Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Mitt Romney’s shameless use of Nancy Pelosi

Mitt Romney’s shameless use of Nancy Pelosi

The claim by Nancy Pelosi that she had secret information on Newt has been thoroughly debunked …. by Pelosi’s press secretary.

Yet Mitt Romney, not his SuperPAC but his own campaign, just started running an advertisement in Florida claiming otherwise.

How much more deceptive could the ad be?  The ad features prominently a comment from Pelosi about information so secret she kept it from her husband, but the barely visible citation is to a comment by Pelosi from 1997.

Update:  The ad is even more misleading than I thought.  Via Tip Line, here’s the link to the original 1997 article, and the reference to something “so secret” had nothing to do with leaking information about Newt, merely the congressional inquiry itself:

In a lengthy interview with The Chronicle, Pelosi provided an  inside look at  the controversial investigation into Gingrich — an  inquiry so secret that she  once had to ask her husband to leave the  bedroom at 3 a.m. so she could  privately conduct business on the  phone.

So it’s lie upon lie.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Mitt won’t need to attack Newt if Newt keeps going off into “deep space” with his spending plans. The guy just can’t go two weeks without putting both feet in his mouth…

    Henry Hawkins in reply to WarEagle82. | January 26, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Geez, it’s basic Stump Speaking 101. If you’re in Pittsburgh, talk steel. If you’re in Detroit, talk cars, and if you’re in Florida, you talk NASA. And oranges.

      WarEagle82 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 26, 2012 at 3:02 pm

      So it is okay for “conservatives” to pander and talk about running up huge government deficits on pandering programs?

      Isn’t this what we are supposed to be opposed to? Seriously…

    WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 26, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Why is it that so many people here seem to have an aversion to people stating the truth. I certainly wish Newt would stop putting both feet in his mouth but he keeps doing it, providing even MORE fodder for his opponents and enemies.

    But why this proclivity to shoot the messenger. Newt said it, I didn’t…

JimMtnViewCaUSA | January 26, 2012 at 12:25 pm

I don’t really like Newt (support for DeDe S in New York, taking Fannie money, insults to Paul Ryan, the list goes on).
But I like that he fights and I REALLY like his list of enemies.

Mitt needs to turn his cannons on Obama, the media, the education establishment, gov’t unions and the other usual suspects.
Or at least attack Newt in a more principled manner, not just recycle unfair MSM slime attacks.

    WarEagle82 in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | January 26, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    But Mitt IS the establishment and he IS unprincipled. Why do we expect unprincipled men to behave otherwise?

    There appears to be a HUGE amount of cognitive dissonance on this thread.

    “We want our ‘honest’ politicians to lie to us.”
    “We want unprincipled men to take principled positions.”
    “We want the establishment to overthrow the establishment.”

    My head is spinning…

DINORightMarie | January 26, 2012 at 12:26 pm

OT, but related: Rush Limbaugh seems to be adding to the pile of excrement, so far, on his show.

It’s early yet, but he hasn’t countered anything on Drudge, or noted Jeffrey Lord on Am Spec. He noted NRO without commenting on their obvious pro-Romney bias over the last few months. He did note that this is a “coordinated effort” to take down Newt, though.

Smells pretty rank so far.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 26, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    I have a different take on Rush. If anyone knows about short snips of things being taken out of context it is Rush and his loyal audience. Rush said several times he is truly shocked to learn Newt ever said such things. He points out at length the countless hours Newt spent on C-span defending Reagan’s policies during special orders from 1981 onward. He notes how Newt’s was the ONLY voice he heard avidly defending Reagan at times in the 1980s. He mentions how McCain and Huckabee hated Romney in 2008 for going on the air early with negative stories that were thinly sourced and entirely misleading. He reads far more from the Lord piece than he reads from the anti Newt pieces. His conclusion is to sit back and enjoy the fight. That we don’t want this race decided next week because that only helps Obama.

    Actually, I am getting whiplash listening to Rush. Sometimes he sounds like he is sticking up for Newt and the next he is piling on.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Sherlock. | January 26, 2012 at 3:00 pm

      Rush prefers radio to TV so he can keep one eye on his ratings without anyone noticing. He has no intention of pissing off half or a third of his audience. Given the size of his audience, it’s responsible of him not to take sides, that is, not to unduly affect races beyond presenting the facts as he knows them and interpretations as he sees them.

      WarEagle82 in reply to Sherlock. | January 26, 2012 at 3:05 pm

      Rush is mostly just stating facts.

      If people get mad at others for stating the facts, who has the problem?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to WarEagle82. | January 26, 2012 at 4:40 pm

        If people get mad at Rush for supporting GOP candidate X, they turn off his show, his ratings dip, and his ad money goes down.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to WarEagle82. | January 26, 2012 at 7:34 pm

        I’m not responsible for your reading comprehension problems. How much plainer could I have been?

        Go back and read the threadlet. I said Rush doesn’t endorse because it hurts his ratings and bottom line. you changed it from my ‘endorses’ to ‘Rush speaks facts, who gets mad?’ and I explained in greater detail why Rush doesn’t endorse – the original issue. An Rush endorsement isn’t a Rush fact and your reply was nonsequitous.

Windy City Commentary | January 26, 2012 at 12:31 pm

Looks like Newt has a ratio of about 50 conservative pundits destroying him to 1 defending him. This is getting ridiculous and this has to be strongly answered NOW!!!

The piranhas are out in full force and they are now the Drive by Conservative Media. They will bash Newt until Romney wins Florida, then crawl back in their holes and try to pretend they are objective again. (ala Rich Lowry). These people are so two faced it is unreal.

I can’t believe the establishment favors the man who invented socialized medicine over the guy who balanced the budget and reformed welfare. This is horrendous. Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin better get off the fence, put their egos aside and defend Newt, or we are looking at a Romney nomination.

    This is truly looking like the Right’s version of JournOlist. And it’s ugly as hell.

    Many on the right are jumping the shark over Newt Gingrich. Newt isn’t a great candidate, but he’s a fighter who actually managed to shrink the federal budget when he was Speaker, and the implication that Newt will be a once-in-an-aeon disaster that makes Mitt Romney look like Ronald Reagan is simply preposterous.

    And the pile-on just makes me side with Newt more. I don’t like seeing pile-ons like this, not unless the person being piled upon has done something truly hideous.

    I’ve been watching the GOP for over a decade now and I’ve well and truly had it with them wilting in the face of pressure from Democrats and the media, and then turning vicious when someone on their side proves inconvenient for them. I’m tired of supporting their candidates and seeing nothing change, and I’m tired of supporting this nest of snakes that likes to mouth conservative platitudes at us.

And the RNC wonders why so many of us call ourselves independents!

    WarEagle82 in reply to JoAnne. | January 26, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    I don’t think the RNC establishment wonders why true conservatives now identify as conservatives first or as independents.

    I don’t think they care at all what we think. They just want to scare us into voting for LoTE every 2 or 4 years…

Unions, liberal PACs ramp up efforts to help Newt beat Romney in Florida — yes, even fielding attacks on Romney from the right:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/liberal-groups-join-in-fla-ad-war-against-mitt-romney/2012/01/24/gIQAYY5tQQ_story.html

Heeellllooooooo…why do these guys want Newt to win?

Come on, Mitt and his pals are just doing jobs that Obama and his posse won’t do, yet…

I do not view this ad as deceptive.

The Romney campaign is making a valid point: Newt has baggage (too) that the Dems are ready and willing to regurgitate.

Pelosi’s comment may be dated, but it is currently relevant. That being said, I despise Pelosi’s immature theatrics.

