Recipient of Romney negative ad blitz speaks out
Things have been ugly on the airwaves in Iowa, and the recipient of those ads is going to start giving some of the ugly back.
It’s unfortunate that it has come to this, but it fits a pattern which goes back to Iowa in the 2008 cycle. Different recipients, same attacker.
Update: I’m already beginning to sense whining and a false sense of outrage that Newt and others are going to go negative on Romney, as if going after Romney the way Romney went after Newt is disloyal to the goal of defeating Obama. Romney and his supporters did not hesitate to try to destroy Newt’s general election prospects with a strategy of crazy and us or no one attitude.
But none of Romney’s 2012 rivals ran an ad solely taking on the former Massachusetts governor—a sign that they perhaps underestimated his rise in Iowa.
Just 20 percent of the negative ads airing in Iowa targeted Romney, even as part of an attack on multiple candidates, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. By comparison, 45 percent of the negative spots went after Gingrich—a statistic that explains, in part, why the former House speaker’s poll numbers in the state plunged in the final days of the campaign.
In hindsight, the decision to leave Romney untouched appears to be a serious miscalculation, one that Romney’s opponents are unlikely to repeat as the focus shifts to New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary and onto other key early voting states, including South Carolina, Florida and Nevada.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Did anyone expect Mitt Romney would conduct his campaign any differently than he did in 2008? At a Florida debate, in early 2008, Romney attacked Huckabee on (wait, you know what’s coming) on the fact that Arkansas allowed in-state tuition for the children of illegals and condemned Guiliani because New York City was a “santuary” city. The very next day, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was still using a lawn service when he was fully aware that the service employed illegal Hondurans.
Romney did the same thing to Rick Perry he did to Huckabee, and when Perry pointed out that Mittens was a hypocrite, Romney lied and said it was only ONE “op-ed” that said he hired illegals. No, it was two investigative articles and the first one was when Romney was Massachusetts’ top cop. (Both articles can be found on the web)
Romney is the ONE most dishonest candidate running. He runs from his tenure as governor because he knows that conservatives would reject his actions that were pure “liberal.” He says he supports traditional marriage, yet issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples even before the Massachusetts legislature had voted on it (Ma law permited him to do that).
I will NOT vote for Romney under any conditions. If this nation is going to complete its swirl down the toilet, let it be under a Democrat, not a vanity candidate who claims to be a Republican (conservative) but whose record belies that claim.
Romney hired a company to do his lawn. It turned out (according to the Boston Globe) that the company, in turn, was using illegal aliens — a fact it obviously wasn’t advertising (the owner in fact denied knowing anything about it). Romney addressed the accusations of hiring illegals with the owner and apparently was assured there would be no repeat violations. A year later, the paper did a follow up and found that the company was still (or again) using illegals, so he changed lawn care companies.
Note that Gov. Perry’s charge that Romney “hired illegals in your home” was false. Romney was a customer of a company that was caught using illegals. Romney himself didn’t hire illegal aliens and there’s no evidence that he deliberately went out seeking to do business with a company that used illegal workers. As far as I can see, the only thing Romney can fairly be criticized for in this episode is agreeing to let the original company come back to work based solely on the owner’s assurances that he would make sure all employees were legal. However, trusting people or not being careful enough about something doesn’t make you a “hypocrite,” as Perry and others have charged.
Frankly, as someone who lives and works in an area with a fairly large illegal population, I don’t feel like it’s my personal responsibility to check the immigration status of people who do work at my house. If a painter or contractor shows up with an assistant I’ve never seen before, I’ve never asked, “Is he legal? Can you show me the proof?” At that moment, I just want them to do a good job and leave. It’s ridiculous to think that the average individual homeowner in Romney’s position would have done any more than he did. In fact, very few would have even raised the issue with the owner of the lawn care company (although I’m sure that was on account of the Globe article).
Illegal immmigration is a huge problem, but I want people in government to make the GOVERNMENT address it (through a fence, strict enforcement, etc.). I’m not looking for people in government (like Romney, at that time), in their individual roles as homeowners, to make a demonstration of their “toughness” on illegal immigration by demanding that the poor bastard who is trimming their hedges prove he’s here legally.
