Tough new Gingrich ad: “What kind of man?”

posted at 4:20 pm on January 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

So psyched is Team Newt about this spot that they started pushing it to the media this morning before the vid was even done, sending around the script instead. It’s good, but the image of Romney as a ruthless, slippery politician who’ll say whatever he has to in order to win is, I fear, already priced into his stock. In fact, just as this ad hit YouTube, BuzzFeed came up with yet another example:

The campaign makes a practice of whitewashing transcripts and stories before circulating to the press, a practice that has become familiar to reporters covering the candidate.

For example, last Monday, during a press call with Tim Pawlenty, a Miami Herald reporter asked the campaign surrogate about Romney’s investments in Freddie Mac…

Pawlenty punted on the question–saying that he’d “have to ask the campaign to follow up with you.” But when the Romney press shop e-mailed out a transcript of the call later that day, the exchange was nowhere to be found…

The cherry-picking extends to the news and opinion articles the campaign forwards to reporters as well.

Remember, this is a guy whose very first attack ad against Obama late last year was built around a ridiculously out-of-context quote. If you nominate Romney, that’s what you’re getting. The thing is, conservatives want him to be this way in the general against O, right? One of the sorest spots on the right about the 2008 campaign was the sense that McCain didn’t hit Obama as hard as he could; that fear persists with Mitt because he dutifully concedes The One’s good intentions whenever he’s asked, which irritates the hell out of the “Obama is evil” crowd but is defensible strategy in appealing to undecideds who don’t hate Obama the way many grassroots righties do. Maybe we shouldn’t fear that Romney will go easy on O, though. Like Obama himself, Mitt tends to play the nice guy on the stump while letting his ad team and other surrogates be as cutthroat as they need to be with his opponents. He does what he thinks he needs to do to win, which is alienating if you’re a Newt fan but maybe not so alienating if you’re a Republican who’s most interested in ousting O. All of which is to say, while this spot does a nifty job of making Romney less likable, I’m not sure that the big conclusion on electability is true.

Besides, how receptive are voters really to attacks on a politician’s honesty? It’s like attacking a pol for influence peddling: In exceptional cases it might matter (the Freddie Mac fingerpointing between Mitt and Newt is exceptional because of Freddie’s role in the housing crisis and wider recession), but to some degree voters cynically expect that behavior. Exit question: How much of an effect can any one ad have at this point when Romney’s outspending Newt by this much?


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 3 4 5

states require you to get a drivers license and buy car insurance.
so the answer is YES

gerrym51 on January 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Get back to me when they pass a law requiring me to buy a car.

Wendya on January 27, 2012 at 8:49 PM

It would be a lot more inconvenient for me to do without a car than to move across the state line. Don’t think I’m the only one.

gotsig on January 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

gotsig on January 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

It’s ridiculous how we have to explain these things to some of the posters here.

I suspect many of them are just too young and think driving is some sort of ‘entitlement’ or something.

I didn’t have my first car (an American POS)until age 23. I had to get around during my college years walking, running, biking, borrowing vehicles, bus, train (for to and from home), hitchhiking, etc.

Amazing the attitude that young people have today.

They don’t understand that Obama is even more of an effect rather than the cause. The cause is ‘progressivism/statism’.

Defeating O gives us nothing if we simply let the progs continue to push their agenda into the minds of our young people in the public schools and colleges and media.

You have to be patient, fight hard, know when to fold them and know when to walk away, etc. And then, after building up the foundation, you’ll start to see benchmarks such as federal spending at 23% instead of 24.5%, unemployment at say..7.5%, or crime go down, etc.

Everybody wants the quick fix, but it does not work that way.

The Progs are smart and relentless. They take the long view and have been building their forces and focusing on the attack for decades now while our side has sat out and now act all surprised when the SHTF.

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 8:56 PM

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 8:01 PM

The Romney haters have a sliding scale that they use to make Romney a liberal by comparison on any issue.

IE 1) Gingrich supports amnesty for illegals. Romney does not.
IE 2) Gingrich attacks capitalism. Romney does not.
IE 3) Romney signed Romneycare and never supported a federal mandate. Gingrich praised Romneycare and has supported a federal mandate.

