Image 01 Image 03

Quick, call Krauthammer, Mitt’s going all “socialist” on Newt

Quick, call Krauthammer, Mitt’s going all “socialist” on Newt

Desperate campaigns engage in desperate tactics, and the Romney campaign with its “zany” comment today now has sunk lower, bringing up Newt’s Tiffany purchases:

In a capitalist country, what business is it of anyone what someone purchases with their own money? Charles, I’m sure you’ll be all over this tonight, right? The Tiffany comment is the sort of comment we would expect from, as you put it, “a socialist.”

And George, this is a capital offense, right? Column tomorrow? Start typing.

Update:  Mark Levin calls out Krauthammer, Will, Coulter, and Rubin.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Hardship reveals character. Or lack of it.

I will vote for whomever the GOP nominates but at this point I’ll be holding my nose if its Mitt … this sort of low blow politics is a standard leftist practice …

And no, Newts Bain response to Romneys Fannie challenge is not a low blow, just fighting fire with fire …

you notice that its always been Mitt who starts the fight and then looks for the ref when someone hits him back …

    Yep, Mitt starts the fights. Mitt also is a narcissistic and acts about as condescending as Obama. Something, an air or whatever, leaves people with the feeling that he thinks he is so better than you. Whether or not he really thinks, something leaves people sure Mitts looks down his nose at them.

Robot Romney and his “Stiffany’s” freudian slip of the campaign.

This Romney comment is outrageous. How people freely choose to spend their money should not be our concern, unless perhaps it is for an illegal activity or product. This plays right in to Obama and his OWS movement’s attack on successful people. By the way, I did not like the question at the last debate to all of the candidates about what hardship they have had to make because of the economy. It seemed to me that question fit right into the same Obama attack on success.

    Canusee in reply to Rick. | December 14, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Exactly! Jewelry is supposed to cost a lot of money! There is that funny little phrase, “precious stone”, that is the entire point of jewelry (and gold). Heck, someone just paid 116 Million for Elizabeth Taylor’s JEWELRY.

What’s wrong with Tiffany? It’s an American company that employs 9,200 people.

OK, we need a small crew of volunteers to hold the shark steady enough so Mitt can clear it in just one jump.

Mitt gets desperate. Heaven forbid he’d actually resort to campaigning on substance. The dumb SOB might actually be winning if he tried that. Of course, that presumes there really is some there there.

Since Newt is not a third world kleptocrat the only possible verdict is that his shopping at Tiffany’s was a capitalist offense.

I’m still waiting for a Romney supporter to name one thing Romney’s done to advance the conservative cause.

CK and G_Will stopped looking at LI blog after the first insurrection. In their world, one strike and you’re out.

It’s bad enough that the candidates attack each other. Why do Media Matters’ work for them?

But what’s worse is conservative columnists choosing sides, joining in the circular firing squad, and crippling a necessary strength on the conservative side.

I look for Krauthammer and others to be voices for the right – all of it – against the leftist tide.

Whether it’s Erickson and his meltdown – so damaging – or others, please stop it. get on the same page. the fate of the world depends on AnybodyButObama.

(And yes, Mitt needs to stop it. Run on your strength, AGAINST Obama. Newt is showing you how to do that. Take the high road, dammit!)

    LukeHandCool in reply to Rose. | December 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    You said it, Rose!

    Darkstar58 in reply to Rose. | December 15, 2011 at 2:22 am

    “Run on your Strength”

    That’s the thing – what is his strength?

    And that is a serious question – what makes Mitt qualified to be the “Conservative” candidate?

    …is it Romneycare? Cap&Trade? (see 2006 MA CO2 regulations passed) Opposition to a Traditional Marriages amendment? Permanently banning “Assault Weapons” in MA?

    Look, Mitt is even the guy who said “I’m not gonna go back to Reagan/Bush” …and seriously, think about that for a min; what the F* was he saying? Or worse, what the F* was he thinking?

    If Romney was promising not to go back to something between Reagan and Bush1 – what did he consider himself to be? And if he was to describe himself today, would he say maybe Bush2 to Clinton is more his range? Or is it even worse, and he is anything between Bush2 to Obama?

    So someone, please, just tell me why I should vote for Romney – and I want a true answer, not the “we need to vote Obama out” (which is an argument for writing in Donald Duck as much as it is to vote Romney) or the “he is the only one electable” nonsense which has nothing, anywhere, to back it up.

    Because I look at Romney and I am merely reminded of the reason I joined the Tea Party in the first place (that is, to get rid of F*s like Romney – not vote for um!)

I see our betters at NRO have spoken complete with Drudge-like headline (why no flashing text & lights & sirens, I wonder?). And they complete the farce, pretending to be coy, not naming who they prefer. They really think we’re idiots, don’t they?

Sorry, y’all doth protest too much.

What did Romney say here? That buying stuff from Tiffany’s is bad? Nope.

That being rich is bad? Nope – Romney is obviously far richer than the Newtster.

So what did he say that was oh so horrible? He pointed out that Newt ain’t no middle class fella. Now why would he point that out? Perhaps in response to Newt’s jab about betting $10 instead of $10,000?

So it is apparently OK to for Gingrich to point out Romney is rich, but it isn’t OK for Romney to point out that Gingrich ain’t hurtin’ too bad either, is that it?

In REAL news, I recommend y’all taking a gander at the latest post by the editors of NRO. Truly pathetic (and I’d be saying that regardless of who I support).

    Canusee in reply to Astroman. | December 14, 2011 at 11:12 pm

    Good point to ponder.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Astroman. | December 14, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    Breakfast at Tffany’s anyone? Man how gorgeous was Audrey Hepburn.? What a look.

    Of course I always thought Tiffany’s was a restuarant. Then I read about Newts impressive credit line.

    So I actually went into a Tiffany’s & looked around. Nice stuff. I gotta admire a woman that makes her man shop at Tiffany’s.

    go callista!

Empty suits.

Romney has his arm in the right sleeve, Obama the left.

Somebody explain Coulter-

Why do I get the feeling she’s going to do a book tour with Little Miss McCain….

Lets see, NRO essentially endorsed Mitt, Washington Examiner endorsed Mitt, but Allahpundit is holding out for (wait for it!) JEB BUSH!!

Insanity reigns and we have not yet had the first vote.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to gad-fly. | December 15, 2011 at 3:31 am

    From C4P –

    No not Jeb but he has a son George. So you could get a George 111 which would surely inspire a revolution.

As far as I am concerned, Mitt is about as inspiring as a wet noodle. His personality may be fine in a Board room, but not campaigning for the highest office. As for negative campaigning, the knives are out against Newt for (gasp) negative campaigning, yet he is only answering to just some of the negativity thrown in his direction. Is he being Palinized? Sure looks like it to me and it’s coming from the elite.

[…] us down the path to financial destruction, making this a good time to make this point:  Charles Krauthammer and others have called Newt Gingrich a “socialist” this week, but would never, never say the same about Barack Obama, although there is manifold evidence to […]

[…] Romney, is zinging “zany Newt” (not so wealthy until he became “Newt”) for having the stuff (some degree of wealth) that gets you a monstrous credit line at Tiffanys.   The Gingrich’s carried a balance, but there was no indication they were dodging the […]