FWIW, here is the SF Chronicle article that is referenced in the Romney campaign ad:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1997/01/23/MN30186.DTL

Mitt is making my choice to never ever vote mitt ever more comfortable. For probably the only time, I agree with George Soros, Mitt= Obama.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to traye. | January 26, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    They can destroy Newt if they want to, but they can’t force me to vote for Willard Obama.

    They want Willard Obama to be the Republican nominee so damn bad, then let him win the general election without my vote.

Drudge is no longer on my read list, and I’m a Palinista! I’ve sent emails to Rush signaling a cancellation of my 24/7 account if he doesn’t correct the record before the end of the day.

I have issues with Newt, but the conservative use of Alinsky tactics against him, the rank lies, the attempt to clothe Romney in Gingrich’s mantle? These same people destroying Newt are the same ones who told us we can’t go after Obama cuz we’ll be racist cuz that elitist condescending thin-skinned twit is likeable?

All of this for Romney? A liar who has never met a Conservative position he won’t disdain? A man who will say anything to be elected?

No!

The GOP wants us to elect an Alinskyite, and I’ll be damned if I join in that. We already have one untrustworthy liar on the global stage, I’ll not tarnish Reagan and Palin by consenting to foist Romney.

This miserable little man has done more to demolish his presidential chances in the past few weeks than he’ll ever understand. Every pretense of leaderly bearing and conservative trustworthiness has come crashing to the ground in his panicked impersonation of leftism and his frenzied character assassination of Gingrich. If he wins, he loses, and we all lose — this is now guaranteed. Loss and ruin can be the only possible rewards for such destructive desperaton.

Just curious…. Has Allen West endorsed anyone?

As for the video itself, YouTube cut off the last three seconds from the original….the soundbite at the end is actually ” I’m mitt Romney and I endorse this slimy bit of misinformation propaganda because being underhanded is the only way I can convince anyone I am the most conservative candidate and not the Rino-Obamanite I really am”

DocWahala – is thankful Mitt is showing the essence of his character.

    janitor in reply to DocWahala. | January 26, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    In the fog of this battle, it appears that Allen steadfastly is spending his time working at the job he was elected to do, researching the issues, and keeping in touch with his constituents through meetings and emails.

Isn’t this where we are all supposed to say; “Whatever Newt, Nancy, & her husband did or said in the privacy of her bedroom is none of our business?”

I’m done with Mitt. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Voting for Mitt would be a disaster. Even if he wins, it would be Obama’s 2nd and 3rd terms. Yuck.

I’ll be working Really Hard to elect downticket conservatives while I completely ignore Mitt if he gets the nomination. Because IMHO he’s unelectable.

Professor, did you happen to post a link about Gingrich’s misleading immigration ad (criticized by Rubio)? I may have missed it.

Meanwhile, the individual right to bear arms survives by a single vote on the Supreme Court.

Is there anything in Romney’s record of judicial appointments that suggests a Romney appointee to the Supreme Court would affirm the individual right to bear arms?

That ad is truly vile and despicable.

I’m betting that if Romney becomes the nominee, he won’t be running any ads like that against Obama.

I’ve actually heard conservatives argue that Romney — because he’s a monogamous, longtime married, religious family man (just like Obama by the way) — is more moral than Gingrich, who is a “serial adulterer.” By that same logic, Obama is just as moral and upstanding as Romney.

You know the world is going to hell when so-called moral, religious family men can with a straight face use lies and slander against their opponents, and this is acceptable because a “moral” man is doing it against an “immoral” man.

Louis R. Lombardi | January 26, 2012 at 1:32 pm

Is this not the language of the left?

NC Mountain Girl | January 26, 2012 at 1:37 pm

Ace has a good take on why Drudge and Coulter are so anti Newt.

http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=326081

“My theory is that Drudge and Coulter were seriously emotionally invested in the Clinton Impeachment thing more than most partisans. As invested in it as we all were (and I was seriously invested myself), they were even more invested in it.

