Gingrich: I don’t own a vacation home in New Hampshire because, unlike some people, I’m not rich

posted at 9:36 pm on January 4, 2012 by Allahpundit

The “unlike some people” part isn’t stated, merely implied. But c’mon. He’s laying it on with a trowel here.

Less than 12 hours after finishing in fourth place in the Iowa caucuses, Newt Gingrich opened a new, more aggressive chapter in his campaign, taking pointed shots at rivals Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, who both finished ahead of Gingrich. At one point, Gingrich hinted he would make Romney’s personal wealth an issue, telling a reporter “I’m not rich.”…

When asked why he chose to congratulate Santorum and not Romney on his caucus success, the former House speaker said, “I find it amazing the news media continues to say [Romney’s] the most electable Republican when he can’t even break out of his own party.… The fact is, Gov. Romney in the end has a very limited appeal in conservative party.”

Later, in a campaign stop in Laconia, Gingrich’s kept up his attack – and it got personal. Asked by a local reporter if he would buy a home in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, where Romney has a summer home, Gingrich replied, “No, I can’t afford things like that, I’m not rich.” His wife, Callista, added a jab at Romney as well. “We have one home,” she demurred. The Romneys own two summer homes, including one in California.

Surely a man eligible for a six-figure line of credit at Tiffany’s has the means to buy himself a cottage in the sticks. Or maybe more: I’ll bet $1.6 million from Freddie Mac would get you something nice and airy in Hanover. This is the second time that Gingrich has taken a dig at Romney’s wealth, do note, but the first time came with caveats: Romney had already taken a dig at his Freddie earnings in that case, and Gingrich wasn’t sniffing then at the fact that Romney’s rich but rather what he did to become that way. Tonight’s little aside is more of a pure class pander, which is yet more evidence of just how bitter Newt is about that beating he took on the air in Iowa.

Question for commenters: Is Gingrich’s sudden transformation into an anti-Romney terminator a good thing or bad thing? That answer seems obvious for most grassroots conservatives — anything that damages Romney is good — but frequently on Twitter and in our threads I’ll see people mocking Newt for being a sore loser and for behaving as if negative ads were some sort of beyond-the-pale offensive that no one else has ever had to endure. Romney knocked him for that on Hannity’s radio show yesterday, in fact, and not without reason. It’s not helping him either that liberals like Chris Matthews are quick to co-opt Gingrich’s victimhood as an anti-Super-PAC pitch for more campaign finance reform. (A minor complication to that narrative: Gingrich’s own Super PAC is about to start hammering Romney.) And of course Gingrich himself was famous for scorched-earth politics against his opponents on the left before he transformed himself this year for the GOP primary. It’s as if he didn’t think anyone in the field would play hardball with him, even when he soared to 30 percent a month before Iowa. Says Major Garrett, “That Gingrich didn’t try this earlier exposes his fundamental misunderstanding of presidential politics and his own vulnerabilities as a candidate. When Gingrich was surging in early December he had to know – or certainly should have known – he lacked the money and organization to withstand sustained attacks from GOP rivals. When the attacks came, Gingrich either ignored them or danced around the charges.”

Maybe by spending three weeks dumping on Romney he’ll help boost Santorum or Perry to the nomination, or maybe he’ll end up achieving nothing more than adding some new footage to Obama’s own anti-Romney ads to come. I’m not sure Newt cares either way at this point. In fact, click the image and watch this first clip to find him being surprisingly complimentary of Santorum, who’s supposed to be his chief rival for “Not Romney” status at this point. I guess he wasn’t kidding this morning when he said he’d consider an anti-Romney alliance, even though that alliance will surely end up benefiting some candidate not named “Newt Gingrich.” For more on that, via the Daily Caller, listen to Brit Hume below.


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 6 7 8

Only one candidate has ever supported a national health care mandate and that’s Newt.

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Logic says a project like universal health care would only work with a mandate. (no, I am not for UHC and I do not believe Newt is either)

tinkerthinker on January 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Umm – Newt is rich.

hawksruleva on January 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Only one candidate has ever supported a national health care mandate and that’s Newt.

Yup. Newt also praised the passage of the Mass health care law. I guess he was for a mandate before he was against it, just like he was for cap and trade before he was against it.

HarryBackside on January 5, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I don’t think Newt was engaging in “class warfare” as it is dispised by the right and used as a weapon by the left. He wasn’t attacking being rich itself as evil -but using richness to buy an election as evil. t’s time to nuance folks -and I’m not a Newt man -just saying….

