Romney on Pelosi’s Gingrich secret: “I wish I knew what that was”
CARLSON: Mr. Romney, what does Nancy Pelosi know if it would be such a bombshell as to why Newt Gingrich couldn’t be president?
ROMNEY: I wish I knew what that was [laughter]. I’d tell people what it is right now.
But that’s one of the reasons why I’m saying that all of the records that were part of the ethics investigation, all of the transcripts, all of the records have to be made public.
Not just the final white-washed report but the full record, the reason that 88% of the Republicans in the House voted to reprimand their own Speaker….. we need to understand why that is, and those records need to be released, because you know that if Nancy Pelosi knows those things right now, she will hand them to Barack Obama’s campaign if Speaker Gingrich were our nominee.
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
Dip.
Logus on January 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM
I bet you do.
stenwin77 on January 25, 2012 at 12:23 PM
At the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.
The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.”
Gingrich and Reagan: In the 1980s, the candidate repeatedly insulted the president. (published today)
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289159/gingrich-and-reagan-elliott-abrams
haner on January 25, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Pelosi’s office says she has no new dirt on Newt Gingrich
Flora Duh on January 25, 2012 at 12:24 PM
C’mon Mitt, I’m sure you have a few old advisers from Mass. who are working in her office now.
Lawdawg86 on January 25, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Did Mitt just send up the bat signal to Pelosi?
WisRich on January 25, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Bwahaha
Southernblogger on January 25, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Newt – Mitt – Pelosi – McConnell – Boehner –
Our national leaders !!! We’re so fu—ed..
jake-the-goose on January 25, 2012 at 12:26 PM
And I believe him.
de rigueur on January 25, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Mitt would love to sit on the couch with Nancy right now.
neuquenguy on January 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.”
Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
haner on January 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Just hang on mitt, if that ding bat nan has anything on newt, it probably will be ‘leaked’ to bhopress soon enought? Or, they might be waiting for bho to get his slimy fingers on it if newt gets the nomination?
L
letget on January 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Thanks, I was just about to post that!
INC on January 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Much more recently than 1986, we have evidence of Mitt Romney distancing himself from Reagan.
Right Mover on January 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM
That joke perfectly encapsulates why we need more candidates. Neither of these guys is all that conservative, and when they are finished with each other, neither will be all that electable either. On balance, I’ll take Newt because I know that he will be a fighter whereas Romney will cave on taxes the moment that Dems re-define the “Buffett Rule” as the “Romney Rule.” But I would really, really prefer another option. And the best way to get another option is for everyone to keep voting for Newt.
Lawdawg86 on January 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM
As I said to your post in the other thread, Gingrich called her bluff, she folded like the cheap pants suit that she is.
Flora Duh on January 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Mitt’s so disingenuous it’s sickening. He already knows everything that’s in the full report, and it’s obvious that there are no bombshells, or, as he implied, he would have been using them for weeks now. It’s not like there was some secret report that only Nancy Pelosi was privy to. Newt made a lot of House Republican enemies in his time as Speaker – many of whom were on the Ethics Committee, and they have given Romney’s camp every scrap of dirt they could find.
There is nothing new. Period. Romney’s just being a total slime ball (as Newt has been, also.) The Republican front-runners make me want to vomit. In terms of policy, they’ll probably be better than Obama; but in terms of ethics, they’re all scum.
notropis on January 25, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Romney believes Pelosi.
This dope just can’t be president.
fogw on January 25, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Mitt, this horse died a long time ago. Quit flogging!
Trafalgar on January 25, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Romney steps into Santorum territory?
Is Romney into soaps?
Gov. Romney, Gingrich has on Nancy how she became who she is. It’s the book yet to be written. The witch will fly away on her broom/hammer, before her false teeth, the only still movable parts, will speak.
She is a harlot in all senses of the word, political and otherwise.
Schadenfreude on January 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Mitt is starting to sound like Larry Flynt.
viking01 on January 25, 2012 at 12:36 PM
For Romney to even address the topic is incredible.
Gingrich said on Fox a short time ago “If she has a story, tell it, if she doesn’t shut up; I’d rather have her as an enemy than a supporter”.
Romney should have risen above. It proves again that he is a passive-aggressive narcissist, not much different in personality from Obama.
Schadenfreude on January 25, 2012 at 12:37 PM
If Callista doesn’t care, why does Romney?
Schadenfreude on January 25, 2012 at 12:37 PM
He’d pay the million too, to get to it. It’s nothing because Pelosi can’t speak, for more than one reason.
Schadenfreude on January 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM
This.
notropis on January 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Mitt should try hitting Obama this hard.
Bishop on January 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM
I just found your comment–I’d left that thread to go back to the main page after I’d posted the link.
INC on January 25, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Hey Romney! Here’s a clue:
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 25, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Snipers. I dislike them the most, of all the personalities. They’ll stab you, each time.
Schadenfreude on January 25, 2012 at 12:47 PM
+1
Bill C on January 25, 2012 at 12:47 PM
You should see him with the media:
1) Don’t criticize a moderator on camera in public. It’s too easy and he can’t answer back.
2) Do criticize an interviewer when the camera’s off. It’s easy and he can’t answer back.
Passive/aggressive pattern much?
de rigueur on January 25, 2012 at 12:48 PM
That’s why even back in 2008 preferring him to McCain I’ve wondered about Mitt and what he wouldn’t do. What he’s willing to pull for politics is Kennedyesque. Not just JFK, RFK and Chappy and their path of destruction but how that family and hired creeps swooped down on the woman who had accused Robert Kennedy Smith of sexual assault.
viking01 on January 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Romney allies with Pelosi?
Boy, maybe there is room on that couch for 3.
portlandon on January 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM
I’ve got a confession to make.
I’ve criticized Reagan. Many times, especially over his amnesty and a couple of lousy Supreme Court appointments (O’Connor and Kennedy). And I’ve criticized him in public for these things he did.
Thanks to haner for making it clear that I can never run for president on the Republican ticket due to my airing of grievances.
Dack Thrombosis on January 25, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Psst. Nancy’s only pretending to have a secret, ’cause that type of juvenile behavior comes naturally to her.
IrishEyes on January 25, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Brokered Convention.
PAUL RYAN.
stenwin77 on January 25, 2012 at 12:53 PM
“The ‘something’ Leader Pelosi knows is that Newt Gingrich will not be President of the United States. She made that clear last night.
“Leader Pelosi previously made a reference to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware.”
http://ethics.house.gov/committee-report/matter-representative-newt-gingrich
Judson Berger
Political News Editor
If Gingrich only had the ethics investigation to deal with that would be one thing. If Gingrich only had the multiple marriages that would be another. Add on the Republican rebellion about which Scarborough and Coburn have written ads for the DNC to last a lifetime. The rumor and innuendo surrounding Bill Paxon’s sudden retirement is about as bad as it gets in politics. Newt has steamer trunks of baggage that will serve as a huge distraction from Obama’s awful record.
Why in the world we would put this albatross around our necks I can’t possibly imagine.
msmveritas on January 25, 2012 at 12:54 PM
By the way. About this:
Considering her predictive track record, this is practically an endorsement from God.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM
I think Reagan trusted O’Connor and Kennedy to maintain integrity but eventually O’Connor’s and Kennedy’s vanity overruled (pun intended) their integrity.
viking01 on January 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM
OK, I’m a Romney guy, but this makes me sick to my stomach. I’m not happy with anyone being a witting transmission belt for the scurrilous charges of the DNC, and I really really don’t like it when my candidate does it. Mitt needs to lay off the ethics committee thing — it was a witch hunt from the beginning. It’s one thing to talk about how Gingrich relished the lightning rod role and whether that’s appropriate to our current political circumstances (when I think we should be shining a very bright spotlight on the corrupt patronage economy Obama wants to turn us into); it’s quite another to pull out the pom-poms and megaphone in service of a well-known political hit job.
Reconsider, Governor, before the rest of your supporters do.
She’s a lying sack, isn’t she? How those spokescreatures can truck in such obvious falsehoods (“clearly” is becoming a clear verbal indicator a lie is forthcoming) is staggering. Everyone knows what she meant — she meant that she had something not in the public domain that she, or someone else, could drop on Newt at any time.
DrSteve on January 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM