Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Romney tries to cut off Newt’s SuperPAC funding

Romney tries to cut off Newt’s SuperPAC funding

I’ll post the Nevada results later.  Romney won big there in 2008  (51.1%) because of the heavy Mormon turnout at the caucuses and is expected to do so again.

The big story was the revelation in The NY Times that the Romney campaign, both directly and through Jewish emissaries, has been trying to convince Sheldon Adelson to cut off further funding of a pro-Newt SuperPAC:

Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino executive keeping Newt Gingrich’s presidential hopes alive, has relayed assurances to Mitt Romney that he will provide even more generous support to his candidacy if he becomes the Republican nominee, several associates said in interviews here.

The assurances have been conveyed in response to a highly delicate campaign by Mr. Romney and his top Jewish financial supporters to dissuade Mr. Adelson from adding to the $10 million that he and his wife have given to a pro-Gingrich “super PAC,” Winning Our Future, that has been tearing into Mr. Romney through television advertising.

Remember, John Sununu all but threatened Adelson with retribution, so of course Adelson wants to maintain good relations with the Romney campaign.

Romney apparently is deeply hurt by the negative ads the SuperPAC has been running with Adelson’s funding:

A friend of Mr. Romney’s, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Romney did not begrudge Mr. Adelson’s initial $5 million donation to the pro-Gingrich group, given Mr. Adelson’s known loyalty. But Mr. Romney was said to have been deeply stung by a second $5 million donation, from Mr. Adelson’s wife, Miriam. And the group’s harsh attacks against Mr. Romney were said to have upset Mr. Romney’s wife, Ann, though his aides said she was inured to them.

You have got to be kidding me.  It’s not enough for Romney to outspend Newt several times over, he has to try to cut off Newt’s funding?  And if true that he’s personally hurt, then that’s pretty rich considering the vicious personal demonization of Newt by Romney and his surrogates since Iowa.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Yes, how dare Romney try to convince an individual to not support his opponent! That’s so unethical. He must be one of those metro ridin’ elites Newt warned us about.

This come right out of the Left and Obama playbook, where you destroy your opponents so that they cannot run against you. That’s what Obama did to all his opponents in elections in Illinois.

Romney has no honor and no sense of fair play. To cut off someone else’s funding?

Maybe Romney can’t defend his record or something?

Here are statistics about Romney’s record and Newt’s record, compiled over at Politi Jim’s Rants for Reasonable People: http://www.politijim.com/2012/01/stats-on-what-newt-and-mitt-did-not.html

If, after looking at this, you are considering again whether to support Newt, which I would imagine many are, here is support from original source materials, Newt’s speeches: http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/2012-victory-or-death-newt-s-speeches-links-to-17-speeches

What will we do in the new American revolution? Because that’s what this is, and it’s no joke. Look at the forces arrayed against the TEA Party citizens. If we’re going to make government smaller, we need to make citizens bigger.

    CalMark in reply to Hope Change. | February 4, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    We are in the middle of a Civil War, and we are losing, HUGE.

    All of the people we send to speak for us, betray us.

    Those we once thought (talk radio, “conservative” blogosphere) speak for us, betray us.

    Our enemies are corrupt, utterly unscrupulous, with limitless money and an impenetrable bulwark of media support.

    In short, even–or one might say, especially!–when we win, we lose. BIG.

    So what do we do? I’m at a loss. There isn’t much left, except what the Founders did in 1776.

    janitor in reply to Hope Change. | February 5, 2012 at 3:30 am

    Makes me wonder what went on behind the scenes with Trump.

I feel like a broken record. Acts like a liberal, thin skinned like a liberal, governs like a liberal, IS a liberal.

Mr. Romney is a man without honor.

Good lord, what did you expect?

Here’s the thing: when you have a campaign that depends almost entirely on a single billionaire is on pretty thin ice. If not for Adelson’s $10 million, Newt would have been forced to pack it in after New Hampshire. And that’s considering that SC is a relatively small state with cheap media.

    creeper in reply to JEBurke. | February 5, 2012 at 9:53 am

    OTOH, when you have an entire religion pouring dollars into your campaign it’s much easier.

      Milhouse in reply to creeper. | February 5, 2012 at 10:26 am

      Um, yes. What exactly is your point?

        creeper in reply to Milhouse. | February 5, 2012 at 1:18 pm

        I thought my point was evident but I’ll spell it out for you.

        It ill-behooves Romney to be attacking Gingrich on the basis of money, given the five-to-one advantage he has enjoyed to date. This is a page straight out of Alinsky.

        I’ll go a step further. We in the Midwest have some experience with the single-minded pursuit of control that is at the core of the cult of Mormon. That relentlessness of purpose hasn’t changed since Mormons were driven out of Missouri and Illinois. They’ve just gotten better at covering it up.

        Iowans have recently concluded a vicious primary campaign that was a non-stop assault on one man, fueled by millions of dollars in attack ads and mailings on behalf of a man whose self-admitted purpose is to destroy his opponent. For me, that was a window into Romney’s soul. It’s really black in there.

Romeny and his cohorts will stop at nothing to get elected. His behavior seems more like that of a third world leader than that of someone wanting to be the US President. The crying that he or his wife has hurt feeling is ridiculous, if he can dish it out he better be able to take it. I don’t think any of Obama’s donors will stop giving because the Obama and his super pacs might hurt the Romney’s feelings. What a wussy.

Outrageous! Romney governs and campaigns like Obama – he should be on Obama’s ticket.

He’s a caricature of a candidate, a classic dirty politician, smooth and pretty on the outside, inside is dishonest and ruthless…a dirty dealer.

I’m realizing more each day just how much Romney has in common with Obama. Soros is right. There really is not that much difference.

    Surly Curmudgen in reply to OTIS the hand. | February 5, 2012 at 11:30 am

    The more I learn about Romney, the more I find myself thinking that Romney is not Obama lite, It is the reverse, Obama is Romney lite. If Romney wins, things will be far worse than under Obama. Obama and his advisors want “we the people” to ask for their communist/socialist utopia. Romney is far more ruthless and will simply cram that utopia on top of us and if we don’t like it, that’s just to bad. Romney will quickly correct that dislike with re-education camps and mass graves. Romney and Obama are ideological twins, one of whom is a wussy and the other is Stalinist. ———And our political masters want to cram either one down our throats. Isn’t this special?
    ///////////What are “YOU” going to put up with?/////////

    Right you are about how Soros thinks there is no difference between the men. There is also limited difference in their “religions”. One was raised in Islam as a child, the other was raised in a cult who’s own founder (Smith) wanted to be addressed as “The Prophet Mohammed”.

vbmoneyspender | February 4, 2012 at 8:57 pm

This is like the Iran-Iraq War. If Romney wins is there a way I can vote so both Obama and Romney lose?

    I suppose you could follow the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler’s suggestion and vote for the Green Party candidate.

    He explains his reasoning here: http://nicedoggie.net/?p=3824#comment-16912

    Sort of. You can help ensure we have new Senators and Congressman that are actually Conservative AND GOP leadership in the Senate and House.

    If not, you can work toward a 3rd Party and a candidate in 2016 after Obama’s 2nd term, because if the GOP nominates Romney and loses, like the song says, “love don’t live here anymore” for the GOP. It will be a broken party.

This guys morals are despicable, where do you think he learned to act this way? Was his father so power hungry and disreputable that he modeled this behavior for his son who was more than happy to follow in his fathers footsteps? Or was there some other power in his life that taught him that lying and manipulation for higher cause is acceptable, or is a combination of the two?

The creepiness of Romney’s obsession to become President should send up red flags to everyone.

This man should be feared, not revered.
And he will LOSE big time to Obama.

Hey Professor – – Also found this over at Judson Phillips, in a comment by Politi Jim:

PAUL WEYRICH ON NEWT AND ROMNEY

http://www.politijim.com/2012/01/paul-weyrich-warns-conservatives-on.html

This answers a lot of the questions people have about Newt’s temperament.

And also Romney’s.

PolitiJim “How, in the course of just a few months, Weyrich went from citing Romney’s “experience, vision and values” as making him best-suited to be President to declaring that he is absolutely unqualified to serve as McCain’s running mate is utterly mind-boggling:”

‘When a chief executive can violate multiple articles of the oldest functioning constitution in the world and disobey statutes he solemnly swore to defend and execute faithfully, then blame judges who never even asked him to intervene, he mocks the principle of limited government and the separation of powers. He robs Americans of their unalienable right to self-government, for which so many soldiers, sailors and airmen have died.

‘These are just two issues (there are more) that absolutely disqualify Mitt Romney as a viable Vice Presidential option. He would fatally harm your appeal to voters with deep constitutionalist and social conservative commitments.

‘If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down the ticket. For the sake of your election, the health of your party, and the future of America you must not allow the obvious electoral consequences of that to occur.'” Paul Weyrich at PoltiJim

It’s the brand-new American revolution.

    Tamminator in reply to Hope Change. | February 4, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    Thanks, Hope Change.
    Fascinating read.

    Thanks for the link. Great stuff. Confirms my own thinking on Gingrich. When it counts, he’s there for conservatives, and he’s a fighter. Also confirms my growing dark feelings about Romney. I never realized how slimy the guy is. He masks his lack of character very well.

It was “highly delicate” political diplomacy, not a bloody hatchet job!

Once again, Romney shows that his strategy for winning the nomination isn’t to sell himself, but to cut down his opponents however he can and be the last man standing.

It’s still mind-boggling that the GOP’s strategy for getting rid of the Alinskyite narcissistic president is — to replace him with another Alinskyite narcissist.

StrangernFiction | February 4, 2012 at 9:31 pm

Look on the bright side, IF Mitt makes it to the White House he is going to get it from both sides. And he will deserve every bit of it. Dude is a scumbag.

This is simply politics at it’s base level — each wanting the edge on the other. Newt is doing the same thing to Santorum, by asking him to drop out, at least twice by my count, to give him the ‘conservative’ vote, in it’s entirety.

Romney going after the eighth wealthiest man is the same thing — he wants his support because Obama is trying to get a billion dollar war chest for the GE. Isn’t this about getting Obama out of the WH? If you don’t think Newt would do the same thing, given the identical circumstances, then you are hiding your head under the covers of denial.

    tsr in reply to tsr. | February 4, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    NYT: Associates say Adelson open to aiding Romney

    That’s how it should be: go with the republican who has the most competitive edge, as well as support from across the board. Today, Daryl Issa from CA, who has been going after Eric Holder so tenaciously on Fast and Furious, and thune were out there stumping for Romney. Who was out there supporting Newt?

I don’t know if any of you know this, but Sheldon Adelson is a HUGE supporter of the troops. HUGE.
I don’t know how to contact the guy, but if anyone out there does, then we need to hit him with letters of support.

Anyone know how to contact the guy?

“Romney tries to cut off Newt’s SuperPAC funding.”

If Romney promises to treat a few government departments the way he treats his opponents, he could be our man.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to LukeHandCool. | February 4, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    He won’t.

      Romney was asked by Hannity a couple of nights ago how serious he was about cutting government spending. Romney made it clear that not only was he not interested in merely slowing down the rate of growth in spending but he would actually reduce spending levels. Hannity asked him to explain how he would do this and…. get ready to walk this off… Romney replied that he would force 10% cuts across the board to be fulfilled by eliminating jobs through attrition. No cuts in programs and not time lines. Attrition is a very slow way to cut spending IF it ever materializes at all.

      His cuts in spending amount to preserving all programs and functions of government but getting tyranny accomplished with fewer employees…. someday…. a long time from now.

