Going after Romney is patriotic, too
Remember when one Republican candidate viciously attacking the leading Republican candidate was patriotic?
Like in Iowa, when everyone from Charles Krauthammer on down blamed Newt’s past for the several millions dollars in negative attack ads run by a pro-Romney SuperPAC? When National Review devoted almost an entire issue to attacking Newt and portraying him as a martian cartoon character? When the once-conservative rock star Ann Coulter called anyone who supported Newt a birther? When the entire conservative Washington establishment (yes, it does exist) engaged in what David Limbaugh called “relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery” directed at Newt?
Hey, that’s just politics, it ain’t beanbag, we were told.
But the second Newt announced he was done playing defense and would make Mitt Romney’s record of flip flops and anti-conservative rhetoric and actions an issue, all of the sudden attacking an opponent was not patriotic, it was a spiteful, angry, vindictive and vengeful “darker message,” the equivalent of road rage.
(added) Krauthammer says Newt is “cares less about winning than revenge,” like “Ahab on the loose in New Hampshire” going after “the Great White Mitt.”
No, actually it is what we have needed for months.
We have an incredibly weak frontrunner, someone who has not been seriously challenged in this cycle as challenger after challenger has had a ton of media bricks and attack ads dumped on their heads.
We have a frontrunner who has shown no ability in the past to withstand the type of attack ads which challenge him on flip-flops and his Bain years. We have a frontrunner who is so uninspiring that four more years of campaigning in Iowa could not increase his vote yield, and who has turned this election cycle into a search for someone who is not him.
This frontrunner, nonetheless, may be our nominee. And if he is, the vast majority (I hope supermajority) of people who were hoping for someone else will support him because the alternative of four more years of Obama is unthinkable.
But before we get there, we at least need to know that this time it will be different, that this time he can stand the heat in the kitchen, that this time he will show the fight himself not just through surrogates and SuperPACs. If electability is his main calling card, we need to make sure that that card does not turn out to be a joker.
The only way to test electability is to test electability.
This comment by a Legal Insurrection reader BurkeanBadger pretty much sums up why it is in everyone’s interest for Newt to go after Romney with everything he’s got:
Any Romney supporters who whine about the almost certain negative blitz coming against Mitt are utterly absurd (and I say this as a Romney supporter). I have long expected it, and it’s more than fair. I just don’t understand why Gingrich didn’t start sooner. Did he really think his gimmick of “staying positive” while merely sprinkling pot shots at Mitt in his speeches would be sufficient?
Bring it on, Newt! (and anyone else). I am fairly confident that Romney will easily withstand even the harshest and most intense attacks. If he doesn’t, he never deserved the frontrunner status in the first place. If he does, he will be a stronger, more tested, more battle ready nominee.
Dissent still is patriotic. And so is attacking the Republican frontrunner.
Until the Lombardi Rule takes effect.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
The distinction as to why the pack of Romney’s dogs can viciously attack anyone in their way is because Mitt Romney holds a Harvard Business degree which by definition means he is the only electable next to Obama.
I read an excellent article several weeks ago – I forget where, maybe the American Interest or someplace like that I wish I could find the link – saying that the person supported Gingrich.
Not because they necessarily thought Gingrich was the best – but that he might be, and represented something different enough from Romney that he would challenge Romney.
Only by supporting a legitimate challenger could anyone could see if Romney was best was a genuine article who could beat someone one-on-one … and vice-versa, could Newt overcome his issues one-on-one.
Sounds like a case for a real primary 😉
It was interesting, because the person wasn’t sold on either, but thought they represent potentially the two best choices at that point, and wanted the field to winnow and see who really emerged.
Unlike the elites who are all for the “get it over quickly so they don’t beat each other up”, I see the real need to see who could be best.
And let’s face it, Obama isn’t getting much press these days. Whether that is good or bad is debatable, but I bet a longer Republican primary has him itching for puff-piece camera time vignettes narrated by his teleprompter.
Mitt Romney is a Faux runner.
He still can’t crack 30% of republicans even with the implosions, babbling, loooong silences, mysterious sources and everyone soft pedaling his actual record.
Everyone is shaking the tree while Mitt stands there on his money ladder waiting for the fruit to fall in his lap.
Me, I say put him in the hot seat! Put him where he can’t hide behind his money or 6 other distractions. (Notice he won’t do a one on one. There’s a reason for this.)
It will be interesting to see the reaction should a truly vicious attack starts to land blows on Team Romney. In the past Mitt has not responded well when caught flat-footed and placed on the defensive. He tends to get a bit thin-skinned at that point and once his carefully cultivated facade of cool and unflappable Mitt starts to crack, it won’t be a pretty sight….
Newt has started his commercial run:
Timid vs. Bold.
To me it’s not the best ad, but it shows Newt is going to go on offense from now on…..
I commented on Newt’s FB post that he needs more and stronger ads; and, IMHO, Newt should use Mitt’s own words to choke him. There is MORE than enough material! And, I also suggested that Newt try to make updated ads like McCain’s successful anti-Mitt spots.
I agree. Not strong enough. The Newt we loved and that shot to the top was the cool, slashing warrior who cut the media and watched them bleed. I don’t care for the mellow, earnest, avuncular tone of these ads. Look at what McCain did to Romney. Simple, fact-based, savage. You’ll have to do better, Newt.
Agree with both of you.
If Newt can land body blows on Mitt, why not let him?
Do those who cry foul think that the Democrats will be as gentle with their chosen nominee once all the nearly conservatives are out of the race?
The MSM has been doing the bidding of the Democrats by assassinating anyone who poses a threat to Mitt. The reason is clear. Obama can beat Mitt and has been setting up the playing field to defeat Mitt all during 2011.
Should Obama have to fight any other candidate he would be off his stride. Watch the man play basketball. He can’t think on his feet, can’t turn and pivot, can’t do anything but fire off lay-ups. He’s the victim of his own career path of lowered expectations. No one has given him a real challenge until he got into this job which he is totally incompetent at.
But he is good at doing lay-ups. So long as the MSM prepares the shot for him he can swoop in and look good putting the ball through the hoop for one more score.
Romney the nominee means Obama’s re-election. You can take that to the bank.
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t like the negative ads. However, Romney needs to be vetted. Boldly, honestly. The MSM is sure not going to do it, because they and the leftist Dems running for office want Romney as the nominee. They already have their gameplan to defeat Romney in progress.
So, Newt and the others need to re-examine and expose the weaknesses and inconsistencies of Romney’s: his record, his words, his actions as a Massachusetts moderate governor, and so on. And, quite frankly, as Rush said, Newt needs to go for the jugular. Using Romney’s own words to take him down will be both honest and bold, and Romney will have NO defense against them.
Also, as you say, it will only be done by the Obama OFA attack apparatus should Romney be the nominee. Expose him now, or watch the slaughter in November, IMHO.
Because, as the Professor stated so well, “the alternative of four more years of Obama is unthinkable.”
Wish I’d said that!
Trouble is, in some ways it also applies to MR. Bring on the heat.
Prof, your Lombardi Rule link needs fixing.
While I think attacking Romney is not only warranted, but necessary to ensure he is the right candidate, I think McCain is right that explicitly calling Mitt a lair is a line you shouldn’t cross. Calling someone a lair impugns their character, after all a lie isn’t just an incorrect statement, it’s a statement the maker knows to be incorrect. If you’re going to question someone’s character in that way, you better at least have some facts to back it up. As of this point, he has provided no proof that Romney actually has control over the superPACs that support him.
For his own good, Gingrich needs to make sure his attacks aren’t too bombastic, they’ll end up just hurting him.
Stating the obvious, that Mitt is a liar, is not, IMHO, crossing the line. Mitt Romney IS a liar.
Case in point: when confronted by Governor Perry about his using a lawn service that employed illegals, Romney claimed that Perry was taking that information from “one op-ed.” That was a blatant lie.
It was two, not one, investigative reports by the Boston Globe, one in December, 2006, while Romney was still governor, and another in December, 2007. The articles, investigative, not op-ed, gave names, dates and places.
Romney supporters will contend that he had no obligation, or responsibility, although the states’s top cop, to make sure that companies he hired were federal law compliant. But if a govorner is unwilling to enforce federal law in his own state through his personal actions, he will be reluctant to do the same as president when he disagrees with the law (i.e. recent Obama appointees).
For 8 years Romney has provided Newt with more opposition research than Newt could have ever hoped for. He needs to show Romney for what he is, a nor’eastern elite who was, in essence, a lousy representative of conservative governance while he held office.
If Romney only knew of the one op-ed, it wasn’t a lie, it was just wrong. I wouldn’t call you a liar just because your response to my argument about Romney’s approval numbers when he announced he wasn’t going to run for reelection was demonstrably false, because I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you legitimately believed they were the right numbers. Being wrong and being a liar are two different things.
Right! I am sure that, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney, or at least one of his aides, were unaware of a front page article in the most prominent paper in the state, and one of the most prominent papers in the nation. And it was NOT an op-ed. Op-eds are someone’s opinion. When an article includes names, dates and places, those are facts, not opinions.
But it was not just ONE front page article, but two. So I am to believe that no one called Romney and said “Hey, Mitt, you’re on the front page again over Lawn Service With A Heart?” That would require a willing suspenion of disbelief.
Romney had a responsibility to enforce not only the laws of the State of Massachusetts, but the United States, as well. He did not.
Oh, and it seems he cut the lawn service company more slack than allowed by law because the owner is a “fellow” Morman and attended Romney’s church.
If one of his aides had seen it, it doesn’t help your case, because it still doesn’t imply that HE knew what he was saying was incorrect. Just because it’s possible he knew or even probable he knew, doesn’t mean you stand up, as a candidate for president, and call your opponent a liar.
You should have known your numbers were from a poll taken nearly a year after Romney announced he would not seek reelection, and therefore did nothing to counter my argument. That you should have known does not mean you did know, and that’s why I wouldn’t call you a liar (despite you using your wrong numbers to question my education). It’s a grave accusation, and neither you nor Gingrich seem to have the evidence to back it up.
I agree. You don’t call another republican candidate a liar, just like you don’t call Rep. Ryan’s budget “right wing social engineering.” Newt can and should pound him on the issues, his record, releasing his taxes, or whatever else as much as he wants. Just don’t resort to scare tactics or sound bite memes.
I do hope Newt will do this “contrasting” smartly. He needs to follow Sarah Palin’s mo by cooly jabbing Romney relentlessly and refrain from trying to proclaim that he’s staying positive. That’s silly and transparent. He could start with the easiest of all attacks. The mere fact that John McCain endorses Romney is a gimme. Many of us think the whole reason we have Obama (president disaster) in the first place, is precisely because of McCain.
This is about more than Romney and Gingrich; it’s about the ways of a frightened and power-hungry elite to control and suppress conservatism and the Republican party — and whether or not it will succeed.
Romney embodies the chief identifying aspects of the elite to ridiculous perfection, and among the candidates left Gingrich probably best represents the reformist and dynamic spirit of modern conservatism.
If this isn’t the time to shatter the elite, when will that time be? This is why Romney’s defeat matters so much — it will be devastating to the elite. It of course also matters who the usurping candidate is — which is Gingrich’s greatest challenge, and dilemma, reflected in his insistently “positive” strategy. I think he felt he needed to compensate for and soften his reputation as a terrier in the political trenches; he needed to show he was a grander figure, a national leader. He forgot that politics, at some level, at some point, is always fought in the trenches with knives. Witness McCain’s brutal ads against Romney in 2008. I’m surprised Gingrich forgot this.
It’s much harder to reverse a pledge of positiveness than just to go after someone and destroy him. If anyone can finesse the shift, it’s Gingrich.
Newt should just be himself.
A rendition of “She/He’s a Superfreak ” is indeed all that is missing in this pageant.
Besides the need to vet Romney … “attacks” from conservatives will only endear him more to the “centrist liberals”. If the “Not Romney” crowd loses, those made fearful of conservatives and Tea partiers can relax and vote for moderate Romney.
He may not be the most conservative candidate that could have beaten Obama, but attacks will expose him as more moderate at best, and perhaps strengthen him for the general (if he wins).
But if Romney is exposed as weak, sneaky, corrupt … then alternative Gingrich sounds strong in the series of clips linked to at the end of the above video.
But Newt still needs to explain his progressive side and adoration of FDR. (He did say his part of the $1.5 million from Freddie was only about $35,000 … the rest went to the business operation, which makes the Romney PAC ad seem fraudulent or dishonest).
In the meantime, Santorum and Perry will help dilute the not Romney vote.
you know, I’m a tad disappointed in Newt so far and will find it beyond pitiful if Mitt&Co./TheEstablishment start whining about being “attacked” if this is how it stays – those aren’t even attacks!!!
So far Newt has run a compare/contrast article in a paper with 6 stances listed, and a soft, light-hitting and overall positive feeling contrast commercial using 2 quotes said about Romney’s policy ideas.
