Newt spokesman on Romney’s VAT idea: Let’s face it, he’s flirting with “European socialism”

posted at 5:10 pm on December 27, 2011 by Allahpundit

Two questions with one week to go. One: Is there still time to convince undecideds that Romney’s a RINO? And two: Are there any undecideds left who still need convincing?

I’m thinking “yes” on both counts.

Gingrich campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond said that the Romney ruminations were part and parcel of the case Newt Gingrich will be making to voters this week: that he represents conservative values, while Romney is a “Massachusetts moderate.”

“The fact that he’s willing to look at European Socialism shows just how far out of the conservative mainstream he is,” Hammond said…

The other policy point raised by Romney came in a December 22 interview with the Concord Monitor, in which the former Massachusetts Governor said that “I don’t believe a path to make us more like Europe will make us stronger. I don’t think Europe is working in Europe. I know it won’t work here.”

Lest you doubt that this will be Newt’s closing argument against Romney, watch the two clips below. The first, from Gingrich’s campaign, is all sunshine and candy canes about creating jobs, etc. The second, from his PAC, hints darkly about the “liberal Republican establishment” that’s been attacking him with negative ads. I wonder who he means. Romney, meanwhile, appears to be reverting to his electability pitch by needling Gingrich about not getting on the Virginia ballot. Quote:

“I think he compared it to Pearl Harbor. I think it’s more like Lucille Ball and the chocolate factory,” Romney told reporters at a campaign stop at Geno’s Chowder House. “I mean, you got to get it organized.”…

This was the second time today Romney swiped Gingrich. This morning in Londonderry, Romney called Gingrich’s Virginia primary miss “not the best hour” of his bid for the White House.

“He’s running his campaign in a way he thinks best,” Romney said. “Obviously the Virginia setting was not the best hour of his campaign.”

Romney’s spokeswoman ripped Gingrich on MSNBC this morning too for his “desperate” attempts to revive a “failing campaign,” all of which is Romneyspeak for “Newt will never be organized enough to stop the Obama machine.” So there’s your choice, Iowa: The guy who pushed Massachusetts health care even further to the left, the guy who can’t stick to a bus schedule he planned a week ago, and a guy whose answers to questions about the Bilderbergers aren’t nearly as dismissive as they should be. Good luck, Hawkeyes.

Update: The gloves are coming off:

Newt on Mitt’s Lucille Ball comment: “I’d love to have him say that to my face.”


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

Newt on Mitt’s Lucille Ball comment: “I’d love to have him say that to my face.”

Thank God he just wants to hear the comment, and not debate Mitt about it for 90 minutes, without a moderator, man-to-man.

BocaJuniors on December 27, 2011 at 6:04 PM

You realize that a brokered convention would only produce an even MORE establishment candidate than the ones you consider to be establishment, right?

WealthofNations on December 27, 2011 at 5:56 PM

I hope for a brokered convention, it will shine a bright light on how the RINO establishment does it’s business!

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:04 PM

You realize that a brokered convention would only produce an even MORE establishment candidate than the ones you consider to be establishment, right?

WealthofNations on December 27, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Not all “establishment candidates” are created equal. If they want to put up Paul Ryan they have my blessing. I don’t think Mitt can win. That is my problem.

Kataklysmic on December 27, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Romneycare is still very popular in Mass. Seems to somehow defeat your argument.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 27, 2011 at 5:45 PM

And the NHS is very popular in Britain. So?

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Obama 47% – Gingrich 37%

December 27, 2011

After three straight weeks of decline, support for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich remains unchanged, though he still trails President Obama by 10 points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Obama earning 47% of the vote to Gingrich’s 37%. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on December 26, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

haner on December 27, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Agreed. Newt is incompetent and it’s showing.

sheryl on December 27, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Romney is a failed Senate candidate, a failed governor, and a failed presidential candidate. Now he is looking to add failed president to the resume. Why?

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Newt should have taken the advice of a man earlier on and stayed out of the race and not embarrassed himself. Newt (in his own mind) is not the smartest guy in the room but the smartest guy in the world. Who could take all of the lecturing from him day after day. UGGGGGHHHHHH.
All the BAGGAGE
ALL THE WIVES
ALL The Ethical Problems
1/2 million dollar Tiffany charge account for latest spouse
Campaign staff quit because he is not serious about running
Does not get on the Ballot in VA
Left Speaker Position in disgrace
Has only ever been able to be elected by a majority in a very conservative Georgia Congressional District
Global Warming with Pelosi
Attacking the Ryan Plan

We need to all get behind the best candidate (there is no perfect one) and NEWT ain’t it

Natebo on December 27, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Newt on Mitt’s Lucille Ball comment: “I’d love to have him say that to my face.”

How juvenile. What are you going to do Newt, beat him up?

JPeterman on December 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Agreed. And he is likely to be the Republican nominee unless more Republicans raise these issues now, rather than waiting for them to be used by Obama in the general.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 27, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Too late I think. Newt is a moderate and not very consistent and he won’t be able to stop Romney due to the lack of enthusiasm in defending him from the GOP.

