Rush to Newt: Stop whining about negative campaigning

posted at 1:55 pm on January 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Who’s up for another establishment RINO taking a whack at Newt Gingrich for his complaints over getting outboxed in Florida?  Click the image to watch:

I’m with Rush on this point, and I’ll offer another data point for his argument.  After the first debate in Florida, Newt Gingrich complained about NBC’s actions to minimize audience reaction and “served notice” that he would not allow that to happen again.  Of course, the general election debates don’t allow audience reaction either, which made Gingrich’s “great debater” argument somewhat suspect after offering that excuse — but what came next was a headscratcher.  After Mitt Romney outclassed Gingrich in the second Florida debate on Thursday and clearly had the crowd behind him, Gingrich’s team then griped that Romney had “stacked” the audience.

Gingrich isn’t mad that Romney and his allies are running attack ads where Gingrich and his allies aren’t; they’re mad that they have a lot more money to spend in doing so.  There isn’t anything wrong with negative campaigning per se anyway, as long as it’s honest, and in this campaign, the inaccuracies and cheap shots have gone in both directions.  As Rush says, if Newt’s whining about this, how can we expect him to handle what a billion-dollar campaign will lay out against him in the fall?

On Rush’s last point, though, I’ll disagree.  Romney has a streak of ruthlessness behind that cool exterior that has been on display now for weeks, and I’m sure came in handy in his private-equity career, too.  He’s a lot less likely to relax his bite on the jugular than John McCain was, who spent far too much time worrying how he would be perceived in the media for attacking Barack Obama.  Plus, Romney doesn’t have to delve into the subjects of 2008 to hit Obama hard; back then, Obama didn’t have any record at all to defend, which made most of the open attack lines personal.  After three years in office, Romney has a cornucopia of crony capitalism, Obamanomics, czars, Porkulus, and Fast and Furious attack lines to use.  Romney is likely to attack in less spectacular fashion than Gingrich, but that caution will keep  those attack lines from imploding like they have on occasion with Gingrich, too.  That doesn’t make Romney a great conservative candidate, but it does at least make him competitive.

Update: I had “crony capitalism” on the list twice.  Well, it is a great line of attack …

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

bishop

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Rush is jumping Newt’s ship.

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Can we all please just stop whining about the whining?!!

[No, that wasn’t a whine… it was a meta-whine…]

de rigueur on January 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Who’s up for another establishment RINO taking a whack at Newt Gingrich for his complaints over getting outboxed in Florida?

He’s in a conspiracy with Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge!!!!1!11!! And also Michelle Malkin!!!1!!1 Because she endorsed Santorum, but what she reallllly meant to do was sabotage Gingrich by subliminally endorsing Romney! RINOS!

Lulz

athenanyc on January 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Ed, are you saying Rush is a rino? If so, I sure do not agree with you! No way in this world would I say Rush is such a person!
L

letget on January 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Romney has a streak of ruthlessness behind that cool exterior that has been on display now for weeks, and I’m sure came in handy in his private-equity career, too.

Nothing wrong with a leader who guides with a firm hand.:)

a capella on January 30, 2012 at 2:01 PM

If Newt’s not whining, he doesn’t have anything else to say.

JPeterman on January 30, 2012 at 2:01 PM

a billion-dollar campaign

… crazy, crazy crazy. Trying … to … adapt.

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I’ll wait until I hear what Sarah says so I’ll know then what to believe.

gatorboy on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Ed, are you saying Rush is a rino? If so, I sure do not agree with you! No way in this world would I say Rush is such a person!
L

letget on January 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Ed is being sarcastic. Newt most certainly is whining and Rush is being intellectually consistant to call him on it.

Kataklysmic on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Why wouldn’t he shower Obama with ads about his terrible record?

rubberneck on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

[No, that wasn't a whine... it was a meta-whine...]

de rigueur on January 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

:) Love watching sparks all sparking. That was extra sparky and spark-like.

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

MITT ROMNEY……the final nail in the gop-is-conservative coffin.

From the American Spectator:

The only real difference between Romney and Obama’s long-ago-vanquished opponents is that the Chi-town pols were less amateurish. Romney’s reversals of position have been so frequent and transparently self-serving that a moderately intelligent preschooler could see through them. Health reform is Exhibit A. When running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, Romney represented himself as the champion of a free market health system: “I do not believe in a government takeover of the healthcare system.”

After becoming Governor of Massachusetts, however, his position changed so radically that he signed a health reform law that later became the model for Obamacare. Now, he claims to oppose Obama’s version of the plan, though the two laws are identical in all important respects.

Romney would also have us believe that he will repeal Obamacare in its entirety. He has made this claim in virtually every Republican debate. During his exchange with Santorum on Thursday, for example, he phrased it thus: “It’s bad medicine, it’s bad for the economy, and I will repeal it.” Predictably, this differs from what he said immediately after the law was passed: “I hope we’re ultimately able to… repeal the bad and keep the good.” It also conflicts with what his people are saying even now. During a recent interview one of Romney’s most important advisors said, “We’re not going to do repeal… but you will see major changes… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.” This is no more than the President and the Democrats themselves have promised.

Romney’s affinity with Democrat positions has not been limited to health reform, of course. He has, for example, often agreed with them on Second Amendment rights. While running for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 he repeatedly stated that he supported that state’s tough gun laws. And, in 2004, he famously signed into law a ban on so-called assault weapons and even certain types of shotguns.

Let that sink in……..”certain types of SHOTGUNS”.

By the time he had begun his first presidential campaign, however, his views had “evolved.” In a 2007 speech to the NRA, he declared, “I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American.” During his current bid for the presidency, Romney has dodged gun control questions in the debates and his campaign website offers no hint as to his position du jour.

Perhaps the most egregious of Romney’s one-eighties have involved abortion. He has changed his position on that issue at least three times. During the 1994 Senate race against Kennedy he said, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.”

In 2001, however, he published a letter in The Salt Lake Tribune in which he wrote, “I do not wish to be labeled prochoice.” If the “evolution” had stopped there, many would accept what could well have been a genuine change of heart.

But when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 he declared, “I will protect the right of a woman to choose under the law of the country and the laws of the Commonwealth.” Now, for purposes of his current presidential campaign, he’s again “pro-life.” How he avoids vertigo while executing so many pirouettes is anyone’s guess.

Presumably, Romney would admonish us that his about-faces are “not worth getting angry about.” That may be the one thing he really believes. What he and his supporters in the GOP establishment don’t get, however, is that real voters take these things very seriously.

Those who vote based on abortion and gun rights are justifiably angered by politicians who make promises about which they forget the day after being elected. When Rick Santorum’s tone during last Thursday’s debate betrayed annoyance at Romney’s health care contortions, it was because he actually cares about the threat to basic liberty presented by Obamacare. It’s not an easy thing for a man of genuine principle to tolerate an opportunist like Romney, who obviously sees the issue as just another lever that he can use to hoist himself into public office.

It will, however, be very easy for Obama and his creatures to exploit Romney’s flip-flops in the general election.

They will make sure the voters understand that these reversals reveal Romney as just another unprincipled politician willing to say anything to win the election. That the President himself is cut of the same cloth won’t matter. The reporters and bloggers whose job it is to point that out will be dutifully reciting White House talking points.

One wonders if, after his resultant loss in November, Romney will find this “worth getting angry about.”

The Conservative movement in the gop is DEAD.
Bush and Rockefeller won, Reagan and Conservatism lost.

PappyD61 on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

He’s trying to help Newt here… Newt is the candidate of choice for Rush, his brother and the Saracuda… I proudly voted Mitt here in Florida.

BobScuba on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Rush is jumping Newt’s ship.

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

You’re not listening.

sloopy on January 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Indeed, Newt should have never whines.

Now Romney whined on Fox.

What a bunch of sissies!

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Rush is jumping Newt’s ship.

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Jumping on or off?

If it’s off, is he going to Santorum?

listens2glenn on January 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

whines = whined

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

If Newt’s not whining, he doesn’t have anything else to say.

JPeterman on January 30, 2012 at 2:01 PM

He whines like baby in between his lies about Romney. Newt’s a louse alright.

rubberneck on January 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Romneybots aren’t bothered by all the flip flops though so carry on gop.

PappyD61 on January 30, 2012 at 2:04 PM

If Newt’s not whining, he doesn’t have anything else to say.

JPeterman on January 30, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Mitt just whined on Fox. I’m waiting for your objective commentary.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:04 PM

How funny you are, so many of you. They both whine as the day is long, every day.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Romney has a streak of ruthlessness behind that cool exterior that has been on display now for weeks, and I’m sure came in handy in his private-equity career, too. He’s a lot less likely to relax his bite on the jugular than John McCain was, who spent far too much time worrying how he would be perceived in the media for attacking Barack Obama.

“Look, President Obama is a nice guy, he’s just in over his head.”

“If President Obama said to me in a debate that he based Obamacare on Romneycare, I would say, ‘Mr. President, why didn’t you call me first?’”

“(Romneycare/Obamacare) is nothing to get angry about.”

Kick-ASS. No wonder I’m always confusing Mitt Romney with Chuck Norris.

Dime IV on January 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM

A wise man can change his mind,…a fool never does. I love these old sayings. Got a million of ‘em. Want some more?

a capella on January 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM

So Captain Obvious weighs in, impressive.

NoDonkey on January 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM

There isn’t anything wrong with negative campaigning per se anyway, as long as it’s honest, and in this campaign, the inaccuracies and cheap shots have gone in both directions.

Newt has nothing to whine about as long as he allows his Super PAC “Winning Our America” to put out their Hate Ads. Just heard one at the top of the hour and I had to laugh out loud.

It was Negative Ad 101.

Del Dolemonte on January 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The Conservative movement in the gop is DEAD.
Bush and Rockefeller won, Reagan and Conservatism lost.

PappyD61 on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I hope you’re wrong…. No one screws you over like a RINO, just look at California.

CrazyGene on January 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM

After three years in office, Romney has a cornucopia of crony capitalism, Obamanomics, crony capitalism, czars, Porkulus, and Fast and Furious attack lines to use.

and Romney will use them why exactly ?

burrata on January 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM

What a bunch of sissies!

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Indeed.

Kataklysmic on January 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM

He’s a lot less likely to relax his bite on the jugular than John McCain was…

Precisely. I disagree with the assumption that Romney will be another McCain. And I disagree with it primarily because I wholeheartedly believe Romney wants it more than McCain ever did. Should Romney get the nomination, there would be only one person standing between him and his apparent life-long ambition of becoming the president. And if that’s the case, I have no doubts that he (Romney) will do whatever it takes to destroy that obstical and become the next President.

LiquidH2O on January 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM

On Rush’s last point, though, I’ll disagree. Romney has a streak of ruthlessness behind that cool exterior that has been on display now for weeks, and I’m sure came in handy in his private-equity career, too. He’s a lot less likely to relax his bite on the jugular than John McCain was, who spent far too much time worrying how he would be perceived in the media for attacking Barack Obama.

Of all the mischaracterizations of Romney, that one is perhaps the most nonsensical.

Romney’s been criticizing Obama, for months.

Just do a search on this very site – people like Ed have blogged that Romney, at least early on when the nomination field was more crowded, was outright ignoring the other candidates in favor of waging an early general election strategy of attacking Obama outright.

Vyce on January 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Newt started the turdfest and now they both whine, whine, whine.

What a bunch of weasels!

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Rush’s point about whether Romney will go after the One with the same vigor (and cost) is what’s important to me. I tend to think he would go easier on Obama than Newt and in that case we’ll lose.

If he actually goes full throat against the One, then maybe it might be okay (well, better than the alternative).

Darksean on January 30, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Kataklysmic on January 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Kat, you are one consistent objective person, no matter who’s in the grinder. Just great!

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:08 PM

How funny you are, so many of you. They both whine as the day is long, every day.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Are you whining again?

‘Cause I’m tirrrrrrrred of listening to you whining about people whining about candidates whinnnnnnnning.

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

He’s a lot less likely to relax his bite on the jugular than John McCain was, who spent far too much time worrying how he would be perceived in the media for attacking Barack Obama.

let’s hope so. He’ll be the subject of a level of vitriol that McCain really never saw. The trail lawyers are hoping to find muck in their lawsuit against Bain and other PE companies.

God only knows what Axe/Soros/Podesta have planned.

r keller on January 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I’ll wait until I hear what Sarah says so I’ll know then what to believe.

gatorboy on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

+1

kunegetikos on January 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

He’s a lot less likely to relax his bite on the jugular than John McCain was, who spent far too much time worrying how he would be perceived in the media for attacking Barack Obama.

While I hope Ed is right about this, I don’t see it happening. Romney is going to do what his squishy beltway consultants tell him to, and they’ll tell him to hold his fire against The One.

Right Mover on January 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

No, I’m just laughing, incl. at your comment :)

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Good post, Rush is right on both points. Mitt will not do the same against Obama. they never do and never will they prove it over and over again.

Newt needs to stop complaining because there is nothing he can do about it just accept it and adjust. and speak conservatism on free media everywhere he can.

boogaleesnots on January 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Romney has a cornucopia of crony capitalism, Obamanomics, crony capitalism, czars, Porkulus, and Fast and Furious attack lines to use.

And let’s not forget crony capitalism!

John the Libertarian on January 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Axe, no need to get “tired”. Just skip over.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Rush is jumping Newt’s ship.

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

You’re not listening.

sloopy on January 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree…Rush is not jumping ship, he knows people hate whiners and he’s trying to warn Newt, IMO…and I don’t think Rush is so much in the tank for Newt as his is firmly anti-Mitt…he’s obviously going to vote for Newt IMO, but I think his first Not-Romney choice was Perry.

ellifint on January 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

After three years in office, Romney has a cornucopia of crony capitalism, Obamanomics, crony capitalism, czars, Porkulus, and Fast and Furious attack lines to use.

I was going to point out the accidental use of “crony capitalism” twice, Ed, but considering Obama is doubling down on this, I guess it’s only fitting.

Doughboy on January 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM

The Conservative movement in the gop is DEAD.
Bush and Rockefeller won, Reagan and Conservatism lost.

PappyD61 on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Said that when W was re-elected. There’s two ways to fix this country and one’s a miracle.

MadDogF on January 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM

That’s the word I was looking for, Ed. Ruthless. I don’t want a ruthless President and I won’t vote for one. Business is one thing but public policy and government is another.

gracie on January 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Just think of the millions of dollars being spent on these campaigns. Dollars contributed by naive supporters.

a capella on January 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM

PappyD61 on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

The TEA (taxed enough already) sank.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Kat, you are one consistent objective person, no matter who’s in the grinder. Just great!

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Same to you. We both supported Mitt in ’08 and will do so again if he is the nominee, though somewhat more grudgingly this time.

Kataklysmic on January 30, 2012 at 2:13 PM

a capella on January 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Not one cent from here, not in years.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:13 PM

complaints over getting outboxed outspent four-to-one in Florida?

Romney compensated heavily for his glass jaw, since we’re using boxing terms, Ed.

Christien on January 30, 2012 at 2:13 PM

No, I’m just laughing, incl. at your comment :)

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

That’s good. ‘Cause we were flirting with infinite recursion, and I think the universe would split or something. :)

Not tired. Just smart-assed :)

How funny you are, so many of you. They both whine as the day is long, every day.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Dead on.

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Kataklysmic on January 30, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Heh, we will – in my case, two of you will have to hold me down, and a third one will have to move my hand to the ballot.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

And let’s not forget crony capitalism!

John the Libertarian on January 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Reminds me of a scene from Blazing Saddles that is too un-PC to even quote nowadays ….

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

It’s beyond me how anyone thinks Gingrich – who telegraphs the buttons to push to run him over the rails – has any chance in a general election. Ever hear the saying, “can’t teach an old dog new tricks?”

Kerry Picket picked up on the strange story of Gingrich ditching his press corps on the way to the Herman Cain endorsement. Yes, it was unlikely this endorsement would help but why ditch the press embeds? Could it be Gingrich was in self-defeating melt-down mode railing against the injustices that caused him to lose the debate to Romney? If I were Gingrich’s campaign team, I would do my best to protect him from the media at that point as well. Didn’t stop him though from ranting every chance he got publicly since then though.