      Gingrich is no better.

      “He won’t.”

      I know he won’t. I was just overcome with a fleeting moment of positive thinking.

    Tamminator in reply to LukeHandCool. | February 4, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    I have a question for Luke Hand Cool: If you are a man, why do you have a picture of a woman as your avatar?
    It’s weird.
    And who is this chick and why should I care?

      LukeHandCool in reply to Tamminator. | February 5, 2012 at 12:34 am

      She’s my first-born baby girl. I need constant reminding why I need to fight the blues and get out of bed every morning and keep putting one foot in front of the other … as my natural inclination is to say “To hell with it all” and stay in bed.

      If it bothers you, I’ll change it. Both my son and younger daughter saw it a few times and both somewhat sadly said, “What about me?”

      I took the opportunity this presented for a couple of father-child teachable moments, sat them on my lap, tenderly telling both of them, “You see, the thing is, Daddy doesn’t necessarily love you any less just because you’re nowhere near as photogenic as your big sister … or your father, for that matter.”

        MerryCarol in reply to LukeHandCool. | February 5, 2012 at 1:28 am

        Luke, don’t you dare let Tammy bully you into changing your avatar. If she was paying any attention to your posts, she would know that your avatar is someone near and dear to your heart.

        What I want to know is, why is Tammy hiding behind a piece of poster board? No need to answer; I don’t care.

        (MerryCarol — who thinks your first-born is lovely!)

          LukeHandCool in reply to MerryCarol. | February 5, 2012 at 2:27 am

          Awww … thanks MerryCarol 🙂

          I promised my son some time ago I would make it his turn and use his picture. As I tenderly asked him, “Got any good pictures of yourself I can use, you ugly little kid?”

          LukeHandCool (who wonders why all girls named Tammy seem to be mean girls).

Anyone know why supporters of Romney come here when they know their opinions are not going to be well received? The likelihood of them changing our minds is minuscule. It almost makes one think that they are Romney operatives who are attempting to make the case for their candidate in hopes that if he wins the nomination we will vote for him in the general.

    BurkeanBadger in reply to ldwaddell. | February 4, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    I come here because I love this blog. I discovered it as a link from a different blog to an article Professor Jacobson wrote last summer/early fall. I enjoy the discourse (which, even at its most heated, is far more civil than most other blogs) and I always learn something.

    I post my pro-Romney views not in an attempt to convert anyone, but to interject an alternative viewpoint in what tends to be a Pro-Newt echo chamber on here. I know the quick response is, “We can get pro-Romney views from most of the MSM, and the conservative ‘establishment'”. Yes, probably true. But it is also easy to dismiss all of that because it is just that: “The Establishment”.

    I am not in any way connected to “The Establishment”. I am not a Romney operative: My connection to him is limited to: (1) Giving a few modest contributions to his campaign; (2) Making phone calls on his behalf; (3) Going to two campaign events in Iowa; (3) Caucusing for him in Iowa. That’s it.

    In any case, I am not going to try to convince you…but I do hope you will vote for him in the general election. Defeating Barack Obama should be the paramount goal for every conservative/libertarian. Much as I question Newt Gingrich’s demeanor, discipline and managerial ability, I would vote for him against Obama without any hesitation. I hope you will do the same if/when Romney is the nominee

      ldwaddell in reply to BurkeanBadger. | February 4, 2012 at 10:36 pm

      Romney is as dishonest a politician as there is. He appears to be power hungry to the point of having sold his soul. I am not voting for him in the general if he is the nominee. As George Soros said, there is not much difference between Mitt Romney and Obama. The more I learn about Romney the more I think Mr. Soros is correct. So you can take your hope that I will vote for Romney in the general and… well you get the idea.

      MerryCarol in reply to BurkeanBadger. | February 4, 2012 at 10:42 pm

      Amen.

      ldwaddell in reply to BurkeanBadger. | February 4, 2012 at 11:33 pm

      Since you technically are anonymous, how do we know you aren’t an establishment Republican operative? You sure sound like an establishment sort of person. Not a TEA Party type I take it.

    They can try, but it ain’t gonna work!

    I thought we were all in the same party. When has it gotten to be a bad move to disagree. It used to be the libs who rejected multi-faceted discussions. Are we like them now?

      BurkeanBadger in reply to tsr. | February 4, 2012 at 10:27 pm

      I agree. Thank you. 🙂

      ldwaddell in reply to tsr. | February 4, 2012 at 10:46 pm

      If you are willing to vote for a liberal Republican who is trying to fool us into believing that he has given up all his previous beliefs, that he at one time claimed he got from his parents, then yes I suppose you are like a Democrat.

    retire05 in reply to ldwaddell. | February 4, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    ldwaddell, oh, I don’t know. Perhaps it has something to do with that whole First Amendment thing?

      ldwaddell in reply to retire05. | February 4, 2012 at 11:00 pm

      retire05, there is indeed a first amendment and apparently you think the purpose of that amendment is to enable you to be an obnoxious thorn in others sides. Perhaps you can use the first amendment as your reason for acting like you do, but I attribute your behavior to a personality disorder.

        retire05 in reply to ldwaddell. | February 4, 2012 at 11:17 pm

        ldwaddell, and you are a glowing example of propriety?

        You are only fooling the person that types your entries.

          ldwaddell in reply to retire05. | February 4, 2012 at 11:43 pm

          Why yes retireO5 I am a glowing example of propriety, thanks for noticing. Say weren’t you a Rick Perry supporter?

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | February 4, 2012 at 11:57 pm

          ldwaddle, why, yes, I am a Perry supporter. You know, Governor Rick Perry who promoted and won legislation that requires women to have a sonogram before they kill their unborn child, that sued the EPA over Clean Act Act violations and the oppressive regulations due to a lizard, who insisted on a state budget for the 13th largest GDP in the world to be reduced to 2000 levels, who had run a state that has created more jobs than the other 49 states combined, who has invested Texas taxpayer dollars in trying to do the job the feds refuse to do and secure the border to the point where the Texas Rangers even have a Discovery Channel show about their border efforts, and who has no scandals, like wifes he cheated on, in his past?

          Yeah, but I don’t suspect you did. You don’t strike as being well enough informed to know a real conservative when you see one. You prefer the Dale Carnegie valedictorian.

          Retire05, I have great regard for Gov. Perry. He was my first choice (after Gov. Palin didn’t get in). But, now that he has dropped out, why do you disagree with his endorsement?

          I am for Newt in part because two people I respect, Gov. Palin and Gov. Perry, have chosen him as the best one in the race. Gov. Palin less directly than Gov. Perry, but enough to make her views known. The other part is that I like that he has a vision for turning things around, for example the poor actually coming out of poverty instead of landing in a safety net and the moon base (though I know some make fun of it, I think space is exciting–like all frontiers). I also am super impressed that he accomplished what seemed impossible–balanced federal budgets.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 10:32 am

          TD, I’m happy to answer your question: why do I not support Gingrich who Perry endorsed?

          First, I think Perry endorsed Newt because Perry and Romney have a bad history, going all the way back to the Olympics when Romney refused to allow uniformed Boy Scouts to participate. Also, if you noticed, Newt did not attack Rick in any of the debates, like the rest did.

          Second, I consider myself an informed voter. I am not impressed with the endorsements of others, but I seek out the information about each candidate for myself. I did not like Mitt Romney in 2008, and my opinion of him has not improved over the years. But I also don’t trust Newt Gingrich. I know that he is subject to doing something really stupid at any given point. So I really have no one that I can support at this point.

          You mention that Newt wants to replace the welfare safety net with a trampoline so people can jump out of poverty. But you need to think about that for a minute. Outside of simple wordsmithing, what happens when you climb up on a trampoline? If you just stand there, you remain there. You have to exert the energy to jump, and if people refuse to take that first leap, how are you going to project them off the trampoline? Hit them with a cattle prod? Newt did not give a solution, he gave a sound bite.

          Another dishonest soundbite by Newt is that he would reinstate the Mexico City Policy immediately. Really? And exactly what was he doing when Clinton recinded Reagan’s Mexico City Policy in 1993? Was Gingrich not part of the House at the time, able to not only write legislation but as Speaker, promote legislation to make the Mexico City Policy a permanent policy not subject to the whimes of future presidents? Why yes, he was, and he did nothing to continue Reagan’s policy via legislation that would have made it permanent. You also mentioned that Newt balanced the budget. Do you think he did that single handedly or do you realize that he had a budget committee that burned the midnight oil to present that balanced budget to him, just as Governor Perry had with the Texas legislature? Do you understand that Gingrich did not himself create the balanced budget, although Perry himself went through our state budget and gave imput to the legislature what he wanted cut and how to reduce the budget without increasing taxes for Texans? There is a difference.

          Newt could have defeated Romney. But he is not focused. He has known for a long time that he was going to run, it’s not a decision made in a vacumn. He wasted time, did not build a campaign, did not recruite the bundlers that are needed to fund a campaign, and his ground game is pathetic. He had virtually no presence in Nevada, and it showed. The young, under $30K, believe any conspiracy theory around guppies will vote for Paul. Newt had to win with the Christian right, the Tea Party supporters, the middle class that are watching their budgets destroyed over high food/gasoline costs. They want solutions, hard cold facts as to what can be done, not wordsmithing talking points. Newt also needed to attract the seniors, those who know that this nation is headed down a rocky slope to socialism, and wanted to leave a better nation to their grandchildren. He didn’t attract those voters either. For all his self-proclaimed brilliance, Newt’s ground game sucks. And he has no one to blame but himself for that.

          I know this: the worry over jobs, schools, medical care, rising costs, et al, were all there when Gingrich was Speaker. He had the ability to tackle all those things, and yet, the only thing anyone remembers is the Contract With America, but how many can really say what was in it?

          I am tired of Romney’s arrogance, but I am also tired of Gingrinch’s class war fare. Trying to smear Romney for being wealthy, when Gingrich is also wealthy, is hypocritical. Trying to make this primary season a war between a campaign that is run like a fine tuned clock (Romney’s) and Gingrich’s which is not, it not the fault of any “establishment”. It is wrong, and I for one do not fault any American because they have managed to become wealthy, or because they run a better campaign. I don’t have to vote for them, but I also don’t suffer from wealth envy. If Gingrich cannot compete with Romney’s campaign coffers, he most certainly will not be able to compete with the financial leviathan that Obama will throw at the Republican nominee. It is just that simple.

          I don’t even know when I will get to cast a primary vote. The Democrats are suing Texas over redistricting, and our primary has been shoved back twice already. There is some talk that it may not be until June. By then, it is all over but the crying.

          I don’t buy the meme put out by the talking heads that Romney is the savior of federalism. But I also don’t buy the New Newt, who now claims to be an “outsider” when he was the ultimate “insider” for three decades. He can’t run from that history although some seem to want to let him.

          Here is the bottom line: there really are only two contenders at this point. Newt has no chance unless Santorum gets out and throws his support to Newt. Paul’s supporters will throw a snit fit and will NOT vote in the general for anyone but Paul. They never have. Pundits, talking heads, and bloggers have all lined up behind one candidate or another trying to influence us into voting for “their” guy. In my book, that is wrong headed. They should be giving us the facts, the history and instead of trying to sway us one way or another, give us the information we need to make an informed decision. I don’t like the policy of “Vote for my guy because the other guy is so bad.” If you have a preferred candidate, support him in the positive, not by slamming the other guy.

          So as it stands, I have no dog in the hunt. And although I imagine I will hold my nose once again in my effort to help defeat the Marxist currently residing in the Oval Office, I will know that conservatives are, once again, willing to reject their own values by the selection of the two front runners.

          I remember how everyone on this board ridiculed Rick Perry when he didn’t make the Virginia ballot. How could he run such a lousy campaign, yada, yada. Yet, Newt did not make it either, and Newt did not make the Missouri primary. So Romney will gain 99 delegates in just two states. And I also will remember those who clamored for a true “conservative” candidate in 2010, but when offered one with a proven record of conservatism, they soundly rejected him.

BurkeanBadger | February 4, 2012 at 9:51 pm

Okay. I’ll agree that if the Romneys are upset by the “harshness” of the pro-Newt SuperPAC ads, they are being hypocritical and a bit silly.

That being said, there’s nothing wrong with what Mitt’s campaign is trying to do here. Cut your opponent off at his source! Newt has absolutely no right to complain. He abandoned any remnant of “Marquess of Queensberry” rules when he launched his scurrilous anti-Bain, anti-Capitalism attacks in South Carolina. This is a no holds barred street fight and will continue to be. Everything (and I do mean everything) is fair game.

Mitt will have a blowout win in Nevada tonight. Certainly expected, but still packs a punch when it’s official. Look for more wins on Tuesday. The Romney steamroller is chugging along, minor hindrances (cf. a silly gaffe about the “very poor”) or not.

    You are a scumbag, just like Romney whom you support.

    As your scumbag kind would say, “Peace, out.”

      BurkeanBadger in reply to CalMark. | February 4, 2012 at 10:08 pm

      Wow. There’s not much I can say in response to that. Certainly not “Peace, out.” Maybe just, “Peace”. “Shalom”.

      Ultimately, it’s all just politics. I know some (many of them liberals) think the personal is political and vice versa. But I don’t. Let’s keep things in perspective. 🙂

      William A. Jacobson in reply to CalMark. | February 4, 2012 at 10:19 pm

      I really don’t appreciate the use of the term in the comments, you can disagree without it.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to BurkeanBadger. | February 4, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    It is not an attack on the free enterprise system to question someone’s business practices. Or else, we would give medals to Corzine and Madoff.

    Romney and others have engaged in highly lucrative ventures, but in some cases, drained the pension funds of workers before they closed these companies down. This is what is dirty and low-down… and has left lots of people without pensions.

    Sure it’s legal, the airlines do it and other large companies do it (paying their CEOs and other execs. bonuses) while the little guy suffers.

    It’s legal – but utterly despicable.

    But, hey, like Romney says, ‘he’s not worried about the very poor.’

    They have a safety net… at the US taxpayer’s expense.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 4, 2012 at 10:11 pm

      So, I approve of the SuperPAC ads criticizing Bain. If there were any inaccuracies, they went back and removed them.

      I highly disapprove of any inaccurate ads and lies.

      Romney however, lied onstage at the last debate seven times and his ads were deliberately dishonest and aimed at as his people said: “destroying Newt.”

      Romney has spent millions over and under the table in a concerted effort to assassinate Newt Gingrich. That does not count the millions of Mormons typing the vilest ugliest comments on blogs.

      This is no way to treat a Christian brother who has repented and is trying to serve his country. It smacks of Alinsky (with whom Romney’s father consulted, along with LBJ, another ruthless politician).

      What is happening is the dirtiest campaign in my lifetime, exceeding the 2008 campaign that Obama ran.

      I will tell you more about Mr. Romney tomorrow morning when I’m not so tired…so you will know exactly why his candidacy is a veritable political jihad.

        That comment about “destroying Newt” has had far too much mileage attached to it. How many times have you heard football teams, or any athletic venue, say, “We are going to destroy you!” It’s called the heat of battle, to take it to your adversary and give it your all. That is what Romney did to Newt, and that is what Newt has been doing to Romney.

        Get over it!

          When you play to have your opponents carried off the field hurt and not just to win that’s not just going all out. That’s despicable. Byron York, Newsbusters, The Weekly Standard have all pointed out that Gingrich was totally cleared of ethics violations. And yet the Romney campaign keeps saying he resigned in disgrace. He didn’t. His resignation had nothing to do with the ethics charges. He was cleared of them.

          So, the Democrats smeared Gingrich in the 1990’s. The media did too by reporting the smears but not repeating the IRS total vindication. And now the Romney campaign is acting as though there was no vindication. How does Newt Gingrich get his reputation back? The original wrong was not Gov. Romney’s fault, but he has made it almost impossible for the country to understand that Newt Gingrich was totally cleared. That’s throwing a bean ball and trying to physically hurt your opponent not just brush him back.

        ldwaddell in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 4, 2012 at 11:11 pm

        Do Mormons believe Mitt Romney is the “White Horse”, and will he be able to create a Mormon theocracy?

        The White Horse Prophecy is a statement purported to have been made in 1843 by Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, regarding the future of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the United States of America. The Latter Day Saints, according to the prophecy, would “go to the Rocky Mountains and … be a great and mighty people”, identified figuratively with the White Horse described in the Revelation of John. The prophecy further predicts that the United States Constitution will one day “hang like a thread” and will be saved “by the efforts of the White Horse”.[1]

        Some have speculated, on the basis of the White Horse Prophecy, that Mormons expect the United States to eventually become a theocracy dominated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).[2][3] The authenticity of the prophecy as a whole, which was not made public until long after Smith’s death, is debated, and the leadership of the LDS Church has stated that “the so-called ‘White Horse Prophecy’ … is not embraced as Church doctrine.”[4] However, the belief that members of the LDS Church will one day need to take action to save the imperiled US Constitution has been attributed to Smith in several sources and has been discussed in an approving fashion by Brigham Young and other LDS leaders.

        Several prominent Mormons have made statements related to the White Horse Prophecy. For instance, US presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he considers the White Horse Prophecy to be a matter of “speculation and discussion by [LDS] church members” and “not official [LDS] church doctrine.”[5] However, US senator Orrin Hatch and conservative commentator Glenn Beck, have stated that they believe the Constitution is “hanging by a thread”.[6][7]

        Uncle Samuel, “This is no way to treat a Christian brother”?

        That’s news to me. Mormons are NOT Christians and in fact have closer ties to Islam, as claimed their founder, Convicted fraud and necromancer, Joesph Smith, who wanted to be called “The Prophet Mohammed”.

      Milhouse in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 4, 2012 at 10:16 pm

      Really? Can you give an honest example of where Bain Capital has “drained the pension funds of workers before they closed these companies down”? Or done anything else dishonest? Because I’m not aware of any. Note that if your example is GS Technologies, you automatically lose.

      StrangernFiction in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 4, 2012 at 10:30 pm

      Like it would be a shock to find that Romney behaved unethically at Bain. It would be a shock to find that he didn’t. It’s who the guy is. He is every bit as phony and dishonest as Obama is.

      You really can’t make this stuff up.

        Maybe it wouldn’t be a shock, but first you have to come up with something unethical that he actually did there. So far none of the allegations I’ve seen pan out; they all turn out to be just more anticapitalism that reflects badly on the ones making them.

      Romney is the dark side of capitalism: legal but unethical.

      In fact, he is tailor-made (as many others have said) as an Obama Victory ’12 opponent.

      Mitt Romney is utterly unscrupulous with unlimited money and the backing of everyone who matters. In short, the living, breathing parody of a GOP opponent who will be eaten alive by the Marxist Democrats.

        Milhouse in reply to CalMark. | February 5, 2012 at 10:24 am

        “Legal but unethical” can only exist to the extent that the laws are flawed. In general, if it’s legal then it’s ethical. Especially when one has employers, investors, shareholders, to whom one has both a legal and an ethical duty to maximise their returns. So, can you give an example of something unethical that Romney actually did in business?

    ldwaddell in reply to BurkeanBadger. | February 4, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    And of course you aren’t here to gloat, right?

To contact Sheldon try this website: http://investor.lasvegassands.com/contactus.cfm

There are no good guys in this. We are watching our politicians being bought right under our noses. Money = electability. We shouldn’t be voting for either Romney (whose money is coming mostly from the same contributors as Obama’s) nor Gingrich who is a one-man whore.

Why do our votes have to be bought. We already know who is paying our politicians to lie to us and yet we still voice desperation to believe their lies. What a country. We deserve the government we have. We are too dumb to do the right thing. If we can’t vote our principles, why should we expect our politicians to have any?

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | February 4, 2012 at 10:26 pm

Romney is not only a liberal politician, but he is truly a political pariah.. He runs his politics, like he ran Bain Capital.

Romney and Obama are more alike than Hillary and Obama.. thus, this is worse than could have ever have been imagined for all the Conservative Reagan Tea Party folks, not to mention the Nation.

Why is it, and how is it, with an anti-Obama electoral atmosphere so high, from his ultra liberal socialist policies, that have all but bankrupted the nation.. why in heaven would anyone in the Conservative Republican voting public, would want to elect Romney, whose policies are almost exactly the same as Obama’s, almost to verbatim.  Why..

This is the troubling question that seems to be so troubling, as the reason and logic of it, just escapes any and all reason and logic.  

In other words, it make absolutely no sense at all.. It’s the same as saying Hillary would be better for the nation, because she is Hillary, regardless of her exact same political policies and ideological philosophy. Just like Romney and his liberal socialist policies and agenda, which are all on public record for all to see, but the media refuses to report on.. It just make absolutely no sense whatsoever.. 

It’s not their words so much, as their actions of public record, not their public persona and perception, which is opposite of the truth.Romney created and signed into law, a forced mandated State Socialized Medicine program, aka, Romneycare, before there was even an Obama and Obamacare.. 
 
Newt stopped the very same State Socialized Medicine program in the 1990’s called Hillarycare, under Bill Clinton.. not to mention Newt balanced the Federal Budget 3 years in a row, also forcing Bill Clinton to reform welfare, as well as cut taxes across the board, lowered govt. spending, and so on..
 
So, why would anyone believe that Romney would repeal Obamacare, because he said so..  They are is so naive and gullible, it’s almost laughable,, if it weren’t so tragic.  Well, I guess if you have enough money and the political machinery behind you, you can deceive anyone, . How easily the majority of the voters can be fooled, as evidenced with Obama, and now Romney. 
 
If one were to look at Newt’s record compared to what the GOP establishment and Romney’s SuperPAC has created, the opposite is true.
 
Newt’s actual record to his public persona, he is actually conservative and a great leader, just different in his style and tact, who has accomplished so much for this nation, second only to Ronald Reagan.

OK, so Gingrich supporters on this site are grasping at straws thrown out by the NYSlimes and Shamnesty Lindsey Graham now?

And if Newt would, by some miracle, win the nomination, just how is he going to compete with Obama’s financial leviathan? Hummm, Bueller?

But I do have to say I enjoy all you guppies eating your own.

Now, let the dislike hits begin.

Why is Romney running? I’ve tried to discern his platform, but where it’s even halfway detailed it’s a bag of mush that changes little. I’ve tried to determine what drives him, what it is he wants to get done, what his message is, and it’s mostly a voicebox full of canned platitudes. No favorite issues, no boldness in policy, wouldn’t be prudent, better stay the course. He’s all moderated, effete, coiffed and polished boilerplate, a banner, a product, a brand sticker. He loves America, Chevrolet, and babies, too. He get’s huffy but never mad, contented but never joyous. There’s no soul, no spark, no imagination in the man that I can see.

I fear he seeks the presidency as a personal trophy and there it ends.

I simply will not vote for Mitt Romney.

I will leave the Presidential vote blank.

    While I personally find Newt Gingrich reprehensible in character traits, narcissism, and a lack of conservative continuity in his policy stances, I will nevertheless cast a vote for him should he be the R nominee, as this country can’t take another 4 years of Obama.

    Estragon in reply to AmandaFitz. | February 5, 2012 at 3:17 am

    Barack Obama sends his thanks for your support, and hopes you are pleased with the 1-3 Supreme Court Justices and 200-300 lower federal judges he will appoint to life tenure in his next term.

    I never understood how anyone thinks they can “send a message” by not supporting the nominee. Some conservatives did that last time with McCain. How was their “message” received? It didn’t seem to change things much, except make it easier for Obama to win.

    But don’t worry: those judges will make sure your grandchildren and great-grandchildren get the message.

The Newt Gingrich vs Mitt Romney contest reminds me of the 2010 Senate Republican primary between Mike Castle and Christine O’Donnell.

The former was a popular candidate characterized as a moderate to liberal politician. His numbers were good, and he publically was against voting in Obamacare.

O’Donnell, though, was another one of those candidates considered more conservative, even though she was erratic in her statements, showed poor personal financial judgement, and had former staff members issue negative statements about her candidacy — all of these so similar to Gingrich. For instance, here is a Hernman Clark ad, in 1992, illustrating how Gingrich bounced $26,000 worth of checks.

And, like Gingrich, Sarah Palin came out and endorsed O’Donnell, while not personally stumping for her.

Well, we all know what happened in this race. O’Donnell won the primary, but lost in double digits to a very weak dem opponent, Coons, and his was a vote for Obamacare.

So, how did that work out for us?

As an epilogue, the irony is that Christine O’Donnell has come out and supported Romney.

    Estragon in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 3:24 am

    Castle was a 53 lifetime ACU rating, making him about like Snowe and Collins. But he always voted with the Party when the leadership called a “Party vote” (designating a vote of critical importance to the agenda). Coons is 100% with Obama, and will probably come in under 10 at ACU.

    And yet people still pat themselves on the back for their “principled” stand in that race. Also with Angle, Buck, Maes, and Joe Miller, all of whom were good conservatives on paper but blew competitive races.

    Those who think we can win by losing need to buy a pocket calculator or something.

[…] Romney tries to cut off Newt’s SuperPAC funding- legalinsurrection.com- quote- […]

Yes, she has endorsed Mitt that just goes to show you that Christine and Mitt think alike, because I am sure she read all his positions on every issue and came to the conclusion that Mitt is a witch too. So if she didn’t deserve to be elected then neither does Mitt.

    So, if Sarah Palin endorsed O’Donnell, and O’Donnell endorsed Mitt, then what does that say about Palin? Is she a witch too?

      ldwaddell in reply to tsr. | February 4, 2012 at 11:52 pm

      What is says about Palin is that you can’t win them all. As Mitt Romney knows all too well.

        retire05 in reply to ldwaddell. | February 5, 2012 at 12:01 am

        Romney seems to be cleaning your guy’s clock.

        Perhaps Newt should have realized that instead of doing all the things he has been doing in the last few years, that if he was going to run, and believe me, he has known for at least three years he was going to run this time, he needed to build a war chest and have a strong ground game.

        Instead, he played patty-cake with Nancy Pelosi on a sofa.

          ldwaddell in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 12:33 am

          And Mitt played patty cake with Ted Kennedy to get federal $ for Romneycare, now all tax payers get to pay for one states socialized medicine.

“Mitt Romney Wins Nevada Caucuses – Has Smaller Percentage of Vote Than in 2008”

Newt in 2nd
Santorum last place

http://tinyurl.com/84cuwvn

    A smaller percentage of a much lower number. In 2008 he got over 22,000 votes, Today he’s going to be lucky if he gets 10,000. Wow. I can hardly believe the enthusiasm. And they say that Obama’s support has dropped off.

    Somehow I don’t think this is a winning strategy for us.

“. . . the proportional nature of the upcoming contests “essentially guarantees that no candidate will secure the nomination anytime soon and the map quickly becomes more favorable for Gingrich.”

More than 20 percent of the available delegates (467) will be awarded on Super Tuesday, and the memo notes that, one of the Super Tuesday states is Georgia, with 76 delegates at stake. To put that in perspective, “even if Romney wins Florida on Tuesday, he will only have 83 total delegates; Newt’s home state could effectively cancel out his entire delegate count to date.”

The memo also describes Tennessee (58) and Oklahoma (43) as “favorable” Super Tuesday states, and notes that just one week after Super Tuesday (March 13), 90 delegates will be in play in Alabama and Mississippi. And if the point that a Florida loss is survivable wasn’t already hammered home, the memo notes, “these 90 [delegates] alone are more than the 83 Romney will have in hand on Wednesday morning if he wins Florida.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/30/gingrich-internal-memo-downplays-florida-looks-ahead-to-super-tuesday/#ixzz1kxsMdr2Z

I guess Newt’s SuperPac has been pretty effective. So sorry its hurting Romney’s feelings. Does he even know what’s coming after him IF he were to win the nomination.

I have seen Romney on so many lib media outlets, just makes me thinks he is quite comfortable with them and trusts them. If he thinks that are going to play nice and fair he’s in for a big surprise.

For someone who is winning Romney sure acts like he’s about to lose.

Certo!

I just watched Newt’s presser. I challenge anyone to refute his comment that Romney has been “fundamentally dishonest”.

While I personally find Mitt Romney reprehensible in character traits, narcissism, and a lack of conservative continuity in his policy stances, I will nevertheless cast a vote for anyone but him should he be the R nominee, as this country can’t take another 4 years of liberal governance.

You have got to be kidding me.

William,
Interesting rhetorical question when you use the NYTimes using anonymous sources to substantiate a story that paints conservative Jews and Mormons in the caricatures they love; and is politically expedient to your immediate aims.