That is just a few.

According to the Romney haters, Gingrich is a staunch conservative and Romney is a full blown progressive.

You cannot reason with idiots who do that. So we ridicule them and watch them tie themselves up in knots trying to justify their obvious hate for Romney by hiding behind the monicker of “conservatism”.

Even Sarah Palin has gone to the dark side. She is supporting the only candidate in the race that has a proven and admitted history of infidelities, lying, corruption, and erratic behavior. Her “real” conservative creds are permanently damaged by her support of Gingrich.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

states require you to get a drivers license and buy car insurance.
so the answer is YES

gerrym51 on January 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM

NOBODY forces you to get a drivers license. You only need it if you…..get this……..

DRIVE!

Sheesh, I blog with morons.

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Seriously, again. Ask yourself “Should anyone have the power to force me into a contract against my will?”

states require you to get a drivers license and buy car insurance.
so the answer is YES

gerrym51

That would be news to the millions of Americans who..um….aren’t required to do either.

xblade on January 27, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Even Sarah Palin has gone to the dark side. She is supporting the only candidate in the race that has a proven and admitted history of infidelities, lying, corruption, and erratic behavior. Her “real” conservative creds are permanently damaged by her support of Gingrich.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Look csd,

I’ve read enough of your batsh*t absolutely insane HATRED on this site for over a year, particularly against Gov. Palin. All of it was unwarranted. Many sites would kick off posters like you.

Are you saying that Romney’s constant lies and the lies throughout his life are ….OK by only focusing on Newt’s infidelities?

I think Palin’s remarks betray that she believes (I think rightly) the GOP Establishment is pretty-much one-sided in their support of Romney over the other candidates.

She never had any credibility in your mind to begin with so how could she lose it with you?

I don’t know what your story is, but it ain’t conservatism or our country.

Newt only won South Carlina because he at least has actually FOUGHT liberalism rather than promote it like Mitt.

And we all know Palin likes a fighter not a liberal. And, she likes the candidates vetted so we don’t get surprises sprung on us like Bush’s DUI with almost cost him the 2000 election.

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM

“Romney said his investments from fannie and freddie were in a blind trust but according to the national journal he earned 10s of thousands of dollars from investments not in blind trusts.”

had to stop it there…Michael Moore would be proud and I’m hoping all would be bright enough to decipher that wordplay.

Zybalto on January 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM

And, she likes the candidates vetted so we don’t get surprises sprung on us like Bush’s DUI with almost cost him the 2000 election.

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Then how come she’s calling the vetting of Newt “Alinsky tactics”? She’s being really inconsistent here, on the one hand saying they should all be vetted thoroughly, and on the other hand saying “Stop being mean to Newt!” He’s getting the full treatment — just like Obama will give him if he wins the nomination. She claimed, when the same thing was happening to Romney, that this kind of tough vetting was “healthy” and would make them better candidates. Why’s she changing her tune? Cuz it’s happening to her guy? Pretty short-sighted, don’t you think?

Rational Thought on January 27, 2012 at 9:13 PM

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Palin is a failed VP candidate and half term governor of the 46th ranked state in the union. That just makes her a bad bet against Obama.

What makes her an unreliable conservative is her support of the only corrupt politician in the race. She has seriously damaged her creds in the down ticket races along with her creds in general. Add to this that Gingrich attacks free market capitalism from the left and rational folks are wondering just what basic tenets of conservatism does she hold as sacred. We can see that she doesn’t value truth and ethical behavior. We can also see that she doesn’t value free market capitalism.

And spare us on the “establishment” conspiracy against Palin and Gingrich. The two of them have embraced the “victim” schtick and for Palin it’s been ineffective for 3 years and Gingrich is finding we are tired of it from him.

So here we are back at the same place we have been for months. NONE of the candidates are perfect conservatives and it’s about time the Romney haters admit it so we can get to having reasonable discussions.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Vetting – to appraise, verify, or check for accuracy, authenticity, validity, etc.