This lack of discipline has followed Gingrich through his career. Yet we are to believe he will contain it in a campaign against Obama. Skip $10,000, I would a million that Gingrich will be hard pressed to explain how he couldn’t beat a dishonest Romney in a debate yet he is going to clobber Obama. Is he going to argue Obama is honest and will debate him fairly? This is all too absurd for words.

msmveritas on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

How funny you are, so many of you. They both whine as the day is long, every day.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Yep, and I’m turning away from the whine fest presidential race and focusing on local and state races. Its only value now is entertainment…

beatcanvas on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Are you whining again?

‘Cause I’m tirrrrrrrred of listening to you whining about people whining about candidates whinnnnnnnning.

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

We call that a meta-meta-whine. Next level up is lodging a formal complaint. No, wait. Skipped

expression of concern

.

de rigueur on January 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

And just what do you think the DNC is going to do to our nominee with hundreds of millions in advertising? Tell us how well the enomomy is doing? Brag about unemployment? The cheap cost of energy while we do not drill anywhere? The food costs that have plummeted? The national debt? ….etc.

KOOLAID2 on January 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Romney’s instrument of attack is the mainstream media. This resource will not be available to him in the general election. He can be as nasty as he wants to be with the Sword of Slaying Everything Except Squid. If the monster he draws is Squidzilla (and Murphy’s Laws of Munchkin virtually guarantee it is going to be the case), that sword is useless.

Stations will “forget” to run his attack ads. Columnists read by anybody to the left of Attila the Hun will suddenly rearrange their sock drawers when the target is 0bama. Every story JournOList has been sitting on for the general election will come out. And Occupy Wall Street will riot in the streets. Mitt Romney’s media prowess will go the same place McCain’s did.

Sekhmet on January 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

The Conservative movement in the gop is DEAD.
Bush and Rockefeller won, Reagan and Conservatism lost.
PappyD61 on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Oh crap.

Akzed on January 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

No need to refer to Mitten’s religious service or religious titles please. Keep your antimormon crap to yourself. Mitt has plenty of stuff to attack.

ConservativeLaw on January 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Whining whiners gotta whine.

John the Libertarian on January 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Romney has a streak of ruthlessness behind that cool exterior that has been on display now for weeks

Damn straight, and we’re gonna need every bit of it against the Obama/MSM machine.

Go here to donate:

https://mittromney.com/donate

Go RBNY on January 30, 2012 at 2:16 PM

The Conservative movement in the gop is DEAD.
Bush and Rockefeller won, Reagan and Conservatism lost.

PappyD61 on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Good gosh enough with this doomsdayism.

Times are tough, but they aren’t over.

Bet liberals said this about liberalism when welfare reform passed.

When we entered two theaters of war.

When we passed Bush tax cuts.

When Reagan enacted policies.

When Ford won.

When Bush Sr. won.

When conservative judges were appointed.

I’m so sick and damn tired of the apocalyptic rhetoric of conservatives.

Face it: we’ve been lazy over the years. We were complacent during the Bush years. I attended weekly conservative rallies starting my freshman year of college in 2005. For 2005, ’06, ’07, and ’08, we BARELY got friends and others to join us.

Liberalism has been so successful in that it has been relentless. It has been continually activist over the decades, despite taking hits, losses, and other political defeats. Perhaps we should try it on for once.

blatantblue on January 30, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Reminds me of a scene from Blazing Saddles that is too un-PC to even quote nowadays ….

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

“You said ‘crony capitalism’ twice.”

[beat]“I like ‘crony capitalism.’”

And no, Ed, that scene is most definitely NOT too un-PC to quote. Blazing Saddles always gets a pass.

Doughboy on January 30, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Rush also spoke about the FL speaker designate ,Weatherford , trying
to boot Rep. West seat by redistricting . Politico has story .
I already emailed Weatherfords office and intend to call Tallahassee
today . Feet to fire time .

