Image 01 Image 03

Dear Newt, three ways to crush Romney tonight

Dear Newt, three ways to crush Romney tonight

Mitt Romney has to attack Newt tonight at the debate.  If he doesn’t, and rests on television interviews and what his surrogates have done the past few days, Romney will be Tim Pawlenty, who was not willing to confront Romney on “Obamneycare” in person.

If I were Newt, here’s what I would do tonight when Romney attacks:

1.  Romney is a John Sununu Republican.

Put John Sununu, Sr. on trial tonight.  Sununu is the guy the Romney campaign enlisted to call you crazy and untrustworthy.

Make sure to tell the millions of viewers watching, who don’t know the history, why Sununu hates you so much:  You tried to stop George H.W. Bush from breaking his “no new taxes” pledge.  Bush did it anyway, with Sununu his point man as White House Chief of Staff, and it was a breach of trust which lost Bush the next election and severely damaged the Republican Party and conservative movement.  You stood on the right side of history, and Sununu hates you for it.

Incredibly, Sununu this morning still is attacking you as having thrown conservatives under the bus on the Bush tax plan, which Byron York notes is ludicrous:

A key Romney ally, Sununu, helped devise what Republicans remember as one of the most disastrous political and policy decisions ever, while Gingrich opposed it.  And now Romney is relying on Sununu to make the case against Gingrich.

Sununu also is the person who convinced Bush to nominate David Souter to the Supreme Court based on Sununu’s assurances that Souter was conservative.  Souter wasn’t, and as Mark Levin says, Sununu never should be forgiven for the Souter appointment.  Tell everyone that John Sununu will have Mitt Romney’s ear on judicial appointments just like he had Bush’s ear.

Mitt Romney is a John Sununu Republican, let everyone know it.

2.  Romney was both for and against the Ryan Plan.

Romney is attacking you over your statement about the Ryan plan, taking out of context the statement about “right wing social engineering.”  Insist on being able to explain the full context of your statement, it’s a winner which people will appreciate.

And then ask the millions of audience members who made this statement soon after Ryan proposed his plan:

The Ryan “plan is not the plan I’ll put forward, I have my own plan”

It was, of course, Mitt Romney, who ran away from the Ryan plan before he decided it was good for his campaign to support it.  But it gets worse.  Romney tried to play both sides of the issue, in that same interview saying he would sign the Ryan Plan and he would not sign the Ryan plan but propose his own.

You could say that Romney was against the Ryan Plan before he was for it.  Or is he actually for it?  Will Romney sign the Ryan Plan as is, that’s a question we should have answered tonight.

3.  Romney’s secret immigration plan is Bush/Graham amnesty.

Romney has been attacking you for the comments you made at an earlier debate regarding deportation, in which you said that there should be no pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens (except for people who serve in the military, a wildly popular position), but that some humanitarian exceptions to deportation might be in order.  Your position is shared by most Republicans and non-Republicans, and it is not amnesty because it provides no pathway to citizenship

Romney claims to insist on a full deportation policy with no exceptions, but there is every reason not to believe him based on his secret immigration plan:

Mitt Romney sat down for a 40-minute interview with the editorial board of The Washington Examiner this morning before appearing at the Republican Jewish Coalition. It was a wide ranging discussion and we will be posting a longer story and a full transcript later today. Romney’s answer on illegal immigration indicated he had a broad plan – one that we believe may rile some in the Republican base.

What is the plan?  Romney still won’t say, but here is what set off alarm bells:  Romney is consulting with Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham for guidance on immigration, two people who long have pushed the type of pathway to citizenship after paying a fine plan proposed by George W. Bush (emphasis in Examiner article):

“Virtually every Republican I know that’s spoken about illegal immigration says the same thing. I listened to Lindsey Graham the other day and he said, ‘secure the border, stop the flow of illegal aliens into the country, and then we can address the issue of what to do with the people who are here illegally today.’

“I do have my own thoughts on that. I actually have a plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. There are other people I’d like to sit down with and review it with me.