As someone who lives in an area with a large number of illegals (New Mexico), we see it as our responsibility to vet the companies that we hire. Before we sign a contract (gardening, brickwork, etc.), we ask the owners about their policies, and why we refuse to have illegals on the property.
Sounds like you’re doing your part to keep New Mexico’s illegal immigration problem under control. However, I’d bet that out of every 1000 homeowners around the country, maybe 30 of them, within the last year, have had conversations like that with the the owner of a lawn service, painting contractor, moving company, local restaurant, etc. It’s far from typical and not the kind of effort I would insist on from a fellow homeowner as a demonstration of his or her opposition to illegal immigration. The problem is not going to be solved by some tiny fraction of individual consumers taking steps to avoid an illegal alien’s coming to trim their shrubs. We need the government to get serious about strictly enforcing the laws, sealing the borders, and removing incentives for illegals to come and stay here. Anything else is just silly theatrics.
So like all Romney supporters, you make excuses for him even though he was the “top cop” in Massachusetts? I doubt you would be as forgiving if it was Rick Perry who was caught hiring a company that utilized illegal laborers and after finding out the company was violating federal law, continued to use that same company.
Yes, Romney had a responsibility to make sure the company he hired was being compliant with federal law.
Now, if you, as a U.S. citizen, are not checking the I.D. of those who do work at your home, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I totally remodeled a 105 year old home. Every worker that showed up on my property had to produce a photo I.D. (Texas driver’s license) and if they didn’t have one, they were not allowed on my property. So why don’t you try to tell me that Mitt Romney, as governor of a very important state, did not have security at his own home that was capable of doing just that? Are you going to tell me that just anyone can wander on Romney’s property without being checked? Try that on someone else. That dog won’t hunt.
Romney had a responsibility to turn the Lawn Service With A Heart (now, that’s funny) into the ICE. He did not do that. He also had a responsibility to make sure that those who worked on his personal property met federal law guidelines. He did not do that either.
One other point: if Romney was so great on illegal immigraiton in his state, how did Obama’s illegal Kenyan aunt manage to live there for so long, in public housing no less?
Romney is a hypocrite. He had a responsibility to turn the Lawn Service With A Heart over to ICE. As governor, he was also responsible for enforcing federal law, as well as state law.
Well, in that case, I’d certainly call Perry a hypocrite for attacking Romney on this. If he hadn’t attacked Romney in the first place, but simply did what Romney did, I wouldn’t criticize either one for having hired the lawn company, beyond making the point that it was probably a mistake in judgment to take the owner’s word for it that he wouldn’t be hiring illegals in the future.
As far Romney’s having a “responsibility to make sure the company he hired was being compliant with federal law,” I don’t really understand what you mean. I don’t think he was under any legal obligation to do this. Are you saying that when I go into restaurant for dinner, I have a responsibility to make sure that the restaurant is fully compliant with federal law (like with OSHA, FLSA, minimum wage, worker’s comp, etc.)? I don’t accept that responsibility at all. This isn’t the USSR or Nazi Germany. The government has no right to pass laws regulating my fellow citizens and expect me to spend time and energy making sure they are in compliance. I don’t work for the government; the government is supposed to work for me. Just give me my damn meal.
As for Romney’s having a responsibility to report the company to ICE, it seems rather beside the point given that the whole episode was reported on the front page of the Boston Globe and repeated ad nauseum on TV and radio. I’m quite sure that the Boston office of ICE was fully aware of the facts by the time they sat down at their desks that day.
As for whether Romney’s “security” protocol should have required everyone coming on to his property to produce a photo ID, for all I know, this was done. However, there’s no assurance such a procedure would detect the presence of illegal aliens. Ever hear of identity theft? If all you are doing in Texas is checking driver’s licenses, how can you be sure that no illegals worked on your 105-year-old house? How can I be sure that YOU’RE not “part of the problem”?
As for Aunt Zeituni, isn’t your question a bit like asking Gov. Perry, “If you’re so opposed to crime, why did Texas have so many murders since you took office?” How does the fact that Obama’s aunt broke the law in Massachusetts prove that Romney is soft on illegal immigration?