Don L on January 5, 2012 at 11:16 AM

How can you be leaning toward someone who is to the left of ____ on health care, immigration, climate change,

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:13 AM

There’s not much difference between Newt or Mitt on these issues.

shick on January 5, 2012 at 11:16 AM

How can you be leaning toward someone who is to the left of Mitt Romney on health care, immigration, climate change, GSEs and who accuses the GOP of right wing social engineering? How? Tea partyer? Bullsh*t.

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Because all that is BS.

tinkerthinker on January 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM

There’s not much difference between Newt or Mitt on these issues.

shick on January 5, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Fine. For the sake of argument, say they’re equal. How can anyone hate one and support the other?

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Because all that is BS.

tinkerthinker on January 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Newt is not to the left of Romney on which of those issues?

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Logic says a project like universal health care would only work with a mandate. (no, I am not for UHC and I do not believe Newt is either)

Newt’s Center for Health Transformation supported a mandate, and the Massachussets health care law. In 2006, in his “Newt Notes”, Newt described those who can afford coverage, but choose not to purchase coverage, as “free riders” who undermine the entire health care system. That was the same argument the left made in support of the individual mandate under ObamaCare.

Newt then went on to say

The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle

HarryBackside on January 5, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I despise the MSM and I’m not fond of the RNC and Repulican establishment in general. They are all behind Romney and will do everything possible to get him elected. Everyone knows it, but Newt is finally pointing it out, publicly.

I like the Newtonium bombs.

Norky on January 5, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Mitt: “Newt has an account at Tiffanys!!” = Not class warfare

Newt: “Mitt has a vacation home in New Hampshire!!” = Class warfare

The hypocrisy is amazing.

portlandon on January 5, 2012 at 10:42 AM

In your head apparently. Mitt never said that.

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Here is Romney on Gingrich:

“He’s a wealthy man, a very wealthy man,” Romney told CBS. “If you have a half-a-million-dollar purchase from Tiffany’s, you’re not a middle-class American.

You were saying, Ronnie?

portlandon on January 5, 2012 at 11:21 AM

He wasn’t attacking being rich itself as evil -but using richness to buy an election as evil.

Don L on January 5, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Um. That’s a bit of a stretch. He was talking about his house. He’s using his house to buy an election?

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:22 AM

To Don L

He wasn’t attacking being rich itself as evil -but using richness to buy an election as evil. t’s time to nuance folks -and I’m not a Newt man -just saying….

How do you arrive to that conclusion from the following quote?

Asked by a local reporter if he would buy a home in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, where Romney has a summer home, Gingrich replied, “No, I can’t afford things like that, I’m not rich.”

HarryBackside on January 5, 2012 at 11:24 AM

You were saying, Ronnie?

portlandon on January 5, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I was saying he used Tiffany’s to point out Newt’s hypocrisy when he was whining about a $10,000 bet. He wasn’t complaining about it Newt being rich and he certainly wasn’t calling himself poor. And that quote is not what he said. What’s so hard about this?

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Gingrich: Founding fathers would have a “violent” reaction to pot growers

Newt keeps throwing out zingers. Guess this guy is no real historian, but it’s quite known the early framers were hemp growers.

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Newt keeps throwing out zingers. Guess this guy is no real historian, but it’s quite known the early framers were hemp growers.

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Guess he really is going after Biden’s job.

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:36 AM

“He’s a wealthy man, a very wealthy man,” Romney told CBS. “If you have a half-a-million-dollar purchase from Tiffany’s, you’re not a middle-class American.“

You were saying, Ronnie?

portlandon on January 5, 2012 at 11:21 AM

You can’t see how this is not class warfare? The difference is obvious. This statement is truthful and Mitt is not criticizing Newt for his wealth as Newt was in his statement.

He’s just showing that Newt is hardly the “not rich” guy he claims to be. It is not hypocrisy.

shick on January 5, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Newt is not to the left of Romney on which of those issues?

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I like Newt better because…. I’m for balanced budgets.(Newt)
and smaller government.(Newt)
I like paying less taxes.(Newt)
I am for less regulations. (Newt- he did testify in Congress against cap and trade)

tinkerthinker on January 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM

He could buy a really nice vacation home with the money he spent on jewelry at Tiffanys. Sorry I can’t read above, cause I know what you will do to Romney. Funny we can’t accept someone who has gone out and made his own money, as a capitalist.
G-d hlep us when we have 4 more years of libs/communists/ progressives – and I’m not sure which at this point is worse.

Bambi on January 5, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Newt has a net worth of $6.7 million. I’m sure that’s enough to buy a cozy vacation home.

HarryBackside on January 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I like Newt better because…. I’m for balanced budgets.(Newt)
and smaller government.(Newt)
I like paying less taxes.(Newt)
I am for less regulations. (Newt- he did testify in Congress against cap and trade)

tinkerthinker on January 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM

That wasn’t the question. Which of those issues that you called BS?

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Mitt: “Newt has an account at Tiffanys!!” = Not class warfare

Newt: “Mitt has a vacation home in New Hampshire!!” = Class warfare

The hypocrisy is amazing.

portlandon

More about trying to keep Newt honest. Mitt has never portrayed himself as not rich ala Gingrich. Mitt was merely saying how does anyone with a 500k credit line at Tiffany’s claim to not be rich.

Zaggs on January 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I like Newt better because…. I’m for balanced budgets.(Newt)
and smaller government.(Newt)
I like paying less taxes.(Newt)
I am for less regulations. (Newt- he did testify in Congress against cap and trade)

tinkerthinker on January 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM

How is Newt for smaller government? He supported universal health care at the national level, and also cap and trade. Giving more power to the feds IS bigger government, not smaller.

Yes, Gingrich testified against the specific Cap and Trade proposal that the Dems where floating around, but he never rejected HIS cap and trade proposal, which was to set up a system similar to the one implemented to address sulfur dioxide. In his same 2009 testimony, Gingrich went on to say that he could support cap and trade system, as long as it included incentives for nuclear power and “green” coal.

HarryBackside on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Newt, the little brat…couldn’t get his way after his true self was exposed so now he’ll try to take down the one person who could beat Obama. Boy, some of these “conservatives” would rather have Obama again rather than Romney (who said, when elected governor of MA, he would do what the people of MA wanted and he would not try to push his agenda through…and try that in a state that has an 85% democrat majority, anyway) or Paul….talk about insiders. There is something truly nasty that is coming out in Newt. He hid it for a while but the make up is melting…

allstonian on January 5, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I don’t get it Newt and Romney are both rich…God Bless them. So is Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Huntsman, etc. I do not find anything wrong with that. The Obama Family is also wealthy.

Just Sayin

Natebo on January 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

“Here is Romney on Gingrich:

“He’s a wealthy man, a very wealthy man,” Romney told CBS. “If you have a half-a-million-dollar purchase from Tiffany’s, you’re not a middle-class American.“

portlandon on January 5, 2012 at 11:21 AM

This is where it all started—-when Mitt took this petty, personal jab at Newt during Newt’s rollout. And the flak due to Tiffany’s just about destroyed Newt at that time. I remember well how Newt was considered a laughingstock on this site because of the Tiffany scandal. He was finished as a candidate almost before he began. Then lots of stuff happened and Palin dropped out and Cain dropped out and people took a second look at Newt and Newt became competitive again. But I don’t think Newt forgot about this snide remark. It must have grated on him that Mitt had piled on in a personal way like that. Because what Mitt said about Tiffany’s was definitely class warfare (inciting envy and disdain over jewelry) and was totally inappropriate for a Republican to say.

Now flash forward. Newt steadfastly tried to run a positive campaign, and generally he succeeded. But his poll numbers were rising, so Mitt dumped on him with a ton of negative ads. That is, instead of running a positive campaign about his own vision, Mitt went nuclear on Newt, while Newt took it all without reacting because he was trying to be positive.

But the negative ads worked (as they often do). So Newt reevaluated and realized he needed to punch back or he’d be toast. So this is how he’s started, with this New Hampshire-home comment, which seen in context of Mitt’s Tiffany’s comment is not nearly as bizarre or disconnected as this thread would have you believe.

Newt has consistently and eloquently been taking the fight to Obama (unlike mush-mouthed, equivocating Romney). He tried to keep it positive in regard to the other Republican candidates, but Romney has not been playing nice. So Newt is now giving it back.

Burke on January 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM

So he’s simply poor and fat and stupid?

Sounds like an electable candidate to me…

TexasJew on January 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

If it was Michele Bachman, instead of Newt, what would they say of that remark. It rhymes with ‘rich’

Question for commenters: Is Gingrich’s sudden transformation into an anti-Romney terminator a good thing or bad thing? That answer seems obvious for most grassroots conservatives — anything that damages Romney is good — but frequently on Twitter and in our threads I’ll see people mocking Newt for being a sore loser and for behaving as if negative ads were some sort of beyond-the-pale offensive that no one else has ever had to endure

IMHO a portion of this primary is staged, and or manipulated to herd the sheep.

There is a game called ‘Good Cop, Bad Cop’ used in interrogation. The bad cop comes in and works over the suspect. He leaves. The good cop comes in and lets the suspect know he too does not like the bad cop. The good cop becomes a lifeline and often the suspect drop his guard and gives up too much information

I still wonder why, when Perry shot himself carefully in the foot over the Dream act, that Newt did not step in with his red card routine. Even when Perry had a press conference, to shoot himself carefully in the other foot, Newt was nowhere. But when Newt peaked, he opened up his red card bomb in debate. He even held a press conference later in case someone missed the fact he had red carded himself out of the primary. Oh yeah, he handed Romney something. Romney could now openly run Newt-Amnesty ads without looking sneaky.

Newt can now play the part and b-itch Romney through the rest of the primaries. Newt does not have to be programmed, just prodded. Doesn’t matter the details

So the game continues. Newt votes jumped to Santorum. Bachmann exit stage left. The next play is to punk Santorum, with or without his cooperation, so the votes, like bed bugs jump to the good cop

The McCain endorsement was not in sync with this game, unless they are certain they have already snaggled the bedbugs, in which case, they can get back to RINO land

entagor on January 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Because what Mitt said about Tiffany’s was definitely class warfare (inciting envy and disdain over jewelry) and was totally inappropriate for a Republican to say.

Burke on January 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Exactly which two classes were at war in that one? Newt was obviously representing the rich…

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Every now and then, we all say something we later regret or perhaps not intended.

There is no perfect candidate. There is no utopia. They eat, drink, work, fart, poop, pick their nose and have sex, just like the rest of us.

My wife and I disagree sometimes. She says things I disagree with and Lord knows, I say things she probably wished I didn’t. We don’t rush out and get a divorce over it.

There is no robot that says all the right things for all the right people in all circumstances.

BruthaMan on January 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Would be nice to be as “not rich” as Newt…

facepalm much?

Dino V on January 5, 2012 at 2:24 PM

ALLAHPUNDIT you ignorant slut, just come out and endorse RomneyCare to be honest about your RINO feelings

mathewsjw on January 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I have no idea why Newt the Ninety-Niner is suddenly crying poor and waging class warfare on Mitt. I hope everyone in the US is prosperous. What not to do in a GOP Primary battle (and Newt 99er keeps shooting himself in the foot).

Philly on January 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Newt, the little brat…couldn’t get his way after his true self was exposed so now he’ll try to take down the one person who could beat Obama. Boy, some of these “conservatives” would rather have Obama again rather than Romney (who said, when elected governor of MA, he would do what the people of MA wanted and he would not try to push his agenda through…and try that in a state that has an 85% democrat majority, anyway) or Paul….talk about insiders. There is something truly nasty that is coming out in Newt. He hid it for a while but the make up is melting…

allstonian on January 5, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Brilliantly put. Napoleonic Newt is staying in this race just out of spite. Well, I guess he is begging for Mitt to beat him AGAIN. Newt’s wish shall be granted!

bluegill on January 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Jerry Della Femina is raking Newt over the coals for his negative campaigning. He cites that Newt called Mitt a liar outright, and said Newt does not care about what happens to the GOP field. Newt is content to sink the ship and take everyone down with him.

Della Femina said negative ads are effective, but he’s never seen a candidate outright call another a liar and that is damaging Newt’s brand more than anyone’s. Newt is angry and he’s showing his true colors, implying the Nice Newt persona is an act.

Wow.

Philly on January 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Since when does a candidate have to take so much negative advertising without responding? I don’t understand the criticism of Newt for defending against this. Romney has been untouched by anyone during this whole campaign – it is time the other candidates let him have it full bore. I just want him taken out by anyone just to show the GOP “elite” the time has ended when they are going to shove a milquetoast candidate down our throat anymore.

Oh, and John McCain, shut your piehole! When you had a chance to take out Obama, you punted, and the destruction of this country by Obama lies squarely on your shoulders. Your endorsement should be the kiss of death for Romney, and really, no one cares what you have to say.

silvernana on January 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I agree with Philly. All this carping from Newt will do nothing but long-term damage to his own “brand”, or what is frankly left of it. He may get a short term special feeling over “hitting” Mitt, but it won’t have any affect and it’ll only hurt himself.

Which basically means he has the foresight and attitude of a 13 year old girl. Traits I sure want in a president…

AttilaTheHun on January 5, 2012 at 4:28 PM

silvernana on January 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Please. Newt has taken no more negative advertising than ANY other candidate in ANY other election from ANY other adversary–what he’s taken on the chin barely compares to what Romney took last time from all the candidates running then. The only difference is, Romney took it like a man, parried EXTREMELY WELL, cleaned up in the debates, and then, after getting hosed by McCain and Huckabee, MANNED UP and supported the eventual nominee–the same nominee that had taken fairly personal shots at him.

All because Romney saw the bigger picture–trying to prevent Obama from taking over. And thus, this is the spectacular difference between Newt and Romney, on a personal level. One is responsible, forward thinking, FREAKING MATURE, and CARES about his country. The other is a whiny beeyatch concerned only with his satisfying his own hurt “fweelings” at the possible expense of our country’s future. Suck it up Newt. Ya baby.

AttilaTheHun on January 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Cavuto and Herman Cain are discussing Newt’s current sourpuss demeanor. Cain said he does not fault Newt for setting the record straight, but he would not call another candidate a liar if he were in Newt’s shoes.

I don’t have a problem with rough and tumble, but Newt’s timing for doing this is bad. He is losing support because his mean streak decided to come out and play. Herman thinks this type of thing is giving Democrats more ammo and draws the GOP away from the goal of problem-solving to fix this nation. Very true.

Philly on January 5, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Since when does a candidate have to take so much negative advertising without responding?

The Newton said he would remain positive. For him to go negative (out of spite) is his privilege. It doesn’t really matter. The Newton is toast.

I don’t understand the criticism of Newt for defending against this.

It is a left wing approach.

Romney has been untouched by anyone during this whole campaign – it is time the other candidates let him have it full bore.

Untouched, yes!

Unattacked, No!

Romney has been under constant attack since he announced his candidacy.

I just want him taken out by anyone just to show the GOP “elite” the time has ended when they are going to shove a milquetoast candidate down our throat anymore.

No one can shove him down your throat. You are free to vote for whom ever you want.

Your endorsement should be the kiss of death for Romney, and really, no one cares what you have to say.

silvernana on January 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM

First you say it should be the kiss of death and then you say no one cares.

Contradictory don’t you think.

Oh, and apparently, you care.

McCain’s endorsement won’t help among those that weren’t going to vote for Romney anyway. But there are a lot of Republicans who do respect McCain. You know, he did win the nomination last time, don’t you?

Gunlock Bill on January 5, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Gunlock Bill on January 5, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Nitpicky just a tad, aren’t we? And don’t condescend to me with your question that “he did win the nomination last time” didn’t he. He!! yes, that’s exactly what I said, and he dropped the ball. And yes, he was shoved down our throat, and now Romney.

silvernana on January 5, 2012 at 6:13 PM

So he’s simply poor and fat and stupid?

Sounds like an electable candidate to me…

TexasJew on January 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Fat, drunk and stupid is not way to go through life, son.
- Dean Vernon Wormer

MJBrutus on January 5, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Nitpicky just a tad, aren’t we? And don’t condescend to me with your question that “he did win the nomination last time” didn’t he. He!! yes, that’s exactly what I said, and he dropped the ball. And yes, he was shoved down our throat, and now Romney.

silvernana on January 5, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Oh, quit it with this “shoved down our throats” malarkey. There is a little something called voting which we take part in to select the nominee. Turns out that the voters so far are very smartly choosing the guy (Romney) with the best chance of beating Obama. Let me guess… you are upset that Sarah Palin (who wouldn’t have had a snowball’s chance in heck of winning in the general election) isn’t in the race, or you support that semi-illiterate clown Rick Perry? Now, if you want to throw away your vote on one of the idiot clown candidates, then you are free to do so. But don’t you dare call something “shoved down your throat” because it happens to be the result of responsible voting. Maybe most other voters just aren’t as deluded as you, and that upsets you.

Romney, who will be a very strong general election candidate, is going to win the nomination and will beat Obama. Heck, Romney already has Mr. Pompous “Tough Guy” Newt Gingrich throwing a hissy and practically in tears.

GO ROMNEY!

bluegill on January 5, 2012 at 7:59 PM

You are the deluded one, and a nut to boot.

silvernana on January 5, 2012 at 8:11 PM

If Knute has blown all his think tank money on broads, and has to “scrape by” on his Congressional pension, that’s hardly rObamneys fault. I’ll bet some nights he has to settle for fillet mignon.

S. D. on January 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM

I cant believe I even considered to support Newt. His meltdown since Iowa is bizzare to me. Not want I want in a President. I will go with Romney, (in full disclosure, Ive liked Romney since 2008, but I was also liking Newts ideas during the debates).

WyoMike on January 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

WTF is this? Class warfare as a political meme in the GOP?

I thought Newt was supposed to be the “smart one”. :-(

DaMav on January 6, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Fine. For the sake of argument, say they’re equal. How can anyone hate one and support the other?

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I’m saying worse. It is possible to dislike AND like them both at the same time when compared to Obama or any other liberal that supports his agenda.

shick on January 6, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Newt vs Romney debate = splitting hairs.

shick on January 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8