“I went down to Florida and met with Jeb Bush six, seven months ago, laid out what I thought would be a complete plan to deal with permanent immigration policies with regards to our legal system to simplify it. Number two, how to deal with those who are here illegally today. And number three, how to secure the border.

As the Examiner put it:

Lindsey Graham. Jeb Bush. If you are an “attrition-through-enforcement” conservative on illegal immigration, then this answer is probably setting off alarms.

We don’t know what Romney’s secret immigration plan is.  Maybe there’s a reason for that.


So Newt, stay positive, but point out what most people don’t know.  You will have an audience of millions, maybe even tens of millions.  Far more than ever will see Romney’s attack ads or read Sununu’s cheap shots at you.  Just do it.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


And Newt, when Romney says “where is your proof/facts” (like he did to Perry) answer with nothing more then “I’ll have copies of everything available for the media after the debate” and leave it at that.

You can provide written evidence of the above situations, and should rely on that instead of bickering with him on stage. Bickering while he lies wont benefit anyone – having an ace in your hand which you will lay on the table after all the chips are played is golden!

it would have two added benefits:
1) he will be forced to backtrack and/or at least stumble not necessarily knowing what bomb you were about to drop, or how that bomb will affect what he had just stated

2) it will bring all the attention onto yourself after the debate – the media will be lining up at your section of the after-debate-party drooling over the chance to get the info.

I’m not sure why Romney is so afraid to fight tooth and nail against newt, more importantly I wonder why Romney thinks he’s going to scare away the centerists, independents by hitting Barry and the dems hard for their records, their background etc. Or going after Newt on his weaknesses.

Heck, I’m a Howard Dean voting former democrat, I strongly supported Bill Clinton in the 90’s, and hell I’ll vote for Ken Starr if he is the Republican nominee. What I want is a strong fighter who will fight tooth and nail to defeat that marxist fraud Barry in the WH.

And if Romney feels the Newt is not electable, then he needs to fight that head on, say how Newt is not the best one to go against Barry; i.e. say Newt is not discplined, and that he would fly off the handle, have temper tantrums like he did in the 90’s, etc.

I’m not looking for the most conservative, I’m not that conservative myself, except on the limited govt, fiscal issues, but I am looking for the most electable, and next year’s election will not be won by default, it will have to be fought for tooth and nail, the republican nominee damn better realise that the opponent is not just Barry, but it is the entire MSM as well.

Professor, you *did* get this in the hands of Newt’s campaign and/or Newt himself, didn’t you? Even if he’s planning that same strategy, it surely wouldn’t hurt for him to know that you are helping.

I’ll do my part and forward it, if you wish.

Dear Newt,

Please hire Prof. Jacobson as a debate consultant/strategist.

billy j;

this is such a silly post.

mitt has been consistently more conservative than newt for the last 6 years and his platform is more conservative today.

that’s not me saying it; it’s charles krauthammer.

newt has never been an executive or in private enterprise.

newt was reprimanded twice for ethics violations by the SLIMY house – and then quit congress under a cloud of corruption and abuse of power. his was effectively thrown out by his own caucus.

that’s why you don;t see a lot of congressmen who served with him endorsing him. anf they know him a lot better than you.

if we nominate mitt, then we get president mitt with a gop senate and gop house.

and newt won’t be able to raise enough money to defeat obama – mitt will.

if we nominate newt we get president obama and a democrat house and a democrat senate.

ann coulter and charles krauthammer are more knowledgeable and infomed and conservative than you.

they are right.

you are wrong.

you were wrong about cain – whose 999 plan was a stupid idea which was poorly vetted.

and you are wrong about newt.

other than that i luvya!

    GrumpyOne in reply to reliapundit. | December 10, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    What we see here is the GOP field being reduced to the last two components neither of which is the most desirable. It certainly looks like yet another occasion of voting for the lesser of two evils in the general election. I fear that never again in my lifetime will I actually be able to “get in back of” a candidate who I would be truly voting FOR.

    Newt will end up like Obama if he wins in November, hated by the majority of Americans and decisive as ever.

    Nope… I really hope that Mitt holds his own tonight and would be delighted to see him come out on top.

    jmanuola in reply to reliapundit. | December 10, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    “mitt has been consistently more conservative than newt for the last 6 years and his platform is more conservative today.”

    I don’t care who said that (but, btw, Charles is supporting Mitt, it DOES matter what he says…it will clearly be skewed in that direction no matter how intelligent he is) but you’ll have a very difficult time PROVING that…and you WILL have to prove it since you’re claiming it.

    “newt has never been an executive or in private enterprise.” Actually he has, you just would prefer not to admit it.

    “newt was reprimanded twice for ethics violations” …and was cleared of every single charge. Now what was this thing we keep reading about Mitt wiping the computers clean when he left the Governor’s office in MA?

    “his was effectively thrown out by his own caucus.” do you actually remember who it was that forced him out? It was none other than John Boehner and his cohorts. And look what they’ve given us ever since. Thanks, but I’ll take Newt over Boehner ANYDAY.

    “if we nominate newt we get president obama and a democrat house and a democrat senate.” You’re kidding, right? Are you really THAT stupid…oh wait, I forgot, Charles and Ann say so…yeah…of course they have no bias in this do they. You watch them change their tune should Newt win the nomination…they’ll be right there supporting him…like the true hypocrites always do. And btw, there isn’t a chance in hell we lose the House and I’d be shocked if we don’t re-take the senate no matter who the candidate is.

Wow, if these three loser points were all Newt brings to the debate, he would get creamed.

Item: Whatever link there may be from the elder Sununu to events of 20 years ago, both Sununus, elder and younger, are very popular with New Hampshire Republicans (and Bush 41 is a pretty popular guy among Republicans nationally). Even more to the point, Romney can just say, “I agree with you Newt that the tax decision was wrong.” For added effect, he can come to the debate armed with a story about not so great stuff Newt tried to get from the Bush 41 White House via Sununu.

Item: Context only makes the Newt “right wing social engineering” thing worse since the surrounding several sentences put Newt squarely in the camp of not tampering much with Medicare. As for Romney’s “I have my own plan,” he does indeed and it incorporates much of Ryan’s. Bring it up critically and Romney gets a chance to stump for his plan which will sound good.

Item: Romney has consistently taken a tough immigration stand and imagining that reports about his talking to Linday Graham don’t alter that one iota. If Newt were to bring that up, he would being calling Romney a liar. He might also walk into Graham telling everyone, yeah, we talked and I tried to no avail to convince Mitt to ease up on his tough stance.

All in all, Professor, you should hang onto your day job.

NO. That’s not what damaged the Republican party.

What damaged and to this day damages the Republican party is their steadfast refusal to treat with Democrats and the Media as they themselves are treated by them. With disdain, ridicule and treachery.

And that a Republican President could so quickly and without warning or excuse renege on their own declared pledge.

THEIR WORD WAS DISHONORABLE. They were more willing to honor their word with the Democrats than with their own constituents.

Only Bush paid at that time but from then on the “base” has never fully believed they were true fiscal conservatives. It was then that all their previous rhetoric was revealed to be political expediency.

They would castigate and complain about spendthrift Democrats but secretly they were delighted to assist them in the socialization of the country and put us further and further in debt and slavery.

In the ’90’s they had another chance and they proved they were really just typical DC spenders. Lured by the promise of fame and fortune if only they compromised on their stated principals. And they did compromise and they got famous and rich.

Now comes a candidate who EPITOMIZES that compromising attitude. Who has gotten richer and more famous due to his compromising with Democrats over liberal programs. Who can’t point to ONE position he has held that he maintains the same today. Not ONE!

His personality is bland, his convictions are soft and his plans are vapor.


“So then, because you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.”

— Revelation 3:16 —

    jakee308 in reply to jakee308. | December 10, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Crap, didn’t say who I was talking about:

    MITT ROMNEY is a disgrace and should be sent back into political limbo where he deserves to be.

      Darkstar58 in reply to jakee308. | December 10, 2011 at 1:00 pm

      Oh come on man…

      “Now comes a candidate who EPITOMIZES that compromising attitude. Who has gotten richer and more famous due to his compromising with Democrats over liberal programs. Who can’t point to ONE position he has held that he maintains the same today. Not ONE!