I see nothing in that definition about lies, distortions, taking things out of context, etc. If they were in this definition, then it would be considered “Alinsky tactics.”

So, the conclusion I’ve reached is that “vetting” and “Alinsky tactics” are two different things.

kakypat on January 27, 2012 at 9:23 PM

July 2012 White House Briefing:

President Obama and Republican nominee Willard Romney were in the Oval Office today both agreeing this would be an election of both civility and respect. Just wait, this will happen! Remember McCain and Obama on the Senate floor in 2008?

jjnco73 on January 27, 2012 at 9:23 PM

So here we are back at the same place we have been for months. NONE of the candidates are perfect conservatives and it’s about time the Romney haters admit it so we can get to having reasonable discussions.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM

None of the candidates are perfect conservative but of the ones left Romney is the least conservative – by his record.
He has willingly signed a bill for socialized medicine with a mandate and raided the Federal DSH fund to support it.
He has willingly signed Legislation that made CO2 a Pollutant – shutting down clean power plant.
He has appointed more liberal judges and conservative – including his own Willie Horton Judge in Kathe Tuttman, which leaves his likely SCOTUS appointment suspicious at best.
John Sununu is one of his closest advisors.
He has personally contributed to Planed Parenthood.

What is his most conservative legislative accomplishment?

batterup on January 27, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Look csd,

I’ve read enough of your batsh*t absolutely insane HATRED on this site for over a year, particularly against Gov. Palin. All of it was unwarranted. Many sites would kick off posters like you.

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I skip all csd comments.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM

What is his most conservative legislative accomplishment?

batterup on January 27, 2012 at 9:29 PM

I appreciate your reasoned response. Here are a few of his accomplishments.

Balanced his budget for 4 years.
Created a rainy day fund.
Vetoed 800 bills from a dem legislature.
Pushed to lower taxes and was overruled by the legislature.

But here is what I would like you to do if you REALLY have a desire to have the facts. Notice I didn’t say “truth” but rather facts.

When I want to know about any candidate I Bing search key words and spend lots of time studying different opinions. I then research reliable sources for the facts. In this case, I searched the term “romney conservative accomplishments”. I got both sides of the issue. Some were funny but most provided links or references I could research.

Do you think it would be out of the question to do that type of research before repeating what others have said?

Earlier today I made a comment about the record loss of seats (in decades) Gingrich presided over in 1998. I got a dismissive response from someone who noted that Gingrich only lost 5 seats ( I found only 4). When we get into the facts, we see that the party out of power (in the mid term) in the huge majority of instances wins seats. So Gingrich not only did not win seats, but he lost seats. That is a HUGE failure on his part.

My point that if Gingrich gets credit for the historic gains in seats in 1994, he must take the blame for the historic loss of seats in 1998. My initial comment that he has an erratic history was proven.

My advice is that people do their own research before making comments. Snark is snark, but facts should unite every single one of us.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 10:14 PM

I skip all csd comments.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Which is preferable to making dumb comments that show one lets csdeven live in their head 24/7/365. Good for you. I do the same with many people here.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Odd tipbit from the last link posted by Allah:

At least one other group is play the anti-Romney game in Florida. The left-leaning labor union, AFSCME, has spent nearly $1 million on television ads hitting Romney, who is leading in the most recent polls in Florida.

Zybalto on January 27, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Talk about falsehoods – try massive fraud. This will come out in the election if Romney’s the nominee and Obama will win. Please share it with your friends in Florida.

http://www.therightscoop.com/blood-money-mitt-romneys-medicare-scandal/

pacificisland on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 PM

What kind of man would run for President to “save it” and then GIVE IT AWAY to foreign invaders????

A dumb man, that’s who. Someone who mistakenly thinks that pandering to illegal aliens will help him with the Hispanic vote, a la G. W. Bush, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, et al.

Foolish, foolish Republican candidates. Shouldn’t we be happy with 40% of the Hispanic vote — the 40% who believe in law enforcement?

fred5678 on January 27, 2012 at 11:01 PM

So here we are back at the same place we have been for months. NONE of the candidates are perfect conservatives and it’s about time the Romney haters admit it so we can get to having reasonable discussions.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM

The minute Romney gets the nomination, expect wall to wall adds accusing him of belonging to a racist church, and that will merely be the first thing the left pulls.