You must be kidding me; the NYTimes is always fair to observant Jews and Mormons and conservative Christians.

I also note that your tertiary source is the Huffington Post – another paragon of honest journalism when it comes to religious conservatives. /snark

This is not to say that there is no truth to these stories, rather to point out that you place a good amount of credulity in sources you normally question. It is almost as if you’ve adopted the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” adage. Reading your site for the last two months, some might wonder that your primary objective is defeating Romney instead of Obama…

    bains in reply to bains. | February 5, 2012 at 12:15 am

    And before anyone tees off on the Romney is Obama lite meme, let me point out a bit of reality.

    Sonya Sotomayor, Elana Kagen and Ruth Ginsberg are well left of Harriet Meyers. A Republican President (squishy conservative at best in domestic affairs) was cajoled by his base to nominate another candidate who had a more conservative track record.

    Who do you want replacing retiring SCJustices?

    Or is your hatred of Romney so great that you would willingly give that monumental task back to Obama?

      And another Republican president at the behest of John Sununu (who is now one of Romney’s senior advisors) put Souter on the bench. That worked out really well, don’t you think?

        Your passion is clouding your judgement. Would you rather have five David Souters or five Sonya Sotomayors?

        Reagen and GHWBush made mistakes. GWBush almost made one, but the base learned from the two previous ones, thus we have Sam Alito instead of Harriet Meyer.

        Again I will ask, would you rather have leftists appointing leftist Judges, or Republicans appointing a strong conservative and a squishy conservative?

        Do the math folks…

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | February 5, 2012 at 12:17 am

Someone needs to make that ugly punk Sununu an offer he cannot refuse.

What people who support Romney say about Gingrich, is that this election, should he get the nod, will be all about him. And, his speech tonight, was just that, all about how unfair his rival is. In fact that is what this thread is all about — Romney wooing his biggest doner.

Haven’t we lost the message of this election? Shouldn’t we be spending more of our speech-time pointing out the differences between republicans and Obama?

Here is the text of Romney’s speech tonight, which has a focus on issues and on Obama, talking about the Dodd-Frank Act, NCRB’s action against Boeing, Energy and the Keystone pipeline, the debt, job formation and so on.

First, it is important for all to remember that with all “the Republican establishment’s” money and the so-called conservative media backing; they have absolutely zero votes in the fall election! Mitt will have a very an almost insurmountable obstacle to overcome to get my vote it the fall. I can also say that this is true for some of my other Floridians. The primary election is over here, but the unnecessary bitterness caused by Mitts tactics is not.

Professor Jacobson, I wish to thank you for this blog. It has been very uplifting to me to know that others feel the same as I do; also you have been a very good source of information for articles and facts rebutting the revisionist history which has been prevalent in the media.

Victor Davis Hanson, the great military historian, puts Nevada in a proper perspective by saying this: Gingrich’s speech: How to make a bad night worse

But whether he knows it or not, Gingrich is becoming a caricature of petulance: no concession in Nevada, no call to Romney, no awareness that his inability to raise money at levels of a political rival or to match a competing campaign organization is not necessarily not fair. That’s politics, and Gingrich knows it. I don’t understand why he thinks now losing to Romney in 2012 is solely due to Romney’s innate deviousness in a way McCain beating Romney in 2008 was not so — given that Romney was about the same in both 2008 and 2012. Gingrich seems oblivious to the fact that McCain’s style and history gave him advantages over Romney’s money and hardball in ways Gingrich’s own proven liabilities apparently do not.

Verdict? Gingrich is going to have to stop the accusations now, turn attention away from himself, stop complaining about the mechanics of the race, stick with critiquing Obama, and at least seem a good sport when he loses.

[…] Meanwhile Romney tries to cut off Newt’s funding. blog comments powered by Disqus /* */ /* */ /* */ […]

The principle allegation you highlight is an unconfirmed anonymous source. Zeidman, a friend of both Romney and Adelsen, is quoted in the article but doesn’t say anything about trying to cut off the funding.

The reason anonymous sources are discouraged, and used to be rejected by serious news organizations unless the information could be confirmed on the record, is because we have no way to judge their credibility, or even if they have a conflict of interest in the matter.

But I guess you can trust Adam Nagourney since he’s been so accurate and balanced in the past, right?

[…] Our Future, that has been tearing into Mr. Romney through television advertising.” (Hat-tip: William Jacobson.)This kind of thing — one candidate’s “top Jewish financial supporters” […]

All I know is Gingrich sure is helping Romney spend his war chest of gold coins. This is far from over.

I’m an “unaffiliated” voter. I want to vote for the Republican candidate for POTUS this year, but I won’t vote for Romney. I voted for McCain only because I wanted to vote for Sarah Palin. I haven’t heard any names bandied around for VP that would make me consider voting for Mitt. I have no reason to believe that his choice of judges would be any better or worse than Obama’s based on his MA record, and I get ObamneyCare with either candidate. Why change horses when the new one is just as old and tired as the one you’re on? If the Republicans want my vote, they have to give me something different than what we already have.

Won’t Coulter be surprised when she fails to bully us into voting for Romney in the General IF (and that is a big if)he gets the nomination.

good summary elliesmom – since you’re the highly coveted independent voter both parties are willing to sell their soul to attract someone should be willing/able to tell you the difference between the potentials.

I do agree that if the Rep only offer a Dem-lite there is no real reason for Independents to support the GOP. They already know how the Dems are going to shaft them – BTDT; why should voters be eager to put an unknown in office if it appears that he can’t even motivate the voters in his own party?

People keep acting like Romney being an iota better than Obama is a good enough reason to vote for him. People stress about Obama having SC appointments – maybe Congress could do a better job of screening them? Seems like the Dems were mostly able to shaft some of the GOP selections. If the country is going to h*ll in a handbasket I’d just as soon the Dems get credit for it rather than the GOP.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend