Romney hits Gingrich on Pelosi love seat appearance in new ad

posted at 9:45 am on December 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I guess Mitt Romney isn’t going to agree to Newt Gingrich’s proposal for an entirely positive primary campaign. Gingrich has already called this moment “one of the single dumbest things I’ve done in years, but that hasn’t entirely defused the issue of his appearance in a TV spot with Nancy Pelosi on the need for “dialogue” on global warming, and Romney knows it. It was inevitable that Romney would play this card if things got tough — and they have:

Note that this is not something put out by a super-PAC.  As the ad states, this is “paid for by Romney for President, Inc,” so this attack comes directly from Mitt and his team.  It’s effective, too, as any ad would be that factually links a Republican candidate with Nancy Pelosi, and by only a small step to Al Gore.

However, this also leaves Romney open for an attack on the same grounds, as well as hypocrisy.  As governor, Romney imposed the kind of carbon caps that Barack Obama has been trying to implement through the EPA for the last three years based on their finding of carbon dioxide as a dangerous emission.  Romney also hired Obama’s current science “czar” John Holdren, a longtime Malthusian crank, to create those caps.  They had the predictable effect of increasing the need to purchase power generated outside of Massachusetts, thanks in part to price caps that Romney imposed as well.

Gingrich is certainly vulnerable on this point, but at least he’s apologized for his love-seat sojourn with Pelosi.  We still have yet to hear from Romney about his carbon caps, his hiring of Holdren, and the conservative rationale for price caps.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

All you need to know.

Schadenfreude on December 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Please hear me.

MITT DOESN’T CARE ABOUT TRYING TO WIN THE VOTERS WHO LEAVE NEWT.

HE ONLY CARES THAT THEY NOT VOTE FOR NEWT.

If he can damage Newt in the primaries and make sure those votes skitter off to “lesser” candidates…thus diluting the opposition…HE WINS.

Then the argument in the general will be what it always is. If you don’t vote for this guy you’ll get Obama.

He never intends to try to win the Conservative vote.

powerpro on December 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Oh, Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. My dear Doppenganger, you are on record–both video and written–as a supporter of man-made climate change. I wasn’t and aren’t at all shocked by Newt’s “terrible” mistake. I think of it as a product of his eternal optimism based on the novel notion that reasoned discussion can advance nobel causes and issue based debate can reveal the possible unintended or ridiculous consequences of proposals.

If nothing else an open discussion would have revealed that settled science was an oxymoron and Al Gore was an ox-like moron.

Confession: I once sat on a couch with Tip O’Neil, who once sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, and thus the disease is spread. Logic ain’t Romney’s strong suit is it?

Be that as it may, Mitt is looking more and more like Eddie Haskell.

Portia46 on December 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM

It’s obviously a matter of degrees but Romney’s record here isn’t nearly as catastrophic as Gingrich’s. Everything you mentioned about Romney there was done between 2002-2006, before the scope and scale of the fraud in the AGW industry were fully known, before the final pretenses of concrete evidence for manmade warming had been burned to ash –

Newt continued to carry on while being paid bucketloads of money by key players in the Green machine.

Romney can easily be charged for crafting bad policy on cap and trade as Governor, but he can’t be charged with selling out principle and good policy for blood money wrung from the American economy.

The difference – Romney’s actions are problematic on a policy level, Gingrich’s are indefensible both on policy and principle levels.

InVinoVeritas on December 14, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Well he did finish the “big dig”, of course his gran supporter Bechtel was found complicit in the murder of a woman through poor workmanship, and he fined them, a few hundred dollars, . . .
right2bright on December 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM

the big dig started on supervisory regulatory systems and overuns started long before Romney was governor

gerrym51 on December 14, 2011 at 1:03 PM

What else did he do on the couch with her?
He looks too happy!

KOOLAID2 on December 14, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Bachmann summed it up nice calling them Newt Romney.

Although I don’t support Bachmann, I agree we don’t need another crony corporate spender or tax hiker in the WH.

ProtectDefend on December 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Two minutes ago I called the idiotic Obama spam e-mail plan the most idiotic move in political history. And then I saw this post. I can not believe how dumb Mitt believes his supporters are. I mean these are people who have spent months arguing “yes, Mitt had to move to the left in MA, but that was strategic, purity-tests don’t necessarily lead to electable figures and maybe we should all calm down with these unreachable standards.” They’ve been called horrible names for doing that, and then the man releases this ad. Which basically spits in their faces and says, yeah I’m just going to pretend like I can enact purity tests on others. Wow, wow, wow.

libfreeordie on December 14, 2011 at 1:34 PM

MITT DOESN’T CARE ABOUT TRYING TO WIN THE VOTERS WHO LEAVE NEWT.