Maybe he can beat it, maybe he can’t, but first he had better prove that he can fight. The general is going to make the primary look like a quaint afternoon tea and crumpets. With him barely scraping by here, I think he’s going to fold the moment the real onslaught begins.

As for the people who think that a harsh primary is going to fracture the GOP, Anyone remember when the New York Times ran the fake affair piece on McCain? Anyone think that the left, who believes that they are in an existential fight and that the ends justify the means, won’t pull something like that this cycle?

Sure, they’ll hammer him on Bain, on Mormonism, on every little decision that he was ever related too, but they’ll also start pulling out accusations that originated in the outer rings of the planet Kuuzbane. Expect our candidate to be accused of A) running munitions to some Central American terrorist groups (but only ones trying to overthrow some communist dictator or such), or trying to get some middle eastern country nuked in a false flag operation, or the ever classic, affair with someone who couldn’t possibly have actually been sleeping with them. Yes, even if our nominee is Newt, the left will not be satisfied with beating him over the head with his real affairs; they will create a fake one too.

That is just the way they are; it’s called gonzo journalism. We’ll be seeing a lot of it this cycle.

Voyager on January 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I am very disappointed in Hot Air’s inability to be even-handed between Mitt and Newt. For example,
AP buys into Romney’s “influence peddling” attack on Newt, even though that is nebulous, undocumented, and is stepping back from the original and false Romney claim that Newt lobbied. Yet AP asks what’s the big deal about Mitt being dishonest. That defense of Mitt, of course, depends on Mitt being a politician, which Mitt claims, falsely, that he is not.
Too bad for the disparate treatment of these two candidates: It has done a disservice to Hot Air.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 27, 2012 at 6:51 PM

The disservice to Hot Air happened when the registration gates were opened at a key point in the primaries, and then the moderation was insufficiently hands-on to cull the tares quickly enough to prevent the dilution of what had been a pretty tight political website.

The newly-minted shillbots screaming back and forth have nothing to do with what is actually going on, day to day.

Whoever is actually moderating this site, day to day, has not been keeping up with the tenor and heft of the discussion when the likes of VorDaj, bluegill, Jailbreak and others were set free to create cant-based chaos, and commenting over and over and over. (And there are many more; these are the first that come to mind.)

And that’s “cant,” without an apostrophe.

This is why I have chosen withdraw from Hot Air for the time being. There are a lot of commenters that need culling when they go SPAM-bot or ad-hominem, and so far, it’s not happening fast enough to maintain the pre-open-reg quality of Hot Air.

Ed’s pro-forma banning of a couple last weekend was nice to see, but really was no more than the good-hearted intention of an overwhelmed cop at the ’68 Dem convention firing a shot in the air. Not only were the banned pair not the worst offenders, but Ed then didn’t continue to ban people for the next couple days to prove his point and slap down the disrespectful commenters, when the worst narcissistic offenders continued to make this place their new playground. Instead of taking Ed’s point about staying on-topic and refraining from personal attacks, retrieving the Hot-Air debate from the puerile abyss it has sunk to, they have ignored him.

Ed, take a look at who is camping here, day in, day out. You’ll see a lot of newbies, many who are hardcore shills.

I am tired… tired…. F-in’ tired… of scrolling through 2,000-crap-post threads to take the Hot Air pulse.

How about tight, 600-post threads of actual discussion?

I’m telling you as a friend, (though we’ve never met), that although you’re getting lots of site views with these shills, who are camping here non-stop, if I go the rest of my life without seeing, “GO ROMNEY- HE WILL WIN AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!!!,” spammed ten times on a twenty-page thread, and “Newt is a corrupt, fat, swinish man,” spammed twenty times on a thirty-page thread it won’t be long enough.

Reminds me of graffiti in a bus-station restroom.

Push butt—
Rub … under..arm…h.air gently
Stops— to –tically

Hot Air comes out of that machine we men have all seen.