Its not like he is running around calling people “Crazy”, or reaching for stupid soundbites like “turn it upside down/the devils in the details” – those are attacks!
Newt is still staying fairly positive, semi-sadly, and is now merely taking an effort to point out more that Mitt is anything but what he now claims he is.
I read an article the other day which pointed out one of the big differences between Mitt and Newt. It talked about how long Newt had been in Politics, saying over such a long time one is sure to change some positions; where Mitt only has 4 years worth of Politics under his belt and has changed almost every position taken. It went on to remind us that Newt, despite changing positions, has always told us exactly why he did, often in extreme detail. On the other hand, Mitt tries to act like he didn’t really change his position though.
That is what I hope Newt highlights, because that is exactly why I have no use for Romney – he’s a Democrat claiming to have always been a Conservative who never leaned Democrat and instead trying to blame others for, or deny outright, his drastic position changes or non-Conservative actions.
“It talked about how long Newt had been in Politics, saying over such a long time one is sure to change some positions; where Mitt only has 4 years worth of Politics under his belt…”
Wow. No idea what to say to that. Mitt’s only been in politics four years, eh? Yet somehow, he’s the “establishment” guy while Newt is the brave outsider? Look, both of these guys are steeped in politics. They’re *both* insiders. They’ve both taken positions in the past different from what they now say. It’s OK to argue which one you think is a better choice (neither would be my first choice), but there’s no reason to stoop to using nonsense.
4 years in elected politics, 4 years of actual record to stand on. All of it showing Democrat-like results. He tried to be in politics more then that; but strangely enough, no one ever wants him…
He’s the establishment candidate because A) he is easily controlled, with a say/do anything wanted of him personality B) Because he was a Democrat, ran as a Democrat, governed as a Democrat and talks like a Democrat – they think he will be easily “electable” because he will “appeal to moderates” and be able to “compromise” with the Democrat leaders (you know, Pelosi and Reid. The Establishment wants nothing more then to work with corrupt, extreme Left hacks, because apparently it worked so great for us under Bush…)
And you seem to have missed the point – they have both taken positions which are different today, but Newt had 20+ years of taking such positions to change, where Mitt has a 4 year span merely 6 years ago where everything he did is completely opposite from what he claims now (as well as 4 years ago even).
Lastly, Newt is not an “insider” – he is the Anti-Insider, willing to fight against the establishment and business as usual even if it means alienating his entire party and eventually leading to his leaving office (as he did when he fought against Bush breaking his “read my lips” promise; the very reason the Establishment cant stand him today – he was right, while they were pitifully wrong…)
Except that it ignores the facts that
(a) a lot of what is being used to say Romney is a “flip-flopper” comes from times other than his four years as governor, and
(b) most of what Newt has to back away from (in particular, endorsement of the individual mandate, buying into anthropogenic climate change, and nuzzling with Nancy) happened just as recently or *more* recently than Romney’s stuff.
No, it doesn’t ignore any facts – it merely ignores illogical talking points with little to no truth behind them
re: #1) Romney is flip-flopping almost exclusively from the positions he took while running for office, and putting into practice, from 2002/3-2007. Things such as Romenycare (“a model for the nation”), Liberal Judge appointments, Gun Rights, Pro-Choice & Planned Parenthood, Gay Rights (including Gay Marriage, which he could have stopped dead in its tracks instead of single highhandedly allowing an unconstitutional act to allow it in MA), Cap And Trade (look up Douglas Foy, Romney’s chief staffer and Secretary of Commonwealth Development on environmental issues during his Governorship), massive tax increases through “sin taxes” and “closing corporate loopholes” (which did little more then double corporate taxes and send businesses out of MA), dismal growth (MA had a 1.4% growth rate over his time, while the nation as a whole was at 5.3% because it was, ya know, an economic boom), etc, etc, etc
Historically, he is one of the single most Liberal Governors of the last 50 or so years – but 1-2 (and now again, 5-6) years later he is claiming he is a true Conservative Republican.
What in the history of this man says Conservative other then a few statements while he’s desperately trying to get elected? Up until running for President in 2007/2008 he was a rather extreme Democrat in both statements and actions in the only time he has ever given us to judge him – his sole 4 years in office.
re #2) like?