      His personality is bland, his convictions are soft and his plans are vapor.”

      You could paint the White House purple and it would be harder to spot then who you were describing.

      Remember, we are no where near as Dumb as Democrats and the Media insists we are. (if we were, we would be voting for that very tool, who they have told us constantly since day one is our only serious candidate…)

        jakee308 in reply to Darkstar58. | December 10, 2011 at 2:07 pm

        Heh. Yeah. After I wrote that, I realized that it could be taken so many ways. {sigh} So I was forced to “clarify”.

        All we can do is see the facts of Obama’s Presidency and weigh the words of the candidates against that.

        In my opinion, every one of the candidate loves this country more than Obama does and on that basis alone he should be resoundingly thrown out.

        As to who to put in his place . . . well all we really have are what they say and how they say it. Romney’s experience actually works against him in this case due to all his compromises in MA as Governor. Newt has been erratic in actual performance but I’d rather have a Rep in office when it’s time to replace Stevens or Ginsberg.

“Every now and then I stumble upon a column which says exactly what I had been thinking but had not yet written.”

Newt would do well to hammer Mitt with these three points with his usual flair.

I have to say that Newtie’s saying the things I want to hear. Whether he truly feels that way I don’t know.

At least he’s not Romney. I’ll take a somewhat erratic, smart, feisty and thinks on his feet pro over Mitten’s fumbling, mumbling non-campaign any day.

What matters right now is the imminent Iowa caucuses and Iowa has historically held negative attacks in disdain, often punishing the offender. Romney has his eyes nationally on the independent voters and they too shy away from negative politics. These two items tend to handcuff Romney in tonight’s debate. It is also not in Romney’s skill set to execute effective, specific rhetorical attacks on opponents and he employs surrogates instead.

One thing we can count on – with George Stephanopoulis and Diane Sawyer moderating, you can bet they’ll make every attempt to gin up a Romney attack on Gingrich. Accordingly, Romney is in the position of having to do something he isn’t good at and shouldn’t do because it will hurt him nationally, outside Iowa.

Even if Romney does try to jump on Gingrich, he’s likely to have it jammed right back down his throat.

Romney knows he isn’t going to win in Iowa and I suspect he’ll go all Pawlenty tonight, declining to make any substantive attack on Gingrich, and hoping that the other debaters on stage take the shots at Gingrich instead.



    Taxpayer1234 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 10, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    That is my #1 reason for NOT wanting Romney. I could care less if he walks on water–he’s already proven he likes wealth redistribution. A lot.

Romney is a John Sununu Republican.

…You tried to stop George H.W. Bush from breaking his “no new taxes” pledge. Bush did it anyway, with Sununu his point man as White House Chief of Staff, and it was a breach of trust which lost Bush the next election and severely damaged the Republican Party and conservative movement.

“The brilliant Richard Darman” played a key role in that sorry episode.

Mitt Romney would be a Richard Darman Republican if the latter hadn’t died.

Funny to watch/read the romneytrods above. Just need to stand a little sideways, out of range of their spittle. Looking closer at Romney what I’m seeing is a guy who doesn’t seem to enjoy mixing it up but is not above standing behind a fence and taking pot shots with a BB gun. Not really that awe-inspiring. And I love the moderate-voters-don’t-like negative-campaigning postulation. As if.

“And I love the moderate-voters-don’t-like negative-campaigning postulation. As if.”

Doesn’t matter if this is actually true – the Romney campaign and the GOP establishment have both indicated they believe it to be true. They act accordingly.

Romney has said he thinks muslims are a peace loving people so ask him how many Mormon missionaries have been allowed in the center of islam ,saudi arabia,and what does he think would happen to them if they had the book of mormon and the bible with them in saudi arabia. He said the muslims he knew were peace loving but did he know the Sept. 11 terrorists or the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber or the new york car bomber or if he has never met a terrorist then does it matter that those were all muslims? Is that merely a coincidence?