Or does the Hot Air blower in the ladies’ restroom have the same graffiti?

Ed, right in the thick of the 2012 GOP primary struggle, your site is devolving into chaos, due to insufficient weeding out of partisan shills who jumped at the second open reg.

My time spent scrolling your threads is yielding me less and less value, due to the decling signal-to-noise ratio.

I would like to come back to the Hot Air I knew.

Please take action.

Sincerely,

cane_loader

cane_loader on January 27, 2012 at 11:09 PM

cane_loader on January 27, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I am a noob here so I am grateful for the OR but I agree. I have been reading here for a long time but this site has become very boring – in the way that some threads are spammed by the same people saying the same things over and over for page after page…..you get the idea.

AZgranny on January 27, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I laughed for a solid minute when I saw the subtitle for this story. Character. Newt with his philandering is going to talk to us about character? The same guy who left his wife when he found out she had cancer. That guy? I still find it funny honestly.

ArkyDore on January 28, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Mitt is just on fire right now…ROFL.

http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/01/mitt-romney-newt-gingrich-is-like-goldilocks.html

Mitt Romney delivered a new zinger against Newt Gingrich in an event in Orlando just now, mocking him over his complaints about this week’s debates. “I had fun last night, I gotta tell you,” Romney said. “Now Speaker Gingrich said after the debate before last night that the crowd wasnt allowed to cheer so he couldn’t do so well because the crowd was too quiet.

“Then last night he said the crowd was too loud, he couldn’t deal with it. It’s like Goldilocks, you know – the porridge is too hot, the porridge is too cold. Look, I’m looking forward to debating Barack Obama. I don’t worry too much about the crowd. I’ve got to make sure we tell the truth to Barack Obama and get him out of the White House.”

Chudi on January 28, 2012 at 2:01 AM

ArkyDore on January 28, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Damn shame that publishing the 0bamaGanda does not make for a relevant post. Perhaps you should try using Google and do some actual research before typing such trash?

Even reading the topics here in Hot Air would assist you greatly as your ‘points’ were disproven many times over.

DannoJyd on January 28, 2012 at 2:14 AM

Vetting – to appraise, verify, or check for accuracy, authenticity, validity, etc.

I see nothing in that definition about lies, distortions, taking things out of context, etc. If they were in this definition, then it would be considered “Alinsky tactics.”

So, the conclusion I’ve reached is that “vetting” and “Alinsky tactics” are two different things.

kakypat on January 27, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Nicely said, Kakypat… but nonetheless, this crap works, especially on the poorly educated and poorly informed.

‘Tis a pity that the low road is so very often the short cut…

PointnClick on January 28, 2012 at 5:50 AM

It is an effective and fair ad against Romney, and it points to a problem about Romney. He really is not a conservative; in fact, his past is one of a liberal who would vote for liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas. As Massachusetts Governor, Romney raised taxes, was adamantly pro-abortion rights, appointed pro-abortion rights Democrats to the state judiciary and championed RomneyCare, the precursor to ObamaCare. Why in the world would the Republican Party nominate such a liberal to run against Obama?????

Phil Byler on January 28, 2012 at 8:06 AM

To csdeven:

While none of the GOP candidates are perfect conservatives, it may fairly be questioned whether Romney is a conservative at all. That’s the problem. The 2012 GOP candidate needs to be a conservative.

Phil Byler on January 28, 2012 at 8:10 AM

I have to be honest. This ad is pretty much crapola. It’s just not very good. I could have done something better with Windows Movie Maker.

Oh, well. Newt Gingrich is a despereate, unelectable slob, anyway. So it’s just as well!

bluegill on January 28, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Mitt is just on fire right now…ROFL.

Chudi on January 28, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Yep, and I’m glad to see it!

Mitt Romney is ten times the man Newt Gingrich is. Newt Gingrich is a vile corrupt liar who would hand the election to Obama in a landslide.

bluegill on January 28, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Phil Byler on January 28, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Other than trashing the Heritage Foundation-supported Romneycare as socialized medicine, which, for all of its flaws, it is not, how can you “fairly question” that Romney is a conservative. He is certainly a moderate conservative, not far right, but to say that he is not conservative seems to me not only inaccurate but disingenuous.

Priscilla on January 28, 2012 at 8:32 AM

The Romney haters have a sliding scale that they use to make Romney a liberal by comparison on any issue.

IE 1) Gingrich supports amnesty for illegals. Romney does not.
IE 2) Gingrich attacks capitalism. Romney does not.
IE 3) Romney signed Romneycare and never supported a federal mandate. Gingrich praised Romneycare and has supported a federal mandate.

That is just a few.

According to the Romney haters, Gingrich is a staunch conservative and Romney is a full blown progressive.

You cannot reason with idiots who do that. So we ridicule them and watch them tie themselves up in knots trying to justify their obvious hate for Romney by hiding behind the monicker of “conservatism”.

Even Sarah Palin has gone to the dark side. She is supporting the only candidate in the race that has a proven and admitted history of infidelities, lying, corruption, and erratic behavior. Her “real” conservative creds are permanently damaged by her support of Gingrich.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Wow, thank you for posting that. You very clearly and succintly put into words exactly how I feel. So glad that someone like you with your talent for expression is commenting on here. You are like a beacon in the night.

I’m heartened by the fact that FL voters seem to be turning away from the unelectable Newt Gingrich the more exposure to him they get.

bluegill on January 28, 2012 at 8:37 AM

He is certainly a moderate conservative, not far right, but to say that he is not conservative seems to me not only inaccurate but disingenuous.

Priscilla on January 28, 2012 at 8:32 AM

You are far too sensible for many of the people here.

bluegill on January 28, 2012 at 8:38 AM

July 2012 White House Briefing:

President Obama and Republican nominee Willard Romney were in the Oval Office today both agreeing this would be an election of both civility and respect. Just wait, this will happen! Remember McCain and Obama on the Senate floor in 2008?

jjnco73 on January 27, 2012 at 9:23 PM

fine. let him. it helps with ‘moderates’. then rove and his evil super pac come in thru the back door with 200 mil and shower BHO and the electorate (in swing states) with the truth. all the dirty truth. day. after day. after day. and romney (as he is playing now with newt) has clean hands. looking all angelic. wha? who? me? oh no, i cant control karl. whoever he is. karl? never heard of him. what were we talking about? the mods will love it. obama loses 3 more points.

t8stlikchkn on January 28, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Here are the actual conservative accomplishments you listed. Since everyone in the race is known and their legislative work is known it’s important to judged them on their Public work not their rhetoric.

Balanced his budget for 4 years.
Created a rainy day fund.
Vetoed 800 bills from a dem legislature.
Pushed to lower taxes and was overruled by the legislature.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 10:14 PM

cs- as you well know the Mass budget was ‘balanced’ on the backs of business. This was done through raising fees, in some cases by over 1000% percent, and by hiking corporate taxes, which we know is a fee passed on to the consumers.

How are raising fees to cover budget deficits conservative?

Romney didn’t create a rainy day fund The state had one when he took office. The fund grew under Romney because of increases in Capital Gains and a surge in capital gains taxes.

How is stocking the coffers of the State on the backs of businesses conservative?

Vetoing bills – signing bills. I am more concerned about the ones he signed – like regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Pushed to lower taxes while he was raising fees. Semantic games don’t impress as Conservative cred.

batterup on January 28, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Get back to me when they pass a law requiring me to buy a car.

Wendya on January 27, 2012 at 8:49 PM

The individual mandate is a tax being levied by the federal government. Its constitutional.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Have you ever studied just exactly what Mormons believe? If not, I challenge you to do so. After you have, take another look at Romney.

jfs756 on January 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Yes, I have. For a few decades, actually. I know everything they believe inside and out, and I don’t find it crazy at all. They believe what Christ taught. Is that crazy?

acorn on January 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM
They believe that they are going to be a god just like Jesus, someday on some other planet or dimension. That is not what Christ taught.
They ignore that Jesus taught that he is God.
Mormons are a blasphemous cult not just a cult.

Plantnerd on January 27, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Great post. This is exactly what I’ve been talking about. Romney’s weird, blaspemous, cult religion (Mormonism) defines who he is. There’s nothing more important nor fundamental than an individual’s religious beliefs. Romney, indeed, believes he’s going to become a god someday. He also believes there’s no hell. He also believes there are different “levels” of heaven. He also believes that the Catholic Church is of the devil and is being run by Satan himself. These are all mainline, mainstream Mormon beliefs. Again, people need to research what Mormons truly believe before you go posting on here to defend Romney.

BTW, to those who have called me a “bigot,” well, I guess it takes one to know one, doesn’t it? :)

jfs756 on January 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

I’m at best a hold-your-nose Romney fan, but I know that the last claim in the commercial – that Romney must have seen and approved a commercial because it ends with his voice voice saying so – is wrong.

When you’re producing political commercials, you don’t have the candidate come into the studio every time you’re doing a voice-over session and audio mix to record, “I’m [candidate name], and I approve this message.”

What you do is record and edit it once, then drop it into the audio of every radio or television spot you make. So the candidate won’t necessarily have seen, much less approved, the commercial his recorded voice says he’s approving.

It sounds crazy, but having those words in the candidate’s voice at the end qualifies the spot for the lowest available air time rates.

bgoldman on January 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 8:01 PM

The Romney haters have a sliding scale that they use to make Romney a liberal by comparison on any issue.

IE 1) Gingrich supports amnesty for illegals. Romney does not.
IE 2) Gingrich attacks capitalism. Romney does not.
IE 3) Romney signed Romneycare and never supported a federal mandate. Gingrich praised Romneycare and has supported a federal mandate.

That is just a few.

According to the Romney haters, Gingrich is a staunch conservative and Romney is a full blown progressive.

You cannot reason with idiots who do that. So we ridicule them and watch them tie themselves up in knots trying to justify their obvious hate for Romney by hiding behind the monicker of “conservatism”.

Even Sarah Palin has gone to the dark side. She is supporting the only candidate in the race that has a proven and admitted history of infidelities, lying, corruption, and erratic behavior. Her “real” conservative creds are permanently damaged by her support of Gingrich.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

The Romney haters have a sliding scale….According to the Romney haters…..and Sarah Palin has gone to the dark side.

Here’s my 2cents in the pond of HA and 310 million voters 48% Democrat 47% Republican and 5% Independents/Libertarians: I HATE MITT ROMNEY – I don’t need a sliding scale, I don’t need a justification and if Cuda’s gone to the dark side? That’s good enough for me – I’ll be joining her there. So, there ya have it. I guess I’m now officially – if Newt is gone from the race – UNDECIDED.

athenadelphi on January 28, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I’m at best a hold-your-nose Romney fan, but I know that the last claim in the commercial – that Romney must have seen and approved a commercial because it ends with his voice voice saying so – is wrong.

When you’re producing political commercials, you don’t have the candidate come into the studio every time you’re doing a voice-over session and audio mix to record, “I’m [candidate name], and I approve this message.”

What you do is record and edit it once, then drop it into the audio of every radio or television spot you make. So the candidate won’t necessarily have seen, much less approved, the commercial his recorded voice says he’s approving.

It sounds crazy, but having those words in the candidate’s voice at the end qualifies the spot for the lowest available air time rates.

bgoldman on January 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Sorry but one of the election law changes was that the candidate had to put their voice on the commercial – thus they better KNOW what’s on the commercial don’t you think? or is he going to do a flip/flop of yes, i approved this message but no I didn’t know what was on it? THAT would be a violation of election law. You have to know what’s on the commercial because you could be fined by the FEC.

athenadelphi on January 28, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I do not understand how every single plank of conservative is gone.

What the liberals want in MA and the majority votes for has no bearing on me… and is not the business of the federal government.

States rights remember so-called conservatives.

You wanted Romney to be a totalitarian. That is beyond understanding how totalitariansim is now something that so-called conservatives support.

Romney did not make Massachusetts liberal.

Romney did not have any part in Obamacare… other than Obama copied Romney’s paper on the exam and got half the answers wrong anyway.

Romney did not have anything to do with the sorry state of our current or past government. He has never been in a position of power in our government…

His hands are clean… unlike Gingrich’s who has lobbied for the last 30 years to make government bigger and more intrusive in our lives. Gingrich is part and parcle of this debacle that is Washington DC….

And today he was campaigning on his experience in Washington DC… He is most expereience don’t you know and can get things done!

Unbelievable hypocrisy at every turn.

Sarah Palin has no credibilty left… she is campaigning for graft and corruption now… her true self has shown itself and she is corrupt. She stands with the adulterers and shows her morality. She is corrupt.

Newt Gingrich is has a behavioral disorder… called mania. It is sort of contagious… and prehaps she has gotten caught up in Newt Gingrichs delusions… whichproves what a weak mind she has.

Please we do not need an insane President.

He promised his medical records… I want acomplete mental evaluation by a doctor chose by someone other than him.

Oh did you hear he banned the press from his buses and planes now? He threw a fit and banned them… bi-polar?

petunia on January 28, 2012 at 10:18 PM

athenadelphi on January 28, 2012 at 8:57 PM

What you say is true from a strictly legal standpoint, but if everybody strictly obeyed every law and regulation all the time, no speeding tickets, for example, would ever be issued.

I’ve produced commercials – for products, not for candidates – and I know that human beings screw up and also cut corners. With political spots, where speed of production is of the essence, I suspect it’s more so.

This doesn’t excuse a candidate from not knowing what his commercials are saying in his name; I was just pointing out how it could and most likely would happen.

bgoldman on January 29, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I started this season as a Republican (with significant Libertarian leanings) and no candidate. I hoped Perry would enter the race, to my horror he did. I now see a field of three, none of which is ideal. Romney: A Mass Liberal (All from Mass. are Liberal, the lesser of them call themselves Republicans. It is the only way they are electable in that state) Gingrich: Architect of the .gov shutdowns that cost him his ability to lead. He is his own worst enemy. Santorum: A social conservative that fits the description of a Liberal bogeyman.

This election is about saving this country. Whilst Social conservatives may be absolutely correct in their faith and ethos, we have to stop the economic bleeding. We can’t be divided and conquered in the same old way.

So now I look over the imperfect field and see in Romney, the same platitudes and non-speak targeting the electorate, and the causal character assassination hitting Gingrich. Gingrich got inside Romneys OODA loop in SC and it remains to be seen if he can carry it off again. Regardless he’s a speech away from self directed disaster. And Santorum can’t win.

At this point the only question I have is whether I can pull a lever for Romney in the General Election. I am strongly tempted to just not vote for president should he be the candidate. The only thing against it is the horror of another term of failure from the left.

And you know what? I’m finding it hard to tell the difference between Messrs. Romney and Obama.

FinnM39 on January 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Talk about falsehoods – try massive fraud. This will come out in the election if Romney’s the nominee and Obama will win. Please share it with your friends in Florida.

http://www.therightscoop.com/blood-money-mitt-romneys-medicare-scandal/

pacificisland on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 PM

I’m sure Drudge will get right on this…..

And the sheeple will show up to call it all hate and bigoted….

Portia46 on January 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Newt Gingrich is has a behavioral disorder… called mania. It is sort of contagious… and prehaps she has gotten caught up in Newt Gingrichs delusions… whichproves what a weak mind she has.

Please we do not need an insane President.

He promised his medical records… I want acomplete mental evaluation by a doctor chose by someone other than him.

Oh did you hear he banned the press from his buses and planes now? He threw a fit and banned them… bi-polar?

petunia on January 28, 2012 at 10:18 PM

You really want to talk about mental disorders? What do you think of the mental state of anyone who would swear to cut their own throat and have their tongue pulled out and be gutted to have their entrails fed to the birds? And nope. This isn’t something sworn by the Knights Templar.

Just saying, Pansy, that when you start throwing mud, you’d best make sure you’re standing in some clean water.

Portia46 on January 30, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5