the long knives, win at the end of the year, and turn them on ourselves, turn our best destructive spirits on each other afterwards, say in the 2014 midterms? That would be good fun. And more productive than this short-sighted, spittle-induced, fury we are trying to work ourselves into now.
Uou’re right – it’s too late to beat the drums of “let’s stop attacking each other and direct our ire at Obama”
http://markamerica.com/2012/01/28/so-shocking-im-speechless/
meant that as a reply to tsr and EBL, discusses Mitt’s company that was bilking Medicare.
Mitt claims responsibility for all 89,000 jobs at Staples, even though he had about a 10% investment and little short term involvement. So surely he will take credit for ALL this too?
If Romney is the nominee, I will no longer not just vote for him, I will actively vote to ensure he does not become President. I will vote for the downticket races the conservatives, whether they be Republican or Independent, and if they are truly sincere, perhaps even a Democrat.
If Romney is the future of the Republican party I will no longer be a part of it.
How’s that for a Shermanesque statement.
That’s the spirit! Nothing says “anti-RINO” like voting either voting against the Republican nominee or not voting at all. I am sure your approach will send the very clearest message to Barack and his allies and signal to everyone else where your true loyalties lie! Well. DONE.
“Slash and Burn 2012: Because, if I can’t have MY way…”
Magnificent overview!!
maybe there’s just been too many debates that have dragged this process out for too long. if we don’t stop this inter-party sniping in a hurry, we are definitely not gonna get obama out of the whitehouse. i’ll back romney, i’ll back newt…hell, i’d back a REAL newt as long as it sends barack back to chicago/hawai’i/indonesia/kenya/or wherever the hell he came from.
[...] Insurrection calls Mitt’s dishonest, vile attacks Scorched Earth II. The Lady Logician wrote about a NY Times article outlining Mitt’s intentional attempt to [...]
Romney is not my cup of Tea (Party). Romney is a pseudo-conservative and a bad joke played on all of us grass-root Americans. Ann Coulter, Fox News, Karl Rove, Reagan-circle revisionists and their ilk are choosing stymie or substance, Ron Headrest over the Real Thing, Newt Gingrich.
Screw Mitt Romney, I’m voting for Obama just to spite the Establishment.
Many of the people supporting Romney now seem to be overlooking one glaring flaw: Romney has all of the negatives of McCain but none of the positives. John McCain is considered a war hero by many people. I don’t agree with that for reasons I won’t bother going into, but it’s what allowed many people to hold their nose and vote for him. Yeah, he was a rich guy who married money, had too many houses, held Progressive values, had contempt for conservatives, but did I mention he’s a war hero?
Romney has no positives. None. OK, he’s been married to the same woman for 42 years. What else you got? I can’t think of a thing.
Nice hair.
I’ll vote for Newt against Obama any day of the week. But, a few of his supporters are currently sounding deranged. Romney has no positives? Please.
And if Newt and his supporter can’t take the heat from Mittens, it is OK because if Newt wins the nomination, Obama and the Dems will play fair.
[...] Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war [...]
[...] groups in the eyes of many voters and has made himself a threat to the established order. Thus the double-barrel smear job against him, one that assumes we’re [...]
Well reading this dramatic tale of woe I now feel compelled to identify myself as a former resident of Georgia/6th Cong. District. I’m a gal who credits Newt for waking me up politically, back in the mid-90s. And who plopped down a lot of $$ to buy Newt’s GOPac tapes on VHS(!) and held house parties to show them to friends and family. I worked my butt off for Newt’s campaigns and proudly joined Women for Newt in Georgia.
No forces of the legendary “elite media” influenced me. I’ve seen just one video against Newt (the recent one featuring Tom Brokaw). I now live in Alabama, blissfully beyond reach of the scorching TV ads. Yet somehow, all on my own, I (and my husband) decided many months ago to support Mitt Romney. Matter of fact, since Newt officially declared, I’ve not taken him seriously as a presidential candidate for a second. I know from personal experience how he operates and I know from observation what has driven him these past 12 or 13 years in his newest career. Which by the way is headquartered much closer to Georgetown than Georgia.
I do not want to condemn Newt Gingrich or forget his years of tremendous accomplishment and service to our country. His contributions in the debates up until Iowa were laudable, original, and important I thought. I loved his magnanimous cheerleading for the entire GOP field, and his barbs at the media. When he threw away that script, he shocked me. When he purchased the horrible anti-Bain snuff film and sent a surrogate out to promote it, he lost me for good. Since then it has felt like getting jilted all over again, watching him use familiar old tricks, getting nastier and nastier, whinier and whinier, and in general more and more outlandish.
I’m sad to now state my opinion that Newt is unfit for office — any office, but especially President of the United States. I very much want to remember the Reaganesque Newt who inspired me and who taught me so much.
Last comment – Jennifer Rubin’s tweet is a hoot! You’ve really lost perspective if you can’t smile at her rather understated mockery. If that comment is enough to send you into a tailspin, you wouldn’t last five minutes at our dinner table.
Amazing that you say Newt has lost you for playing mean, nasty as if he just started all the mean stuff for no reason. So he was nasty dinging Mitt about Bain but all of Mitt’s smears have been ok? As for Rubin’s tweet – I doubt that the Mittbots would find humor if he had been included.
“When he purchased the horrible anti-Bain snuff film and sent a surrogate out to promote it, he lost me for good.”
“Snuff film?” Who’s over the top NOW? Are you denying the assertions of the film? Or just name-calling? “Nah-nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-hear-you-capitalism-capitalism-nah-nah-nah!”
Everything about Romney is off-limits; nothing about Gingrich. We can’t even ask, what did Romney and Bain do while he was CEO? But we must recycle every old lie about Gingrich, then force him to respond as though it were true.
Besides that: Swiss bank accounts. Owning Fannie/Freddie. Most people’s visceral reaction? “Crook.” Legality and morality aside, it’s criminally stupid for Romney. In a GOP primary, you can bully your opponent into dropping it by screaming, “anti-capitalist!” That won’t work with Obama.
Expect to see all of your beloved Mitt’s dirty laundry, so successfully suppressed in the closed system of the GOP primary, gloriously and dishonestly revealed all over the place if (when?) he gets (steals) the nomination.
[...] Legal Insurrection says Romney is winning the battles but losing our war [...]
Jen Rubin is only a conservative in the sense that she appears -within the context of the Washington Post- to be so.
Prior to her gig there she was anything but conservative.
Her shilling for Romney should be a red flag.
Linked:
THIS IS WAR: If They Succeed in Forcing a Romney Nomination On Us, The Republican Establishment Must Be Destroyed
[...] probably making himself a weaker candidate against Obama. Here’s an excerpt from a post by William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection: If you asked me even a couple of weeks ago whether the Republican Party could heal from the wounds [...]
So nice I linked it twice… EVERYbody needs to read this
Operation STOP ROMNEY 2012