I mean, you say Global Warming but everyone without motives knows that is repeated completely out of context in an attempt to slander and hold no actual truth. In reality, he was fighting against Cap & Trade at the same time Romney was pushing to implement it
And you say the individual mandate, but there is no evidence anywhere that he has supported it since the early 90s when Conservatives everywhere were talking about it as an opposition to Hillary Care (which Bill was pushing hard for). Well, okay, the “New York Times” claims an “unnamed source” knows about some “previously unknown conference call”, yada yada yada… That is hardly evidence though, and has taken traction solely as a talking point from haters who refuse to actually investigate the real situation and instead want to leave it as an unconfirmed rumor from an unnamed source delivered by possibly the single least respectable outlet.
I guess you probably buy into the “Ron Paul defense” that Newt didn’t write (or apparently read?) his own newsletters? Or maybe that’s a body double there on the couch with Nancy.
It’s not that Mitt doesn’t have plenty of previous statements to back away from, but you have to be delusional to pretend that Newt doesn’t have them as well.
Look, first I said the complete opposite from what you claim. I said both have changed positions – but the few positions Newt must change come from 20+ years in office where Romney must try to erase his entire governmental record which he produced only a handful of years ago over a small 4 year span.
Then, watch the damn Pelosi video – he is talking about the GOP being involved in the conversation over renewable energies so it isn’t solely controlled by the Dems. That is not claiming Climate Change, and his actions of the time show he was staunchly opposed to it and the whole Cap and Trade nonsense (while Romney was pushing for it at the same time…)
And as far as this newsletter – it was from 6 years ago, so it isn’t in your time-period stated above as being applicable to the conversation you wanted (it was way earlier then just yesterday when Romney defended it). Its also on a stance he has actually changed on, as opposed to Romney who still supports it. But its moot anyway since its not even endorsing it, and wasn’t even written by Newt.
Ohhh, 6 years ago his newsletter provided something written by someone else which questioned, analyzed and dissected Romneycare without saying Newt endorsed it, nor stating he thinks it should be something foolish like “a model for the nation” – that’s just like Romney, apparently…
Come on dude, you’re just pitifully reaching in a sad attempt to bring down Newt for unknown reason where it just doesn’t really make sense. So what if he did even support it 6 years ago – its not like he is defending it today like Romney.
Again, Romney is possibly the single most Liberal Governor, period, of any party, over the last 50 years. Please, find one more Governor who not only pushed, but also implemented, such Liberal policies and agendas while in office.
Romney designed the single most liberal Heath Care system in the nation. Romney implemented Cap & Trade, “carbon sin taxes”, etc. Romney stifled and drove out business through anti-business policies and extreme tax hikes. Romney ignored the state constitution to do more for Gay Rights then any other Governor. Romney pushed for Pro-Choice policies. Romney pushed for tougher gun laws. Romney had the second worse Employment growth of the time and a pitiful growth rate. Romney focused on (in his words) “diverse” judges to be appointed. This is the stuff Liberal Governors dream of doing – he did it all, and just 5 years ago!!!
How is that something he can just say “oops, yeah, I changed my position and now I am really a stanch Conservative” about – especially since (the first time) it was only 2 years prior to his running for election and against his record?
Besides, getting back to the original point anyway – Romney has yet to actually change many of his positions, technically. He just acts like he never took any other position, or claims he was only “forced” to take such positions. He wont admit mistakes anymore then Obama does.
Romney has to erase his entire career to become Conservative; Newt just has to explain why he sided how he did on a handful of positions (many of which date back 20+ years) and point to the 90% Conservative voting record he has while in power (single best Conservative track record of all remaining candidates – and one of the higher you’ll find in politics today)
Yeah, I’ve watched the “damn Pelosi video” (obviously a sore point with you). And as a Mathematics professor, I can apply some logic. “Our country must take action to address climate change.” “We need cleaner forms of energy, and we need them fast.” Now unless you believe in anthropogenic climate change, what’s the link between those?
My only point is that *both* of these guys have some explaining to do. (As I’ve mentioned, neither one of them was my first choice.) You can’t recite some mystical mantra about Gingrich being in politics a long time and make his position changes any easier to explain. You’re right that Newt has gone further in actually retracting those things (he’s been willing to call the moment on the couch what it was — an unbelievably stupid thing to do). But they *both* have things to retract, and from approximately the same period of time.
Oh, and I’ll sign out of this conversation — it’s bedtime. But… “Romney is possibly the single most Liberal Governor, period, of any party, over the last 50 years.” Really? Again, wow.
But… “Romney is possibly the single most Liberal Governor, period, of any party, over the last 50 years.” Really? Again, wow.
Honestly, who was a more liberal Governor to actually get so much passed and implemented?
Romneycare alone is something no other Democrat (well, now other then Obama) had been able to do despite 30+ years of trying
Cap & Trade is something most Democrats try, and fail, to implement. Look up the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan though. Or look up his claim that one power plant had killed 59 people with its emissions; which is why it was one of 6 that he drastically reduced the acceptable emission levels for. Afterward he openly bragged “Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 limits on power plants.” – good job, Mr Conservative?!?
Gay Marriage is difficult for most Liberal Governors to get approved, yet he ignored an unconstitutional judge ruling (despite Democrat congressmen arguing for him to take action) to allow it to dictate the states actions. (he had promised the Log Cabin Republican Club he wouldn’t fight it so… despite Democrats like DA Thomas Reilly ironically saying it could and should be ignored) See also Stephen Abany, who Romney bragged about appointing.
5+ Billion in tax exemptions for Planned Parenthood to build abortion clinics and forcing Catholic Hospitals to distribute abortion pills would be a huge feather for a Democrat Gov. That doesn’t even take into account the abortion coverage in Roneycare itself, or placing Planned Parenthood on the Oversight Committee
Almost exclusively “diverse” Independent and Democrat judges nominated, with many being Pro Gay-Rights and/or Pro-Choice and/or with other activist-like agendas. He oddly bragged about that too, claiming he had “not paid a moment’s notice to nominee’s political leanings.”. The Boston Globe pointed out that more then 3/4 of his appointments went to Democrats or Independents with agendas.
Ensuring state aid to sanctuary cities is a pretty big deal to Democrats
One of the strictest Gun Laws you can find, and made permanent by Romney with a very loose “assault weapon” label that set up Democrats for years to come and take advantage of
Doubling the Corporate Tax Rate and adding more then a hundred consumption increases resulting in an overall Tax rate increase from 9.3% to 9.9% over his time.
…seriously, which Governor of the last 50 years has passed such a huge Liberal agenda in only 4 short years? Give me even one, because I would love to see which Democrat has been as successful in passing such an extreme Liberal Agenda. Its like Obama himself was in charge of MA over those years.
If they kept track of such a thing, Romney would go down as one of, if not the single most, Liberal Governors the country has seen over the last 50 or so years; and its possibly not even close. And he is oh so proud of his record – just ask him…
It’s strange to read a desire to attack Romney cloaked in vetting him. You don’t want Romney vetted, you want him defeated. I have no problem with that, but let’s call it what it is.
There’s a line here that’s being blurred. Romney’s attacks on Gingrich–right or wrong, true or false, wise or dumb–were leveled with one specific calculation: to blunt his surge and secure a win in Iowa. Gingrich’s attacks back on Romney are different. Gingrich comes across as pure spite: willing to do anything to spike Romney’s chances, even at the cost of his own electoral prospects. How else to explain his bizarre willingness to partner with Santorum?
I too have no problem with anyone leveling attack ads at Romney, by the way. It’s deep water he’s swimming in, and he’d better be prepared to take it. But a red-faced Gingrich helps no one, least of all himself. The leftist media already has him painted with the “angry white male” brush, why play into the stereotype?
Actually, he could be helping Santorum.
Listening to Dick Morris on Hannity show yesterday saying Speaker Gingrich’s strategy of going after Gov. Romney was like trying to win the championship before the division had me laughing. What a way to lose…have a predictable strategy rather than a winning strategy. As Gov Palin says…you’ve got to be in it to win it.
The effort is fundamentally flawed in that, as a “conservative” candidate, Gingrich is no more appealing than Romney, and is probably even less electable to the general electorate because of his copious baggage.
The Dem machine and their accomplices in the MSM have deconstructed and permanently damaged all alternatives (Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, etc), so if and when Romney goes down, who’s left? Nobody. By design.
All the remaining Conservative candidates and Ron Paul should unload on Romney. He is the candidate who will nominate the weakest and most liberal Supreme Court Justices. It is time to stop the circular firing squad and let him have it. It would even help if New Hampshire voted strategically for Ron Paul or John Huntsman, so that Romney didn’t get 95% or more there and get all the delegates.
I think BurkeanBadger has it right.
I was listening to Major Garrett yesterday and he said Newt made a big mistake not going negative against Mitt from the get go … that voters always say they don’t like negative, but negative works. I agree with him on that point.
But then he went on to say that Newt going negative now was a huge mistake … that he was now breaking a promise, and that he would only end up hurting the inevitable GOP nominee while also going out a negative loser.
Whoaa … we’ve only done Iowa so far. Maybe Mitt is the favorite at this point … but this is far from being over.
In a boxing match, you try to knock the other guy’s head off. After the match is over, you hug and congratulate each other. And in this case, then unite against the forces of evil … and I hate to say it … but more and more I feel President Obama is not a good person. I don’t doubt he’s good to his wife and children, but he lost my benefit of the doubt with the class warfare and not calling out OWS’s anti-Semitism. He may be a good husband and father … but he just doesn’t appear to be a good American … and that makes me feel a bit sad.
I can’t agree with you about boxing . Joe Frazier vs Cassius Clay / Ali
I saw a doco about Manilla from Joe Frazier’s angle & he painted a very different picture.
Ali laughed off the vicious media channeled verbal attacks as being PR & part of the game . Frazier did not & never believed that.
Frazier saw the real man .
That is just the boxing -then there are the judges.
Noting you can’t win on defense, Gov. Palin last night on Hannity said Newt was right to go on offense in protecting his record from unfair attacks.
Remember that the same people so upset with Pres. George W. Bush for not defending his administration have been throwing hissy fits the last few years over people like Palin and Newt defending themselves.
I think Newt is like Patton vs. Romney’s cautious Eisenhower in ending the war in Europe. More unstable, but brilliantly seeing the opportunity and willing to punch hard. Thus, there were many fewer casualties both for the Allies and the Germans because Patton went for the risky kill which turned out to be easier than anyone thought.
Well folks to be honest if we dug down deep enough into the family trees of the Republican Establishment and conservative pundits I would bet we would find that they are entwined to the point of being incestuous. How many of these people have wives, husbands, sisters, daughters, sons, brothers, aunts, uncles, boyfriends, girlfriends, neighbors, and friends all fed by the Washington D.C. Republican machine? How much do they stand to lose? If you use their frantic almost lunatic fringe devotion to Romney as a sign, one could conclude its a bunch. How much money has Romney spread around? Its now known that National Review has received funds from charities close to Romney. How many others have as well?
I have now arrived at the point that the Grand Old Party I once loved and the pundits who I once enjoyed I now despise as much as the Democrat Party and the main stream media. The elitist seem to think we are to be Republicans first and conservatives only when it suits them. They label anyone who doesn’t bow a knee to the “Romney” religious bigots, birthers, purists, Coast to Coast bunker builders and silly little rubes who just don’t understand how the game is played. They no longer hide their contempt but flaunt it using Romney to goad us like poking sticks into a bird cage and laughing at the reaction.
The part that pisses me off, and I have a feeling I am not the only one, the most is that they expect, nay, DEMAND we vote for Romney in the general election or else its OUR fault if Obama gets re-elected.
On what plain of reality does punching a customer in the face then demanding he/she buy what your selling become a winning business strategy? Is this not exactly what the Coulters,Roves,Krauthammers,and Rubins are doing?
I am sorry. Maybe my humble lower middle class upbringing has left me uncultured and feral. But when you start punching me in the face and mocking my intelligence I am eventually going to start swinging back.
I was taught to keep on swinging until someone is going to the hospital, and if its me, that means your going to a morgue.
I too have lost regard I once held for some commentators, especially those on Fox.
Newt does not look good attacking. He exaggerates for dramatic effect and it quickly becomes tiresome and easy to dismiss. Save the attacks for the ads, but in person focus on the issues that make him look good versus Romney. Like his consistent opposition to insurance mandates, or opposition to cap and trade, or opposition to bailouts, or support for true conservatives and not liberal Republicans.
Hmm, maybe he should stick to attacking.
if Mitt is that highly electable guy we kept hearing about he should have no problem handling some bad/harsh ads from Newt – or did Obama and the Dems sign some “we’ll play nice” pledge?
Absolutely Mitt should be tested. What I see so far in terms of “electability” is a campaign that runs as a tight ship and solid infrastructure in place to compete nationally. I seriously question why the conservatives (who were at least willing to run this time) seem so woefully unprepared in that department. Complacency is not a winning strategy.
Newt has been complacent at a minimum. Romney exposed his faults earlier than the Obama machine surely would have. That Gingrich was unprepared to deal with that is something for which he should take personal responsibility. That said, my only gripe is that if Newt is going to get around to responding he should be doing it strategically rather than emotionally.
Nevertheless, if Romney’s campaign would implode under serious pressure I certainly want that exposed now. I am not sure what we would be left with but I am not sure what we had to begin with anyway.
Guess that kind of makes me Thomas Paine 🙂
way to go, Newt!
(Hat-tip/Found here: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/pro-gingrich-group-posts-anti-romney-ad-featuring-mccain/ )
Would love to see this running on national TV too! Its a classic (and re-released the day McCain endorses Romney, none the less!)
It basically sums up what I was saying before too – he wont even admit when he changes positions; usually even frighteningly claiming something like nonsensical like “well, it was a Democrat state/congress/etc” (which sure doesn’t leave me feeling that hot about the possibility Dems take back congress while he is our President)
If we go along with the Establishment and nominate this hack…
I suspect Gingrich went positive in Iowa because he didn’t yet have the money to stage a hefty negative ad campaign, and hoped if he stayed positive, his opponents would as well. In other words, a delaying tactic while he caught up on funding. Romney and Paul firebombed him anyway and he dipped in the polls. Now his new PAC is online with the ad campaign and it is directed at Romney in NH this week. Whether he should be targeting Santorum or Romney or both is a fielder’s choice. Politicians of the same party get nasty with one another during primaries. Remember Clinton vs Obama? Biden vs Obama? And a few months later, Obama wins, Clinton is his S of S and Biden is his VP. In the end examination, this is all standard American politics, the normal ebb and flow of a primary season, and we remain very early in the season.
GOP frontrunner, January 5, 2008: Rudy Guliani 20.4% (It’s too early to get too excited!)
Romney is going to attack his primary opponent, Santorum not Newt. Santorum is going to go down so it will be Newt or Perry last man standing against him. The second surge.
“We have an incredibly weak frontrunner, someone who has not been seriously challenged in this cycle”
I’ll say- how else to explain a nothing like Rick Santorum -who couldn’t break double digits until the media neutered all the opposition- tying him… even in a weird state like Iowa
Mitt Gingrich and Newt Romney…
we’re just watching two RINO’s battle over who will be the Beltway representative. neither one of these jerks represents any part of America outside of DC, nor do they care about it.
all they and their friends are interested in is protecting the status quo so they can maintain their personal perks and fortunes.
Didn’t romneycare lose every election he was in save one? And this makes him the most electable? I beg to differ, he can’t beat president downgrade.
But what do I know? I’m just a bitter clinger in flyover country.
Romney lost 2 of 3 actual elections. He lost 3 of 4 elections if you count his poll-driven decision not to run for reelection as governor of Massachusetts. Of the 31 caucuses or primaries he entered in 2008, he won 11.
Notably, Romney won absolutely nothing south of the Mason-Dixon Line in 2008.
So, in total, in actual contests, Romney’s record is 12 wins and 34 losses. Clearly the man is the definition of Electability.
Newt Gingrich is at 7 wins and 2 losses, 3 losses if you include Iowa 2012.
I’d put it this way – there is no way anyone can refute my claim that Appalachian State has been the best college football team over the last twenty years….. if I don’t allow consideration of their win/loss record.
and in all honesty, I am getting extremely tired of people acting like he even won the Governorship anyway.
1) years worth of GOP control of the position
2) a 5-way, mud-slinging primary in the DNC which left no positive candidate anyone really wanted
3) a 3rd party, “Green” name on the ticket getting some of the Dem votes
4) one of the single best mid-term elections in history going the way of the GOP
and he still managed less then 50% of the vote!
Seriously, how the F* is that winning an election? He was handed the position almost outright and he still couldn’t get more then half the people to actually vote for him.
Romney might win the election as people hate Obama like no president before, but he is absolutely anything but “electable”
Wow. Thanks for quoting my post, Professor! And I stand by it. Romney needs to be vetted, by Newt or anyone else.
I’ve been out of town for hearings for the past few days, which why I haven’t posted anything. At this point, I don’t think I could add anything about Iowa and the aftermath that hasn’t already been said. I’ll hold off until New Hampshire. 🙂