The Bain attack ads have hurt Romney in South Carolina, as a Romney supporter acknowledges, although nowhere near the impact Romney’s SuperPAC’s anti-Newt ads had in Iowa. (Before the Romney supporters get all preachy, I’ve had a chance to look back at some of those Iowa ads, and they were full of lies, like the claim that Newt supports amnesty.)
The damage was done on Bain, there was no need in harping on the theme by Newt himself, although the SuperPAC is not giving up on the issue. (added) It does not help Romney that a local South Carolina paper is focusing on Bain’s handling of GS Industries.
Having attacked Romney on his core claim of business experience, they have moved on to Romney’s other strength, the narrative of electability.
This ad, which will not be aired in South Carolina until tomorrow, makes reference to the Quin Hillyer column I mentioned yesterday:
This ad, also to run in South Carolina starting tomorrow, keeps up on the Romney business theme:
Newt’s own campaign also is hammering the electability theme:
Romney’s SuperPAC is not sitting idly by, hitting Newt as anti-capitalist:
I previously posted anti-Santorum ads by Ron Paul and the Romney SuperPAC, so I won’t repeat them.
I could not find any recent attack ads targeting Perry. That should tell you that the other campaigns do not consider him a viable contender at this point, although he could be a spoiler if he draws votes away from Newt and allows Romney to win.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Bain business is a Democratic distraction. The issue is only important that it is a big tack puncturing the balloon of “electability” of Romney.
On the other hand the first linked anti-Romney ad is spot on. I don’t trust Romney at all, especially to appoint constitutionally conservative judges.
Why is Bain a distraction?
We already know that Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected.
If we look at Mitt’s business record, will we also find that Mitt Romney was willing to do anything to make money?
I know I’m not voting for him.
Newt has a point on the electability of Romney. Pretty obvious over the past week about how Romney will be attacked in an election. He becomes the perfect target for Democrats and the OWS crowd.(the evil capitalist)
On the other hand…Newt’s work? How do democrats attack Gingrich on his employment at Fannie? It disarms them somewhat and forces them to attack the very same way republicans use Bain as an attack venue. Its an uncomfortable and difficult thing to do…damn Romney for his work at Bain without making judgements about capitalism that in many ways play to the opposition.
How does Obama exploit Newts work at Fannie without damning Fannie at the same time? It may well tie his hands. Or at least complicate his approach.
Uh, Gingrich has been soft on illegal immigration since day one and I base my opinion on his score at NumbersUSA, the last word on immigration topics.
Gingrich is exhibiting acute symptoms of desperation and to attack Romney’s electability at this point in time is simply just another example of that desperation. Gingrich has made his bed over the years and cries when others remind him of it.
Time for the nonsense to stop…
NumbersUSA?
Well, that explains a lot of your posts; especially, the Perry screeds. Those folks are not just anti-illegal immigration; they are anti-immigration. The only immigration they desire is limited and controlled. Their philosophy could be described as a little eugenics, a little racism, and not a whole lot of solutions. I don’t believe they are truly interested in solving the issues of illegal immigration.
If they were serious, they would NOT have given Romney a C grade. The funny thing about the Romney SuperPAC is a couple of the big contributors were major supporters of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill; which was supported by your fellow Texan, George W. Bush. Gingrich is soft on illegal immigration but the folks behind the Romney SuperPAC are ignored. Is this willful stupidity or worse?
Please spare us all the “Perry is …….” nonsense; as well as the “Gingrich is soft on illegal immigration” BS.
BTW, I hope you enjoyed your recent stay at a Marriott.
A few reasonable questions to ask:
Are we conservatives/libertarians basing our illegal immigration agenda on the premise that we can round 11 million illegals and send them back to their respective places of origin?
Also, since when is NumbersUSA “the last word on immigration topics?” I’m not suggesting they aren’t, I’ve just never heard of them. What’s their report regarding Romney’s immigration agenda?
From their About Us page:
I don’t know if any of these clowns are electable. It’s Bob Dole and John McCain all over again.
I hear you. But while Dole and McCain were tired old men, Santorum, while plainly exhausted at times from the long hours of running a campaign (been there, done that), is younger and doesn’t emanate that “tired” feeling.
I read a Obama campaign letter yesterday on Romney. Typically these screeds wander over the map, raise a slew of easily refutable straw men and sound ridiculous. This one was concise, sharp and slashing. The premise and facts may have been selective but were accurate. All candidates have flaws, but Romney’s play into the wheelhouse of the Left like nobody’s business. Romney is ludicrously unelectable. Why is he even this close?
The attempt to tie Newt to the UN Population Fund and China’s one-child policy: now that’s a desperate attack.
The ads are good but should have closed with clip of Romney disavowing Reagan’s policies. The previous ad which blended a bunch of Romney’s quotes/clips was better. Nothing like hearing a weasel in his own words.
Romney’s credentials are all weak for conservatives, especially his political record, which is thin and moderately liberal.
But he claims his Bain experience makes him “The One” (capitalist) we’ve been waiting for.
So deconstructing Bain now is essential. From what I can gather, it is no wonder Mitt deflects criticism by lying about his opponents and calling them free market haters, or worse. If Bain becomes his dead albatross around his neck, the Romney “100,000 jobs created” claim blows up. Did they really create ANY jobs without weakening the company?
PE firms get their money back by leveraging up the company and sucking out fees and dividends, then maybe selling it publicly. They leave the debt burden with the company and its investors as they move on to the next target. So this is really like anti-matter to matter … they don’t capitalize and strengthen, they de-capitalize and weaken. The LBO era added junk debt, and companies paying off debt paid few taxes. Capitalism isn’t the problem, leveraged junk debt is the problem after decades of excess easy money.
Romney’s refusal to address the details of his decapitalizing ventures (“anti-capitalist?) look dishonest and evasive. He doesn’t get credit for companies that survived Bain and went on to grow jobs independently. Mitt’s history of flip flops indicates he has no problem changing his story to fit his needs. Evasiveness and dishonesty look like desperation behind that plastic smile.
Well said.
Dittos on the “Well Said” Romney is trying to make people think he was a TURNAROUND specialist when he was nothing of the sort. Rush Limbaugh and others have bought into that (in some cases innocently) because they just don’t understand the facts. Lots of people never understood the subprime crisis until their own home values crashed and they had no choice, but all the while the facts were staring them in the face.
We need a modern-day Paul Revere to explain in clear terms exactly what you said: “PE firms get their money back by leveraging up the company and sucking out fees and dividends, then maybe selling it publicly. They leave the debt burden with the company and its investors as they move on to the next target. So this is really like anti-matter to matter … they don’t capitalize and strengthen, they de-capitalize and weaken. The LBO era added junk debt, and companies paying off debt paid few taxes. Capitalism isn’t the problem, leveraged junk debt is the problem after decades of excess easy money.”
Newt’s a little out of shape to be riding a horse but he’s carrying the lantern nevertheless.
FACETS OF THE AGE OF DECAPITALIZATION:
(1) Pull the equity out of housing with bogus subprime mortgages than no real bank would have issued if it knew it had to hold the mortgage itself;
(2) Pull the life out of American Manufacturing by buying up performing companies, using the company’s cash to pay yourself huge management fees for doing nothing more than selling off the factories and moving production overseas, then borrow more against them to pay yourself more fees, and then dump the remaining shell in bankruptcy or to the same stupid people who buy bundled subprime mortgages.
(3) Pull the equity out of the United States as a whole by running up government debt to pay off your own voting block, when you know the debt can never be paid, and use the FED to buy your bonds to make it look like real interest rates have stayed low (hoping no one will look at the price of gold.
This does not have a happy ending, but any hope to contain the damage rests on electing someone like Newt who can at least see the big picture.
I so agree, TJSC. I wish more people understood this.
Newt really sees the big picture. That’s why I support Newt so much.
America is facing complex issues. Newt understands them. Usually, Newt has already thought about solutions!
That’s the brilliance of Newt’s proposals.
Newt doesn’t want the government to fix things by making government bigger. Newt wants the American people to fix things after we get the government out of our way!
Newt’s going to start shrinking the power of the federal government the first day.
He describes all this in his speeches. That ‘s why I say please watch the speeches, and then you will know the plans.
This election is an opportunity of a lifetime, and the government will shrink, and the Establishment knows it, and the Establishment of BOTH PARTIES is throwing everything they’ve got at Newt.
Think about that. Why do they attack Newt so much? Because Newt’s policies are a mortal threat to corruption & American’s Ruling Class. check out Angelo Codevilla – July, 2010
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
I hope I’m just paranoid, but the fact that so many strong conservative GOP candidates declined to run this cycle against a clearly damaged and beatable incumbent, coupled with an existing field of candidates of which each and every one is flawed and committing errors varying only in degree, makes me fearful there is some grand conspiracy at work behind the scenes, that behind all the known curtains hangs one of which none of us are aware.
Romulans? Star Trooper Bugs?
omg….. zombies.
Every point made in the the anti-Newt ad was false.
I just finished watching Newt talking at a Townhall meeting in Duncan, SC. I guess it’s a CSPAN re-run from yesterday.
Newt blew me away. I actually got goose bumps listening to him. That man is clear, concise, and has a plan to get our country back from the marxists in the White House.
If Romney is the nominee, we are going to lose.
Posted the two candidates’ respective segments in the Tip Line.
I provided a link in the Tip Line a few days ago to the American Spectator column, “RINO Romney is Least Electable”, which is mentioned in the first video.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/11/rino-romney-is-the-least-elect
I agree with the column, but Newt is making a strategic error with these attack videos. He and his supporters need to be talking about his 21st Century Contract with America. That policy document is what distinguishes him from the rest of the pack and the vision articulated in it is absolutely, unequivocally the right way to go to ensure we have a pro-growth economy. But almost nobody knows about it because Newt keeps opening his mouth saying stupid crap that causes his opponents to claim he is anti-capitalism and he’s hostile to the judicial branch of government – which the media then focuses on for days.
In some part true. Gingrich is so angry, he’s letting his fury control his mouth. Totally wrong for a candidate who places America’s needs before his own. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, keeps his eye on the prize and doesn’t let irritations deviate his path.
As far as Gringrich and the judges, someone ought to be anti-judge. But Gringrich picked on some minor bug in, what? San Antonio over a school prayer. What about Millard v. Fillmore or whatever that case name was?
What about Roe v. Wade? We’ve got 50 million dead Americans, and now we see the vacuum was filled with 50 million Mexicans per the last census that told us we now have 50 million here. And not a peep out of the powers that be at that shocking number, all that talk of 12 million illegals notwithstanding. The liberals like population control, as long as it limits the creation of Americans. Foreigners they think will vote for them – What did Harry Reid say? He “wasn’t opposed to sex.” Geeze.
What about declaring the line-item veto – a republic-saving measure if ever there was one – out of bounds?
Rick Santorum is cool, steady, consistent, conservative. I LOVE what he says about insurance.
He was great in South Carolina last night, too. Absolutely inspiring. Go to the 1:11:45 mark.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/Republican2012Pre
I’ve listened to Newt’s speeches lately, and he is still bringing up 21st Century Contract with America.
Unfortunately, it seems that trying to run a solely positive campaign is what strategically cost him in IA. Whether we like it or not, attacking other candidates works.
Chip, chip away at the stone~ this one’s hollow Newt, breakthrough imminent
I’m completely flummoxed that Team Romney wasn’t ready to prove his assertions about jobs or defend his efforts at Bain Capital. What were they thinking ? … that they would completely get a pass like the last Democrat who ran for President ? The audacity of dreaming.
I saw one suggestion that if Bain Capital was as good as Romney seems to feel, that they should highlight a different company that they created/saved/euthanized every week during the campaign
Honestly, I think the whole fight is actually strengthening Romney.
We all know that this is going to be the nastiest campaign cycle we’ve seen in a long time, and having a nominee simply coast his way to election is a guarantee that he will be caught with his pants down when the newsies decide its time to string him up.
If he can prove that he will fight and that he can win a brutal campaign, he’ll be far more likely to survive when the left starts taking shots at him in November.
The Republicans don’t know how to do brutal. The democrats do brutal. Look at how sheltered Chelsea Clinton was, versus Palin’s kids and Palin herself.
If we could learn how to street fight, so much the better.
The only reason Democrats get away with it is because they have a very willing media ready to overlook their errors and highlight anything that sticks. The media is nothing more than a propaganda arm of the DNC.
Comparing what you did at Bain to what Obama did at GM/Chrysler is NOT proving you can fight. It only proves that every now and then, the real Mitt Romney (liberal) sneaks out.
Gee, in the good professor’s mind, the only reason that the other candidates are not going for Rick Perry’s throat is because he is only viewed as a “spoiler” that would help Romney.
Pray tell, professor, what is there to go after Perry on? Eleven years as the governor of what is now the most successful state in our union with the 13th largest GDG in the world? A balanced budget that is now showing a surplus and a reduction in state debt? How about low taxation? And are we to assume that BLS stats lie about the number of jobs being created in Perry’s state? Or maybe its the lie that all the jobs being created in Texas are minimum wage jobs? Ooops, that dog won’t hunt with Houston now creating more high tech jobs than Silicon Valley. Maybe it is his personal character you think should be attacked. Married to the same woman (and the only woman he ever dated) with no hint of scandal.
Why must you diminish Rick Perry in order to prop up Newt Gingrich? You see, there are many things you could do to support Newt’s negative campaigning against Mitt besides slamming a good man. Like pointing out that Mitt, himself, set the bar for negative ads when he said this on Dec. 21th:
“If you can’t stand the relatively modest heat in the kitchen right now, wait until Obama’s Hell’s Kitchen shows up. It’s probably a good time for people to see these things (talking about the negative ads against Newt in Iowa) to make up their minds.”
“Gee, in the good professor’s mind, the only reason that the other candidates are not going for Rick Perry’s throat is because he is only viewed as a “spoiler” that would help Romney.”
Actually, that’s not what he wrote. He said:
“I could not find any recent attack ads targeting Perry. That should tell you that the other campaigns do not consider him a viable contender at this point, although he could be a spoiler if he draws votes away from Newt and allows Romney to win.”
He’s only pointing out that he couldn’t find any recent attack ads targeting Rick Perry, as opposed to find attack ads aimed at other opponents. He than makes a supposition as to why that may be and notes that even though the other campaigns may not see Perry as a threat at this point, he may still inadvertently play the ‘spoiler’ role if he pulls enough votes from other candidates and Romney is able to slip by with a narrow win. That may or may not be a rational considered by the Romney Mud-Slinging Machine.
Really doesn’t appear to be anything ‘nefarious’ in the analysis. Pretty straight forward conclusions based on the lack of attacks on Perry in S.C. and his current poll numbers, that’s all.
Are you now Professor Jacobson’s offical spokesperson?
If not, don’t presume to respond to questions that are not directed to you.
You are really off base on this one, Mr. Retire.
And you using this blog as your personal campaign headquarters for Rick Santorum is even more off base.
“If not, don’t presume to respond to questions that are not directed to you.”
If you don’t want people responding to your comments, than don’t post on a public blog.
On the other hand, retire05 has set a precedent where he can only respond to posts directed specifically to him.
Our path is clear.
Here is the link to Newt on Cspan in Duncan … he starts at about 17:00
I can’t imagine Mitt being able to speak so clearly and boldly without a teleprompter, and someone else writing the speech.
Thanks for the link, M.R.; much appreciated.
http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2012/Candidates-in-SC-Try-to-Convince-Local-GOP-Leaders/10737427095/
meant this as a response to above … oh well
Provided links to Gingrich and Santorum’s specific segments in the Tip Line.
Mitt’s electability problem is the fact he is a one-trick pony. If the economy improves, his electability declines. There is nothing else of substance to him.
http://obpopulus.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/mitts-electability-problem/
Mr. Goodie Two Shoes (Byron York) now complains that Newt lit a fire that is just beginning to kindle in SC. http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/sc-bain-fight-starting-scratch/313511
I like this. Newt lights fire, runs to press to say, sorry guys I didnt mean to be so mean, meanwhile the locals sniff the smoke and wonder, what?
The instantaneous 24-hr bloggers and beltway has already moved on while the voters who remember the “Contract with America” in a kinder light than the Rovian Contract with Romney (that exists only at FOX news) are saying wait just a dog-garn minute there!
I travelled by AmTrak to FLA over Christmas. There are lots of people on the train (regular folks) who are not Romneybots but might even be former Obama voters who now might think that although Newt has flaws they can remember him well. The pollsters dont ride trains.
I wouldn’t be so sure about Romney actually losing ground in SC. If you compare the results of the most recent polls to those of a week earlier taken by the same pollsters (with the same samples and methodologies), this is what you find.
Rasmussen Jan 5th and Jan 12th:
Romney — 27 to 28
Newt — 18 to 21
Santorum -24 to 16
Paul — 11 to 16
Perry — 5 to 6
Huntsman– 2 to 5
PPP Jan 7th and Jan 13th
Romney — 30 to 29
Newt — 23 to 24
Santorum–19 to 14
Paul — 9 to 15
Perry — 5 to 6
Huntsman– 4 to 5
(The only other polling outfit with a recent poll is Insider Advantage, but it’s previous poll goes back to Dec, 18th, offering no comparison thaf might reflect the SC campaign since NH. Anyway, it shows Romney having gained several points and Newf having lost a lot.)
So the polling evidence we have for the past week’s media and campaigning shows Romney holding steady, Newt gaining at best a few points, Paul experiencing a bit of a surge, and Perry and Huntsman stuck at the bottom.
Meanwhile, the attacks on Romney have presumably been noticed elsewhere, given the massive media coverage, but Romney holds a 15-point lead in Florida in the RCP poll average, up since NH.
And for what it is worth at this juncture, he’s leading by more than 12 points in the RCP average of national polls of Republicans, also up some since NH.
If you read and analyze polls correctly, you have to conclude that the whole Bain thing has not hurt Romney at all — not yet, anyway. This may be why Newt seems to be moving away from it.
Of course, there is a week to go and that could change.
IMHO, though, the clear path for Newt would be to woo Santorum and Perry supporters.
Sorry, I forgot to spotlight the fact that Santorum lost the most ground during that week.
Yet another poll reported today has Romney in the lead and Newt second with similar spreads.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/private-poll-mitt-leads-jobsfocused-sc-primary-110872.html
As a Perry supporter, I may soon be left with Gingrich or Santorum as my choices. I have problems wth Santorum’s support of unions (against national right to work, supported higher wages for union members through Davis-Bacon Act), liking for big government spending, and the fact that he is portrayed as the morality police, by the MSM.
Gingrich and his adultery really bothers me, his global warming support,his “draft boards” for immigration, and some of the things I have read, where he seemed to be ready to consider some parts of gun control, and his taking money from Fannie Mae.
I am left with which of the 2 will be the most electible? I honestly do not know at this point how I will vote if they are both left standing when it gets to my primary. I am willing to be persuaded.
I never thought that I would be one of Frank Luntz’s famous undecideds, but here I am. I do know that Romney will not be my choice, I would vote Ron Paul ahead of Romney.
Don’t give up on Perry just yet. I am a SC voter, and I will be voting for Perry.
And no, Mr. Jacobson, Perry isn’t taking my vote from Newt. If Perry weren’t in the race, I assure you I wouldn’t be voting for Newt. I consider being pro-healthcare mandate and a lobbyist for Freddie Mac as automatic disqualifiers.
I also find it incredibly lame how Mr. Jacobson keeps lamenting how other candidates refuse to drop out for the sake of poor ol’ Newt. Boo-hoo.
Mr. Jacobson, if you believe so strongly in candidates dropping out to prevent a Romney win, why don’t you lead by example and try to get your own guy to drop out for the sake of others?
Dear Astroman – unless Perry has a chance to win the nomination, a vote for Perry takes a vote away from another conservative who COULD win the nomination.
When the conservative vote is split, Romney will most likely walk away with the nomination.
And the big deal is, IMO Romney would lose to Obama in the general election because Romney is generally incoherent and somewhat tongue-tied. Romney seems to have memorized his responses. The memorizer versus the teleprompter.
When Romney is take off script, he doesn’t know what to say and he gets mad. Have you seen the clip of the AP reporter and Romney? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3gGmKEslHI
Also, IMO, Romney doesn’t have the — what can I call it? — the moral heart — to stand up to Obama’s attacks and the probable re-emergence of the OWS and possible riots or whatever OWS et al. have in mind.
So Romney is terribly unelectable. Romney will ignominiously fail, as did Bob Dole, as did John McCain (as did H. W. Bush to Clinton). Romney lost to McCain, who lost to Obama. Why go back down this road?
Perry has the moral heart, IMO. I can see why you like Perry. I like Perry, too. I genuinely respect what Perry has done in Texas. I’ve been told it’s just brutal, politically, in Texas and Perry’s been the governor for 14 years, IIRC.
But unless Perry can actually win the primary, votes for Perry give the win to Romney.
And a win for Romney, IMO, will lead to a win for Obama.
And that would be just an unspeakable tragedy for America.
damocles | January 14, 2012 at 3:38 pm
As a Perry supporter, I may soon be left with Gingrich or Santorum as my choices. I have problems wth Santorum’s support of unions (against national right to work, supported higher wages for union members through Davis-Bacon Act), liking for big government spending, and the fact that he is portrayed as the morality police, by the MSM.
Gingrich and his adultery really bothers me, his global warming support,his “draft boards” for immigration, and some of the things I have read, where he seemed to be ready to consider some parts of gun control, and his taking money from Fannie Mae.
I am left with which of the 2 will be the most electible? I honestly do not know at this point how I will vote if they are both left standing when it gets to my primary. I am willing to be persuaded.
I never thought that I would be one of Frank Luntz’s famous undecideds, but here I am. I do know that Romney will not be my choice, I would vote Ron Paul ahead of Romney.
Hi Damocles. Newt testified AGAINST cap and trade in congress on the very same day that Al Gore testified for it. Newt was never for spending money or making government policy based on global warming theories. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw&feature=related Newt also talks about this in the speech others have linked to above, at Dunham S.C.
Newt said, years ago, and years before the Climategate emails were leaked, that we don’t know if or why the earth’s temperatures change, that there were warmer periods and ice ages, and we don’t know why. Newt said this in a forum from 2008 with a guy from General Motors also on the panel (link below) the that the sun is by far the greatest determiner of earth’s climate and that he thinks it is hubristic for humans to think that we are causing the earth’s atmosphere to change. At the same time, Newt is saying, we must be good stewards of the earth and keep the water clean pay attention to doing things a smart way when we use natural resources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9mTRDhWTJM
Newt sat on the couch with Pelosi to show that liberals don’t own the topic of the environment, and now Newt admits that that one of the stupidest things he’s done in recent years.
Newt has said repeatedly in everything I have seen that he supports our Second Amendment rights. I haven’t seen one thing where he is willing to abridge those rights. Newt talks at length about American Exceptionalism, that our Rights are endowed on us by the Creator. And Newt points out that the Constitution says that Congress shall not abridge THE right to bear arms — not that congress GIVES us those rights, because the right to bear arms in order to defend yourself AGAINST GOVERNMENT, as Newt explicitly says, doesn’t come from the government, and they cannot take it away. He talks about this at the Dunham S.C. speech that others have linked to above.
Newt was a consultant for Fannie Mae. He says he personally got $35,000 for his work (I don’t know if that is per year for the – what was it? three years? five years? or if that is the total amount.) The rest went to his consulting firm. He says those are mid-to-low range consulting fees for that kind of consulting firm. Newt says he advised Fannie Mae to stop giving sub-prime mortgages and that what they were doing was unsustainable.
Newt says he is very interested in home ownership for lower-income Americans and has also worked on other projects, such as with Habitat for Humanity, which he says has a better strategy for increasing lower-income home ownership, because HFH does training and the owners have sweat equity in the homes.
Newt says he never lobbied for Fannie Mae and that he has never lobbied for anyone, and that the consulting firm wrote that right into their contracts with any group they consulted for.
Newt has said he did things earlier in his life that he wishes he had done differently and is sorry for. He says he had sought reconciliation and forgiveness and gone to God about his mistakes. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s how I understand what he said. He talks about this at the 2011 Thanksgiving Forum starting at 14:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeRhTjvAkuQ Newt says he is more mature and more patient than he was. But I have talked to someone who knows someone who worked with Newt in the 90’s and that guy said that Newt’s methid for getting votes was, he would listen, and keep saying what’s on your mind, what do you need, and then would tell the person what he needs, and kept asking for their help, to get the whatever it was done. And Newt describes that same process in how he worked with Clinton to get things like welfare reform.
IMO if Newt is the nominee, his strategy of cooperation with other conservative candidates will result in the kind of dramatic sweep and shift we saw in 1994 with the Contract with America. They won more seats in the House and the Senate than anyone among the punditry predicted. It was wildly successful. This is why it is so tragic that people vote for Romney for “electability.” I think it’s Obama who may experience electability if Romney is the candidate.
It is so desirable that the conservative voter WATCH NEWT’S SPEECHES because that is the only way to find out if you want to support Newt. You can’t find out what Newt is proposing without putting in some time. This stuff is complex and actually exciting once you get it. Newt says turning the economy around is actually pretty simple, and we’ll just follow the Reagan formula, and we will start the first day. Newt is WAY more electable than Romney. (IMO Newt and Romney are both way more electable than Rick Santorum.)
Please, if you are interested, you can find Newt’s speeches on Facebook under NEWT GINGRICH SPEECHES. This is the opportunity of a lifetime. Let’s take this chance and restore our country THAT WE LOVE.
[…] Boy. Beg. Posted on January 14, 2012 3:30 pm by Bill Quick » Newt finding his theme — attack Romney’s electability – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion I could not find any recent attack ads targeting Perry. That should tell you that the other […]
Star Trooper Bugs? Paging Johnny Rico!!!
Without first reading these comments I want to leave this brief message and then I’ll go and learn all “yawls” opinions. We all know of personal examples of how sometimes our objectivity goes out the window when we are defending the less than stellar attributes or judgement of our preferred candidate. I actually volunteer for Newt here in Columbia SC, yet I can see his attacks on Romney’s justifiable (or at least legal and acceptable) past capitalist propensities are going to backfire and in-fact probably go down in history as a significant political blunder. Romney is now being able to rise above the fray and remain extremely poised in view of the attacks, the results of which, we’ll all see in a week. As conservatives, lets remain objective and truthful, as well as pragmatic.
Oh, and don’t try “it’s not Newt it’s the super-pac”, that shouldn’t and didn’t work when Romney attacked Newt in Iowa and it shouldn’t and won’t work now.
Your “Romney supporter” is Mags Gallegher? I thought she was in the Santorum camp?
Insider Advantage, of course, is run by a former Gingrich associate and its poll shows him falling like a rock since their last poll in December, if you wish to compare apples to apples.
ARG is new to SC this cycle, so there is nothing to compare their numbers with. Use your own judgment.
At Huckabee’s forum for undecided voters, without press participation, Gingrich was booed when he brought up Bain. Again, your mileage may vary.
Between SC and Florida, Republican voters will deliver their verdict on the Marxist smears. With any luck, we will drive the despicable little backstabbing cretin from the public arena before he is caught with another employee bent over a desk.
Questions about Mitt’s Bain experience are now “Marxist smears?”
The Romney attack on anyone who dares to question his Bain experience is little more than Alinsky tactics. Of course, this shouldn’t be a surprise, because Mitt Romney has a long record as a liberal: against Reagan, against the Contract with America, and the list goes on and on.
For the Romney surrogates to label questions about Mitt’s Bain record as “Marxist smears” is chutzpah writ large. After all, it’s Mitt Romney who saddled his state with the socialized healthcare plan known as Romneycare, the blueprint for Obamacare.
Whether you like Newt or not, at least he has a long history of being a Reagan conservative with a conservative record of accomplishment: balanced budgets and welfare reform.
Gov. Perry has a good record as a conservative Governor. Unlike Romney, Gov. Perry has a real record of job creation.
Santorum is the one that managed Welfare Reform in ’96 in the Senate.
Thank Santorum.
I didn’t know Bill Clinton was running.