Lucano on January 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Can you imagine great statesmen of the past b!tching about minor things, or even major things for that matter. Even GW was not a complainer. Despite his faults, I admired him greatly for that. Obama whines. Mitt, not so much. I don’t like whining when I do it, or when others do it. :)

Paul-Cincy on January 30, 2012 at 2:18 PM

a meta-whine…

de rigueur on January 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Need a lot of government cheese to go with that?….

kunegetikos on January 30, 2012 at 2:20 PM

This is all too absurd for words.

msmveritas on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Best to view it as entertainment. Similar to the carny barkers on the county fair midways, trying to convince the local yokels there is really a beautiful, semi-clothed woman behind those curtains.

a capella on January 30, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Reminds me of a scene from Blazing Saddles that is too un-PC to even quote nowadays ….

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Which one ?

burrata on January 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Nice pull. Also reminds me of Jazz’s post: You dumb racist conservatives are dumb. And racist.

John the Libertarian on January 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM

“Will Romney do the same to Obama?”

No…

… but thanks for asking!


Hang in there Newt…!!!

Seven Percent Solution on January 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Ed, what on God’s Green Earth leads you to believe that Romney will actually fight to repeal — not replace or tinker with — Obamacare?

Romney is good at talking & promising, but the manifest absence of conservative accomplishments in his political career leaves me doubting his willingness to expend any political capital on repealing Obamacare. Sure, he’ll sign a repeal bill if it hits his desk, but that’s gutless. What is going to do to get that bill through Congress in the first place? Give a speech?

OhioCoastie on January 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Gingbot Strategy:

Out: Romney is not tough enough.
In: Romney is too ruthless

If you do not understand, you are clearly a racist sir.

*I am just joking.

ConservativeLaw on January 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM

“Look, President Obama is a nice guy, he’s just in over his head.”

People who criticize Romney for taking this angle fail to understand the difference between attacking smart and attacking stupid.

I know, I know: you want YOUR candidate to say “Obama is an evil socialist trying to communize this country and he’s a lying sack of crap too!” You want ANGER. You want FOAMING. You want brutality.

But angry people never win elections. The guy who uses the most heated, cutting rhetoric? That guy loses every single time, nationally. Seriously: there isn’t one example in the history of modern American politics saying otherwise. So Romney is being SMART and hitting Obama at his core weakness with most (i.e. non-conservative base) voters: “sure he’s a nice enough guy, but he’s a friggin’ incompetent liberal loser.”

That wins people over. Calling him a Kenyan anti-colonialist…does not.

Esoteric on January 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Go here to donate:

https://mittromney.com/donate

Go RBNY on January 30, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Well,..er,..no.

a capella on January 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Ed, what on God’s Green Earth leads you to believe that Romney will actually fight to repeal — not replace or tinker with — Obamacare?

Romney is good at talking & promising, but the manifest absence of conservative accomplishments in his political career leaves me doubting his willingness to expend any political capital on repealing Obamacare. Sure, he’ll sign a repeal bill if it hits his desk, but that’s gutless. What is going to do to get that bill through Congress in the first place? Give a speech?

OhioCoastie on January 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Believe it or not, executives CAN be held to the will of the base, and if we take both houses and the presidency, you sure as sh1t better believe it will happen.

