Video: Gingrich responds to Romney attacks

posted at 1:55 pm on December 29, 2011 by Tina Korbe

As AP pointed out last night, Newt Gingrich’s decision to stay nice in the face of Mitt Romney’s incessant attacks on him was and is a perplexing one. Allah wrote: “He was famous for scorched-earth politics when he was in the House, yet when he finally got his second look as a presidential contender, he turned into a nice-ish guy. It’s probably too late now.”

It probably is — but that doesn’t mean that his supporters won’t still try to come to his defense. A pro-Newt Super PAC called Winning the Future yesterday released its first Iowa ad to defend Gingrich against the claims of the Romney and Perry camps. According to the ad, “the Republican establishment” (which seems to be code in this case for the former Massachusetts governor and current Texas governor) has outspent Gingrich 20:1 — and much of that money has been spent to ding the former Speaker of the House. The ad calls the attacks “falsehoods” and reminds viewers of all that Gingrich has definitively accomplished for the conservative cause, from balancing the budget to cutting taxes to creating 11 million jobs.

Meantime, in case you missed either, a couple of respected conservative economists have also recently lined up to make the case for Newt. The endorsements of Art Laffer and Thomas Sowell ought to be enough to at least encourage anyone who dismissed Gingrich as not conservative enough to look at him again. Then again, endorsements don’t seem to matter nearly as much as candidates themselves like to claim. In the most recent Gallup poll on the subject, 71 percent of Americans say endorsements from “prominent people” don’t make much of a difference to them. Still, those who are following the race closely are bound to consider the opinions and judgments of those they respect at least to a certain extent.


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

Cindy Munford on December 29, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I’m with you Cindy.

bazil9 on December 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Me too. Its Newt and if someone else is the nominee, I’ll vote there.

Mimzey on December 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM

kenny on December 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Sorry I missed it, everyone I’ve seen talking about him lately seems to make him out like he is a criminal or ready for the guys with the nets to pick him up.

Cindy Munford on December 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM

If you have a hard time accepting a change in Newt from his past positions, why the ease in giving the benefit of doubt to Mitt on his past statements and alliances?

Mimzey on December 29, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Because Gingrich hasn’t changed, for one. He called Ryan’s entitlement reform plan ‘right-wing social engineering’ and then a few weeks later attempted to walk it back on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. He appeared on a television advertisement with Nancy Pelosi warning us all of the dire need to respond to the impending doom that is man-made global warming, yet when asked recently about the subject, claimed the science wasn’t convincing. Either believe it or don’t, but don’t think I’m a fool with the memory of a mayfly. He has also recently compared himself favorably to Churchill, Reagan, Thatcher, and others. Nope, Gingrich hasn’t changed. He’s the same narcissistic twit I remember from the 90′s.

Insofar as Romney is concerned, all I’ve heard and read about the man indicates a decent man, both personally and professionally. Granted, simple human decency isn’t extraordinary. I generally only note it in someone if it’s utterly lacking, but I like it when a politician possesses it. George W. Bush, for example, was decent to the core. W. may not have been a good president but I think strength of character made him better than he otherwise would have been.

Romney successfully ran as a Republican for governor of the bluest state in the Union. Unlike, say, Rick Perry in Texas, Romney couldn’t govern as an uncompromising conservative so desired by the Conservative Purity Brigade. By practical necessity, Romney had to govern as a moderate–which isn’t to say, by the way, that he wasn’t and isn’t a moderate, Rockefeller-type Republican by natural inclination.

What I don’t like about Romney are his lack of passion and seeming lack of ideological principles–the First Principles most of us base our worldview around. The only thing I know with certainty Romney does believe is that he should be president. That isn’t good enough. Romney needs that ‘vision thing’ that so irritated Bush the elder, and–if he wants any measure of enthusiastic support in the general should he win the nomination–he needs to tell us where he wants to take the country and what he wants to do when we get there. That’s what leaders are supposed to do.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Because Gingrich hasn’t changed, for one. He called Ryan’s entitlement reform plan ‘right-wing social engineering’ and then a few weeks later attempted to walk it back on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. He appeared on a television advertisement with Nancy Pelosi warning us all of the dire need to respond to the impending doom that is man-made global warming, yet when asked recently about the subject, claimed the science wasn’t convincing. Either believe it or don’t, but don’t think I’m a fool with the memory of a mayfly. He has also recently compared himself favorably to Churchill, Reagan, Thatcher, and others. Nope, Gingrich hasn’t changed. He’s the same narcissistic twit I remember from the 90′s.

Insofar as Romney is concerned, all I’ve heard and read about the man indicates a decent man, both personally and professionally. Granted, simple human decency isn’t extraordinary. I generally only note it in someone if it’s utterly lacking, but I like it when a politician possesses it. George W. Bush, for example, was decent to the core. W. may not have been a good president but I think strength of character made him better than he otherwise would have been.

Romney successfully ran as a Republican for governor of the bluest state in the Union. Unlike, say, Rick Perry in Texas, Romney couldn’t govern as an uncompromising conservative so desired by the Conservative Purity Brigade. By practical necessity, Romney had to govern as a moderate–which isn’t to say, by the way, that he wasn’t and isn’t a moderate, Rockefeller-type Republican by natural inclination.

What I don’t like about Romney are his lack of passion and seeming lack of ideological principles–the First Principles most of us base our worldview around. The only thing I know with certainty Romney does believe is that he should be president. That isn’t good enough. Romney needs that ‘vision thing’ that so irritated Bush the elder, and–if he wants any measure of enthusiastic support in the general should he win the nomination–he needs to tell us where he wants to take the country and what he wants to do when we get there. That’s what leaders are supposed to do.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 4:13 PM

That is what you think. You have no actual evidence to support your claim other than your interpretations of the events you cite.
Ryan walked back Ryan’s plan. That is proof of what?

All those things seem like pure speculation on your part imo. But thats what we all do to support our preferences. That doesn’t mean that they are accurate.

You didn’t really provide any explanation of the pass you give to Romneys claim to have changed his positions. Why believe him? As you stated he shows no passion in his claims.
My bias is to put more belief in a persons change in focus and orientation of world view because of a clear..fearless and focused expression of that new view.
Romney comes across as having none of that. His actions, words and demeanor seem unchanged from the “keep it vague”..”gotta leave myself some wiggle room”..mentality of an unchanged politician.
Thats just the way it seems to me.

Mimzey on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

All those things seem like pure speculation on your part imo. But thats what we all do to support our preferences. That doesn’t mean that they are accurate.

Mimzey on December 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM

You wanted me to support my anti-Newt stance with specific examples, I gave specific examples. I left out that $1.6 million ‘history consulting’ gig with Freddie Mac because the hypocrisy of his newly acquired establishment outsider stance seemed fairly self-evident to me, but okay. Oh, and if you remember he also lied about the amount he was paid, initially stating he made $300,000 on the Freddie Mac deal. Seems like a big, blazing lie to me. You’re cool with that? Okay.

You tell me his past doesn’t matter, so I’ve kept it recent and yet you still refuse to acknowledge your guy has any show-stopping personality problems and personal baggage weighing him down when he faces off against Obama in the general election. Okay.

You Newt supporters have made up your minds, it seems to me, but you must know calling Newt Gingrich any kind of ‘establishment outsider’ is nonsense on its face.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Good ad.

Yes indeed, the liberal republican establishment picked Romney as the 2012 nominee long ago, and they’ve systematically destroyed every other contender for the nomination.

I think Newt was ‘palinized’ more by the inside the beltway elites and the liberal republican establishment/media than by Obama’s mainstream media. Haven’t seen such deep down nastiness since Sarah Palin was running for VP.

Oh the disdain of Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, etc. They claim to be conservatives yet work to savage any conservative running for office. The moderate electability meme is hogwash.

We need a nominee that is the complete opposite of Obama, not Obama-Lite Romney. Egad.

IndeCon on December 29, 2011 at 4:58 PM

You Newt supporters have made up your minds, it seems to me, but you must know calling Newt Gingrich any kind of ‘establishment outsider’ is nonsense on its face.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 4:51 PM

I have made up my mind and establishment outsider actually seems like a perfect description, one disliked by his own. I don’t dislike many of what I consider the establishment, I can respect them for who they are are and what they have accomplished. What I don’t like is their propensity to tell me what I should believe and who I should vote for. Their record would indicate that they don’t know what they are doing.

Cindy Munford on December 29, 2011 at 5:08 PM

You wanted me to support my anti-Newt stance with specific examples, I gave specific examples. I left out that $1.6 million ‘history consulting’ gig with Freddie Mac because the hypocrisy of his newly acquired establishment outsider stance seemed fairly self-evident to me, but okay. Oh, and if you remember he also lied about the amount he was paid, initially stating he made $300,000 on the Freddie Mac deal. Seems like a big, blazing lie to me. You’re cool with that? Okay.

You tell me his past doesn’t matter, so I’ve kept it recent and yet you still refuse to acknowledge your guy has any show-stopping personality problems and personal baggage weighing him down when he faces off against Obama in the general election. Okay.

You Newt supporters have made up your minds, it seems to me, but you must know calling Newt Gingrich any kind of ‘establishment outsider’ is nonsense on its face.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Then you misunderstood my question. It wasn’t asking for you show reason for you anti-Newt stance..I asked about the seeming difference in standards..i.e.
Newt can’t be trusted as having changed anything because of these past things.
Mitt can be trusted as having changed and those things don’t matter. He’s a true conservative.

You’re changing the subject a bit when you shift to the topic of “refuse to acknowledge your guy has any show-stopping personality problems”.
That said, what “stops the show” for one person doesn’t necessarily “stop the show” for another. Whether they should or not is personal opinion. Opinion is not a “show stopper” for me.

I..or no one I can remember reading on this forum, has called Newt an “establishment outsider”. Even if I’m wrong about that and 1 or 2 have, labels one way or the other simply don’t carry much weight with me.

Mimzey on December 29, 2011 at 5:08 PM

As an Iowa voter, I find Tina’s comments about endorsements quire timely. I’ve never paid any attention to endorsements in high profile races in the past. Now I’m paying some attention. It’s because it is difficult to settle on a candidate when they all have obvious weaknesses.

I’m old enough to remember what the Republican Congress accomplished in the 1990s with Newt’s leadership. Clinton wasn’t going to balance the budget and wasn’t going to reform welfare. Both happened because Newt and the Republicans kept putting the pressure on him.

I also remember how the Left and the media demonized Newt. At the beginning of this year I was operating under a long-held belief that the press’s demonization of Newt in the 90s left him too radioactive to ever be a successful candidate in a general election. Time and events may have changed that. (And I also remember how the MSM tried — with some success — to paint Reagan as radical and scary; and he still won.) But, I now see more undisciplined and/or hubristic statements from Newt than I remember seeing crop up in the 1990s. Which gives me pause. Do we want a President who is likely to make a lot of stupid, unthinking statements? Can Newt be disciplined enough to avoid that? Can he be an effective executive, when his campaign doesn’t even qualify for the ballot in Virginia?

And so I pay attention to what people that I respect say. That includes J.C.Watt, Sowell, and Laffer. They don’t make up my mind for me, but they give some counterweight to the comments of George Will, etc.

DakotaBoy on December 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Yes indeed, the liberal republican establishment picked Romney as the 2012 nominee long ago, and they’ve systematically destroyed every other contender for the nomination.

IndeCon on December 29, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Each of the candidates who have so far faded, faltered, and dropped out has done it to themselves–unless, of course, the *cough* liberal Republican establishment exercises the magical ability to cloud minds and make otherwise intelligent, capable candidates say and do stupifyingly idiotic things.

Gingrich is no poor, persecuted babe in the woods, although his head is somewhat overlarge like a baby’s, and his body does have that pinkish plumpness common to infants. And he does get rather peevish and petulant and shut down the government if you seat him across from the crew latrine in the back of Air Force One.

Look at it this way: if Gingrich does win the nomination, what he’s getting now will seem like kisses from an angel compared to what he’s going to get from Obama and the Chicago Machine. Time for your boy to toughen up.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Mitt can be trusted as having changed and those things don’t matter. He’s a true conservative.

Mimzey on December 29, 2011 at 5:08 PM

I’ve never made the argument Mitt Romney is a true conservative. Who could? Since I can no longer support Perry after he inexplicably took an absolutist position on the abortion issue, I’ve been giving Romney a close look, but don’t delude myself the man is a conservative as, say, Santorum is a conservative.

I am foremost a Republican and I’ll follow the Buckley rule and support the Republican candidate most likely to defeat Obama on election day 2012. If that candidate is Romney, so be it.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Each of the candidates who have so far faded, faltered, and dropped out has done it to themselves–unless, of course, the *cough* liberal Republican establishment exercises the magical ability to cloud minds and make otherwise intelligent, capable candidates say and do stupifyingly idiotic things.

That too is a false dichotomy. Its not either/or. To an extent, its true, but any of the gaffs like Bachmanns “Gardasil”, or Perrys lack of debating skills would have made no more an impression on the general public than F&F and 300+ dead people, or Solyndra, or a missing 1.2 billion dollars has on them now if the media had not “ginned up” the events. The same is true of Cains “affairs” that crawled out of the woods only to completely disappear after he dropped out. Even so, you are right about the advise that some campaign mangers are giving the candidates…and thats another thing I find refreshing about Newt..Newt gonna be Newt.

Gingrich is no poor, persecuted babe in the woods, although his head is somewhat overlarge like a baby’s, and his body does have that pinkish plumpness common to infants. And he does get rather peevish and petulant and shut down the government if you seat him across from the crew latrine in the back of Air Force One.

Thats a strawman argument..a funny one though!

Look at it this way: if Gingrich does win the nomination, what he’s getting now will seem like kisses from an angel compared to what he’s going to get from Obama and the Chicago Machine. Time for your boy to toughen up.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Thats true of anyone. What are they holding back for Mitt? He’s still squeaky clean and Newts had the whole chum bucket dumped on him already. Which is the better position?

Mimzey on December 29, 2011 at 5:28 PM

I’ve never made the argument Mitt Romney is a true conservative. Who could? Since I can no longer support Perry after he inexplicably took an absolutist position on the abortion issue, I’ve been giving Romney a close look, but don’t delude myself the man is a conservative as, say, Santorum is a conservative.

I am foremost a Republican and I’ll follow the Buckley rule and support the Republican candidate most likely to defeat Obama on election day 2012. If that candidate is Romney, so be it.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM

You’re right you didn’t claim that. Sorry.
The comparison then becomes Mitt is more conservative than Newt..or Newt can’t win. From what I get from your sentiment, is not your position. Its more along the lines of “Newt sucks and is dishonest cretin”…along the lines of that.
I also like Perry, but the press will have a field day with him. Ron Paul is just…Ron Paul. Next.
Between Newt and Mitt…Mitt just reeks of rerun.

Mimzey on December 29, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Thats true of anyone. What are they holding back for Mitt? He’s still squeaky clean and Newts had the whole chum bucket dumped on him already. Which is the better position?

Mimzey on December 29, 2011 at 5:28 PM

The Dems think Mitt is a sure bet to win the nomination and as long as Mitt has Ron Paul locking up the votes of those conservative primary voters gullible enough to believe Ron Paul is conservative, they’re probably right. In 2000, the Dems nearly sank President Bush with an old, 1976 DUI charge a week before the election. In 2004, they tried to nail him with the Dan Rather ‘fake but accurate’ pilot evaluation story. Timing is everything. Spring the trap too soon and people forget about it or blow it off as old news by election day.

So yeah, I think Chicago Machine opposition researchers are working around the clock to come up with an October Surprise for Mitt Romney, should Romney win the GOP nomination. Mitt’s led an impeccable personal life. If I had to guess, I think they’ll come at him through his father, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was known to play some serious political hardball back in the day. And between now and then, we’ll also learn more about the more obscure and esoteric aspects of the Mormon faith than we ever wanted to know.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 7:36 PM

A pro-Newt Super PAC called Winning the Future

A very unfortunate choice of moniker for his Super-PAC.

Oy Vey.

CorporatePiggy on December 29, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Newt went through some phases to try to soften his reputation as a sh!t stirrer in DC. But now he seems to realize that is what a lot of people want now, and understands who his true friends are.

Stray Cat on December 29, 2011 at 8:37 PM

I am foremost a Republican and I’ll follow the Buckley rule and support the Republican candidate most likely to defeat Obama on election day 2012. If that candidate is Romney, so be it.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM

In a 3-way race to defeat obama in 2008, Romney came in….third.

I have yet to see a single Romney supporter square this circle. How is the guy who couldn’t beat McCain, who in turn couldn’t beat obama, gonna beat obama? Why am I to believe he’s the “most likely to defeat (o)bama”? So far, the evidence argues pretty persuasively against it.

That said, I’m done supporting the lesser of 2 evils. I will no longer vote for evil, or merely against greater evil. Romney may be a good man, but he will not govern as a conservative. He never has, why are you still trying to convince me he ever will? I will not vote for Romney. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

runawayyyy on December 30, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2