Gingrich: The message we should hit Mitt with is “We aren’t that stupid and you aren’t that clever”

posted at 1:55 pm on January 26, 2012 by Tina Korbe

At a Tea Party rally in Florida today, Newt Gingrich upped his attacks on Mitt Romney’s wealth, casting it as a negative that Romney was a “moneymaking independent” in the 80s and 90s. Betraying his own bias in favor of “public service” (a euphemism if I’ve ever heard one!), Gingrich additionally criticized Romney for a lack of interest in politics during those decades.

Then, somewhat contradictorily, Gingrich circled back to Romney’s political record — what ought to be Romney’s true vulnerability with the GOP base —  and criticized it, as well. That attack — tart and to the point — was far more effective than the former Speaker’s critique of Romney’s impartial capitalistic credentials — and delivered a deliciously memorable line to boot.

Gingrich argued Romney tries to hide his political history in which he campaigned with a more moderate platform during his Senate and gubernatorial campaigns.

“He is counting on us not having YouTube. That’s how much he thinks we’re stupid, and we’re not stupid,” Gingrich said. “The message we should give Mitt Romney is you know, `We aren’t that stupid and you aren’t that clever’.”

The former speaker conceded the weight of the ads coming from the Romney campaign has hurt his campaign, but sought to remind voters where Romney, who holds stock in Goldman Sachs, gets his money.

“Let’s be really clear, you’re watching ads paid for with the money taken from the people of Florida by companies like Goldman Sachs, recycled back into ads to try to stop you from having a choice in this election,” Gingrich said. “That’s what this is all about.”

In his brief speech at the rally, Gingrich displayed all his political savvy. He repeatedly used the word “we” to refer to the people of Florida and himself, and, by his tone, emphasized that he is running as an “establishment outsider.” How he came to claim that label is still somewhat of a mystery, but Ann Coulter suggests “the establishment” has come to mean nothing more than “those who support Mitt Romney.” As I’ve written before, I’d rather all the candidates be forthcoming about their connections to the D.C. swampland and stop trying to delude us into thinking they’re one of “us,” but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

Meantime, Gingrich’s comments also highlight the weaknesses of Romney’s strategy. Just as Gingrich said, Romney has downplayed his political past in the primaries, knowing that few-to-none of his achievements as Massachusetts governor would appeal to conservatives. He has run, instead, on his record as a private businessman — but that strategy might not play well at all in the general. At least, Obama’s advisers seem not to be worried about a Romney candidacy:

They argue that, at a time when many Americans see economic and political systems that appear to be stacked against them, Romney’s decision to base his campaign message on his work at a private equity firm could be a major mistake.

What Obama’s advisers say they did not anticipate was the degree to which Romney would compound that vulnerability through missteps.

“These are all self-inflicted,” said one adviser to the president who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the campaign candidly. “He has done as much damage to himself with how he’s handled this as anything his opponents have said about him. That’s why I think he’s made it worse.”

Questions have been raised about his personal finances, highlighted by the tax returns he released this week that show not only enormous wealth and a low effective tax rate but also a Swiss bank account (now closed) and investments in the Cayman Islands. Adding to those are statements Romney has made recently that ordinary Americans might interpret as a sign of insensitivity to their struggles.

Gingrich’s attacks on Romney’s wealth, then, might sound sour to some conservatives, but they’re a pretty good preview of what would be to come from the Obama camp should Romney become the nominee.

From now until the day the GOP selects its nominees, the candidate-on-candidate attacks will only grow sharper — but I’m in the camp that thinks those attacks will also just sharpen the eventual nominee, numbing him to whatever attacks Obama introduces (most of which will have been fleshed out anyway!) and, above all, preparing him for the actual presidency, an office that inevitably draws far more criticism than it does praise for the officeholder.


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

with all the anti-Romney hate here, Obama won’t have to use that billion dollars.

BedBug on January 26, 2012 at 2:24 PM

It works both ways bedbug. Take the rose colored glasses off.

DDay on January 26, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Face it folks populists are not conservative, they are mirror images of left wing jerks. Newt panders to populists because this is the standard way of connecting with them. Jimmy Swaggart knew it, Oral Roberts knew it, pro wrestling promoters know it, and so do other hucksters. Newt knows it. Against the stimulus but for a moon base. Obama will have him for lunch on that one.

The other thing that populists can’t understand is Civics 101. Nearly have the country is liberal and a huge group in the middle hates their values but suspects liberals. You can’t nominate a demagogue and expect to win elections. The winner will necessarily always come across as mealy mouthed. The only thing you can look for is character and inclinations.

aloysiusmiller on January 26, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Romneycare-individual choice for a single state made by the legislators in that state.

