Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Romney SuperPAC going after Santorum

Romney SuperPAC going after Santorum

Via The Hill:

Restore Our Future, an outside group backing Mitt Romney, is taking its first shot at Rick Santorum. The group is running ads in South Carolina and Florida criticizing Santorum for supporting earmarks, part of multi-million dollar ad buys running in the states.

Fair? In context? All the possibly clarifying facts disclosed? Of course not.

How many Pinnochios?

Bonus Question: Is the Romney SuperPAC worried about how this ad might hurt Santorum in the general election if Santorum is the nominee?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I’ll give you, that’s a pretty misleading ad, probably pound for pound more misleading than Winning Our Future’s documentary.

    Estragon in reply to Awing1. | January 13, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    In what respect? I didn’t see a single untrue statement, whereas every aspect of Newt’s attack video is designed to be misleading.

    I would say it is unfair to criticize raising the debt ceiling because, then as now, it is to pay for spending already passed into law. Santorum isn’t personally responsible for all the debt, but never did anything to slow it or stop it besides voting for a BBA he knew could not pass.

As long as Romney feels like getting things out in the open…

http://tinyurl.com/6os5qet

During his time as Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney worked to assure pro-choice groups that he would protect abortion rights and hinted he could help soften the GOP’s stand against the practice, The Washington Post reports.

“You need someone like me in Washington,” Romney reportedly told several members of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts in 2002. Melissa Kogut, the group’s executive director at the time, said that as the 45-minute long meeting came to a close Romney became “emphatic that the Republican Party was not doing themselves a service by being so vehemently anti-choice.”

According to those present in the meeting, Romney refused to call himself either “pro-choice” or “pro-life,” but [Romney] said any attempts to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision would be a “serious mistake for our country.”

“We felt good about the interview,” one NARAL official told the Post. “He seemed genuine.”

[I especially like the “he seemed genuine” quote.]

Romney was for Santorum before he was against him. =)

Karen Sacandy | January 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm

The truth is, all of the candidates embraced earmarks for their constituents. All of them. Until the train nearly came off the tracks, none of them, including Ron Paul, disavowed them in practice. Ron Paul did in THEORY. So this is an irrelevant argument.

Same thing with the debt limit, except maybe Ron Paul may have consistently voted against raising it.

I have no familiarity with the felons voting item, and will have to look at that. But on it’s face, hard to believe. That’s the democrat’s forte, expanding voting beyond those paying for government, in order to win by buying votes.

As for the Bonus Question!, none of them really care who they hurt in the general. And I’m not worried about it either. George Bush ended up Reagan’s V.P. I think there was a little bad blood there…

What a difference 4 years make Santorum backed Mitt in ’08 I wonder what changed so much in those years to make Santorum not only pull his support but also choose to run against him Romney hasn’t changed. He’s an unabashed liar(scorch and burn proved that) Uses scare and fear, spins a yarn, and complains he’s being attacked .Santorum should’t be surprised by this.This will continue until each one of the others drop out.

Karen Sacandy | January 13, 2012 at 1:50 pm

I would say, the general observation which describes ALL of this candidate field, including Obama, is that none of them have the foresight of a Tom Jefferson. None of them smell the problems produced by their policies until the problem has burned the frying pan and is threatening a house fire.

We can’t help it that we don’t have any prescient geniuses on the level of Tom Jefferson running. We have to choose from what we have.

Henry Hawkins | January 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Perhaps it’s time to rename the Republican Party the Donner Party.

I’m no fan of letting Felons vote, but is that really the worst possible thing Romney can come up with to attack Santorum with? At the very least there’s a decent plausable argument for it and I’m not really sure why we ban it in the first place. (Are we so concerned convicted felons will number so high they’d outvote law abiding citizens?)

    Estragon in reply to tsrblke. | January 13, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    Then make your case for it. That’s fair enough.

    But don’t expect your position not to be pointed out by those who disagree.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 13, 2012 at 2:22 pm

“Bonus Question: Is the Romney SuperPAC worried about how this ad might hurt Santorum in the general election if Santorum is the nominee?”

Now Professor… have we not learned from Team Romney that all PACs are equal, but some PACs are more equal than others?

Welcome to the farm.

Windy City Commentary | January 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm

The Bain thing has definitely illustrated the 1 issue that Republicans will go to the mat over: Is it Defense? No; Pro-Life? You kidding me; Keeping govt. from taking over the best Medical Care in the World?; Not really; Securing the border?; get outta of here. Constitutionalist judges? Not if we have to deploy the nuclear option in the Senate.

Nope, the one thing they will go to the mat over is making sure companies like Bain Capital aren’t criticized for doing what they do. They will also proclaim that any former CEO of such company is completely electable. However, a staunch opponent of illegal immigration or abortion is thought to be unelectable in most conservative circles.

I personally think Romney was better off ignoring Santorum as a strategic move. From a preview of the latest PPP poll: “Only 4% in South Carolina say social issues are top concern this year. Big reason why Romney’s doing well and Santorum’s not.” Despite obvious concerns about PPP, it is hard to argue that social issues were going to be a big selling point with the general electorate this year. It is also obvious that some candidates need to drop before Romney is seriously threatened by Santorum.

That said, I think they all should skip putting out ads that end up getting ripped to pieces factually. I hope the nominee doesn’t do this with Obama. There is so much to point out honestly; there is no need to distort that disastrous record.

    Estragon in reply to Mary Sue. | January 13, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Newt and Paul are the ones blatantly misleading the public with their attacks. All of the others have either used the truth or like Perry, stayed positive (in advertising, he parroted the socialist anti-Bain slogans in interviews, but not in ads in SC at least).

myveryownpointofview | January 13, 2012 at 3:36 pm

I could swear that I saw an interview of Santorum saying that he wouldn’t go after Romney on Bain. That he didn’t think they should be attacking each other.

Did he bash Romney since a few days ago, when I wasn’t paying close attention?

Or did Romney sucker-punch his defender? Oh…….

That’s how Romney plays.

Romney = Janus.

(Do we have any classical scholars out there?)

[…] already contributed, so you should go help the Godfather of the Axis of Fedora.When RINOs attack: Mitt Romney’s “super PAC” goes after Rick Santorum. Has anybody else noticed that the Romney campaign hasn’t run a single ad criticizing Ron […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend