Gingrich: Romney’s a liar, isn’t he?

posted at 11:00 am on January 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Newt Gingrich is a man of his word after all, or at least the latest version of his word.  Initially, Gingrich insisted that he would not “go negative” against his opponents, and even warned third-party PACs to stay positive or else.  After getting hammered in Iowa, Gingrich changed his mind last week and decided that he would start “drawing a contrast” in the campaign between himself and Mitt Romney — and did so by accusing Romney of trying to buy the election and calling him a robot.  Today, Gingrich decided to draw a contrast by calling Romney a liar:

O’DONNELL: “You scolded Mitt Romney, his friends who are running this Super PAC that has funded that, and you said of Mitt Romney, ‘Someone who will lie to you to get to be president will lie to you when they are president.’ I have to ask you, are you calling Mitt Romney a liar?”


O’DONNELL: “You’re calling Mitt Romney a liar?”

GINGRICH: “Well, you seem shocked by it! Yes. I mean, why – “

O’DONNELL: “Why are you saying he is a liar?”

GINGRICH: “Because this is a man whose staff created the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC – it’s baloney. He’s not telling the American people the truth.”

Hey, not to rain on Gingrich’s parade, but how is that different than any other PAC or super-PAC?  I’m pretty sure that Gingrich-supporting PACs aren’t run by disinterested strangers, nor are those for Rick Perry or any of the other candidates in the race. That’s a problem in the structure of the campaign finance regulations that impose artificial divisions on contributions. If those were removed, the same money would flow into these races, but the candidates themselves would be responsible for its use instead of hiding behind PACs and super-PACs — and that includes Newt Gingrich.

As I’ve written earlier, there is nothing wrong with so-called “negative” campaigning. Candidates should draw contrasts between their positions and those of their opponents, and their records as well.  As long as that is being done honestly, there is nothing wrong or dishonorable about it; in fact, that’s why we have primaries.  Gingrich chose to eschew that strategy and now wants to claim some kind of victimization because the rest of the field chose not to follow in his footsteps.  On top of that, Gingrich has descended to name-calling, which looks more like a dog-in-the-manger ploy than a way to gather support in the few short hours before Iowa voters trudge to precincts tonight.  A confident candidate wouldn’t have sunk to the level of this conversation the morning of a caucus.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Pardon, but was there a response to my failed attempt to redefine the term “spamming” and all my other logic fallacies in there?

csdeven on January 3, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Yup, sure was.

John Hitchcock on January 3, 2012 at 7:30 PM

The fact that you are a middle aged person using that kind of childish stupidity, let alone your stupid opinions, makes me shudder. Thank you for not being a Romney supporter. We only want non-fartknockers in our group.

Jailbreak on January 3, 2012 at 7:08 PM

I called you a dumbass because you were becoming more than a bit self-righteous in your postings. That sometimes happens to the over-educated.
Take a breath will ya? Stop using the word “stupid” so much. Talk about a childish word…

BTW, I chose Fartnokker because it is funny, that is all.
Does Jailbreak have a deeper, adult meaning?

I am a Romney supporter. Now you actually know one of my opinions.
There goes your neighborhood!

Fartnokker on January 3, 2012 at 8:11 PM

now wants to claim some kind of victimization because the rest of the field chose not to follow in his footsteps. On top of that, Gingrich has descended to name-calling

Yes, he’s got to cut that out. Get on message, like his WSJ piece. He can pick up in SC and FL.

AshleyTKing on January 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM

csdeven on January 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I seem to recall a time back in my childhood days when I believed that our politicians could be trusted as you trust business taxing Romneycare Romney today. I left those childish delusions behind before you learned to walk.

csdeven on January 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

OIC! NOW you believe that you are the sole keeper of Hotair TOS. /s

csdeven on January 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM

More often than not, when reading through these topics your posts cause me to see you as an obfuscator at best, and a troll at worse. Perhaps the two are one in the same?

BTW, the next time you decide to engage me by using false labels perhaps you should remember the tale about the people that live in glass houses. ;o)

DannoJyd on January 4, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Gingrich’s initial impulse for the entire field was dead-on: “concentrate all firepower on that star destroyer”. That is, save the harshness for President Obama. Maintain civility during the debates and let the best person win without tarnishing one another and by extension the Republican brand. Now? Well, it’s currently difficult to be a proud Republican. Romney’s plastic, Perry’s an idiot, Bachmann can’t place even in her own state, Cain is disgraced, Paul is relying on Independents and some Dems as much as anything else,and Santorum is, well, leftovers. This party pillow fight is only helping the President and I think Gingrich knew this would be the case if the candidates didn’t keep it clean. So, not only did they not keep it clean, but they savaged the one guy calling for civility during the whole mess. So, he’s got a right to be kinda pissed. And he IS going to go Newtlear. And Romney will be hurt by it – bad – especially in the south. Unfortunately, this bloodletting will result in one thing – four more years for President Barack Obama. Good goin’ idiots!

JasperBallbaggins on January 4, 2012 at 9:45 AM