Image 01 Image 03

Romney poisoned the well

Romney poisoned the well

There is a trend developing to assign equal blame to the poisoned atmosphere in the Republican campaign, as if there were no cause just effect.

I’m not going to allow history to be rewritten the way the Romney campaign and its supporters tried to rewrite the history of the Reagan revolution and the conservative movement of the 1990s.

This campaign started positive for Newt.  Relentlessly positive, as he likes to say.

Relentless postivity worked until Iowa, when the Romney campaign and its SuperPAC unloaded with everything they had, joined by Romney’s supporters in the conservative media.  Romney wasn’t the only one unloading on Newt, but he was the most relentless and well financed.

Newt tried to stay positive in Iowa, and did so until the final few days but it was too late.

Since then the campaign has been a toxic drink of accusations back and forth, with Romney far outspending Newt many times over on negative advertisements and using his media connections to distort history.

We know who poisoned the well.  The same person as in 2008.  That should tell you something right there.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


No Mitt, no now, not ever!

If Romney gets the nomination, he will find out that wasn’t a good idea when he gets thirsty for the votes from the very well he tainted.

George Soros: Not much difference between Obama and Romney… Notes Gingrich would likely have to have Santorum as his running mate…

    Hope Change in reply to EBL. | January 31, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    I hope to heaven Santorum is not Newt’s running mate. I want someone who could actually be president.

Newt can and should break this cycle.

He does not need to descend to tit-for-tat to effectively refudiate the BS from Mitten’s Myrmidons.

Reagan could counter-punch with the best of them, and he still managed a positive persona.

Newt should occupy the positive high ground, point out the slimy Romney attacks and counter them, and go after Obama.

Speaking of poisoning the well, Pat Buchanan has weighed in against Newt. Pat, who was probably Reagan’s most ill-considered hire, is a complete embarrassment who all Repubs should shun.

The truth is what it is – no rewriting. Thank you for posting the facts, Professor.

Could it be that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams poisoned the well?

Stop whining about negative campaigning

    Ragspierre in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 11:19 am

    A classic rending of the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Fallacy.

    To observe “It was ever thus” don’t make it good, right, or smart.

    MerryCarol in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 11:31 am

    Sorry. I neglected to include the /sarc tag after my question above.

    GrumpyOne in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Rush is exactly right especially when he mentions the fact the we ain’t seen anything yet… Wait ’til the Obama attack machine gets back into full swing.

    If Newt cannot take a bashing now, how will he, (if nominated), fare later?

    I’m old enough to remember the Reagan years and certainly am well familiar with Newt’s antics from the early days through the 1990’s etc. He’s a smart guy without a doubt but he does not possess the skill for real leadership.

    Lastly, I want a proven problem solver put in charge of the country and only TWO candidates met that test and we all know what happened to Cain.

    Hopefully at the end of the day, the future may become more clear…

      janitor in reply to GrumpyOne. | January 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm

      The nominated candidate ordinarily could expect those factions of the Republican party who did not support him in the primary nevertheless to get behind him and and assist with responding to Democrat attacks. (Another reason Romney has been poison for Republicans, both ways.)

      ldwaddell in reply to GrumpyOne. | January 31, 2012 at 1:06 pm

      I doubt that Obamney will fair any better when the President’s attack machine gets going against him. Additionally O has the the Main Stream Media in his pocket and they will aid in the attack on Obamney.

      Just wait till CBS, ABC, NBC and Public Television start running informational series on the history and beliefs of the Latter Day Saints all under the pretense of a human interest story about our possible first Mormon President. It will be very objective and fact based and people will say, What the heck…they really believe they can become a god over their own solar system, that the Garden of Edin is in Missouri, that we were all spirit babies procreated by the heavenly father and his wife before we got bodies on earth, that Jesus and Satan are brothers,you can get baptized in their temple in the name of a deceased person and they will instantly become Mormon, and you have to go through secret rituals in their temple to guarantee the chance to become a god? If you don’t think this will happen you are just fooling yourself.

      CalMark in reply to GrumpyOne. | January 31, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      What unmitigated horse-puckey.

      Newt would expect Obama to lie. You don’t expect such attacks from your own party, especially when you’ve proven the lies are just that.

      Newt was not expecting Romney to stand up at a debate and babble one bare-faced lie after another. People who have the good fortune not to be subjected to such vicious, savage sneak attacks by your own side, especially when you’ve presented the truth, over and over again, can’t possibly imagine how disorienting it is. I mean, WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO DO?

      The Chris Wallace hatchet job–er, interview–Gingrich clearly doesn’t say “Spanish.” In fact, there’s lots of bi-lingual education programs in the U.S. But for 5 minutes, Wallace snottily goes Thought Police and tells Newt that even though Newt didn’t say it, it’s obvious he meant it. And Romney goes along with this crap, and the media and our elites eat it up.

      Because Barack Obama is set fair for a second term, when he will become a Nazi (yes, that’s right: Nazism is pseudo-capitalism) dictator.

      Unless we find a way to destroy–not just defeat, but discredit and destroy and eject forever–these scum like Romney, Obama, and all of their contemptible minions, America is finished.

I assume this post is directed at people like me, so I’ll just clarify my position.

I’m fine with Romney carrying the blame for his negative ads, his misrepresentations, and for going negative first. Blast away, that’s fair game. But you’re excusing Gingrich’s own blistering ads and misrepresentations because Romney “poisoned the well” first. I see very few criticisms of him from you for some of his falsehoods and nastiness.

Another point you gloss over: elections can be nasty things. You keep citing 2008, but maybe you weren’t around in 2000 when things got VERY nasty between McCain and Bush. It’s not something I’m fond of, particularly in a primary, but it happens and happens frequently. Limbaugh gave Gingrich some advice about it the other day: stop whining about it.

This is politics. Blame Romney all you want, but if you’re going to maintain any pretense of objectivity, you need to also acknowledge Gingrich’s role in the tone of the campaign.

    StrangernFiction in reply to Ryan. | January 31, 2012 at 11:38 am

    I have to say, it is fun to watch the Romneybots rationalize.

    GrumpyOne in reply to Ryan. | January 31, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    I’ve often stated that Newt is his own worst enemy and he made the bed that he’s now occupying.

    “grandiosity” is the last quality that we need in a candidate. I’m looking for a “doer” rather than a talker…

      Henry Hawkins in reply to GrumpyOne. | January 31, 2012 at 12:44 pm

      Yeah, maybe Mitt can ‘do’ some more of that socialist health care, pro-abortion, pro-gun law, tax-raising, liberal judge appointing magic for us in the White House.

      Then again, we can achieve the same with the guy already there and save money by not needing to swap out the drapes.

      CalMark in reply to GrumpyOne. | January 31, 2012 at 1:43 pm

      A “doer,” you say?

      How about the Contract with America?

      How about leading (against strong attitudes of defeatism from his own party) the first GOP House majority in almost 40 years?

      How about the first re-elected House majority in almost 70 years?

      How about welfare reform?

      How about budget balancing?

      How about…

      Never mind. You’re just a Romney concern troll. None of this will affect you, ’cause your guy is SO much better:

      –Gun Control
      –Incoherent abortion stand (Interesting, that Prop-8/Right-to-Life Mormons will be lining up to vote for this clown just ’cause they go to the same church on Sunday–disgusting!)
      –Appointing leftist Democrat judges, with no attempt to do otherwise (at best, surrendering without a shot because “it can’t be otherwise”)

Irritable Pundit | January 31, 2012 at 11:04 am

Romney went negative because he had no choice. He can’t run on his own record.

(Little Photshop explaining why)

To me, Romney’s bigger problem is he comes out of Florida as a guy who distorted someone else’s congressional ethics record to win.

So using ethics or “personal responsibility” arguments for policy he wants to get done is going to be mocked by the people he has to work with or the masses that are supposed to comply.

Way to go Mitt Romney.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to CWLsun. | January 31, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Obama’s same tactic is coming no matter who the GOP nom is, but Mitt has permissed it and given up any right to object when he’s on the receiving end.

    CalMark in reply to CWLsun. | January 31, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    Poisonous tactics and hysteria work only in the short run. That’s why dictators constantly whip people into new frenzies: they have no choice, because frenzies wear off.

    As time passes, the truth comes out. And there’s a lot of us who ARE pushing the truth.

    If Newt can stay viable long enough, there may be an anti-Romney backlash sufficient to beat Romney.

“There is a trend developing to assign equal blame to the poisoned atmosphere in the Republican campaign, as if there were no cause just effect.”

It’s not really a trend, but a dedicated intention — and was so from the beginning. It’s the demoralizing ploy of moral equivalence, another Romney gift to us swiped from the Left. We’ve seen it from the Left on the largest scale (America is no different than its enemies, Bush’s “war crimes” no different than the terrorists’) and in the most everyday events of politics. Eventually the erasure of moral distinctions or gradations leaves people baffled and dispirited, with the goal of forcing submission to the loudest and most persistent and forceful propaganda.

But it’s a gift with conditions and consequences Romney doesn’t begin to comprehend.

I guess the point of people who defend Romney’s tactics with the cry of “It’s always been that way” is to allow the lies and smears to continue. Do Mitt’s supporters also agree with the knowing falsehoods their campaign peddles as the truth?

The Romney people who try to justify Mitt’s behavior by complaining about “Well Newt was nasty too” and “Politics is often dirty” need to also accept that actions have consequences and different people have different levels of acceptance.voters make decisions based on many things. For some people Mitt’s well funded Super PAC attacks went over the line and reflect negatively on him. Sooner or later candidates need to learn that they can’t keep attacking/insulting the voters who support other candidates and then expect them to fall in line. IMO blind party loyalty has decreased except among the Dems – party of the blind.

It is funny (odd) that Romney supporters cry that Mittens has been unfairly assailed by Newt and whine that Newt’s supporters don’t decry the harsh tone used against Mittens. The Romney folks would like nothing more that for Newt supporters to encourage a unilateral disarming of Newt regarding negetive campaigning when Mr. Romney refuses to agree to a truce.

Mitt Romney is a nothing more than a liar and a liberal liar at that. His embracing of the politics of personal destruction, perfected by the Clintons, should be warning to all, but apparently Mr. Romney’s supporters are fine with lies, distortions and personal attacks because, hey, its politics. Like Mike Huckabee said, “If a man is dishonest to obtain a job, he’ll be dishonest on the job.”

It is clear that Mittens core beliefes allow him to justify the disgusting and degrading behavoir he and his minions have displayed throughout the campaing. If this is the kind of people Mitt Romney and his followers are, then I want nothing to do with them.

    StrangernFiction in reply to ldwaddell. | January 31, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Mitt Romney is a nothing more than a liar and a liberal liar at that.

    This is all I need to know. It’s as simple as this, and the rest is just smoke and mirrors. If you are going to have a liberal let the ‘rats have their name on it.

I sincerely admire Newt’s brilliance; I’ve enjoyed reading his books for many years.

Newt is also an astute politician:

He was well aware that he did not have the funds to wage a battle against Romney’s negative ads in Iowa. So he positioned himself as the candidate taking the high road, knowing that he could then portray himself as the victim of negative campaigning. How many times did you hear Newt express his outrage with rhetorical flourish?

After his campaign was infused with millions, most coming from a single donor, he could then engage in negative ads all the while whining that “well, Romney started it.”

It’s brilliant, really. The fact that so many here are jumping on the victim bandwagon proves to me that his strategy worked.

    ldwaddell in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Thats right, Newt is so astute that went positive just he could go negative and then blame the guy who started it. Dang that Newt.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to MerryCarol. | January 31, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Ah, more logical fallacy.

    This is sticking an arrow in the wall and then drawing a target around it. Bull’s eye!

I look at Florida as Mitt Romney falling headlong into a pit that Nancy Pelosi created for him. Even Nancy Pelosi knows that Newt was vindicated by the IRS. (Queue the videotape.). Dig yourself out, Mitt.

But for reasons that say a lot more about the weaknesses of the first black president, liberals yearn to hear racism where it isn’t to make this campaign into something more exciting than a referendum on Obama.

Robamney’s assault on Newt is aimed at an entirely different target of which he may regard each of his GOP opponents as standard bearers. Robamney’s attempt to crush, destroy, and humiliate Newt, and by extension Conservatives, is not only political warfare, it is also a Mormon battle against the Judaeo-Christian evangelicals who rejected Robamney in the past asserting that Mormonism is antithetical to Christianity. That he himself thinks so, too, is immaterial in his view. What he has done since 2008 is use his resources to purchase a monopoly in which no one else but him can thrive. He owns the RNC, the so-called Conservative press–likely, he’s donated millions to them all, with strings. He owns the chattering class. He is deliberately not Conservative because he identifies that with adherents of a theological viewpoint that, in his view, discriminated against him. He will use all the resources and tools at his disposal to destroy Conservatives because to do so is to strike at the theological foundation of Conservatism. So, in that sense, with regard to Newt, it is not personal.

Robamney doesn’t care what Conservatives think. He has made no effort to reach out to the TP people. He is not looking to forge any ties with us. Why forge ties when your intent is to destroy? This is not about electoral victory for Robamney. Instead, it is about revenge. It is about one man’s foolish idea that he can use his wealth to destroy Judaeo-Christianity.

Palin praises Robamney as a family man. What a horrible example of fatherhood he is to his sons.

    StrangernFiction in reply to Juba Doobai!. | January 31, 2012 at 11:57 am

    Come on now. The important thing is being faithful to the wife and having the kids. Who the wife is and how the kids turn out is irrelevant. You know that.

George Soros is saying no difference between Obama and Romney. Maybe Creepy Dude is stirring up trouble, but there are serious doubts about this with the conservative base. All the more reason for this process to continue to the convention. Santorum needs to stay in. The only way to have this open is for Gingrich, Santorum and Paul to take enough delegates so it has to go to the convention. Claiming Romney won now and not letting this process vet out would be a big mistake by the GOP establishment.

Title of this thread: “Romney poisoned the well.”

My response would be, “So, you think Gingrich didn’t!”

From what I’ve seen and read, Romney has a greater frequency of negative ads, 4 to 1. However, Gingrich’s attacks have been more brutal, and have more factual discreptancies in them.

People act as though the behavior of politicians is somehow exempt from morality. Partisans can justify lies, personal attacks, and intentional distortion as just part of the political game, forgetting that the young are watching and taking in this behavior. Politicians should see themselves as role models to the nation, not just in how they behave in office, but also in how they behave when attempting to gain office. Do I wish that Newt would remain positive and above the fray? You betcha, but I also want to win, so if the negative behavior of your adversary will cause your defeat, should you just role over and accept that defeat while your adversary displays the lowest of personal moral behavior? Obamney’s supporters say yes, Newt should just stay positive while allowing our guy to eviscerate him with lies, distortion, personal attacks and innuendo. They also believe that Newt is so smart, so astute, that he knew that Obamney would go negative after he went positive just so he could go negative and claim victim-hood. Unfortunately for the Obamney camp they still have to deal with the truth that their guy did in fact, go negative first. He displayed his true character first because he has no record to run on and no vision other than be Mr Moderate.

It may be that Obamney will win the nomination of the Republican Party, but he will have a difficult time winning the general when his role model Obama, unleashes the hounds and sinks him with the same negative attacks that he has found so useful. And he won’t be able to claim he is a victim either since he made no pretense of even wanting to run a positive campaign based on his record and what is good for goose is good for the gander.

    wodiej in reply to ldwaddell. | January 31, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    thus “we reap what we sow.”

    CalMark in reply to ldwaddell. | January 31, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    Newt tried to stay positive, and it didn’t work. Remember Iowa?

    “Relentlessly positive” in the face of negative barrage doesn’t work. Bobby Jindall proved it in 2003, when he lost the governorship trying to run such a campaign in the face of odious attacks by Kathleen Blanco.

    janitor in reply to ldwaddell. | January 31, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    I note that Obama won the election in large part on irrelevant hooey and rah-rah. There was little information about him, and no track record. The media spun. He did not base his campaign on a litany of lies.

    What Romney is doing (which also requires the complicity of media) is beyond what I’ve seen in my lifetime. I thought the “information age” would thwart the ability of a politician to repeatedly utter easily fact-checked lies.

[…] the GOP primary keeps going like it’s going, with Mitt Romney poisoning the well in his Pyrrhic quest for the nomination, I see the Libertarian Party growing. As Soros said, […]

We thought the Tea Party Revolution began in 2010 but you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. As Patrick Henry said in 1775, “give me liberty or give me death!”

    tsr in reply to wodiej. | January 31, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    What you forget is the main strength of the tea party is it’s independence from a group-think kind of mentality. These people came together under the banner of wanting smaller, less intrusive government. But, their diversity is well known, in being from conservatives, moderates, and independents in their political affiliations. And, their ideas on leadership, integrity etc. also don’t just drop into one candidate bucket either.

    I am a member of the Tea Party Patriots, knowing others like myself, and will not be cut and pasted into some of the lunacy depicted here, damaging the party as a whole, just so someone, such as Gingrich, a man with flaws becoming uncovered and displayed on a daily basis, can be the nominee.

      CalMark in reply to tsr. | January 31, 2012 at 2:01 pm

      You sound like a concern troll.

      TPP’ers (I’m one, myself) are far more pragmatic than that.

Hey, what Romney’s done is the standard in politics, right? History proves it. People never improve and shouldn;t aspire to it.

Remember WWII? Using Romneybot logic, what you nasty Americans did to Japan was every bit as bad as Pearl Harbor was, you bastards. Unprovoked sneak attacks are endorsed by history, you know.

A significant difference between Romney and Gingrich is that the former candidate focuses his attacks on his opponent, not factions of the party.

Romney and his surrogates are bringing up Newt’s record alone, and not tying it into any preceived sub sets of the republican party — i.e. Newt’s lobbyist years after the speakership; close ties to Clinton; doubling earmarks and taking the cap off of govt. spending; exploiting the “handing the torch” comment when that speech was written for Nancy Reagan by the Goldwater Institute; his Rockefeller republican years; his extreme admiration of FDR; his unpredictable temperament and documented melt-downs, and on and on.

Whereas, Newt and his surrogates are not only attacking Romney on grounds of Bain, abortion, MA healthcare, Kosher care, gun rights, describing him as a “big government progressive liberal,” but also dividing the party into “good” groups (tea party & evangelicals) and “bad” groups (elite and establishment), even though the bad also has people affiliated with the good (John Bolton, Butch Otter, McDonald of VA, Tom Coburn, Nikki Haley, Kelly Ayott).

Gingrich seems hell bent on dividing the party, at all costs, more than Romney, leading to a larger possibility of Obama becoming the conqueror and POTUS for another 4 years. Consequently, I see this kind of campaigning as being more for yourself than being about your country’s well being.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to tsr. | January 31, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Um, I think you forgot to mention the part where Romney’s finely focused surgical attacks are lies.

Rays of sunshine:

1. Precedent. Reagan was half-dead in 1980, and rallied. Different times, different challenges, not nearly so many enemies. But…it can be done.
2. Florida itself. Romney has been spewing lies for weeks. The dust will is already starting to settle, and as this enters the public consciousness, it can’t help Romney, no matter how much it’s spun. Hopefully Newt can hang on long enough.
3. Forlornest Hope: the self-serving little weasel Santorum gets out (my gut feeling is he’s been co-opted somehow).

    Ryan in reply to CalMark. | January 31, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    “the self-serving little weasel Santorum”? Wow.

      CalMark in reply to Ryan. | January 31, 2012 at 3:00 pm

      He KNOWS he’s splitting the conservative vote. Newt is out-polling him around 3:1. Iowa was a fluke, because Romney immolated a defenseless Newt. And yet, Santorum stays in.

      I don’t trust guys who carefully craft the “Mr. Morality” theme. At best, immodest and prideful. Santorum has said some very nasty, unfair things about Gingrich, who has not attacked Santorum.

        CenterRightMargin in reply to CalMark. | January 31, 2012 at 3:13 pm

        Maybe Santorum doesn’t see Gingrich as particularly more conservative than Romney. Both were for health care mandates. Both were pro-choice. Both indulged in Catastrophic Anthropogenic global warming. Both were soft on immigration.

        Though Romney defends the state level, much less intrusive than Obamacare (especially on the employer level) mandate. On the other hand, Gingrich remains soft on immigration.

        And, Gingrich was pro-mandate (or mandate bond) as late as 2009. And Gingrich’s statements on Global Warming were to the left of Romney. His attacks on Bain capital and “swiss bank accounts” really boil down leftist innuendos about Capitalism.

        Maybe Santorum views himself as the only “conservative” in the field (his own big government and big labor herasies notwithstanding).

        Hope Change in reply to CalMark. | January 31, 2012 at 3:31 pm

        You are right, CalMark. I agree. Santorum has attacked Newt very unfairly, he has got to know he’s being unfair.

        Santorum has ruined his standing with me, perhaps forever.

    Hope Change in reply to CalMark. | January 31, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    I agree, CalMark. Where is his money coming from?

    Who benefits? Romney, that’s who.

    To call Santorum a weasel is unfair to actual weasels.

    I thought Santorum was ok in the beginning, but no more.

    And Santorum must know that his claim that Newt is not a good leader is false. What a weasel. (Sorry, actual weasels.)

    I agree with you. I wonder if Santorum has been co-opted somehow.

CenterRightMargin | January 31, 2012 at 2:35 pm

Oh come off it.

Yes, Mitt and Paul went negative in Iowa; Paul with more effectiveness. But Newt’s was not a relentlessly positive campaign there. He attacked Romney as a flip-flopper and being disingenuous to Conservative positions. But he did not have a lot of money and was just roling out his media campaign, and was saying grandiose things like: it will be the “Newt and Anti-Newt.”

For their parts, Romney’s and Paul’s advertiments, and their PACs, where normal, par for the course negative ads. Pointing out Gingrich’s statements and record, in contrast to the image that he was selling.

Newt’s response was to prove that he lacks the temperment to be President. He through a temper-tantrum, and begant he “Bain” line of attack relying upon blatant falsehoods – attacking Mitt for things that happened at companies not only after Mitt was no longer running Bain, but even after Bain had sold its control!

And yet people here support Gingrich for his lies – complaining ont he one hand about Romney superPAC stuff while coordinating his attack lines with the falsehoods in his SuperPAC stuff. The hyporcritical cynicism of Gingrich is beyond belief, and indulging in it is silly.

But Gingrich’s going Nuclear worked. He won South Carolina based on his false attacks on Romney, along with some anti-Mormon sentiment (demonstrated somewhat in the comments, too).

So Romney wen’t Nuclear back. Boo-hoo-hoo. Meanwhile, you complain that Romney is being dishonest by characterizing as “resigned in disgrace” a man who resigned after an ethics censure, having been caught in an affair with a staffer while leading the disastrous impeachment charge against Clinton for nothing that could reasonably be called a “high crime or misdemeanor,” who had caused an attempted coup against him due to his erratic management and ultimately faced a loss in his own district.

But Gingrich lying about the Kosher meals to Jewish Grandmothers (the bill provided for catered Kosher food, some on-site Kosher kitches would have been closed); inuendo about tax exasion and “vulture capitalism” (neither occurred), that’s ok.

Frankly, Romney’s disgrace add is more honest than Gingrich’s pro-abortion ads (at most a guy who, like Reagan, was pro-choice… but ignoring his pro-life, pro-family positioning since 2005).

But when Romney went Nuclear in the same way that Gingrich did, and Gingrich couldn’t handle his own tactic being thrown back at him…. he cries.

That’s the man you want to take on Obama. Mr. “I won’t debat Obama if the media is moderating.” Mr. “the Crowd was silent and that’s unfair.”

Mr. I-want-my-Super-PACS to be honest, but if they aren’t, I can’t control them, but you other people are responsible for your SuperPACs.


Get over it. He’s a terrible, unattractice candidate. He lacks the temperment to lead.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to CenterRightMargin. | January 31, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Folks, please read the above post carefully. It is a perfect example of what the GOP establishment is telling you. “Come off it”. See, you’re too stupid to choose your candidate. Ignore your own eyes and ears and accept our account of things. Listen to reason and vote for who we tell you to vote.

Henry Hawkins | January 31, 2012 at 4:58 pm

[C & P-ed from another thread because it fits better here. -HH]

Excerpts from an article outlining the negativity of the Florida portion of the GOP primary season:

“The analysis from Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG) shows a whopping 92% of ads airing in Florida over the past week were negative. The organization said Tuesday that was a record rate for political campaigns.

“Numbers from CMAG show a total of 11,586 television spots aired in Florida between January 23 and January 29. Of those spots, 10,633 were negative and 953 were positive.

“Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich’s campaign ran, 95% were negative. Mitt Romney’s campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.

“The two super PACs supporting the top candidates were more divergent in their ad strategies. Restore our Future, supporting Romney, ran 4,969 spots, all of which were negative. The Gingrich-backing Winning our Future ran 1,893 spots, and only 53% were negative.

“Correspondingly, the bulk of ads in Florida – 68% – were negative toward Gingrich. Twenty-three percent were anti-Romney spots. Gingrich got support from 9% of ads while pro-Romney spots accounted for less than 0.1%.”

[end quote]

Congratulations to Mitt Romney for accomplishing the most negative campaign ever measured, powered primarily by his super PAC. This guy’s an achiever.


[…] the GOP primary keeps going like it’s going, with Mitt Romney poisoning the well in his Pyrrhic quest for the nomination, I see the Libertarian Party growing. As Soros said, […]