You’re trying to present a strawman argument with your “if I walk into a restaurant” senario. I don’t know of any restaurants that allows you to go into their kitchen where illegal help is usually found. But it was reported, by the illegals themselves, that the Romney’s not only greeted them in Spanish, but brought water to them on hot days.
So now we are down to a choice: was Romney being politically correct (something I abhor) by greeting the workers in their native language, or was he being negligent in his duty as the governor of a state, by knowingly allowing the lawn service to continue in his employ, even after finding out that the company had a practice of hiring illegals? Or both?
As to my checking Texas driver’s licenses: unlike some states, Texas doesn’t give driver’s licenses to illegals. And while some may have slipped through the cracks simply due to the lenght of time they have been here (brought as children) what are the chances that the ten guys working on my home would have all been illegals that slipped through the cracks? And yes, there is a possibility that I could have been duped, but at least, unlike you, I made the effort to assertain the legality of those who were working on my property. And which is more than Romney did.
So you excuse for absolving Romney from his judicial responsibilities are: a) ICE was aware he was using a lawn service who employed illegals due to the news reports and b) since Texas has murderers, that equates with the presence of illegals in Massachusetts? Really, nothing like trying to compare apples to oranges.
My objection to Romney is he is a liar. He lied about his involvement in the hiring of illegals. He’s lied about being a conservative, when he’s not, and wasn’t, until he left office and no longer had to prove it. Words are cheap. Actions speak volumns.
The restaurant scenario is not a straw man. You are the one apparently arguing that individual citizens have a duty to make sure (or at least take reasonable steps to ensure) that companies they do business with are in compliance with federal law. I say there’s no such duty in a free society. If there WERE, then you’d be in breach of that duty if you didn’t at least talk to the owner of the restaurant about his/her compliance with OSHA standards, wage and hour requirements, etc. If you want to limit it to businesses where they come on to your property to work, and/or limit it to compliance with federal IMMIGRATION laws, then fine, but then you’d just be drawing arbitrary lines.
And I REALLY don’t get the point of your comment about how the Romneys greeted the workers in Spanish and gave them water on hot days. Are you saying if someone speaks a foreign language they are in this country illegally? I hope not, because that would be pretty ignorant.
As for the likelihood of 10 workers at your 105-year-old house all presenting phony driver’s licenses, again, I don’t follow your reasoning. The point is that ANY of them (it wouldn’t have to be all 10) COULD still be illegal workers if all you know about them is they have a driver’s license. Aunt Zeituni had a VALID Social Security card (please don’t blame Romney for this, okay?).
If you’re convinced that Romney is a liar, obviously, that’s your opinion. I’m simply expressing my opinion that your specific criticism of him in regard to the lawn care company episode is badly misguided. What he did wasn’t at all outside of the normal conduct of the typical American homeowner and it is in no way a meaningful indicator of how, as PRESIDENT, he would address the problem of illegal immigration.
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.
Now I am going to say what other commenters say: How come there is no ‘like’ button for comments? (I’m going to look into it, btw)
Gingrich didn’t start sooner because he didn’t have the funds to run ads slamming the Northeastern RINO.
If you want Romney, go live in his state and suffer from high taxation and deep debt. Don’t force that situation on the rest of us who know that Romney is a vanity candidate who is not above lying to win.
Romney may be slick, but I am not in the market for a used car, thank you very much.
I am not ‘forcing’ Romney on anyone. I support him, contributed money to his campaign and will caucus for him tonight. And, of course, I post on Legal Insurrection (and elsewhere) voicing my support and arguing in favor of a Romney candidacy.
That’s about all I can do.
You’ve made it very clear that you don’t have any use for Romney and will not support him under any circumstances. That’s certainly a choice you’re free to make. As for myself, if Romney is the nominee (as I believe he will), I will do everything I can in my own small way, to bring about his election. If he is not the nominee, I will vote for whomever is without hesitation (except for Ron Paul, but the odds of that are so unlikely that it’s barely with mentioning).
Between the “Bain Capital” story that plays straight into Obama “class warfare”/#OWS theme and RomneyCare which give Obama cover and will probably make some Tea Partiers stay home, Mitt Romney is the perfect “Bob Dole Redux” (remember that 1996 candidate that, like Romney, was next line on the Establishment Republican list).
A very wise man (maybe more than one) once said “Nice guys finish last” No, it wasn’t John McCain.
It’s everywhere, but here is a link to Newt’s first attempt to defend himself, and expose Romney as he sees him:
Gingrich Calls Romney Liar via CNS News.
We will see what those 41% undecideds say today/tonight; something tells me that not as many buy Romney’s ads as he hopes.
(I personally love the Romney comment in the article that he doesn’t “think there are any negative ads running” in NH. Pure BS…..why spend in NH before the Iowa caucus?! Yeah, not yet, anyway.)
I have wondered. Money for sure. Initially it seemed to me that Gingrich sincerely was cheer-leading for the Republican party and ABO, teaching, delivering the message, framing the issues. I confess I did not take his candidacy that seriously at first. (Palin and other fantasies…)
Janitor wrote: “Palin and other fantasies.”
That’s what I’m was talking about. How are “comments” like that gonna build unity? It doesn’t. When she was generating buzz, money and recruits for 2008 and 2010 it was all hunky dorey but I guess you’re too big to receive help now.
She’s not running. 🙁 Whaddya want me to do?
If Romney and friends are whining about negative ads now, just imagine their shock when the POTUS/MSM/Pop Culture express goes into full combat mode.
THERE WILL BE BLOOD!!! THERE WILL BE SCREAMS!!! THERE WILL BE HORROR!!! And it will be a glorious cinemascoped techinicolor slaughterhouse!!!!
They’ll be calling me. They’ll be canvassing at my door. They’ll be emaling me. They’ll be sending letters asking for money. Their minions will be on FB, blogs and chatrooms asking for help to combat the lies. They’ll be asking for bodies at their rallies.
The phone will click when they call, the door will slam in their faces, the letters will be returned empty, I won’t answer their blogs and I won’t attend the rallies. And the same goes for the local/state GOP who gets behind Romney.
When Romney gets “Palinized” don’t come crying to me because you and your establishment leaders were quiet when one of your conservative up-and-commers (who could of helped you in your endeavors) was left twisting in the wind. Don’t come making threats or innuendo if Palin or her supporters don’t endorse the “right” people or won’t stump for your buddies.
I’ve seen the GOP leadership get more mushy and progressive. They treat Reagan as a blip on the radar or as a fluke, never to return, and they’re linking arms to make sure that a conservative NEVER gets to be POTUS again.
The the GOP establishment and right wing intelligentsia are as worthless as boobs on a bull.
Bravo, husker. I have zero desire to support or defend squishy Romney’s candidacy. My only recourse will be anti-Obama polemicals, and supporting the right Congressional candidates.
If squishy Romey wins, and he will need to be dragged across the finish line, I won’t be dancing in the streets. I will simply be relieved that statist (I reckon socialism and fascism are two sides of the same coin) Barack Obama will no longer be allowed to actively and vigorously ruin this nation.
Then it will be time to roll up my sleeves again and see what can be done to unseat squishy Romney in 2016, and who can do it.
Couldn’t agree more.
For me, it’s ABO. I would vote for a door knob over Obama. Romney’s feet can be held to the fire by a Conservative House and Senate. If he were to get the nomination, and somehow to beat Obama, then his progressive tendencies would have to be checked; forced by the Congress to go Conservative…..if he wants another term, that is.
Focus, focus, focus. More Conservatives in the House. Flip the Senate to a Conservative Repub majority. Change the occupant in the White House.
Newt has promised to use that EO power to eliminate the czars, to curtail and control invasive regulations, and to negate Obama’s harmful EOs.
Romney…….? TBD. But, if he is the nominee, he is orders of magnitude better than Obama. All IMHO.
Huckabee was more than willing to play on anti-Mormon bigotry to advance his candidacy. He deserved everything he got.
If squishy Romey wins, and he will need to be dragged across the finish line,
I’ll let that vision ruminate in my mind. Uggggghhh!!!
It’s like a combination of a drag race and the movie “Weekend at Bernies”….two sides (DNc and RNC) trying to drag “corpse candidates” across the finish line.
If the situation weren’t so sad, it would be funny.
My only wish is that Palin stay in the game in some way. I wonder if she’ll run for another office someday. She’s young, fit and has a future.
I’d say stump and politics for conservatives. Build up political coinage.
To paraphrase the Joker, “She has shown Gotham City the establishment’s true colors.”
From the main post, above:
Elevation to link-on-the-main-page status ought to be a source of gratification, I suppose. But at the expense of being singled out and falsely tagged as some sort of whiner and conveyor of a “false sense of outrage” against Newt?
Well, I answered one bogus charge hurled at me by reiterating my point here.
I was not whining. This, my friends, is whining . . . i.e., continuously wondering out loud why, alas, no one is attacking Mitt Romney? That question might best have been directed at none other than Newt Gingrich!
But Newt was too busy caught up in the false notion that he was the inevitable nominee. Hell, he was even too busy basking in the glow to notice that he wasn’t going to even qualify for the primary ballot in his adopted home state, the Commonwealth of Virginia!
So, he can go out and say whatever he wants at this point, but few will be paying any attention, at least during the primary.
Newt could even go full-out bombastic and make a baseless claim that Romney would buy the election if he could, thereby handing Obama a free ad to use in the fall.
Oh, wait . . . he already did that!
Exactly, Trochilus. I clicked on the link and was left scratching my head. Whining? False sense of outrage? Really? I see much more of those things in posts that attribute everything (including the ineptness of some candidates campaigns, e.g., in Virginia) to the sinister operations of one candidate they intensely dislike.
And, now, Newt has apparently breathed new life into “zany.”
As posted by Tina Korbe at Hot Air:
Gingrich: On second thought, maybe I will pull off a “great upset” in Iowa
After, of course, predicting he was going to lose!
Here was how one commenter there put it:
Talk about zany, Romney Walks Back Prediction That He Will Win Iowa Caucuses, http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-walks-back-prediction-that-he-will-win-iowa-caucuses-20120103?mrefid=election2012
I think we all pretty well recognize that there is a world of difference between:
“I don’t think I’m going to win …”
“On second thought, maybe I will pull off a “great upset …”
on the one hand, as contrasted with:
“Were going to win this thing …
“I think I’ll be among the top group. I don’t know whether it’s one, two, or three.”
Right now, with 458 of 1,774 Precincts Reporting, the top three are in a dead heat, with Mitt in a very slight lead.
Gingrich is a distant third.
Ooooops! Sorry . . . Gingrich is a distant fourth.
Lets get that man a zany button!
Both guys made regrettable but minor errors in judgment there. Predictions of your own success or failure are too easy to paint in a bad light. If we’re reduced to arguing over this, we’ve sunk a long long ways.
Team Romney might come to regret that they picked this bare-knuckles fight with Gingrich… he’ll come out both barrels blazing now, and woe be unto his target. Romney should be easy to shred this way in the south, he’s not their kind of guy and all Newt has to do is remind them just why that is.
I sure don’t know how anybody can believe Newt didn’t govern as a conservative… balanced budget, immigration reform, etc.
It doesn’t matter what he says sometimes… he’s a near-genius guy, and likes to explore new ideas… doesn’t mean he’s going to inflict them all on you. That’s why he got along with Clinton, personally- probably enjoyed the debate, so what.
Mitt, on the other hand (sorry) talks like a conservative and governed like a lib!
Think about it, what did Gingrich ever do that decreased freedom or increased spending/taxes?
Short list there
Iowa Caucuses Only Relevant For Their Near-Total Irrelevance
Yes, I suppose it may be generally true what you say about the importance of the Iowa caucuses over time . . . but, how then to explain an alarmingly intense personal reaction to the contest owing to a disappointing finish by one of the candidates – really just a few rungs down in the pack – but who stormed out of Iowa, vowing all wide-eyed to soldier on?