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:04 PM

it would shine no light on anything at all! your ‘nistas fantasy of sarah winning a brokered convention is so off base. a brokered convention would probably give us bob dole again.

chasdal on December 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Romney generates highest positive intensity from DEMOCRATS in this national Gallup poll. Is anyone surprised!!!!

And, Romney has yet to break 25%. He is the perennial bridesmaid.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Sparky5253 on December 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM

You’d think that a No VAT pledge would be a powerful tactic for the GOP, yet they’ve hardly talked about it. Read my lips: I find that suspicious.

RINO version of a compromise: they’ll go along with a VAT only if the Democrats agree to increase income taxes & spending.

gs on December 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM

No VAT is a socialist concept. It just another way for the government to rape the taxpayer. Europeans love this concept

liberal4life on December 27, 2011 at 5:44 PM

So, Herman Cain is a socialist too then? Cause a VAT was a part of his 999 plan if I remember correctly.

Look, a VAT is very similar to a sales tax, which has been around for a long long time. It’s not an inherently socialist concept. The problem with a VAT, is 99 times out a 100 its floated merely as a means to raise more revenue. In other words, its proposed as something to implement on TOP of an income, corporate, or capital gains tax.

What Romney was talking about, was potentially swapping out an existing tax and REPLACING it was a VAT. Not putting a VAT on top of an existing tax.

Additionally, this criticism coming from Newt Gingrich supporters of all people is laughable. The man SUPPORTED A VAT HIMSELF in 1987.

Seriously, Romney talks about a hypothetically and somebody that actually supported a VAT while in office accuses him of being a socialist.

Pure, blatant, hypocrisy!

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Barney Frank and Bernie Sanders are Northeastern liberals.

haner on December 27, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Close, but no cigar..Clinton has all of them.

Bernie Saunders is a Socialist and Barney Frank is a Homosexual.

I denounce myself.

Mimzey on December 27, 2011 at 6:09 PM

What is the argument? I don’t see how it defeats the argument that Romney is an unprincipled hack who has no qualms about implementing leftist policy when it suits him.

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:01 PM

They are Romney supporters. They are fine with leftist policies or they wouldn’t be backing him. They want the Red Team to win in the 2012 World Series and since Obama is on the Blue Team they are against him. Principles have nothing to do with it.

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 6:09 PM

How juvenile. What are you going to do Newt, beat him up?

JPeterman on December 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM

It’s not juvenile. He knows that Romney is a spineless coward who would do no such thing.

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:09 PM

it would shine no light on anything at all! your ‘nistas fantasy of sarah winning a brokered convention is so off base. a brokered convention would probably give us bob dole again.

chasdal on December 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Bob Dole = Romney

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Additionally, this criticism coming from Newt Gingrich supporters of all people is laughable. The man SUPPORTED A VAT HIMSELF in 1987.

Pure, blatant, hypocrisy!

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:08 PM

The hypocrisy is from the Mitt-bots who say we all must forget about Romney’s damning statements from 1994, but remember Newt’s statements from 1987.

Your mental gymnastics are fun to watch, but get you nowhere.

portlandon on December 27, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Seriously, Romney talks about a hypothetically and somebody that actually supported a VAT while in office accuses him of being a socialist.

Pure, blatant, hypocrisy!

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I’m sure that you used the same argument about the health care mandate, right?

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:11 PM

it would shine no light on anything at all! your ‘nistas fantasy of sarah winning a brokered convention is so off base. a brokered convention would probably give us bob dole again.

chasdal on December 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Oh, there’s not going to be any brokered convention. Romney’s going to be the nominee, he’s going to lose to Obama, and maybe someone can put the GOP out of its misery after 2012.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:11 PM

I don’t think Mitt can win. That is my problem.

Me neither…

The time and money spent on his campaign is an example of the triumph of ego over intelligence. If the Republican base, arguably 33% of the electorate, can’t stand him. How is he going to come up with enough votes to win?

It’s not that he’s an “unknown” quantity, he’s a North-Eastern “Republican”. Like Olympia Snow, etc … Obama lite ..

We are in really deep trouble, we need someone who can fix the economic problems without blowing the foreign policy stuff.

We need someone who can work Washington well enough to get things done. And we need someone who will do hard things.

Barry wants another $1.2T in the debt ceiling. How many Cabinet agencies would we have to shut down, to come up with that cash? EPA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, TSA? Yes, there will be lots of unemployed bureaucrats, (kinda like starving rodents). And a bunch of guys with “sweet deals” will see them go away. If we don’t start lightening ship, we will sink.

CrazyGene on December 27, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Kataklysmic on December 27, 2011 at 5:55 PM

This is getting depressing.We seem doomed

Southernblogger on December 27, 2011 at 6:13 PM

It’s not juvenile. He knows that Romney is a spineless coward who would do no such thing.

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:09 PM

A spineless coward is someone who refuses to pay alimony for his divorced wife and daughter (after he cheated and divorced), while his daughter had to be supported by the local church and pantry.

When Jackie Gingrich and her daughters moved from their other home in Fairfax, Virginia, back to their house in Carrollton, Georgia, there were “no lights, no heat, no water, no food in the home,” former Gingrich friend and academic colleague Carter said.

Carter, who helped collect donations for the family, said Gingrich “wouldn’t give them a dime” in the first months of the separation.
“We had a food drive at First Baptist Church,” Carter said. “The deacons went down and stocked her pantry.”

Johnson, the former state legislator who was in Gingrich’s Sunday school class, said when the church’s minister asked him to donate money, he gave $100 to the fund.

A judge ordered Gingrich to appear in court a week after his wife filed her complaint. The result was a ruling that he bring the utility bills up to date and begin paying his wife $700 a month in temporary support until the case was settled.

Both sides reached an agreement three months later, avoiding the jury trial that Jackie Gingrich was demanding.

haner on December 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM

A spineless coward is someone who refuses to pay alimony for his divorced wife and daughter (after he cheated and divorced), while his daughter had to be supported by the local church and pantry.

haner on December 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM

No. That’s a deadbeat dad. Different words, different meanings.

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:16 PM

haner on December 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Mud slinging just makes you look like a desperate…

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:16 PM

A spineless coward is someone who refuses to pay alimony for his divorced wife and daughter (after he cheated and divorced), while his daughter had to be supported by the local church and pantry.

haner on December 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM

I thought the Mittbots were the ones who are always going on about how the social issues are irrelevant. And yet they’ve been preaching about Newt’s social sins ever since he took the lead over Romney.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Newt on Mitt’s Lucille Ball comment: “I’d love to have him say that to my face.”

OK, little Ricky.

Ronnie on December 27, 2011 at 6:17 PM

I thought the Mittbots were the ones who are always going on about how the social issues are irrelevant. And yet they’ve been preaching about Newt’s social sins ever since he took the lead over Romney.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Good observation.

Kataklysmic on December 27, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Ahh, so lovely when people ascribe traits to me that I do not actually have.

Look, I’ve only come to support Mitt Romney fairly recently, and while I think he’s acceptable I would still like to see a more conservative candidate that is actually competent.

Fact of the matter is, there isn’t one. Most of the people running for the nomination this time around, really don’t differ from Romney much, but are obviously far less competent campaigners. Basically, the other nominees are only SLIGHTLY more conservative, but are such horrible communicators that they couldn’t possibly win a general election.

I’m sorry, but that isn’t a good trade-off for me.

Additionally, Gingrich of all people, is one of the ONLY candidates running that as a whole is MORE left leaning than Romney. The man has advocated for FAR more expansion of the federal government than Romney ever has. He’s a big government Washington insider.

So for the life of me I cannot understand why people who seem to take personal offense at Romney give Gingrich a free pass. I’m sorry, but it’s simply an ASTOUNDING double standard that defies all reason.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Gingrich To Wolf Blitzer On A Paul/Obama General Election: ‘A Very Hard Choice’

I would vote for Obama, but RP will never be the nominee.

Southernblogger on December 27, 2011 at 6:23 PM

I thought the Mittbots were the ones who are always going on about how the social issues are irrelevant. And yet they’ve been preaching about Newt’s social sins ever since he took the lead over Romney.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:17 PM

There’s a difference between social issues and character. Being against gay marriage doesn’t automatically make you a good person.

haner on December 27, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Hmmmm, starting to rachet up the rhetoric. It’s the truth, but it’s interesting that Newt’s finally doing this. And coming from Newt is rather funny since he himself “flirted with European socialism” when he called “Romneycare” as having great potential. Heh. A little disengenous.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 27, 2011 at 6:25 PM

So for the life of me I cannot understand why people who seem to take personal offense at Romney give Gingrich a free pass. I’m sorry, but it’s simply an ASTOUNDING double standard that defies all reason.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Wellfare reform….

RomneyCare….

easy choice.

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Here are some facts for those who think Romney can beat Obama in the general. Romney has not won but one election.

Has he ever run in a conservative state?

He lost to Kennedy because of his actions at Bain.

He lost to a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

You think Obama will not hammer him for being a corporate raider and getting wealth bygutting businesses?

Socialism vs Capitalism. About time. Get it on.

All the passes Romney has gotten from the MSM will suddenly be invalid when he is in the general.

The MSM will favor Obama but they have a visceral hatred for hypocrites. They will spare nothing to denigrate Gingrich and he will supply them with endless ammunition.

Obama is better organized, has more money and is more experienced.

Obama has money but is less organized and experienced than Romney. Obama has more money and organization than Gingrich, but then who isn’t more organized the Gingrich.

Obama is a better fighter than Romney.

No. Obama hasn’t been in a fight yet. Romney took on the challenge of fighting Kennedy in Massachusetts. When he wins his party’s nomination Romney will have fought and beaten the legions of idiots in his own party.

He is not a better fighter than Gingrich.

Gingrich is too old and disorganized to fight Obama.

When Obama points out Gingrich faults. Gingrich will remind people who Obama is.

POTUS

The sex toy of Frank Marshall Davis.

If the Republican nominee goes there, Obama will win in a landslide.

The friend of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.

These will be interpreted as signs of desperation.

Gingrich is probably the best debater alive.

Your world is very small.

There is no new dirt to throw at Gingrich.Zelsdorf Ragshaft 27, 2011 at 5:26

Hilarious. There’ll be one new scandal a week, not including the bimbo eruptions.

Basilsbest on December 27, 2011 at 6:26 PM

There’s a difference between social issues and character. Being against gay marriage doesn’t automatically make you a good person.

haner on December 27, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Being divorced doesn’t automatically make you bad, either. And what’s the difference between social issues and character? If you’re going to say they don’t matter, then don’t use them as a litmus test to judge candidates with your own sort of purity test.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Most of the people running for the nomination this time around, really don’t differ from Romney much, but are obviously far less competent campaigners. Basically, the other nominees are only SLIGHTLY more conservative,

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:21 PM

This is not true by any subjective definition of “conservative”. Or, maybe you’re using E.J. Dionne’s definition of “conservative”? In any event, Romney’s term as governor was, overall, probably comparable to or slightly to the left of Obama’s term as president. Why would you expect him to be any better than Obama?

Look, you Romney supporters seem to be confusing what is necessary to get this country off of the statist trajectory with what is sufficient to do so. Removing Obama is necessary for this purpose, and a Romney nomination may be able to achieve that. Unfortunately, a Romney nomination is not sufficient to take us off of the statist trajectory – as he is a statist himself. We need a non-statist to get us on the right track.

And if Romney becomes president in 2012, what will our options be in 2016? We will have to rely on the Democrats nominating a non-statist in order to correct course? No way in hell that is going to happen. Better to have Obama win in 2012 and hope for 2016 than have Romney win and lose hope for at least another decade.

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Additionally, Gingrich of all people, is one of the ONLY candidates running that as a whole is MORE left leaning than Romney. The man has advocated for FAR more expansion of the federal government than Romney ever has. He’s a big government Washington insider.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:21 PM

We judge people based on what they have actually done. We believe that actions speaks louder than their self-serving political pronouncements. Gingrich beats Romney handily on that score though I don’t much like Gingrich he is at least a crappy conservative. Romney is a liberal.

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Wellfare reform….

RomneyCare….

easy choice.

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:25 PM

In my view, any good will Gingrich may have gotten for Welfare reform was lost when he lobbied to expand Medicare. Advocating for federal level health insurance mandate simply reinforces the view that he isn’t conservative.

Look, Gingrich is smart and there are traits about the guy I personally like. Taken as a whole however his career is very troubling, so I simply cannot support him.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Newt: “SAY IT TO MY FACE!!!1″

Reminds me of Youtube comments.

Why are we even giving this guy a serious look again?

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Go for it, Newt. Pander to me and save us all – cut his figurative throat.

SarahW on December 27, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Obama has money but is less organized and experienced than Romney. Obama has more money and organization than Gingrich, but then who isn’t more organized the Gingrich.

LOL, hilarious. Obama has already run a winning presidential campaign. What’s Romney’s record? Oh yeah, one election victory with 96% of the vote. I’m wondering where that “electability” myth comes from.

No. Obama hasn’t been in a fight yet. Romney took on the challenge of fighting Kennedy in Massachusetts. When he wins his party’s nomination Romney will have fought and beaten the legions of idiots in his own party.

Heh…and then you expect those “legions of idiots” to become ardent Romney supporters.

Hilarious. There’ll be one new scandal a week, not including the bimbo eruptions.

Basilsbest on December 27, 2011 at 6:26 PM

I doubt it. But anyway, why whine about “purity tests” when you’re putting them in place yourself?

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Newt on Mitt’s Lucille Ball comment: “I’d love to have him say that to my face.”

That schtick is old and tired Gingrich. No one with a lick of sense cares how tough you can sound when behind the scenes you were intimately involved with the entity that collapsed our economy.

csdeven on December 27, 2011 at 6:33 PM

And coming from Newt is rather funny since he himself “flirted with European socialism” when he called “Romneycare” as having great potential. Heh. A little disengenous.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 27, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Worse is that he supported the statist status quo with his “right wing social engineering” commentary.

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:33 PM

* 49%, not 96%. Must’ve overheard that number on TV or something.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:34 PM

In my view, any good will Gingrich may have gotten for Welfare reform was lost when he lobbied to expand Medicare. Advocating for federal level health insurance mandate simply reinforces the view that he isn’t conservative.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:30 PM

I like mandates. The mandates work.

So you are going to support the guy who implemented Romneycare and provided the pattern for Obamacare?

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 6:35 PM

* 49%, not 96%. Must’ve overheard that number on TV or something.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Was wondering what the hell you were talking about :)

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:35 PM

the VAT is the dumbest idea in the world, ugh, Perry get your butt in line and beat Mittens. Ugh!

Branch Rickey on December 27, 2011 at 6:35 PM

That schtick is old and tired Gingrich.

csdeven on December 27, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Look on the bright side, at least Newt didn’t challenge Mitt to another Lincoln-Douglas debate.

JPeterman on December 27, 2011 at 6:36 PM

That schtick is old and tired Gingrich. No one with a lick of sense cares how tough you can sound when behind the scenes you were intimately involved with the entity that collapsed our economy.

csdeven on December 27, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Don’t like either of them. But I’ll take Gingrich’s record in government over Romney’s any day.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Worse is that he supported the statist status quo with his “right wing social engineering” commentary.

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Yeah, and then later on her turned around and heaped all sorts of praise on Paul Ryans plans for medicare reform, after trashing it in a very public forum.

Seriously, the man switches positions more often than some people change socks. How it is that Romney can’t go a day without being called a flip-flopper by some troll, while Gingrich keeps being hailed as a true conservative.

This is real mindboggling stuff!

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Worse is that he supported the statist status quo with his “right wing social engineering” commentary.

besser tot als rot on December 27, 2011 at 6:33 PM

It looks like Ryan took Newt’s advise when he and Weiden introduced their new healthcare plan.

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:38 PM

LevinFan on December 27, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Thank you for bringing up all the fees that Romney pushed as governor.

That’s seldom mentioned.

From 2007:

Romney oversaw millions in fee hikes as Massachusetts governor

INC on December 27, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Perry beat anyone – LOL

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 6:41 PM

this is all a big win for Obama…congrats guys.

this is idiocy people.

Here’s a huge problem for conservatives…they have no effing clue what they are talking about half the time.

Exhibit A. This pm i heard a ‘conservative’ talker bitching about the increase in Freddie/Fannie home loans…and bitching about how the Rs did this.

Wrong. F/F are GOVERNMENT agencies. They ‘own’ the vast amount of the mortgages in the US. OK…simple question…is that good or bad? I say bad.

F/F are costing taxpayers billions per quarter..is that good or bad (hint..bad)

Correct solution…increase ‘insurance’ rates on mortgages from f/f. that is warranted by the situation. call it a USER FEE…an INSURANCE premium.

Hopefully the private sector can get into the game.

r keller on December 27, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Seriously, the man switches positions more often than some people change socks. How it is that Romney can’t go a day without being called a flip-flopper by some troll, while Gingrich keeps being hailed as a true conservative.

This is real mindboggling stuff!

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:37 PM

So, is flip-flopping good or bad? Good when Romney does it, but bad when Gingrich does? Saying that Newt’s a flipflopper doesn’t make Romney a Stalwart Superman.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Obama 47% – Gingrich 37%

haner on December 27, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Hmmmmm… I didn’t know that Obama was running in the GOP primary… oh, wait. He’s not. You want to at least try to stay on subject?

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on December 27, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Blog fail.

Cant stop the momentum. Spread lies!

swamp_yankee on December 27, 2011 at 6:43 PM

In any event, Romney’s term as governor was, overall, probably comparable to or slightly to the left of Obama’s term as president.

Don’t ever let the facts get in the way of your idiotic opinions. Romney inherited a a deficit and then ran 4 straight surpluses in the most liberal state in the nation.

Basilsbest on December 27, 2011 at 6:44 PM

So, is flip-flopping good or bad? Good when Romney does it, but bad when Gingrich does? Saying that Newt’s a flipflopper doesn’t make Romney a Stalwart Superman.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:41 PM

The point is that everybody is calling Romney a flip flopper and yet ignores it when every other politician does it.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 6:44 PM

2008 Romney ran as conservative. People raised eyebrows at some of his flipflops, but by and large gave him a break comparing him to McCain.

Romney lost nomination.

2011 Romney decides to run as a “moderate” since he lost 2008 as a conservative. He garners every old line GOP endorsement he can.

This time–no pass on the flipflops because now it’s obvious that 2008 was only words and not a conservative beginning.

INC on December 27, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Cant stop the momentum.

swamp_yankee on December 27, 2011 at 6:43 PM

LOL…”Romney momentum” seems like such an oxymoron. The guy and his support have been pretty much static throughout.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:45 PM

it would shine no light on anything at all! your ‘nistas fantasy of sarah winning a brokered convention is so off base. a brokered convention would probably give us bob dole again.

chasdal on December 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM

No a brokered convention will get you:
Bush the Third
W’s mini-me Daniels or at best Jindal.

RickB on December 27, 2011 at 6:46 PM

The point is that everybody is calling Romney a flip flopper and yet ignores it when every other politician does it.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 6:44 PM

No, the point is a cheap tu quoque argument in an attempt to get Mitt off the hook as a flip-flopper. I think both Romney and Gingrich are flipfloppers. I don’t know why Mittbots think that anyone criticizing Romney is automatically a Gingrich supporter.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:48 PM

LOL…”Romney momentum” seems like such an oxymoron. The guy and his support have been pretty much static throughout.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:45 PM

The longer you delude yourself, the more it will hurt.

swamp_yankee on December 27, 2011 at 6:49 PM

The longer you delude yourself, the more it will hurt.

swamp_yankee on December 27, 2011 at 6:49 PM

You get enough hurting people, and I don’t know where Romney’s support is going to be coming from. Democrats?

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:51 PM

So you are going to support the guy who implemented Romneycare and provided the pattern for Obamacare?

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 6:35 PM

The pattern was established earlier than that actually. Take a look at the auto-insurance mandate that nearly every state requires. Not that this is necessarily a good thing, but you can’t really accuse Romney of creating the concept in and of itself.

Now, while I do dock-points from Romney for his healthcare plan, I dock more points for Gingrich for advocating the EXACT same thing on a federal level during the 1990′s.

Romney at no point advocated for a federal level insurance mandate, in fact he’s been very vocal about it. Now, I could choose not to believe Romney, and I certainly understand why many people wouldn’t, however, he provides a logical and internally consistent answer as to why there shouldn’t be a mandate on the federal level, and that adds a certain level of weight to his words, at least with me.

Gingrich on the other hand, has been on both sides of this issue vocally, and has never explained why he has changed position.

And that’s the crux of the matter. Gingrich has never explained why a VAT was a wonderful idea in 1987, but is socialism now. He’s never explained why a federal level mandate is a great idea, while a state level mandate should be a dis-qualifier. Or, why entitlement programs needed to be expanded just a few short years ago, but need to be cut drastically now.

Gingrich is inconsistent at every stage of his career, but has never bothered to explain these changes in position. Romney has, and has changed his position far fewer times overall.

So I’m sorry, for me this is open and shut. If I have to choose one of the two, Romney is clearly the winner.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:52 PM

The longer you I delude your myself, the more it will hurt.

swamp_yankee on December 27, 2011 at 6:49 PM

fify

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Wellfare reform….

RomneyCare….

easy choice.

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Freddie Mac…

Capitalism…

easy choice.

BTW, welfare reform isn’t Gingrich’s biggest accomplishment – as if he did it by himself. His biggest accomplishment was showing up GHWB and paving the way for Clinton’s election. Clinton then capitalized on the Reagan peace dividends and ran surpluses. Republicans would have gotten credit for those surpluses but for Gingrich.

Basilsbest on December 27, 2011 at 6:53 PM

2008 Romney ran as conservative. People raised eyebrows at some of his flipflops, but by and large gave him a break comparing him to McCain.

Romney lost nomination.

2011 Romney decides to run as a “moderate” since he lost 2008 as a conservative. He garners every old line GOP endorsement he can.

This time–no pass on the flipflops because now it’s obvious that 2008 was only words and not a conservative beginning.

INC on December 27, 2011 at 6:45 PM

He’s running as a conservative in 2012 also. Trolls like to make it sound like he’s suddenly running as a moderate, but they’re lying.

Oh I forgot, he said he isn’t sure how much man is contributing to global warming OMG STOP THE PRESS!!!11

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 6:53 PM

The pattern was established earlier than that actually. Take a look at the auto-insurance mandate that nearly every state requires. Not that this is necessarily a good thing, but you can’t really accuse Romney of creating the concept in and of itself.

Stupid analogy that’s been exploded I don’t know how many times since ObamaCare first became a liability for Romney and then the Mittbots fanned out to rationalize.

No one has to buy a car. Everyone has a body.

Now, while I do dock-points from Romney for his healthcare plan, I dock more points for Gingrich for advocating the EXACT same thing on a federal level during the 1990′s.

You penalize Gingrich more for an attitude in the 1990s, while giving Romney pretty much a pass for what he actually signed into law? LOL

Gingrich is inconsistent at every stage of his career, but has never bothered to explain these changes in position. Romney has, and has changed his position far fewer times overall.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Still if I’m going to go on actual records while involved in government, Gingrich isn’t the one who governed like a Democrat. Romney is.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:57 PM

He’s running as a conservative in 2012 also. Trolls like to make it sound like he’s suddenly running as a moderate, but they’re lying.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Define troll…..

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Newt on Mitt’s Lucille Ball comment: “I’d love to have him say that to my face.”

Oh, for Heaven’s sake. Then what, Newt? Will you act like you did when Clinton put you across from the crew latrine in the back of Air Force One: pout, quiver, and shut down the government?

And some of you want Gingrich to be President of the United States. Imagine how infantile braggadocio like that would play to someone like, say, Putin: funny, tragic and nationally humiliating all at once.

I’m not particularly enthusiastic about any of the candidates, but I’ve got a short list of those candidates whom I definitely don’t want to be the GOP primary winner squaring off against the Chicago Machine: Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. One thinks he’s a Great Man Of Destiny, the second coming of Churchill, and compares himself favorably to Reagan and Thatcher. The other thinks giant spider-goat hybrids are being genetically engineered in secret Bilderberger laboratories. Both are an embarrassment to the Republican Party and need to be gently but firmly escorted off the national stage.

troyriser_gopftw on December 27, 2011 at 6:59 PM

BTW, welfare reform isn’t Gingrich’s biggest accomplishment – as if he did it by himself. His biggest accomplishment was showing up GHWB and paving the way for Clinton’s election. Clinton then capitalized on the Reagan peace dividends and ran surpluses. Republicans would have gotten credit for those surpluses but for Gingrich.

Basilsbest on December 27, 2011 at 6:53 PM

“Showing up Bush”? You’ve got to be kidding me. This sounds just like liberal rationalizing. Bush lost in ’92 because Gingrich made him look bad. Not because of his own record.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Romney at no point advocated for a federal level insurance mandate, in fact he’s been very vocal about it.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:52 PM

New Hampshire debate on Jan. 6, 2008

GIBSON: But Government Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.

ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

THOMPSON: I beg your pardon? I didn’t know you were going to admit that. You like mandates.

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Define troll…..

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:58 PM

“A non-Mittbot”, obviously.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM

2008 Romney ran as conservative. People raised eyebrows at some of his flipflops, but by and large gave him a break comparing him to McCain.

Romney lost nomination.

