Gingrich: Romney should be ashamed of these incredibly effective, hugely damaging Super PAC ads

posted at 6:45 pm on December 20, 2011 by Allahpundit

Why should he be ashamed, exactly? Gingrich unilaterally disarmed on negative ads, whether because he thought they’d backfire and hurt his image or because his own Super PAC can’t yet afford them, and now he’s peeved that Romney and Ron Paul haven’t followed suit. But why would they? The ads have been invaluable in deflating Gingrich’s Iowa balloon and making it a race again. And spare me the “attack ads only help Obama” lecture: The One has an army of oppo people ready to air Gingrich’s dirty laundry if he’s the nominee. Does anyone seriously think Obama needs Mitt Romney’s ad team to remind him of Gingrich’s relationship to Freddie Mac?

“Well, that makes my point,” Gingrich said. “If you see Romney, ask him to take them off the air. I mean, you know, it would be nice if candidates were responsible for the things being done by the people who know them personally who are trying to help them get elected.”

He later closed his 37-minute session with this: “Ask (your friends) if they run into one of these candidates, to tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves, to take this junk off the air. And don’t hide behind some baloney about the superPAC that I actually have no control over that happens to be run by five of my former staff. That’s just baloney.”

Gingrich’s spokesman went a step further today — accidentally:

On Tuesday morning, Romney sought to distance himself from Restore Our Future [his Super PAC].

“We really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super PACs,” Romney told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”…

The Gingrich campaign likewise sees Romney as being duplicitous. The candidate’s spokesman, RC Hammond, told a reporter on Tuesday that Romney is “either a lying politician or a piece of sh*t.” The statement was meant to be off the record, but was accidentally tweeted (and subsequently deleted). Hammond expressed his “sincere apologies to Governor Romney” in an email to The Huffington Post.

Romney, of course, is not alone in taking both sides of this issue. President Barack Obama has criticized the proliferation of independent electoral groups, going so far as to warn that they are a threat to democracy.

True enough about The One, but then he’s the guy who used to drone on in 2007 about the glories of public financing for campaigns before summarily dumping the public finance system the next year when he realized he could raise lots, lots, lots more cash by opting out. And true enough about Romney too. When Scarborough asked him this morning why he didn’t call off the dogs, he had the stones to say, “I’m not allowed to communicate with the super PAC in any way, shape or form” — because, see, it’s totally separate from his campaign. Two clips below, one of the newest ad from his Super PAC kicking Gingrich’s teeth in and the other a vintage 1994 snippet of him calling for PACs … to be abolished. Turns out he’s a hypocrite who’ll say or do whatever’s necessary to win. Who knew?


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

Honestly, I’m looking forward to having some sneaky hatchet-men playing on our team, for once. That’s one of the good things we’ll get with Mitt.

Esoteric on December 20, 2011 at 9:36 PM

I agree 100 percent

gerrym51 on December 20, 2011 at 9:44 PM

BTW, if Romney didn’t switch positions on every issue I wouldn’t mind his ads so much. If he told the truth I’d have no problem. It’s just that he’s such a two-faced, double barrelled phony, and you put it altogether and it’s a big joke watching him tear down others with more conservative records than him.

apocalypse on December 20, 2011 at 9:48 PM

AP’s right: Romney pretty much has this thing wrapped up once Paul takes Iowa. The economy will bounce back in the summer and O will trounce Romney in the GE. :-( Punchenko on December 20, 2011 at 7:04 PM

The GOP already sent out the memo to go easy on O because most folks still like him “personally”. Romney will most likely follow the memo and not hammer away at him. Punchenko on December 20, 2011 at 8:57 PM

What have you got right so far? Zero. I said the day after we learned of the $1.6 million Freddie Mac revelation that this would sink Gingrich’s campaign.

The ABR Republicans who think that a man who promoted the socialist mortgage debacle, which created the housing bubble and the near collapse of the banking system and which led to the regulations which are retarding a recovery, is somehow fit to be our nominee are in complete denial of reality. It should have told you something was not too sound about your thinking when you had to ignore the recent past of Gingrich and reach back 15 years to justify his choice as nominee.

And all this talk from you ABR’s that Romney won’t go after Obama with everything he needs to is just more ridiculous anti-Romney blather.

Basilsbest on December 20, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Glad you posted that video AP.
Romney ran to the left of Ted Kennedy on campaign reform, and wanted PACs abolished.
Yet another Romney flip flop.
cat_owner on December 20, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Nice try. He said on Morning Joe this morning that he wants them abolished now.

Basilsbest on December 20, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Romney muscled aside Jane Swift. and he did not hesitate to attack in 2008(although he still lost). It amazes me how people can take him as so genial but not realize how tough he can be.
gerrym51 on December 20, 2011 at 9:21 PM

He didn’t “muscle aside” anybody. Jane Swift was the acting governor and a wildly unpopular administrative disaster. She wasn’t even a blip in the polls when she dropped out.

Romney attacked who exactly in 2008? And it worked so well he still lost? That makes sense.

He can attack through ads and surrogates but is about as extemporaneously unfit and clueless a political combatant as republicans could possibly nominate. He unravels under sustained assault. John McCain ate him alive. And we saw how well McCain did against Obama.

rrpjr on December 20, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Barack “Pretty Please” Obama wants Newt as the candidate.

Not Romney.

profitsbeard on December 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Maybe this is what Mitt’s critics have been wanting more of.

Nobody should kid himself that Newt wouldn’t be using negative ads if he could afford them.

flataffect on December 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM

He can attack through ads and surrogates but is about as extemporaneously unfit and clueless a political combatant as republicans could possibly nominate. He unravels under sustained assault. John McCain ate him alive. And we saw how well McCain did against Obama.rrpjr on December 20, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Delusional. Romney is a very good debater. Not quite as good as Freddie Mac, but very good. Your biases have overwhelmed your intelligence if you think McCain ate Romney alive. Romney will school Obama on the economy. Romney is as wonkish as Paul Ryan.

Basilsbest on December 20, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Your biases have overwhelmed your intelligence if you think McCain ate Romney alive.
Basilsbest on December 20, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Go back to the tapes. Romney couldn’t even make eye contact. McCain had his number from the beginning. Not even close.

rrpjr on December 20, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Go back to the tapes. Romney couldn’t even make eye contact. McCain had his number from the beginning. Not even close.

Mitt WAS a much poorer candidate in 2008. This is true. It’s also true that he’s a hundred times better now than he was then. Part of that is having gone through the whole shebang once.

This is another point in Romney’s favor: he learns and gets better.

Esoteric on December 20, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Basilsbest on December 20, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Ignore that poser. He thinks he is a master at baiting people with provocative comments. His St Palin the Victimized congregation has pretty much disbanded leaving him with no direction or purpose other than to troll with every comment.

He is trying to emulate Bishop and doing a pi$$ poor job of it. Heck, even Bishop has lost a step or two over the last few months and pu$$yenko is still not worthy to shine Bishops’ boots. (or high heels…he’s been whining quite a bit lately)

Maybe one of our new members will become the preeminent baiter now?

csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:58 PM

csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:58 PM

I never new posting here would be so entertaining

gerrym51 on December 20, 2011 at 11:04 PM

If Newt can fight back the establishment attack machine using whatever he’s willing and able to then he’s my guy. If not Romney et al wins the warmup. I hope so, I gotta hold both nostrils pulling the lever for Romney.

Rea1ityCheck on December 20, 2011 at 11:36 PM

You can make the strong case that McCain really didn’t want it enough. But there’s no question that Romney does. He will go to the mats to win this thing in both the primary and the general, but he won’t be stupid about it. Look at what Obama did to win in 2008, after all: stayed personally above the fray, and sent his minions out to do the dirty work.

Honestly, I’m looking forward to having some sneaky hatchet-men playing on our team, for once. That’s one of the good things we’ll get with Mitt.

Esoteric on December 20, 2011 at 9:36 PM

I agree. One thing that is vastly different between Mitt and McCain, is Mitt wants this fight. Its difficult for the MSM to paint him as a hard core right winger and yet I have no doubt that once the general starts he won’t hold back against Obama. He’ll play to win. He wants to win and the last thing he’ll say is that Obama has been a good president. McCain went out of his way to say that Obama is a good man and would make a fine president. Can anybody imagine Mitt saying such a thing now or during the general election? I can’t.

I asked a friend of mine the other night (a democrat) if he could picture Mitt Romney dipping his toe into the pool gently against Obama in the general and he laughed. He said, “my god, if there is anything obvious about that guy its that he will do what it takes to win. He’ll say anything it takes to win.” Ordinarily, I dislike a politician who is self promotingly shameless but this time the stakes are higher. Obama second term is beyond horrifying. I want someone shameless on my side for once. I want someone who is willing to hit hard and draw blood.

I don’t like Mitt Romney. I don’t think he is the best we can do right now. I’d much rather see Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio or Sarah Palin or somebody I can trust to be conservative but one thing I’ve learned about Mitt is he is not McCain. Mitt will go all out negative against Obama. I want a candidate willing to do what it takes to hit Obama hard and make him squirm. I want to see Newt go negative or at least show us that he’s willing to do that. I haven’t seen it. Perry would do it but I’m not sure he would do it effectively. At this point I’m perfectly happy to start letting Mitt Romney throw punches against Obama exclusively. I don’t know that it would work but I think I know that he would fight like hell until the end to become president.

Zetterson on December 21, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Newt is complaining because he is BROKE. He is only making TV ad buys in the Des Moines viewing area PERIOD, and not in any other state.

He blew a pile of money on fundraising consultants, website hosting and private jets last summer. He got nothing for that except ethanol PAC contributions. How are they going to help in NH & SC and other areas?

Kermit on December 21, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Honestly, I’m looking forward to having some sneaky hatchet-men playing on our team, for once. That’s one of the good things we’ll get with Mitt.

Esoteric on December 20, 2011 at 9:36 PM

This sentiment expressed as a conviction is surreal. Romney?

Here’s the problem: you are interpreting behavior in the primary against conservatives and under no duress as illustrative of a capability in the clutch under constant attack from the Left. Romney has never demonstrated — NEVER — this capability. Indeed, he has demonstrated — to an even greater degree now than in 2008 — an agitated and erratic disability under pressure. Perry gets under his skin and he quickly loses composure. Perry!? Brett Baier sets him off on a strange prissy scold. And has anybody even raised Bain in a debate? Has he experienced any kind of sustained or seriously hostile attacks in this process?

If you think this is “one of the good things you get with Romney” you’re either peddling a counter-intutive narrative from the Romney camp, or you haven’t watched this guy’s career at all.

rrpjr on December 21, 2011 at 2:15 AM

Newt’s spokesperson Mr. Hammond needs to be fired, since Newt promised any of his surrogates attacking others (which Newt said in a moment of politically calculated indignation) would be fired. Mr. Hammond has crossed that line.

scotash on December 21, 2011 at 3:01 AM

dirtseller on December 20, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Don’t worry about that one. It’s easy after the primaries.

Obama is either a lying Muslim or an anti American black liberationist believer. Either is worse than Romney. I’m pretty sure Obama will steer clear of the issue all together.

scotash on December 21, 2011 at 3:05 AM

I never new posting here would be so entertaining

gerrym51 on December 20, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Oh it certainly is at times! The key is to remain calm and remembering that this is just a blog and has no real importance in our lives. There are lots and lots of bitter former worshipers of failed candidates that cannot figure out where their personality ends and their candidates begins. Criticize a candidate and these imbeciles act like you just insulted them personally. THAT is when the fun begins. They start to panic and forget what is real and imagined.

Good times, good times. lol

csdeven on December 21, 2011 at 5:59 AM

I wouldn’t mind Romney being in the White House as long as he leaves with the rest of the tour group.

Extrafishy on December 21, 2011 at 8:08 AM

We are getting so played, guys. The republican establishment and the media are finally making there move and setting us up – we’re going to get stuck with Mitt Romney. Mark my words – it’s 2008 reflux with another milquetoast putz as our nominee. So if we’re going to go with another 4 years in the wilderness by commiting political suicide with all the wheeling and dealing a la lemmings, it’s frustrating and very depressing. The people have got to speak up and not let our nominee be annointed also.

mozalf on December 21, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Gingrich was taking it easy on Romney because he saw the scenario where he’d have to add Mitt as VP for a unity ticket. Otherwise the Establishment would sabotage Newt in the general election.

Of course the elite have already embarked on a scorched earth campaign against Newt. With all the wild talk there’s no way they will be able to support him-nor do they want to, since he might actually shake up their rigged system.

Gingrich was not my first choice, but Perry has not performed well enough to show he can take on Obama, the media and the Chicago machine.

All the negative ads against Gingrich still have not given me any reason to vote FOR Mitt. They confirm my worst suspicions about Romney’s judgement and character. He is a weak candidate, mealy mouthed, evasive, a liberal who thinks he can fool conservative rubes by being vague, a walking stereotype of the 1% the Demcrats have been demonizing in the culture for years as the source of America’s problems. There’s a reason 70% of Republicans want anyone but Mitt-he is a loser in the mold of McCain/Dole.

Remodernist on December 21, 2011 at 8:16 AM

He’s going to be the nominee. And I gotta say I’m warming to him.

He’s really not. And his lead is only holding in national polls. In Iowa, which is all that counts, he’s fading.

Allahpundit on December 20, 2011 at 6:56 PM

The voters will decide who will be the nominee. Not a vote has been cast yet.

The prospect of a Paul or Romney victory in Iowa has to be shaking up the non-Romney/non-Paul groups. Perhaps they will finally decide on one non-Romney favorite.

Romney has a rep for nasty tricks ie his 2007/2008 web site “Smears on Fred Thompson”/ false attacks on Huckabee, Guiliani, McCain. Nothing new here in 2011, same old panic sleaze tactics. The guy will do anything to get elected because he’s been running for President for 6 yrs, it’s his turn darn it, he’s the richest guy in the room, and he’s the establishment darling.

The fact that the concerted effort to bring down Newt (just the latest in a long line of Mitt rivals) has been helped along by the piling on of the establishment media should give us all pause. We the people want to choose our nominee. If Romney is forced on us I believe there will be a great exodus from the Republican Party ranks, and possibly a third party uprising.

Romney/RNC pact to go easy on Obama brings McCain ’08 to mind. Weak.

IndeCon on December 21, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Take note of the polls that consistently show a Generic Republican winning against Obama – Gov. Mitt Romney IS THAT GENERIC REPUBLICAN (in more ways than one) Obviously, he lacks the electricity but when there is a clear choice and there will be a VERY CLEAR CHOICE between Obama and Romney – the majority of this country (both conservative and independents) will vote Romney. Select Newt as the GOP nominee and you will give the media every opportunity to make the 2012 election “all about Newt” and not about Obama’s massive failures. Romney will coast thru the campaign, not saying undisciplined sound bites that could be covered on a nightly basis unlike Newt. Romney, at best, will hammer Obama about the economy and jobs while Newt will be espousing “impeaching judges” etc. Obama’s failures are all around to see and we need a candidate who will NOT take the spotlight away from that. Granted, I relish the thought of a Gingrich/Obama debate but we already see what the “professor persona in the Oval Office” leads to but in the long run, Romney has the perfect resume for the presidency needed at this time in history. His only known piece of baggage is that he once strapped the family dog’s pet carrier (with dog inside) the roof of a stationwagon for a family trip. Alas, take note on how Newt is complaining about attack ads, only because he hasn’t acquired the massive donations needed to create his own or to fight back. Please,conservatives, don’t let this slip through our fingers.

BabysCatz on December 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Romney symbolizes nothing but valueless greed that will it play it safe most of the time and go for the throat other times. He should and will lose the general election if nominated.

deploylinux on December 21, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Romney symbolizes nothing but valueless greed that will it play it safe most of the time and go for the throat other times. He should and will lose the general election if nominated.

deploylinux on December 21, 2011 at 11:11 AM

This is true.

rrpjr on December 21, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2