HE ONLY CARES THAT THEY NOT VOTE FOR NEWT.

If he can damage Newt in the primaries and make sure those votes skitter off to “lesser” candidates…thus diluting the opposition…HE WINS.
powerpro on December 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Shhh!

MadisonianRombot on December 14, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Romney can easily be charged for crafting bad policy on cap and trade as Governor, but he can’t be charged with selling out principle and good policy for blood money wrung from the American economy.

Let me get this straight. Gingrich is disqualified for running a business which did business with the government and “green” businesses? Consultants are without principle? Sort of like lawyers? And financiers who do business with firms who overstate their beer sales and strong arm their way through Brazilian law and who do business in Russia don’t compromise any principles? Since when is refusing to participate in the economy a virtue? Isn’t that the primary message of Occupy Wall Street?

Romney’s jab at Newt about “returning” his fee to Freddy and Fanny is as absurd as Newt’s return jab. I imagine the “fee” paid the rent and quite a few salaries. Why not demand that Dell return the billions Ross Perot made with his Medicare contracts? Conservatives can only be pure if they refuse to compete for government contracts? Only Democrats need apply? Seriously?

Portia46 on December 14, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Man, I hope there’s not a love child out there somewhere.

msupertas on December 14, 2011 at 9:53 AM

You will please pardon me, as I must no go vomit…

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Was vomiting as I was typing. Not easy.

msupertas on December 14, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Newt has said that doing the ad with Nan was stupid, but has he ever repudiated his statement that our government “must take action to address climate change”?

Just curious.

I wonder if he has ever read http://wattsupwiththat.com/

fred5678 on December 14, 2011 at 3:34 PM

All you need to know.

Schadenfreude on December 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Obama was a wolf in sheep’s clothing hiding a very liberal agenda from independent voters in 2008. Romney seems to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing for Republicans this go-around….proceed with caution.

ruthiedog on December 14, 2011 at 4:45 PM

We already know this about Newt.

ListKeeper on December 14, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Either way it goes, I want to hear this conversation.

The topic is long overdue.

papertiger on December 14, 2011 at 5:28 PM

At least they weren’t sitting in individual bath tubs and sipping wine like in those ‘if an erection lasts more than 4 hours‘ ads that run on tv.

PatrickHenry599 on December 14, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Gingrich throws out one thousand ideas, and some of them are, not surprisingly, clunkers. But Romney follows focus groups. While both have done some flip-flopping, Gingrich’s have been more on the order of, “Let’s try that and see if it works,” while Romney’s have seemed more like, “I guess I can be for that if the voters want me to be for that.” Romney has changed positions more than an insomniac with restless leg syndrome. (Yes, I couldn’t wait to register at Hot Air so I could wrote that!)

As things stand now I’ll take Gingrich. He will be a lot more fun to watch during the campaign and in the White House. Romney is as boring as Chelsea Clinton’s first NBC segment.

Colony14 on December 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pVqZzHm3Z4

Cindy Munford on December 14, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Romney has changed positions more than an insomniac with restless leg syndrome. (Yes, I couldn’t wait to register at Hot Air so I could wrote that!)

For real – you signed up for that? Keep your day job, mate -).

If you tally them up Romney is guilty of no more demonstrable position shifts than Gingrich.

Newt has said that doing the ad with Nan was stupid, but has he ever repudiated his statement that our government “must take action to address climate change”?

Yes – what he means is that it was politically stupid.

Let me get this straight. Gingrich is disqualified for running a business which did business with the government and “green” businesses? Consultants are without principle? Sort of like lawyers?

Maybe you should clarify that you’re not actually trying to attempt some kind of equivalence acrobatics between lobbying (i.e. the sale of influence and principle in order to influence public policy that shapes and breaks private lives) and private sector creation and destruction.

Newt’s lobbying shenanigans are particularly egregious because they both came on the WRONG side of the three great domestic disasters of the past decade – and he was there because he was paid to be there. It amounted to a raw betrayal of the best interests of (a) his country, (b) his party and (c) his own professed principles.

FIRST – he campaigned for the Medicare expansion of 2003, phoning conservatives to sell them on it and actually swaying key votes. This became the biggest entitlement expansion in US history and signaled the destruction of the Republican brand – and he helped engineer it.

SECOND – he teamed with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to shield Fannie and Freddie from regulation being demanded by other legislators including John McCain – that protection helped them keep on rocking without oversight right up to the moment they brought down the American economy. He was paid $1.6M to sell out the American people on that front.

THIRD – he has openly and consistently (as recently as this year) advocated for a nationwide individual mandate, something even Romney has never done and in doing so helped provide just enough cover for key undecided blue dog legislators to duck into voting for ObamaCare.

All of this comes down to one thing – Dem strategists right now are all cats that swallowed canaries – they are beside themselves with silent glee at the thought of running against Newt. As the National Journal poll showed last week, 86% of Dem insiders preferred running against Newt to Romney. Newt is going to get trucked if he makes into the general – he’ll get seal-clubbed into a bloody mess. There’s never even been an oppo dump like the one that’s ready for him once the sharp knives come out in a general.

If Republicans actually nominate Newt they probably deserve the electoral azz-kicking that will inevitably follow.

InVinoVeritas on December 14, 2011 at 5:51 PM

I detest Newt Gingrich, but fair is fair. Since when did Republican President Teddy Roosevelt become anathema to the Republican Party? It’s a sad state of affairs when admiring one of the most dynamic chief executives this country has ever known is somehow a reflection of bad judgment. This is a man who–aside from being President–led the charge at San Juan Hill, mapped the Amazon, drove the building of the modern US Navy. Keep in mind, too, that the Gilded Age of rampant corruption ended with Teddy Roosevelt, and that the railroad and banking trusts he faced down were, in fact, running roughshod over communities and buying whole state legislatures outright. Roosevelt did the right thing when he busted the trusts. Teddy Roosevelt was brave and noble and love this country more than he loved anything. Would to God we had anyone on the current GOP slate even remotely comparable.

troyriser_gopftw on December 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Teddy Roosevelt was the first GOP Progressive. He once said that it wasn’t enough for a man to attain a fortune in an honorable way but that he must use that fortune to support to benefit society and that if he didn’t then the gov’t could seize it from him.

Apparently you never listen to Beck? He’s exposed Teddy. Honestly I loved history but didn’t know about this until Beck.

John McCain said he was a modern day Teddy Roosevelt, we don’t need either McCain or Newt!

LevinFan on December 14, 2011 at 6:32 PM

I wish Herman Cain would get back in the race. I don’t care who he slept with.

newportmike on December 14, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Romney did this to Huckabee.

Relentless glitzy tv-ad-based & arguably false character attacks. Huckabee was pissed.

anotherJoe on December 14, 2011 at 7:41 PM

I’d rather vote for the guy who believed in global warming five years ago than the guy who believed in global warming and government-provided healthcare five years ago.

HitNRun on December 14, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I’d rather vote for the guy who believed in global warming five years ago than the guy who believed in global warming and government-provided healthcare five years ago.

HitNRun on December 14, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I’m afraid you’ll have to be more specific.

LevinFan on December 14, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Maybe you should clarify that you’re not actually trying to attempt some kind of equivalence acrobatics between lobbying (i.e. the sale of influence and principle in order to influence public policy that shapes and breaks private lives) and private sector creation and destruction.

He was not a registered lobbyist and if you have information that he did, indeed, lobby, you should turn it over to the FBI. A consulting firm is NOT a lobbying operation and doing business with Fanny and Freddie doesn’t mean you’re unprincipled or that you should sue ex-employees for their salaries. How is Newt unprincipled for signing a consulting contract with F&F and Romney gets a pass for investing in F&F. BTW, lobbying in and of itself is not necessarily a sleazy business and furthermore, it’s protected by the Constitution. The NRA lobbys. So do veterans. Most businesses whose very survival can be threatened by law and regulation HAVE to lobby. Lobbying isn’t crony capitalism. It’s the contributions and bundling which put you first in line for grants and government contracts. Do you have any evidence that Gingrich’s consulting firm raised campaign money?

I need a citation as regards Gingrich teaming up with Dodd and Frank. That’s, indeed, beyond odd since he promises to repeal their famous bill, along with Oxley. He also called for those charmers to go to jail.

The accusation about the individual mandate has merit, although it’s a lot more nuanced than “you will buy insurance and be fined if you don’t.”

Finally, Gingrich is Gingrich, but at least his ambition isn’t focused on trash and burn all contenders. And he’s bright enough to recognize when he’s wrong. Romney hasn’t confessed to any mistakes. Evah. That’s problemmatic.

Portia46 on December 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3