blatantblue on January 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM

msmveritas on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM
~~~~~~~

I couldn’t agree more! It’s easy to push his buttons, and I think he gets very petulant. Someone wrote elsewhere that Newt is as thin-skinned as the president, and I think that’s true. I also agree with the poster above who said that Mitt wants it too much to go soft on President Obama. I have thought that, too, and I pray it’s the case. While I wouldn’t bet large amounts that Mitt will be as ruthless against Obama as he’s being towards Newt, I am also not convinced that Newt will be, either. He’s unpredictable enough to have the President on the ropes and then do a 180 and heap praise on him, IMO.

ellifint on January 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM

That wins people over. Calling him a Kenyan anti-colonialist…does not.

Esoteric on January 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM

HEH!
win!

blatantblue on January 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Here’s what the Boss Emiritus has to say about Newt.

Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere.

Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race. Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent.

I guess the Newtnuts will now call Michelle a RINO too.

BacaDog on January 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM

CORRECTION

Newt Mitt started the turdfest and now they both whine, whine, whine.

What a bunch of weasels!

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I’m listening to Rush right now. He has been pounding Mitt Romneycare into dust and has repeatedly sided with Newt. Rush’s callers also are all over Romney.

Yet, Hot Gas runs a story that Rush is scolding Newt, as if El Rushbo has thrown in with the Rombots.

When does spinning become outright lying? Its getting hard for me to tell the difference.

james23 on January 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Cannot defend Newt on this. I agree he has to push back on the lies, but he needs to do it from a position of power and not a position of weakness. I knew he could do it, I am not sure why he is not. Of course, it may just appear as though he is whining when in fact he is pushing back with force, but the MSM and Established Big Government (R)s are just twisting it such that it appears as if he is whining.

It matters not one whit to me at this point what Newt does, there is absolute 0 opportunity for Romney to garner my support in any level what so ever. With the exception I will defend him against blatant untruths (as I did immediately with that video that someone said he was going to use DoD savings to pay for obamacare), but not with the intention of helping him, but because I think voters deserve honest debate and the ability to chose candidates based on the merits.

When your method of campaigning is to take no prisoners and destroy the opposition, do not act surprised when the opposition takes it upon itself to destroy your candidate in return and refuse to surrender. I will not be defeated by the likes of Romney nor his sychophant supporters and I will do what is needed to prevent him from obtaining what he seeks. Romney has declared conservatives the enemy, he has waged what I consider illegal war against us, he thus does not merit the special priviledges that those who engage in lawful warfare deserve.

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Ed, are you saying Rush is a rino?

letget on January 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM

And Reagan was a RINO. Face it.

kunegetikos on January 30, 2012 at 2:25 PM

“but it does at least make him competitive.”

LMAO!

So instead of losing by 14 points, he loses by 7 points.

Makes sense

Eph on January 30, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Neither Newt or Mitt strike me as the kind of person that would win a bar fight. The both seem to be like little kids arguing in a sandbox. When I hear one or the other really start taking it to Obama and show some spine I’ll be more encouraged. I’m not all together sold that the Republican party will come out swinging and look to knockout Obama. I think they’ll all resort to playing nice again. I hope I’m wrong, we don’t need a couple of politicians we need someone who’ll bring a gun to a knife fight. I don’t think Obama is scare of either of these two. We should be seeing ads about how screwed up this administration is, not ads focusing on each other. I’ll be more inclined to support who ever is the toughest on Obama, not each other. They both sound like babies right now.

buckeyerich on January 30, 2012 at 2:26 PM

From the Rush clip:

And something else I’m pretty confident in saying: as hard-hitting, and go-for-the-throat, and take-no-prisoners, as Romney’s going after Newt, he will not do this going after Obama.

Except for those who’ve completely bought into one candidate or the other, this strikes me as the most serious reservation most undecideds have against Romney, and what they thought they saw in Gingrich the Fighter (or Bomb-Thrower or Great Debater), until this unending whine festival that’s been his campaign for the Florida primary. Neither man is the conservative ideal (and leave the tendentious comparisons to or analysis of Reagan’s conservatism out of it), so what is wanted is the One Who Will Bring It to Obama.

Ed makes a pretty good case for Romney in that regard in his post (quite a good one, I think– the post I mean)– although the “in less spectacular fashion” and “that caution” qualifiers point up the other problem. Whoever Brings It to Obama has to cut through the media first. And the effort better not be anything less than spectacular, or it won’t make it through. The media can strangle the GOP campaign if allowed to do it, and they will try.

de rigueur on January 30, 2012 at 2:26 PM

RINOs all over the place. Anyone disagreeing with me is a RINO.

a capella on January 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Romney has declared conservatives the enemy, he has waged what I consider illegal war against us, he thus does not merit the special priviledges that those who engage in lawful warfare deserve.

You are a crazy person. And you wimped out of the other thread when I pointed out how wrong you were, too.

But mostly: you’re a crazy person. This sort of rhetoric proves it.

Esoteric on January 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Reminds me of a scene from Blazing Saddles that is too un-PC to even quote nowadays ….

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Bill Clinton’s favorite movie. He used to watch it every few months. Lots of “n-word” and sexual humor. Sometimes together. TOTALLY verboten. As Lilly von Schtupp would say. For some reason this line crossed my mind the other day:

“I hired you people to get a little track laid, not to jump around like a bunch of Kansas City fa@@ots!”

Something about Slim Pickens’ delivery hit my funny bone.

Paul-Cincy on January 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Can you imagine great statesmen of the past b!tching about minor things, or even major things for that matter.

Paul-Cincy on January 30, 2012 at 2:18 PM

The campaign trail, c. 1875:

“It is said, in some enlightened circles, that my opponent is the son of an unknown father and a mother of ill repute. I cannot confirm this — but judging by what I’ve seen of his character — I can believe it. He is a known consorter with vagrants and misanthropes, prone to all manner of vice — a tosser of dice and a betrayer of Eve’s virtue — Heaven above defend us. Someone hand that woman a glass of water. A known drunkard of a Sunday afternoon, he’s to Church only to cavort . . .

Axe on January 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Liberalism has been so successful in that it has been relentless. It has been continually activist over the decades, despite taking hits, losses, and other political defeats. Perhaps we should try it on for once.

blatantblue on January 30, 2012 at 2:16 PM

As rush says, Conservatism always wins in the Arena of ideas.

Totalitarianism however, wins in the arena of implementation.

50%+ of this country will always take the hand out over the work. While you and I are young enough to say “Screw the benefits”. How many 40, 50, 60 somethings are willing to give up theirs? We know it’s our money, but it’s entitled to them. Do you think they are going to give it up in our lifetime?

While conservatives may win small battles here and there, since FDR was elected, it’s been all liberalism since.

MadDogF on January 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Interesting that those in the Nat’l media and “other” conservatives now looking to possibly “JOIN” the Romney campaign after mocking him for months and saying he is not conservative…coming over NOW does not take a lot of moxie or guts! That is why I praise Ann Coulter, Chris Christie, Pawlenty, Gov’s McDonnell, Haley, etc and Sen Kelly Ayotte when it was early.

GO ROMNEY!!!

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Yet, Hot Gas runs a story that Rush is scolding Newt, as if El Rushbo has thrown in with the Rombots.

Because it’s not news when Rush attacks Mitt Romney. That’s dog bites man. That happens every day.

It IS news when Rush attacks the current “True Conservative” in the race. THAT is “man bites dog.”

Esoteric on January 30, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Romney has a streak of ruthlessness

The Boston Brahmin Way versus the Chicago Southside Way.

I know where I’m placing my bet.

Bruno Strozek on January 30, 2012 at 2:28 PM

I guess the Newtnuts will now call Michelle a RINO too.

BacaDog on January 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I stopped going by her webpage a long time ago. She is not a RINO.

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 2:29 PM

No matter who one supports, the fact of the matter is that Gingrich has run a disorganized campaign. I suspect much of that was the 11th hour decision to run while Romney has been laying groundwork for the better part of the last three years. Coupled with that disorganization has been an extreme arrogance that included Newt declaring his nomination was inevitable and several temper tantrums over perceived unfair attack ads.

It is an unappealing side for any candidate but combined with Newt’s baggage, even among conservatives, and he is one not-Romney that isn’t going anywhere.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Face it, some people prefer to lose, whine about it and then talk about conspiracies. They are the perpetual victims among us.

rhombus on January 30, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Yes, Ed, yes, yes, yes. Romney does have a ruthless streak that’s been coming out since S. Carolina. This is what Tea Party types need to note about him: he will take it to Obama. And, unlike Gingerich who wings it nonstop, Romney couples his natural punching ability with a premeditated plan. His rejoinder to Gingerich on the Cayman Island money (“Well, Newt, have you checked your own investments? Because we have”) showed this in devastating splendor.

I am a Tea Party guy — was at the first rally in my city — and I understand Palin’s and others’ thought that we don’t need no stinking establishment types around here. But the Romney I’m seeing these days trumps the chickenhawks RINOs support of him. He’s making his own case.

He grows more conservative by the day. Actually, I think he’s always been, at the core, a very conservative guy. What he’s doing is shedding the nice guy, get-along liberalism he’s worn like so many Mormons wear.

I like it.

MaxMBJ on January 30, 2012 at 2:29 PM

and Romney will use them why exactly ?

burrata on January 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Because he wants to be president.

alchemist19 on January 30, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3