It wasn’t just politics to them. It was personal — this was Their Thing.

Now, Newt’s affair complicated the narrative for them on this.

It could be that they are so angry about that, blaming Newt for letting Clinton escape (which is a silly notion; he was getting away anyway), that they are especially hostile to Newt, for destroying their Big Project.”

    Henry Hawkins in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | January 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Happier news for us North Carolinians today – both US House Representative Brad Miller (D-NC) and NC Governor Bev Perdue (D) have announced they will not seek reelection this fall.

      Don’t know why, but got a news alert text from a local television station spreading the good news. So did my wife. You know you suck when the MSM is sending out unsolicited celebratory texts when you announce you aren’t running. So happy for my fellow Tarheels and myself.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to windbag. | January 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm

        I was going to post a faux attack on you – I’m a wolfpacker, not a Tarheel! – given the NC State v. UNC game tonight. Then I remembered my youngest child just got accepted at UNC. Now I’m not sure what I am. Well, I was born in Detroit, so…. M GO BLUE!

Drudge Fact Check gives the ad Zero Pinnochios.

    MerryCarol in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 27, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Thumbs down?? Aw, c’mon folks, ain’t you got no sense of humor?

    Sheesh. I guess Drudge jokes are off limits. Zero sense of humor, this crew.

    Thanks for the chuckle, Luke!

Take a look at the average Dem compared to the Dem leaders. You wouldn’t believe it’s the same party. The Dem leaders are left of Stalin. The rank-and-file Dems are mostly normal people that we don’t mind rubbing shoulders with on a daily basis. Obviously, leaders don’t always reflect their constituency.

To see the nuclear war being launched against Newt, whom the rank-and-file seem to support, is troubling, to say the least. Why does the party want to run McCain II? This is insane. I guess we little people can’t be trusted to select the candidate that represents us as accurately as we perceive and the sages must step in and direct us to the proper choice.

Henry Hawkins | January 26, 2012 at 2:36 pm

The nuclear war on Gingrich is made necessary BECAUSE the rank & file support him. If Newt had Santorum’s or Paul’s poll numbers, they’d ignore him too.

delicountessa | January 26, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Riehl World View has the full clip of the show where Newt supposedly dissed Reagan. http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-is-bogus.html

It’s now obvious, and no longer needs to be floated more tactfully.
Mitt Romney is a liar. A chronic, pathological liar.
Not a “flip-flopper”. A con man. A liar.

I will not vote for him, ever.

delicountessa | January 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm

I’m with you, Janitor. If he gets the nod, or if they have a brokered convention and try to shove Jeb Bush down our throats, I believe we all need to pick a candidate and write him/her in. In my case, I would suggest Jim DeMint. I love Palin but a lot of people are very angry with her because she disappointed them, so, Jim DeMint is a good choice for all of us to write in.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to delicountessa. | January 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    In that a write-in campaign (if Romney is GOP nom) would be symbolic and never win, I suggest writing in Newt Gingrich just to make damn sure there’s no confusion over why so many write-ins.

      delicountessa in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 26, 2012 at 7:43 pm

      Sure it is symbolic, Henry but I was trying to think of someone who wasn’t running this election cycle that I think a majority of people would be willing to write in. Don’t forget there are people who are thinking about writing in Cain, Palan and Paul right now so DeMint is the one candidate I thought we could push as an alternative to Jeb Bush or a collection of names that people still feel strongly about. If we say “write in Newt” those who wanted Cain would ask “why?” True, we may still get that in some quarters but if we pick someone –as the establishment would—that wasn’t actually running on the ticket, it’s possible we could unify the diverse groups. DeMint agrees with Palin on crony capitalism, Paul on the monetary policy and he’s respected by both the Libertarians and the conservatives. But, all in all, it’s just a goofy idea that I thought about just to strike out against the Federal version of the Corrupt Bastards Club. As you said, symbolic, only.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend