Pro-Gingrich Super PAC still on the anti-Mitt warpath

posted at 8:15 pm on January 14, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Undaunted by Newt Gingrich’s request to them to take down King of Bain, the 28-minute film attacking Mitt Romney for his record at Bain Capital, the Winning Our Future PAC plans to release two new ads that pummel Mitt Romney. Starting tomorrow, the ads will air in South Carolina, where Gingrich is currently Mitt Romney’s closest competitor (notwithstanding today’s decision by a large group of evangelical conservatives to endorse Rick Santorum). National Journal reports:

The group’s newest advertisements hammer at Romney for his record as a moderate Massachusetts governor and his leadership at Bain.  One of the ads, titled “Questionable,” slams him for “Fuzzy Math” in his depiction of how many jobs were created while he headed Bain.

The second ad to start running on Sunday is titled “Unelectable” and focuses on Romney’s more moderate positions in the past.  It points to the former governor’s refusal to sign the Contract With America, the 1994 campaign blueprint Gingrich used to help Republicans win control of the House, and accuses him of passing “Romneycare, the model for Obamacare.”

“Mitt Romney,” a voice tells the audience as dramatic music pumps underneath. “Not conservative.  Not electable.”

Both ads are part of a previously announced ad buy of $3.4 million by Winning Our Future.  They were set to air throughout South Carolina starting Sunday morning and will likely air through mid-week when the PAC will swap them out for fresh material.

To Winning the Future PAC, I say: If you seriously want to stop Romney, beware the upside of these attacks. Romney is never so sympathetic as when his opponents attack him for being a capitalist.


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

Wanna prove any of that assertion, a55hat?

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM

It’s my opinion that those calling Romney’s ethics for helming Bain Capital sound like unwashed Zucotti Park hippies. It is a take-it-to-the-bank fact that Newt has aligned himself with that crowd. I don’t have to prove my opinion, douchebag.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Heh.

Since raising questions about the ethics of specific business’s specific behavior is now ‘lefty talking points,’ I do want to recommend a great vice-presidential nominee for Mitt. You’ll love him.

Robert_Paulson on January 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Raising questions about ethics is one thing. I raised plenty of questions about the ethics of Romneycare, constitutionality notwithstanding. But if you really believe that Newt and the Super PAC aren’t trafficking in leftist talking points, then you’ll have to accept that you and I have a difference of opinion on that matter.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Tina, please let us know when you officially endorse Mittens, and please stop the “nonpartisan” shilling for him. This type of stuff is far beneath your obvious intelligence.

NOMOBO on January 14, 2012 at 10:42 PM

They can all go to Washington. Romney will occupy the oval office and Newt and Perry occupy the unwashed oval circle outside on the lawn banging the bongo drums, and smoking pot with the rest of the anti-capitalist hordes.

Swerve22 on January 14, 2012 at 10:43 PM

I don’t have a guy, douchebag. I don’t trust any of them. But that doesn’t mean I can’t or won’t call out dishonesty where I see it. Why do you Newt defenders assume that I’m in the foxhole for Mitt just because I think Newt is self destructing?

gryphon202 on January 14, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Keep raging, a55hat. It’s very amusing. Lol!

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Keep raging, a55hat. It’s very amusing. Lol!

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Well that’s good, douchebag. I find your delusional defense of Newt to be equally entertaining.

Anyone know any good popcorn stock to invest in?

gryphon202 on January 14, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Lemme see if I can get say this clearly:

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF EVERY HOTGAS PIECE ON NEWT BEING NEGATIVE, AND EVERY SINGLE PIECE ABOUT FOURTH-IN-THE-POLLS, MR. UNELECTABLE HIMSELF SANTORUM BEING POSITIVE, OK?

Yeah, something like that.

ChicagoJewishGuy on January 14, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Soon “Genuine Historical Froth from Newt Gingrich’s Lips” will be on sale on ebay to help pay down his campaign debts.

It tastes like Thermopylae and Corregidor combined!

profitsbeard on January 14, 2012 at 10:52 PM

It tastes like Thermopylae and Corregidor combined!

profitsbeard on January 14, 2012 at 10:52 PM

THIS IS…AMERICA!

/LeonidasGingrich

gryphon202 on January 14, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Well mittens should should at least get the Staples employee votes- unless they have flip flopped like our newer friends and joined the OWSers

FlaMurph on January 14, 2012 at 11:10 PM

It’s my opinion that those calling Romney’s ethics for helming Bain Capital sound like unwashed Zucotti Park hippies. It is a take-it-to-the-bank fact that Newt has aligned himself with that crowd. I don’t have to prove my opinion, douchebag.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Unhinged poster child.

astonerii on January 14, 2012 at 11:24 PM

I dunno, neither really seem to be very strong really. ALmost like they are not even trying.

astonerii on January 14, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Okay, I read that American Spectator article, and I found the reasoning to be somewhat flawed. Yes it pointed out possible weaknesses with Romney, i agree with many of them, though a few seemed mighty exaggerated and I outright disagreed with a couple.

My real problem however, was the flawed reasoning behind it.

The article took a look at the candidates from a sort of, marketing point of view. Specifically, it asserted that a candidate must have X, Y, or Z traits, or else the candidate is unmarketable, therefore unelectable. There are two problems with this, first, it presumes that elections are always fought on style over substance, and therefore the most charismatic candidate always wins.

The fact of the matter is, that we do not elect presidents on such a simple criteria. Seriously, most of our Presidents have been either roughly average in terms of charisma, and a few have been downright uncharismatic. If elections were decided purely by charisma, Richard Nixons career never would have gotten off the ground, and the same goes true for most of our politicians.

The second flaw with the reasoning, is that it assumes that elections can be simply calculated, and bases his calculations for strength based on this assumption. Basically, he assigned rough numbers to certain traits in his head, measures them against another candidate, and the one with the higher total value is the better candidate. In short, he’s basing the strength of a candidate by how they look on paper.

On paper, Romney, DOES look like a weak candidate. In reality however, he’s been the toughest candidate to take down.

This is because you don’t base the strength of a candidate by how they look on paper. Each candidate on paper has strengths and weaknesses, how well they actually do is determined by how they play up their strengths, and how well they cover their weaknesses. In other words, the vetting process demonstrates how strong a candidate actually is, by giving them a chance to demonstrate their ability in an actual election.

Romney’s weaknesses have been attacked throughout the entire primary, and yet they haven’t seemed to hurt him. This is because he’s presented his biggest strengths well, portraying himself as a competent and experienced individual. So long as he maintains the perception of competence, his weaknesses are hard to take advantage of. This is primarily because the electorate right now craves a competent commander and chief more than anything else.

Competence is the crux of the argument for his electability. He seems the most electable because he seems the most competent. If another candidate had demonstrated superior competence, they likely would have maintained their initial surges. The fact that they have not demonstrates that they are weak campaigners.

Additionally.

The argument for his un-electability, at its core is a repeat of all the previous criticisms of Romney. The fact that they’re trying to tie it into his electability, is in essence a lot like changing a failing products packaging in hopes of spurring sales.

Its a good way of grabbing peoples attention, but if the core product failed to sale before, repackaging it is unlikely to help.

WolvenOne on January 14, 2012 at 11:39 PM

gryphon202 on January 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Unhinged poster child.

astonerii on January 14, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Moralizing windbag poster baby.

gryphon202 on January 15, 2012 at 12:03 AM

If Mitt Romney is the great businessman he and his supporters proclaim he is, then why do they always try to shut down any discussion of his business record?

We already know that Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected.

When we look at his business record, perhaps we’ll find that Mitt Romney was willing to do anything to make money.

JonBGood on January 15, 2012 at 12:10 AM

The Republican Establishment has erased any doubt that they are willing to commit political seppuku in order to make Mitt Romney the nominee of the party.

JonBGood on January 15, 2012 at 12:19 AM

The Republican Establishment has erased any doubt that they are willing to commit political seppuku in order to make Mitt Romney the nominee of the party.

JonBGood on January 15, 2012 at 12:19 AM

You do realize that except for Ron Paul, these are all establishment candidates, right?

WolvenOne on January 15, 2012 at 12:32 AM

You do realize that except for Ron Paul, these are all establishment candidates, right?

WolvenOne on January 15, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Yeah, one is so totally establishment, last time he was in government they gave him a trumped up fine of $300,000 because of a lawyer’s paperwork mistake. I tend to think that would be the guy that could actually get things changed in Washington.

astonerii on January 15, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Moralizing windbag poster baby.

gryphon202 on January 15, 2012 at 12:03 AM

There is not one aspect of your life that you consciously act out on without having moralized the action. Not a one. As for windbag, sorry I am not pithy enough for you, feel free to ignore my long posts. As for baby, I am far more mature than you, your about as mature as any 5th grader bully on the playground.

astonerii on January 15, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Yeah, one is so totally establishment, last time he was in government they gave him a trumped up fine of $300,000 because of a lawyer’s paperwork mistake. I tend to think that would be the guy that could actually get things changed in Washington.

astonerii on January 15, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Yeah, the same guy who spent years peddling influence inside Washington for huge sums of money, then called it historian work. Yeah, you can’t really credibly claim that this guy wasn’t a part of the problem.

WolvenOne on January 15, 2012 at 1:29 AM

The Republican Establishment has erased any doubt that they are willing to commit political seppuku in order to make Mitt Romney the nominee of the party.

JonBGood on January 15, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Still waiting for the True Conservative candidate….

and waiting….

and waiting….

and waiting….

No one showed up? Sounds like the True Conservative wing of the party committed seppuku by not pushing a viable candidate of their own. No, Bachmann and Perry are not viable candidates.

haner on January 15, 2012 at 1:43 AM

WolvenOne on January 15, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Show me how Perry is “Establishment”? Bush, Rove, and Hutchison HATE him.

“Establishment” means DC. Perry’s never lived in DC a day in his life.

Aslans Girl on January 15, 2012 at 2:16 AM

Nevertheless, some things are wrong everywhere. One such thing is a massive government infiltration into the private economy, one that coerces the purchase of a commodity (health insurance) as a condition of living in the state. For one thing, such an exercise in steroid statism establishes a rationale in law for government intrusion into every aspect of private life: If health care is deemed a corporate asset, then “bad” behavioral choices must be regulated, lest someone get more than his share. Romney portrayed Romneycare as a model, at least for other states, if not for the nation. But no free-market, limited-government conservative thinks this officious onslaught is a model to be emulated anyplace.

AdvertisementThen there is the Romney line that the people in his state like Romneycare. Well, why shouldn’t they, at least for a time? The program schemed to exploit Medicaid’s byzantine rules in order to shift hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars from the rest of the country to Massachusetts. This was not a case of a state going its own way; it was a redistribution of wealth by which Massachusetts got Americans across the country to pay its obligations. And those obligations are metastasizing: Romneycare has driven up medical costs, driven up premiums, and increased taxes on all Americans as well as on citizens of the Bay State. As the Cato Institute (among others) points out, Romney’s claim not to have raised state taxes is false, although most of the rise occurred after he left office — but only because of his unrealistic cost projections,

Obamacare is the issue that inspires the conservative base. Republicans simply must have the base’s enthusiastic support if they are to beat a lavishly funded incumbent who will pull no punches, none, in striving to keep his job. There is no serious person who doubts that Romneycare was the building block for Obamacare: The experts who helped design the former were consulted in the creation of the latter. Yet Romney continues to insist that Romneycare is a smashing success, one he suggests he’d do again without hesitation.

Of course he now says he’d fight to repeal Obamacare, but is Romney really the best candidate to be making that fight? How convincing will he be in decrying wealth redistribution, runaway government spending, and freedom-killing government mandates while he continues championing an overbearing state program that stands as a monument to all those things?

I keep hoping to hear those three words: “I was wrong.” But they’re not coming. Romney supporters on the right keep rationalizing that he is just doing what he must do to stay viable: resisting a colossal flip-flop that would be more damaging than all the others. The candidate, however, says no, and attests that he is defending Romneycare because he believes in it. I usually worry that politicians lie. I’m worried that this one is telling the truth.

Dr. Tesla on January 15, 2012 at 2:35 AM

It is a flawed logic that simply because Romney worked in the private sector, that he is a champion of free markets and capitalism and liberty. You don’t implement RomneyCare if that’s the case.

Dr. Tesla on January 15, 2012 at 2:38 AM

My 2.35 am post was taken from an Andrew McCarthy piece at National Review. He’s basically the only guy there worth reading these days.

Dr. Tesla on January 15, 2012 at 2:39 AM

When we look at his business record, perhaps we’ll find that Mitt Romney was willing to do anything to make money.

JonBGood on January 15, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Accusations against Romney of being amoral and greedy tend to bounce off harmlessly, largely because nothing in his behavior and background indicates the presence of glaring character defects. Sure, Romney’s made a mountain of money, an enormous amount of wealth, a fact which would lend itself to the impression of a money-grubbing, two-dimensional Monopoly Rich Guy cartoon, but according to all who know him–and more than a few who don’t like him–the man’s a Boy Scout, painstakingly scrupulous in all his affairs. According to his wife, Romney’s idea of letting go and cutting loose involves drinking the occasional glass of chocolate milk. Seriously. So no, I doubt Romney was willing to do anything to make money. He went into a business known for its huge risks and equally huge rewards, and he did well for himself. Good for him. Calling Romney venal or greedy gets you nowhere.

In my view, Romney’s biggest weaknesses are his lack of passion, his unwillingness to take a stand, his over-reliance on experts, focus groups, analysts, and political strategists, and his strict adherence to plan. In Chess, he would be the player who prefers the Russian game: that slow, prudent accumulation of small advantages where every move is pre-planned six moves ahead; not for him a go-for-broke gambit or a risky, untried variation.

That’s the problem. Right now we need a leader, not a CEO. Unless and until Romney and his people realize that, they’ll probably lose.

troyriser_gopftw on January 15, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Show me how Perry is “Establishment”? Bush, Rove, and Hutchison HATE him.

“Establishment” means DC. Perry’s never lived in DC a day in his life.

Aslans Girl on January 15, 2012 at 2:16 AM

And yet has received ample support from numerous established politicians inside the country. He was considered quite acceptable to most of the establishment, right up until his numerous flubs, gaffs, and poor campaign decisions.

Besides that, the man just got so desperate that he resorted to class warfare rhetoric. This would suggest that he’s less a principled conservative and more a career politician. Just another guy that will do and say whatever it takes to win.

WolvenOne on January 15, 2012 at 4:41 AM

Sure, Romney’s made a mountain of money, an enormous amount of wealth, a fact which would lend itself to the impression of a money-grubbing, two-dimensional Monopoly Rich Guy cartoon, but according to all who know him–and more than a few who don’t like him–the man’s a Boy Scout, painstakingly scrupulous in all his affairs.
troyriser_gopftw on January 15, 2012 at 2:50 AM

If that is true, then

Why doesn’t Mitt Romney hold a press conference and simply say, “I did nothing wrong at Bain. You can look at my deals. I did not do anything unethical or immoral.”

Why won’t Mitt say that?

Why won’t Mitt’s surrogates say that?

They dance around and around, and then come back to the old line that to question Mitt’s Bain experience is to question private enterprise or capitalism itself, which is silly and only makes Mitt look like he has something to hide.

JonBGood on January 15, 2012 at 4:47 AM

class warfare rhetoric. WolvenOne on January 15, 2012 at 4:41 AM

How dare he question Romney’s Bain experience! How dare anyone ask Romney to prove his job creation numbers!

Romney Supporters labeling questions of Mitt’s Bain experience as engaging in class warfare is chutzpah in the extreme. After all, Romney is the man who saddled his state with the socialized healthcare plan known as Romneycare, the blueprint for Obamacare.

It’s not like Romney is running on his business experience. Evidently, the only criteria on which Mitt is to be judged is that of “electabilty.” Unfortunately for Mitt and his supporters, that record doesn’t look too good.

JonBGood on January 15, 2012 at 5:00 AM

Romney’s PACs LIED about Gingrich supposedly “supporting amnesty.”

But, when ads are critical of Romney? “It’s anti-capitalist!”
Riiiiiiiiight. And all of Romney’s ads were “anti-Free-Speech” and “anti-democracy.”

Let Romney burn on each and every second of the attack ads.
No double standards.

GINGRICH in 2012!

Czar of Defenestration on January 15, 2012 at 5:05 AM

“Establishment” means DC. Perry’s never lived in DC a day in his life.

Aslans Girl on January 15, 2012 at 2:16 AM

Like Mitt Romney!

MJBrutus on January 15, 2012 at 5:20 AM

Why won’t Mitt say that?

Why won’t Mitt’s surrogates say that?

JonBGood on January 15, 2012 at 4:47 AM

Because he’s smart. Because he has no desire to dignify the questions nor elevate the also-rans. Mitt is attacking Obama and ignoring the losers trying to bring him down to their level.

MJBrutus on January 15, 2012 at 6:44 AM

Hopefully we all will soon get back to just hating Obama

steel guy on January 15, 2012 at 8:17 AM

“Hopefully we all will soon get back to just hating Obama.”
steel guy on January 15, 2012 at 8:17 AM

If Romney is the GOP candidate, there’s a good chance of 4 more years of just that.

GINGRICH in 2012!

Czar of Defenestration on January 15, 2012 at 8:32 AM

If you have ANY questions regarding Romney’s “ethics” then I suggest you read this short list of Romney contributors. It is eye opening. For any of you who were NOT AGAINST bank bailouts,(like Romney) then, please don’t bother. I would imagine those like Gryophon and his ilk are included here since he rationalizes all things Romney.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286&cycle=2012

It’s my opinion that those calling Romney’s ethics for helming Bain Capital sound like unwashed Zucotti Park hippies. It is a take-it-to-the-bank fact that Newt has aligned himself with that crowd. I don’t have to prove my opinion, douchebag.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Gryphon is correct. It is a take-it-to-the bank-fact for Romney. Literally . Nothing likde sacrificing principles for “real world” political ethics, eh Gryphon ?

Gryphons flaming liberal rage reply should be good for a laugh!

DevilsPrinciple on January 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Newt and his super PAC keep harping on one thing after the other apparently searching for something that sticks or something that elevates Newt. My feelings about this game are escalating annoyance. My opinion of Newt sinks daily. Let’s play with these idiots daily says Newt, they’ll fall for something sooner or later because I’m just so awfully clever. I am beginning to actively dislike him.

jeanie on January 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM

To Winning the Future PAC, I say: If you seriously want to stop Romney, beware the upside of these attacks. Romney is never so sympathetic as when his opponents attack him for being a capitalist.

That’s the smokescreen Romney establishment folks are putting up. The whole ‘attacking capitalism’ meme is transparent and getting old now. Romney started the whole scorched earth scenario in Iowa, and destroyed Gingrich in the process. Not many media/internet peeps were calling Mitt to task for his pac’s pinocchio-awarded ads against Newt, now were they?

Romney needs to publish his records at Bain, MA, along with his tax returns. The other candidates have had to endure tremendous scrutiny and savaging on their records; it’s Romney’s turn.

Sarah Palin was right when she said the whole ‘Bain’ thing is a challenge to Romney to release all of his past records.

Funny how the republican Romney establishment media (I’m talking about so-called conservative pundits/cable shows like Fox News/ internet sites/talkers/publications etc.) have taken it upon themselves to propel Romney to the nomination. The bias against the other candidates is tantamount to the equally biased behavior of the mainstream Obama media in the 2008 election.

Huckabee was opining recently on the role the media played in the 2008 republican primary. The establishment had settled on McCain as the nominee, and the republican establishment media followed along with blatant bias for McCain, and against the other candidates. Huckabee said to not discount the power of the media to influence the outcome of elections. So true, but that doesn’t make it right.

In my opinion, the bias in this primary reporting way surpasses the bias in the reporting of the 2008 primary.

IndeCon on January 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM

If you have ANY questions regarding Romney’s “ethics” then I suggest you read this short list of Romney contributors. It is eye opening. For any of you who were NOT AGAINST bank bailouts,(like Romney) then, please don’t bother. I would imagine those like Gryophon and his ilk are included here since he rationalizes all things Romney.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286&cycle=2012

Thanks for the link; it is indeed eye opening! Similar to Barack Obama’s contribution list.

IndeCon on January 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Raising questions about ethics is one thing. I raised plenty of questions about the ethics of Romneycare, constitutionality notwithstanding. But if you really believe that Newt and the Super PAC aren’t trafficking in leftist talking points, then you’ll have to accept that you and I have a difference of opinion on that matter.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Why won’t Mitt say that?

Why won’t Mitt’s surrogates say that?

JonBGood on January 15, 2012 at 4:47 AM
Because he’s smart. Because he has no desire to dignify the questions nor elevate the also-rans. Mitt is attacking Obama and ignoring the losers trying to bring him down to their level.

MJBrutus on January 15, 2012 at 6:44 AM

Thse two are fans of bigger governments and entitlements as they continue to saturate us with their apologies, rationalizations, and excuses for what they consider to be the paragon of ethics, Romney.

Spare us and admit you’d like to see Obama re-elected.

DevilsPrinciple on January 15, 2012 at 11:51 AM

The tax return thing is Newts latest flavor of the hour. Because N is publishing his,well that makes it great doncha know. We already know they are both well off so it must be donations Newtie is after show casing. N sits there like a chubby toad on his self righteous lily pad and passes judgment on everyone else when the person lacking ethics and integrity is HIM.

jeanie on January 15, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Gryphon is correct. It is a take-it-to-the bank-fact for Romney. Literally . Nothing likde sacrificing principles for “real world” political ethics, eh Gryphon ?

Gryphons flaming liberal rage reply should be good for a laugh!

DevilsPrinciple on January 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Here’s my flaming liberal rage reply: GFY. I have no intention of voting for Romney, chiefly because of his career in politics and his history of bad POLICY. Once you call me liberal, you’ve crossed a line, pal. GET BENT.

gryphon202 on January 15, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Seriously, douchebags. Can I DEFEND Mitt without SUPPORTING him? I’m liberal because I don’t like Newt’s use of LIBERAL talking points? WTF? Come on! We’re better than that!

gryphon202 on January 15, 2012 at 12:15 PM

To Winning the Future PAC, I say: If you seriously want to stop Romney, beware the upside of these attacks. Romney is never so sympathetic as when his opponents attack him for being a capitalist.

Seriously, douchebags. Can I DEFEND Mitt without SUPPORTING him? I’m liberal because I don’t like Newt’s use of LIBERAL talking points? WTF? Come on! We’re better than that!

gryphon202 on January 15, 2012 at 12:15 PM

yup.

unclesmrgol on January 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Why doesn’t Mitt Romney hold a press conference and simply say, “I did nothing wrong at Bain. You can look at my deals. I did not do anything unethical or immoral.”

Why won’t Mitt say that?

JonBGood on January 15, 2012 at 4:47 AM

He won’t say that because of Richard ‘I am not a crook’ Nixon. Besides, from what I’ve read, he did nothing wrong at Bain, people have looked closely at his deals, and he did not do anything unethical or immoral.

Look, I’m not a huge Romney supporter but it’s becoming clear to me he’s the best candidate we’ve got. I mean, come on, does anyone anywhere think an amoral, grandiose, temperamental windbag like Newt Gingrich can hold his own against the Chicago Machine in the general election? The man nearly had an emotional meltdown when subjected to a few, fairly tame attack ads in Iowa–and neither Romney or Paul got around to talking about his personal life. Do you honestly believe the MSM or the professional Left will demonstrate that kind of restraint? Every detail of Gingrich’s tawdry affairs will be hammered into the psyche of the American electorate, and I’m guessing Newt won’t handle it well. It’ll be so unfair, he feel so persecuted and misunderstood, some of it won’t even be true. He’ll cry, and then he’ll lose.

troyriser_gopftw on January 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM

What’s sympathetic about a CEO who’s gotten involved in carbon credit trading? That’s capitalism, too, but I’d hardly argue it’s conservative.

LFRGary on January 15, 2012 at 6:34 PM

What’s sympathetic about a CEO who’s gotten involved in carbon credit trading? That’s capitalism, too, but I’d hardly argue it’s conservative.

LFRGary on January 15, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I’d be the last guy in the world to argue that Romney can be trusted to follow the constitution. But my criticism of Newt is based on the fact that you could confuse some of his quotes with some from OWSers. There are plenty of legitimate policy beefs that wouldn’t necessitate Newt’s lowering himself to the level of the Zucotti Park rape tent dwellers.

gryphon202 on January 15, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2