Obamacare-mandate by the FEDERAL government that all states must have this insurance plan

gerry-mittbot-that was easy

gerrym51 on January 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM

So the it’s a state issue is your lame argument? Socialism is ok for the state level??

What about making it the highest health care costs in the country?

What about using federal funds to pay for it?

How about costing MA 18000 jobs?

What about Romney advisors going to the white house to tell Obama how to implement Obamacare??

Stop dodging it and answer these questions.

Or better yet, finally wake up and stop supporting the liberal Mittens.

LevinFan on January 26, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Not even close. The liberals are the ones pushing the idea that Newty Mittens is electable. They’re the ones that keep trying to make the case that he’s #winning! Thinking Conservatives have to wonder why that is…

cicerone on January 26, 2012 at 2:37 PM

And why the POTUS is dismissive of Gingrich by and large but expends a large amount of resources “attacking” Romney…to…er..keep Romney’s name in the news…

Ostensibly so the Conservatives will come to Mittens defense? That way Potus’s Opponenet is an easy walk-over!

RedLizard64 on January 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM

AP/Ed

Time to find a new verb for the Headlines section – “rip,” and variations thereon, getting stale.

Horace on January 26, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I really miss Perry.

lonestar1 on January 26, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Bedbug

Why does opposing a candidate always have to mean “hate?”

I don’t “hate” any of the candidates. Well, OK, I hate Obama, but that’s just a display of sanity.

It really is possible to be totally opposed to a candidate and not hate them. It is also very American to mock, belittle, denigrate and laugh at candidates. Check out what the press printed about Jefferson and some of what his opponents said about him. Goes back to the beginning. First Amendment stuff and all that jazz.

Horace on January 26, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Meredith on January 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM

And then your Savior Obama shed his thin-skinned veneer after the election to become the biggest schoolyard bully I have seen in my nearly 50 years of life!!!

RedLizard64 on January 26, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I really miss Perry.

lonestar1 on January 26, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Maybe he’ll show up at the Gay Rodeo in Fort Worth, March 2-4, 2012, advertised as a “Texas Tradition.”

If you’re in that area, could go and tell him in person.

Horace on January 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM

The establishment pundits/media/RNC hate Newt? Ha, we count that as a positive.

IndeCon on January 26, 2012 at 3:49 PM

FIFY

Norky on January 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Thank you, thank you very much.

Rush and Mike Reagan reputing the attacks on Newt today:

Mike Reagan, Rush Limbaugh Blast Romney
Thursday, 26 Jan 2012 03:02 PM
By Jim Meyers

Ronald Reagan’s eldest son Mike Reagan has issued a statement lambasting Mitt Romney and his supporters for claims that Romney’s Republican presidential rival Newt Gingrich was a strong critic of President Reagan.

Reagan says such claims are false.

Even Rush Limbaugh, shocked by the Romney claims, chimed on his Thursday radio broadcast to say “This is obviously a coordinated attack to take Newt out here in Florida.”

Rush slammed the Romney-backed smear campaign against Newt.

“That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much,” Limbaugh said.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Limbaugh-Reagan-Gingrich-Romney/2012/01/26/id/425666

IndeCon on January 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM

This bloodletting is a good thing .If Romney gets the nomination he will become the head of a week and dieing party and he cannot win in Nov. There will also be the birth of a new conservative/libertarian party No elites and Rinos allowed.As much as i despise Obama i cannot vote for Romney no way no how.If all of thees elites succeed in fooling the people into nominating Romney then they deserve what they get.4 more years of Obama.If you think i am wrong just go back and read some of the things McCain and Huckabee were saying about Romney just 4 years ago.Worse than anything Newt is saying today.A sample .The video of Romney saying when running against Kennedy.I am more liberal than Ted Kennedy or the one were he says i have always been pro choses and always will be and if a girl is under 18 and one of her parents will not give permission for a abortion.Then under the law i signed she can go to a judge and overrule her parents.Do you think the Obama team will not use this against Romney?logman1 on January 26, 2012 at 3:44 PM

You are probably about to get a firm dressing down from Bluegill!

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 4:17 PM

“Tea Party voters want a small-government, anti-establishment Washington outsider. Gingrich fails on all three counts.

“Establishment Republicans want an electable candidate. Gingrich fails here, as well.

“Social conservatives want a candidate who reflects their family values. Um…

“So if Gingrich fails to satisfy any of these impulses, I’m left to assume that conservatives are simply out for a good time. They want to be entertained by a Gingrich-Obama slugfest in the general election debates, and they are willing to sacrifice everything — their credibility, their values and the White House — to sit in the Coliseum and watch a Christian get devoured by lions.

“Shame on us. The future of conservatism and the future of the country are bigger than debate-night hijinks. If we conservatives are willing to forgive Gingrich his transgressions, I’m not sure what separates us from liberals.”

Newt Gingrich is a toad. Worse, he’s a lying toad. Moreover, he’s a lying liberal toad.

Finally: Newt Gingrich is a lying, liberal toad, that NO ONE in the Republican Party–except a minority of loony-toon delusionals–think is qualified, appropriate, or capable of becoming the GOP nominee, much less POTUS.

mountainaires on January 26, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I thing you must be listening to a different Rush.

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Go read the transcript.

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 4:20 PM

So the it’s a state issue is your lame argument? Socialism is ok for the state level??

I can see you’re unfamiliar with federalism. Sigh…

What about making it the highest health care costs in the country?

They were the highest in the country before Romneycare, too.

What about using federal funds to pay for it?

I’m not cool with Medicaid in general but that’s a problem with the federal government passing out tax dollars to the states.

How about costing MA 18000 jobs?

That claim is fairly dubious. The report that claim originates from makes an estimate that it prevented 18,000 jobs from being created and that’s based off a number of assumptions. It’s plausible but far from certain.

What about Romney advisors going to the white house to tell Obama how to implement Obamacare??

So what? Romneycare is the state version of Obamacare. We know that. Does that somehow erase Newt’s sin of advocating a federal health insurance mandate up until it became political expedient of him not to do so>

Stop dodging it and answer these questions.

Done.

Or better yet, finally wake up and stop supporting the liberal Mittens.

LevinFan on January 26, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I don’t support Mittens, or not yet at least. But Romney Derangement Syndrome doesn’t really help anything either.

alchemist19 on January 26, 2012 at 4:21 PM

The message we should hit today, mind you. There will be 12 other messages before the next news cycle.

And here’s my problem with Newt, apart from his inability to keep it in his pants — if he keeps spinning off all these fanciful ideas, the MSM will spend all their time talking about them; all the down-ticket Republicans will spend all their time either distancing themselves from, refocusing discussion away from, or clarifying their positions on them; this will suck all the oxygen out of the room, freeing up down-ticket Republicans’ opponents to frame them as out of touch on local issues or hang Gingrich around their necks, and here’s the kicker: As long as people are talking about Newt’s ideas, even to the exclusion of the focus local candidates need to prevail, Newt won’t give a tinker’s damn what happens to anyone else.

DrSteve on January 26, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Go read the transcript.

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Provide the link. (And the quote.)

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 4:28 PM

I have a suggestion. Perhaps Hot Air could put up two postings
for each subject -
one for the liberals and one for the conservatives
to respond to.

That would reduce the number of idiotic postings we would have
to scroll through and read – or just scroll on by.

Of course, it would reduce the number of “posting fights” and
therefore the total number of postings. Also, the trolls
would have to post twice wearing different hats. And the liberals
would visit the conservative side just to post and aggravate.

Never mind.

Amjean on January 26, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I can see you’re unfamiliar with federalism. Sigh…

alchemist19 on January 26, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Here’s the problem with your argument. I’m a federalist conservative.

My biggest preference in the Federal government is to get as much control back to the states.

However, just because I think states have the power to enact socialist legislation like Mitt did, doesn’t mean I think it is a good idea and that we should reward him for doing it.

In other words, yes, he had the power to enact that legislation in the state. I will not support him because I think it is a stupid plan, not because I think it was an unconstitutional action.

makattak on January 26, 2012 at 4:40 PM

And why the POTUS is dismissive of Gingrich by and large but expends a large amount of resources “attacking” Romney…to…er..keep Romney’s name in the news…

Ostensibly so the Conservatives will come to Mittens defense? That way Potus’s Opponenet is an easy walk-over!

RedLizard64 on January 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Let’s see who’s targeting Romney these days:

Liberal groups are planning a Florida assault on Mitt Romney, including an at least $1 million ad buy, The Washington Post reports.

The ad buy from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the largest public-employee union in the U.S., will focus on Romney’s stewardship of Bain Capital, the private equity firm he cofounded. A Spanish-language radio campaign criticizing Romney’s immigration stance has also been launched by the Service Employees International Union and the pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action.

Since Newtists and other anti-Romney paranoids are certain that the Left is afraid of Newty, then explain to me why they are gearing up to attack Romney…BEFORE he even wins the nomination? Could it be that they don’t WANT him to be the nominee?

The ads suggest that Democrats think they can derail Romney’s campaign, The Post reports. Unions and other groups normally run political ads in general elections, but weighing in on a primary race is unusual, strategists told the newspaper.

Clearly they don’t want Romney to get nominated. Which is just one of the many things those idiots have in common with Newty and the Blowhards. Birds of a feather flock together, apparently:

Romney is also under fire from the pro-Gingrich super PAC Winning the Future, bankrolled by billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson and his wife have contributed $10 million to the PAC, $6 million of which has been committed to advertising in Florida.

cicerone on January 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Listening to Mitt on Hannity’s radio show.
He actually ridiculed Newt for getting lawyers to figure out the true definition of ‘lobbying’and ‘influence peddling’, so he wouldn’t be guilty of doing that.
Now, that’s leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
(to be clear, I mean the ridiculing of Newt for doing that)

pambi on January 26, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Go read the transcript.

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 4:20 PM
Provide the link. (And the quote.)

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Here ya go!

Mike Reagan, Rush Limbaugh Blast Romney
Thursday, 26 Jan 2012 03:02 PM
By Jim Meyers

Ronald Reagan’s eldest son Mike Reagan has issued a statement lambasting Mitt Romney and his supporters for claims that Romney’s Republican presidential rival Newt Gingrich was a strong critic of President Reagan.

Reagan says such claims are false.

Even Rush Limbaugh, shocked by the Romney claims, chimed on his Thursday radio broadcast to say “This is obviously a coordinated attack to take Newt out here in Florida.”

Rush slammed the Romney-backed smear campaign against Newt.

“That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much,” Limbaugh said.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Limbaugh-Reagan-Gingrich-Romney/2012/01/26/id/425666

IndeCon on January 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Thank You IndeCon! I don’t know how to link things!

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Dear pambi, Newt is always walking on the edge. You want that kind of recklessness?

aloysiusmiller on January 26, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I can see you’re unfamiliar with federalism. Sigh…

The problem is that Mittens has refused to admit what a disaster Romneycare is. His only excuse is that it’s only at the state level. In that case, in the spirit of federalism, let’s keep Mittens in MA and far away from the White House.

They were the highest in the country before Romneycare, too.

Thanks for proving my point. Romneycare did nothing to lower the costs, so it’s a failure.

I’m not cool with Medicaid in general but that’s a problem with the federal government passing out tax dollars to the states.

It means that they couldn’t afford to pay for Romneycare by themselves in MA and needed to get bailed out by the Federal gov’t.

That claim is fairly dubious. The report that claim originates from makes an estimate that it prevented 18,000 jobs from being created and that’s based off a number of assumptions. It’s plausible but far from certain.

Sounds more like you don’t like the truth and simply won’t accept it.

What about Romney advisors going to the white house to tell Obama how to implement Obamacare??

So what? Romneycare is the state version of Obamacare. We know that. Does that somehow erase Newt’s sin of advocating a federal health insurance mandate up until it became political expedient of him not to do so>

So what??? Are you kidding me?? You’re basically saying you’re ok with Obamacare. At least you admit it’s the state version of it. This should’ve disqualified Romney from the start. Romneycare is the ONLY thing Mittens hasn’t waffled on!

I’m not happy with Newt’s support of the mandate, but he didn’t implement the state version of Obamcare and then help Obama implement it on a national level!

I don’t support Mittens, or not yet at least. But Romney Derangement Syndrome doesn’t really help anything either.

alchemist19 on January 26, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Derangement? You mean pointing out the truth about Romneycare??

And I don’t buy that you’re not a Romney supporter. Only a Romney shill would make excuses like you just did.

LevinFan on January 26, 2012 at 5:04 PM

It’s people like him and his criminal enterprise, Bain Capital, that loaded this country with debt, instigated collapse, and profited from the resulting misery.

Mr. Arkadin on January 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM

whoa, whoa, duuude, you must have mistaken the venue, it’s Hot Gas here, not Zucotti Park..take that rhetoric there, I heard starting this coming spring they will delievr free food to the campers too..

jimver on January 26, 2012 at 5:06 PM

alchemist – federalism doesn’t mean that ideology doesn’t exist at the state level. Romney implemented statist, socialist policy at the state level. How does federalism negate that? And Romney supported the federal mandate and still considers a mandate “fundamentally conservative”. But Newt’s theoretical toying with a mandate is beyond the pale? Or equivalent to Romney’s position? Please. You are still dodging.

besser tot als rot on January 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM

but I’m in the camp that thinks those attacks will also just sharpen the eventual nominee, numbing him to whatever attacks Obama introduces (most of which will have been fleshed out anyway!) and, above all, preparing him for the actual presidency, an office that inevitably draws far more criticism than it does praise for the officeholder.

Yeah, Tina…wait until you see the ads from Obama featuring Gingrich and Perry agreeing with him that Romney is a evil mean free market vulture capitalist. In the next shot you’ll see Sarah Palin saying “Vote for Newt!”.

Yeah, that helps sharpen our nominee alright.

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM

So the it’s a state issue is your lame argument? Socialism is ok for the state level??

I can see you’re unfamiliar with federalism. Sigh…

That the states are free to enact such legislation does not mean that they should, nor does it mean that Governors who push for flawed and misguided legislation should be immune from criticism.

What about making it the highest health care costs in the country?

They were the highest in the country before Romneycare, too.

RomneyCare resulted in an increase health insurance premiums relative to pre-reform trends in Massachusetts.

What about using federal funds to pay for it?

I’m not cool with Medicaid in general but that’s a problem with the federal government passing out tax dollars to the states.

And as Governor, Romney should be proud for having offloaded most of the cost of reform onto the federal government. I suppose that was his job. But it’s disingenuous at best for him (and many of his supporters) to crow about enacting reform that didn’t require a tax increase. Sure, MA taxpayers aren’t footing the bill for it, but only because federal taxpayers are.

How about costing MA 18000 jobs?

That claim is fairly dubious. The report that claim originates from makes an estimate that it prevented 18,000 jobs from being created and that’s based off a number of assumptions. It’s plausible but far from certain.

The estimates come from a robust model that has been in use for more than 15 years and that has been used in more than 20 states. Yes, it’s still a model, but it’s fairly well-known and respected.

What about Romney advisors going to the white house to tell Obama how to implement Obamacare??

So what? Romneycare is the state version of Obamacare. We know that. Does that somehow erase Newt’s sin of advocating a federal health insurance mandate up until it became political expedient of him not to do so>

It’s probably more accurate to say that ObamaCare is the federal version of RomneyCare. :-) Of course this does not excuse Newt’s one-time support of an individual mandate. But the fact remains that there are only two candidates in this race who firmly believe that it is the proper role of government to force people to engage in economic activity against their will. And neither of them is named Newt.

Just Sayin on January 26, 2012 at 5:11 PM

aloysiusmiller on January 26, 2012 at 5:03 PM

It’s reckless to be clear and accurate, so you won’t break any laws ? In what world ??

pambi on January 26, 2012 at 5:12 PM

I really miss Perry.

lonestar1 on January 26, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Who?

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Yeah, Tina…wait until you see the ads from Obama featuring Gingrich and Perry agreeing with him that Romney is a evil mean free market vulture capitalist. In the next shot you’ll see Sarah Palin saying “Vote for Newt!”.
Yeah, that helps sharpen our nominee alright.

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Romney engaged in this dirty pool before any of the others. Romney and his supports whining about it now is beyond absurd.

besser tot als rot on January 26, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Go read the transcript.

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I don’t think that’s possible. His ADD kicks in about half way down the page and that’s where Rush starts defending Newt.

Saw a video somewhere today where Nancy Reagan was passing the torch on to Newt for “Ronnie”, can’t find it now.

Norky on January 26, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Just Sayin on January 26, 2012 at 5:11 PM

We can thank the passage of EMTALA for for this mess. That was the legislation that forces states to care for and then pay for the care of anyone who shows up needing medical services irrespective of their ability to pay. The federal government forces another program on the states and the states try to deal with it as best they can. The state of MA was going to lose $385 million if they didn’t find a different way to administer the funds for those services. It was a fiscal issue that led to Romneycare and not some desire to try social engineering. So lets drop the BS and call the creation of Romneycare what is was. An attempt to solve a fiscal problem forced upon it by the federal government and still make sure all citizens of MA received the care EMTALA guaranteed them.

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Is Newt taking crazy pills? Hitting Romney for being busy working in the private sector during the ’80s instead of chasing power and influence as a Washington politician? Calling it “public service?”
Has he actually gone insane? Does he understand how this will play?
Esoteric on January 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Next up he’ll be channeling Barack and Michelle, telling us how he heroically “sacrificed” for years taking low paying professorial and public service jobs rather than dirty his hands with filthy corporate lucre.

As an aside: I’d like to see Newt’s stock and bond portfolio since he’s so keen on disparaging Mitt’s (blind trust) investments.

Buy Danish on January 26, 2012 at 5:27 PM

besser tot als rot on January 26, 2012 at 5:18 PM

It isn’t the attack. It’s that it is the language of the left.

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I don’t know why Romney supporters are so unwilling to acknowledge what is self-evident. Even Romney himself can’t point to any substantive differences. Why not just admit it?

Just Sayin on January 26, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Two words,

DEATH PANELS!!!