2011 Romney decides to run as a “moderate” since he lost 2008 as a conservative. He garners every old line GOP endorsement he can.

This time–no pass on the flipflops because now it’s obvious that 2008 was only words and not a conservative beginning.

INC on December 27, 2011 at 6:45 PM

I see no difference in Romney’s basic approach, other than the fact the issues are different. Please enlighten us as to how his platform has changed from conservative to moderate.

Basilsbest on December 27, 2011 at 7:02 PM

New Hampshire debate on Jan. 6, 2008

GIBSON: But Government Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.

ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

THOMPSON: I beg your pardon? I didn’t know you were going to admit that. You like mandates.

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM

OK, wait for the Mittbots to tell you that was taken out of context or is irrelevant while still harping on something Gingrich said in 1987. LOL

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Define troll…..

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:58 PM

You.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 7:06 PM

“A non-Mittbot”, obviously.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Yea, I just was waiting for some deranged response…LOL

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 7:06 PM

The pattern was established earlier than that actually. Take a look at the auto-insurance mandate that nearly every state requires. Not that this is necessarily a good thing, but you can’t really accuse Romney of creating the concept in and of itself.

Stupid analogy that’s been exploded I don’t know how many times since ObamaCare first became a liability for Romney and then the Mittbots fanned out to rationalize.

No one has to buy a car. Everyone has a body.

Now, while I do dock-points from Romney for his healthcare plan, I dock more points for Gingrich for advocating the EXACT same thing on a federal level during the 1990′s.

You penalize Gingrich more for an attitude in the 1990s, while giving Romney pretty much a pass for what he actually signed into law? LOL

Gingrich is inconsistent at every stage of his career, but has never bothered to explain these changes in position. Romney has, and has changed his position far fewer times overall.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Still if I’m going to go on actual records while involved in government, Gingrich isn’t the one who governed like a Democrat. Romney is.

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 6:57 PM

No, not an “attitude.” There is a very, VERY important legal distinction between state and federal powers. The constitution “specifically,” grants powers to state level governments that the federal government does not have. This is why state governments can mandate that you get auto-insurance, while the federal government cannot. The federal government has historically lacked that kind of power in the past.

Advocating for a federal mandate, like Gingrich did in the 90′s, effectively means that you’re asserting the federal government should or does have powers that it has traditionally never had.

Romney has never asserted the federal government had those kind of powers, he has correctly pointed out that under the constitution it shouldn’t be legal. Gingrich, has effectively asserted that the federal government does have that kind of power, or at least he did during the 1990′s.

This is what he has never explained. Gingrich cannot pretend that he did not know of the objection to a federal mandate, the objection was far too well known and he was simply far too smart for that.

So, what changed? What made a federal mandate acceptable in the 1990′s but unacceptable on a state level now?

The answer, well its an election year now and he’s pandering to the NotRomney crowd. And of course, they’re swallowing it hook line and sinker.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 7:07 PM

OK, wait for the Mittbots to tell you that was taken out of context or is irrelevant while still harping on something Gingrich said in 1987. LOL

ddrintn on December 27, 2011 at 7:03 PM

They don’t honestly care what Romney believes so they will say anything to explain it away. They are just Red Team supporters and if that means supporting the exact same thing the Democrats support, thats fine with them.

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Define troll…..

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 6:58 PM

You.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Only n your mind…LOL

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Oh, for Heaven’s sake. Then what, Newt? Will you act like you did when Clinton put you across from the crew latrine in the back of Air Force One: pout, quiver, and shut down the government?

And some of you want Gingrich to be President of the United States. Imagine how infantile braggadocio like that would play to someone like, say, Putin: funny, tragic and nationally humiliating all at once.

I’m not particularly enthusiastic about any of the candidates, but I’ve got a short list of those candidates whom I definitely don’t want to be the GOP primary winner squaring off against the Chicago Machine: Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. One thinks he’s a Great Man Of Destiny, the second coming of Churchill, and compares himself favorably to Reagan and Thatcher. The other thinks giant spider-goat hybrids are being genetically engineered in secret Bilderberger laboratories. Both are an embarrassment to the Republican Party and need to be gently but firmly escorted off the national stage.

troyriser_gopftw on December 27, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Too True!!!!

Natebo on December 27, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Oh, and a big “oof” regarding Mitt making fun of those not on the VA ballot. With all the rumours swirling of wrong-doing to help Mitt (a “what did he know and when did he know it”) he should not touch this with a ten-foot pole. Makes him look like a very SORE winner.

Aslans Girl on December 27, 2011 at 7:11 PM

O/T….Breaking!
=================

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign says it is filing a lawsuit to get on the Virginia primary ballot
Submitted 13 mins ago.

http://www.breakingnews.com/
******************************

Perry Campaign Sues to Get on Virginia Ballot
**********************************************

The Texas governor hopes to get added to a ballot that now includes only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Updated: December 27, 2011 | 6:50 p.m.
December 27, 2011 | 6:49 p.m.
*****************************

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign said on Tuesday that it is filing a lawsuit to get on the ballot in the Virginia primary election after state officials announced last week that he failed to turn in the requisite 10,000 signatures.

“Virginia ballot access rules are among the most onerous and are particularly problematic in a multicandidate election,” said Perry campaign Communications Director Ray Sullivan in a statement. “We believe that the Virginia provisions unconstitutionally restrict the rights of candidates and voters by severely restricting access to the ballot, and we hope to have those provisions overturned or modified to provide greater ballot access to Virginia voters and the candidates seeking to earn their support.”
(More….)
===========

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/perry-campaign-sues-to-get-on-virginia-ballot-20111227

canopfor on December 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Boston Herald endorses Mitt Romney, says nation ‘needs’ him – @bostonherald
1 Hr.ago

http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

Endorsement: Nation needs Romney
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Tuesday, December 27, 2011 – Updated 60 minutes ago
****************************************************

This quirkiest of Republican presidential primary seasons is about to become serious — deadly serious next week in Iowa and the following week in New Hampshire.

We have referred in the past to the clown car nature of the Republican field as ego-driven candidates like Donald Trump flirted with the process only to be followed by the often engaging but deeply flawed candidacies of Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and finally Newt Gingrich.

(More…..)
==============

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?&articleid=1391507

canopfor on December 27, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign says it is filing a lawsuit to get on the Virginia primary ballot…

canopfor on December 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Good. Not a fan of Perry but the Virginia GOP is playing a cheap political game here and should be called to account for it.

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 7:19 PM

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 7:19 PM

This is interesting..But I don’t think Perry will prevail in this suit..JMHO..:)

Dire Straits on December 27, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Good. Not a fan of Perry but the Virginia GOP is playing a cheap political game here and should be called to account for it.

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Virginia GOP?

It’s a state law, nothing to do with the GOP.

This kind of desperation and conspiracy nuttery is what we’re talking about when we use the word “troll”.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Speaking of Newt!!
==================

Gingrich suggests he wouldn’t vote for Paul over Obama
Submitted 1 hour ago

http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

Gingrich suggests he wouldn’t vote for Paul over Obama

2
hours
ago
*****

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/27/9748866-gingrich-suggests-he-wouldnt-vote-for-paul-over-obama

canopfor on December 27, 2011 at 7:24 PM

This is interesting..But I don’t think Perry will prevail in this suit..JMHO..:)

Dire Straits on December 27, 2011 at 7:23 PM

I suspect he might and it will work to expose some of the shenanigans in any case.

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 7:25 PM

It’s a state law, nothing to do with the GOP.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 7:24 PM

It wasn’t the law in 2000 or in 2008 so when was this ‘law’ passed? The rule seems to have been changed in November 2011, and its not a ‘law’ from the reports.

sharrukin on December 27, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Newt – hero of the 99%: “He’s buying millions of dollars in attack ads … paid for by his millionaire friends,”

What a guy.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 7:30 PM

This kind of desperation and conspiracy nuttery is what we’re talking about when we use the word “troll”.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 7:24 PM

You’re halirous…

In your little mind anyone who doesn’t support Romneybis a troll…LOL

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Newt

Romney – hero of the 99 1%: “He’s buying millions of dollars in attack ads … paid for by his millionaire friends,”

What a guy.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 7:30 PM

fify

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Two lefties arguing on the margin.

limitedgovt on December 27, 2011 at 7:39 PM

You’re halirous…

In your little mind anyone who doesn’t support Romneybis a troll…LOL

idesign on December 27, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Nope. Anybody who makes dishonest and misleading posts such as yourself is a troll.

Like when you acted like Romneycare and Balancing the budget were the only two things relevant to both Romney and Newt.

The reality is that Romney is more conservative than Newt. More honest, more consistent, more faithful, more likely to beat Obama, less likely to insult Americans by comparing his campaign to Pearl Harbor, less likely to demand that people meet him at the flag poll to settle things, etc. etc. etc.

You want Newt because you’re a hater and a troll, plain and simple.

1punchWill on December 27, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Gingrich is flailing. I dare him to say that to my face. I challenge him to a duel errrr to a debate Lincoln style!!!!

Newt Gingrich is a fat clown. When Paul Ryan was doing actual things that would help the country and the Republican party by introducing a grown-up plan, Newt would have none of it and cut his legs out from under him. The fat pig did the same thing to Bush. Newt cares about Newt and he is a ghastly man who isnt going anywhere in this election. Only a fool would think he has a chance to be elected president.

Jailbreak on December 27, 2011 at 7:43 PM

I spent all this time reading the article and all the comments and I can’t muster any energy to care. I wish I had a dog in this fight, but I don’t see any real fiscal conservatives running. Four more years … sigh.

Over50 on December 27, 2011 at 7:44 PM

BTW, welfare reform isn’t Gingrich’s biggest accomplishment – as if he did it by himself. His biggest accomplishment was showing up GHWB and paving the way for Clinton’s election. Clinton then capitalized on the Reagan peace dividends and ran surpluses. Republicans would have gotten credit for those surpluses but for Gingrich.

Basilsbest on December 27, 2011 at 6:53 PM

So, Gingrich showed up GHWB by disagreeing with him over the taxes? It’s Gingrich’s fault GHWB lost the election? There were other Rs not too happy–including Trent Lott.

I thought GHWB was the one who broke his word about no new taxes.

INC on December 27, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3