(but that isn’t all.)

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 5:34 PM

No Newt, you should hit Mitt with how he lied about your resignation, how you were exonerated and refunded the $300,000, and how you forced cuts in the budget and other reforms down Clinton’s throat.

Hard Right on January 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Rush slammed the Romney-backed smear campaign against Newt.

“That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much,” Limbaugh said.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Limbaugh-Reagan-Gingrich-Romney/2012/01/26/id/425666

IndeCon on January 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Thank You IndeCon! I don’t know how to link things!

Sorry but that doesn’t support your assertion.

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Rush goes into why McCain and Huckabee both hated Romney in 2008. Because he slimed them before they had a chance to raise enough money to counter him, etc.

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 3:22 PM

In fact, what was provide was not a primary source but a secondary source with insufficient context to support either your or Michael Reagan’s assertion.

Text without context is simply pretext.

Try again please.

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 5:38 PM

It means that they couldn’t afford to pay for Romneycare by themselves in MA and needed to get bailed out by the Federal gov’t.

Romneycare was basically a Medicaid expansion that was done to preserve a waiver from certain provisions of Medicaid the federal government had granted the state. Every state gets waivers for Medicaid, Massachusetts had one that was set to expire and they enacted Romneycare as a method to preserve it because if they lost it the state budget was going to have about $2 billion tacked on to it or they were going to have to cut a lot of people’s health care. You tell me what an 85% Democrat legislature is going to do with that situation.

Sounds more like you don’t like the truth and simply won’t accept it.

No, it’s a claim that lacks any hard supporting evidence and when a claim lacks hard supporting evidence I don’t accept it as fact. That’s why I don’t accept that manmade global warming is going to kill us all.

So what??? Are you kidding me?? You’re basically saying you’re ok with Obamacare. At least you admit it’s the state version of it. This should’ve disqualified Romney from the start. Romneycare is the ONLY thing Mittens hasn’t waffled on!

I’m not happy with Newt’s support of the mandate, but he didn’t implement the state version of Obamcare and then help Obama implement it on a national level!

I’m not saying I’m okay with Obamacare, I just acknowledged the obvious: Romney did on the state level what Obama did on the federal level. You seem surprised I’m not surprised.

Derangement? You mean pointing out the truth about Romneycare??

Some of the truth. A version of the truth, perhaps.

And I don’t buy that you’re not a Romney supporter. Only a Romney shill would make excuses like you just did.

LevinFan on January 26, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Since we’ve already established you’re fine with facts that lack hard supporting evidence I’m just going to have smirk and let that one pass.

alchemist19 on January 26, 2012 at 5:38 PM

No Newt, you should hit Mitt with how he lied about your resignation, how you were exonerated and refunded the $300,000, and how you forced cuts in the budget and other reforms down Clinton’s throat.

Hard Right on January 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Sorry BUT,

being exonerated AFTER THE FACT, doesn’t change the fact that he resigned in disgrace.

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 5:40 PM

alchemist – federalism doesn’t mean that ideology doesn’t exist at the state level. Romney implemented statist, socialist policy at the state level. How does federalism negate that? And Romney supported the federal mandate and still considers a mandate “fundamentally conservative”. But Newt’s theoretical toying with a mandate is beyond the pale? Or equivalent to Romney’s position? Please. You are still dodging.

besser tot als rot on January 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Romney hasn’t ever said he supports a federal health insurance mandate, at least as far as I know. Did he come out in favor of that and I’ve missed it? If so a link would be appreciated.

alchemist19 on January 26, 2012 at 5:40 PM

It’s probably more accurate to say that ObamaCare is the federal version of RomneyCare. :-) Of course this does not excuse Newt’s one-time support of an individual mandate. But the fact remains that there are only two candidates in this race who firmly believe that it is the proper role of government to force people to engage in economic activity against their will. And neither of them is named Newt.

Just Sayin on January 26, 2012 at 5:11 PM

csdevin already jumped in but you make an excellent point about there being only two candidates left who know the proper roll of government isn’t to force people to engage in economic activity against their will, and that’s why I’m still considering both of them for my support.

alchemist19 on January 26, 2012 at 5:43 PM

In fact, what was provide was not a primary source but a secondary source with insufficient context to support either your or Michael Reagan’s assertion.

Text without context is simply pretext.

Try again please.

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I believe I’ve given you enough information to find what you’re looking for, I can’t give you the drive to find it. Besides, I doubt, from what I’ve read of your comments, that you could be swayed, so it would be a waste of my time.

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM

No Newt, you should hit Mitt with how he lied about your resignation,

Provide link.

how you were exonerated

Provide link.

and refunded the $300,000,

Hard Right on January 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Provide link.

And before you do, please be aware that the sanction and the resulting reprimand was for lying and unethical behavior. This included the $300K. The tax issue was specifically left to the IRS to decide if ADDITIONAL charges would be filed.

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 5:46 PM

If so a link would be appreciated.

alchemist19 on January 26, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Get ready for the 60 Minutes “model for the nation” quote. Of course if Romney really supported a federal mandate he would have said “National Model” and there would be multiple instances of it.

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I believe I’ve given you enough information to find what you’re looking for, I can’t give you the drive to find it.

I will take that as you CAN’T support your assertion and don’t care about accuracy.

Besides, I doubt, from what I’ve read of your comments, that you could be swayed, so it would be a waste of my time.

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Well, when you can’t support your assertions, why should I “be swayed”?

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 5:57 PM

I don’t support Mittens, or not yet at least. But Romney Derangement Syndrome doesn’t really help anything either.

alchemist19 on January 26, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Do you find it strange that.

1) the falsehoods about Romney are so bad that even people who don’t support him have to defend him against the lies?

2) anyone defending the truth about Romney’s record is accused of being a mind numbed mittbot?

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Provide link.

And before you do, please be aware that the sanction and the resulting reprimand was for lying and unethical behavior. This included the $300K. The tax issue was specifically left to the IRS to decide if ADDITIONAL charges would be filed.

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Provide link, please.

pambi on January 26, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Ha! I must be psychic:

I want people to understand, I’m a volunteer. Callista and I had very long talks for over a year and then we talked with our two daughters and our two son-in-laws because we knew if we tried to offer help the country that we would be subjected to news media assaults, we’d be subjected to vicious gossip, we’d be subjected to people on the web saying horrible things and we’d be subjected to negative ads from our opponents. And we concluded that we are in so much trouble and we are in such grave danger of losing the America that we grew up in and the lack of Republican ability to articulate and communicate and defend is so great that both of us – this was a dual decision – we both concluded that we had a moral obligation to endure whatever comes and to at least offer, as citizens, to try and be of service.

Buy Danish on January 26, 2012 at 6:08 PM

We aren’t that stupid

What a winning campaign slogan.

Was Newt part of The Firesign Theater?

Their mythical presidential candidate ran on the slogan “Not Insane“.

profitsbeard on January 26, 2012 at 6:09 PM

The immediate impetus for broad-based reform in 2006 was the desire to preserve the flow of a specific category of federal funds into the state, to the tune of $385 million/year.[...]

Just Sayin on January 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM

The state of MA was going to lose $385 million if they didn’t find a different way to administer the funds for those services. It was a fiscal issue that led to Romneycare and not some desire to try social engineering. So lets drop the BS and call the creation of Romneycare what is was. An attempt to solve a fiscal problem forced upon it by the federal government and still make sure all citizens of MA received the care EMTALA guaranteed them.

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM

But, um, thanks for the history lesson.

Just Sayin on January 26, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Thank You IndeCon! I don’t know how to link things!

Night Owl on January 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM

You move your cursor arrow to the “http://www” bar at the top of a webpage and left click on it, which highlights it / turns it blue.

Then right click, which brings down a little menu list.

Click on “copy” then move your cursor back to this comment box, right click, which brings down a new menu list, and click on “paste”, which gives you (f’rinstance):

http://www.drudgereport.com/

To make it easier on the text, type a relevant word like Drudge, then drag your cursor arrow over it until turns blue, then go up to “link” (the blue word above the comment box) and click on it, which opens an “http://www” link box.

Click on it, and then right click the same saved “copy” web address and “paste” it in this link zone. This will turn the word “Drudge” into a live hypertext link, which looks better than a big address line in your comment.

Happy linking!

profitsbeard on January 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Do you find it strange that.

1) the falsehoods about Romney are so bad that even people who don’t support him have to defend him against the lies?

2) anyone defending the truth about Romney’s record is accused of being a mind numbed mittbot?

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Yes and yes. What really gets me is there is a ton to not like about Romney as a candidate from his inability to articulate conservatism with any passion whatsoever to the fact his only core conviction I can honestly see is his belief that Mitt Romney should be president. But instead of hitting the fact his campaign is nothing but platitudes and a big smile, and that Barack Obama says nothing better than Mitt ever will, we’re listening to attacks on venture capitalism and paranoia about some odd man-behind-the-curtain all-powerful establishment whose exact means and motives seem to defy rational explanation. It’s a strange rabbit hole we find ourselves falling down, that’s for sure.

alchemist19 on January 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Mark Levin is off the tracks !
God bless him !
WHOA !

pambi on January 26, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Stop dodging it and answer these questions.
LevinFan on January 26, 2012 at 4:02 PM
I don’t support Mittens, or not yet at least. But Romney Derangement Syndrome doesn’t really help anything either.

alchemist19 on January 26, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Of course you do.

But Romney defenders can not use fact as none support him unless they just quote his empty words. His actions like Romney Care are all 100% DNC approved. Do not I repeat do not tell me where Mitt ran he had enough money to live anywhere but Mitt choose to live in Mass and run there. He had homes in ten States so could have easily run elsewhere.
Like Mitt?
Mitt in his own words.
Mitts fathers favorite spokesman for the Blacks.
Want to Defeat Obama Click here for great site
Was Newt Regans Lieutenant You decide

Mitt Romney the newest version of Obama enjoy Obama V2 vote Mitt Romney.

Steveangell on January 26, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I can’t stand either one of them (Santorum either), but the more Gingrich hits on Romney for his hard-earned, legitimate wealth, the more I dislike him more than the others.

I’d rather have someone who worked for his money than someone like Gingrich who leached from taxpayers.

Just think, we had a great candidate in the race, successful 2-term governor, built his own successful business from the ground up, lived the Tea Party planks of limited government and less spending, yet the Republicans couldn’t give him the time of day.

Common Sense on January 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM

LOL Levin …
all of these lies being woven into a basketful of cr*ap !
(Mitt’s recollection of Newt & Reagan’s relationship)

pambi on January 26, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Do you find it strange that.

1) the falsehoods about Romney Gingrich are so bad that even people who don’t support him have to defend him against the lies?

2) anyone defending the truth about Romney’sGingrich’s record is accused of being a mind numbed mittbot?

Gunlock Bill on January 26, 2012 at 6:03 PM

3) Mitt never talks about the conservative ultra liberal things he did.

Steveangell on January 26, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Provide link, please.

pambi on January 26, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Here is the entire report in 4 parts (PDF). Click part one. Go to page 79 and read the bullet points noting the statements Gingrich made in the letter saying GOPAC was not involved. Now jump to page 85 and see the footnotes at the bottom. This is the evidence that Gingrich admitted that GOPAC was involved from the beginning. The signed letter was the lie he was sanctioned for.

I’ve left these links a dozen times for different people over the last few days. If you want to find out more, you can research the document like I did because I wanted to know the facts for myself. A clue, this is a searchable document. So key words are easily searched.

Not surprisingly, every person who demanded these links, has never returned to tell me what they discovered for themselves. I do know they have ceased saying Gingrich’s sanction was reversed and that the tax issue was part of the sanction.

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 7:13 PM

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Thank you.
Not everyone who can sometimes access HotAir, can see every link, at all times.
That’s why I asked.

pambi on January 26, 2012 at 7:19 PM

pambi on January 26, 2012 at 7:19 PM

No prob. One correction, GOPAC wasn’t involved from the beginning, but rather at the beginning.

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Not everyone who can sometimes access HotAir, can see every link, at all times.

pambi on January 26, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Here is the actual addy if you can’t see the link.

http://ethics.house.gov/committee-report/matter-representative-newt-gingrich

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 7:25 PM

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 7:13 PM

And what violations was Newt found to have violated??

PS, aren’t you proud of Mittens for slandering Newt over Reagan??

What was Mittens doing during that time?? Donating to Paul Tsongsas?

LevinFan on January 26, 2012 at 7:28 PM

From the Great One Tonight:

LevinFan on January 26, 2012 at 6:52 PM
Was a great clip.

Steveangell on January 26, 2012 at 8:01 PM

csdeven on January 26, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I am not a Lawyer however I lived politics at this time.

Trust me Gingrich was eventually cleared of all these blatantly political ethic complaints. As opposed to Barny Frank, Chris Dodd and so on and so forth. Sure he paid 300k to make them go away as that was cheaper but he was later cleared. There is nothing to be found.

You should be ashamed of trying to nitpick a 300 page document and somehow say hey I found a case where his memory was not perfect. No ones memory is perfect. No one is ever perfect and ethics rules are often changed. No doubt every one has made very minor errors from time to time after all we are human.

Steveangell on January 26, 2012 at 8:10 PM

preparing him for the actual presidency, an office that inevitably draws far more criticism than it does praise for the officeholder if you are a Republican.

I fixed it for you. :) :) :)

Theophile on January 27, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Tina, of course the democrats are worried. Have you seen the national polls? People that say Newt is more electable than Romney are not looking at facts or data. Playing some imaginary mind game in which they are tricking themselves into supporting Newt who has flipped more times than Romney has.

ArkyDore on January 30, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3