Romney and Gingrich at war: Why oppo matters
In Nevada, the Romney campaign held one such call featuring former Rep. Barbara Vucanovich, a Republican who served with Gingrich in the House from 1983 to 1987. “I did serve with the Speaker and he really used to be erratic and I think he probably still is,” Vucanovich said in a January 31 conference call. “One of my feelings with him is he was always so full of himself. I mean, humility was not in his makeup. And he was cocky and arrogant and of course didn’t listen to anybody.”…
What no one mentioned in the conference calls was that in 2005 Vucanovich, the first woman ever elected to Congress from Nevada, published a memoir, Barbara F. Vucanovich: From Nevada to Congress, and Back Again. She discussed Gingrich at several places in the book, and said a number of complimentary things about him…
Needless to say, the Romney team did not include Vucanovich’s praise of Gingrich on a conference call intended to criticize him. But the key part of all this is that Team Gingrich did not push back. You can rest assured that if the Gingrich campaign enlisted a surrogate to attack Romney, and that surrogate had in the past praised Romney, the Romney campaign, run by some of the country’s best opposition researchers, would have made sure reporters knew that, effectively neutralizing the attack. But Gingrich just doesn’t have the resources, or the money, or the inclination to fight that battle. At this point in the race, the Romney campaign knows its charges will go unanswered in any systematic way, even if there are good answers to be given.
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
Obama is still the favorite for November, but Romney has smart advisors, which can’t hurt.
YYZ on February 6, 2012 at 8:10 AM
For all the flaws of the candidate, Romney’s people are professional, up and down the line.
JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 8:21 AM
He won’t get away with his pathological lies and flip-flops once he is the nominee. The press will be happy to make sure of that. Mitt is the GOP’s way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Southernblogger on February 6, 2012 at 8:29 AM
Hitting hard against fellow Republicans is one thing. Hitting as hard against 0bama is something the media will not allow to happen. The money advantage also disappears. Same thing happened with McCain. McCain just burned fewer bridges with the base.
Sekhmet on February 6, 2012 at 8:29 AM
No, and Romney won’t have any stomach for doing that anyway. The fear of alienating independents will be too great. And desides, I think the only thing about Obama that makes Romney mad is that Obama’s president and Mitt’s not. The guy’s got electoral loss written all over him.
ddrintn on February 6, 2012 at 8:32 AM
So Romney has the best sewer rats. Big deal. Good luck using those against the sewer rat champs among Axelrod and Co.
ddrintn on February 6, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Romney will be “Santorumed” in the general. He will be marginalized by the MSM and his values will be portrayed as an odd blend of “quaint”…yet “extreme”, and Mitt will most likely try and counter that by being even more “mainstream” and appeasing to liberal programs. With the help of the msm, Obama will out-mainstream Romney.
Multi millionaire and billionaire investors who side with Obama will hire people they don’t need and buy inventory not in demand in order to skew employment numbers and manufacturing to help paint a picture of general recovery.
Mimzey on February 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Newt Gingrich can be summed up in one word: Unstable. It’s the reason he got kicked out of Congress and it’s clear he hasn’t learned a thing since.
NickDeringer on February 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM
running a competent campaign is yet one more method of measuring the candidates. a candidate unable to mount a competent campaign does not bode much confidence in their ability to competently run an administration. things like actually getting on the ballot matter.
gatorboy on February 6, 2012 at 9:00 AM
Mitt will be hard pressed to beat McCain’s numbers from 2008, let alone BHO’s in 2012.
He’s too liberal for the base, and he’s too conservative for liberals.
His team seems to think they can win without 40% of the electorate.
“Electable” is not the word I would chose to sum up Romney.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on February 6, 2012 at 9:01 AM
The only things Romney brings to the table will be negated in the general election, especially without a record of implementing conservatism, like, oh, say, Newt Gingrich has. 0bama has more money than Romney, he and his friends are meaner and slimier than Romney ever dreamed of being, and the media work ultimately for 0bama, even if they are happy to do Romney a turn by taking out rivals.
Of course, Newt will be poorer, less slimy, and media-disadvantaged like Romney will be. Even more so. BUT money and aggressiveness aren’t all Newt Gingrich brings. Gingrich brings positive ideas, and a positive vision for this nation. That can overcome money and smear.
Sekhmet on February 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM
Given Newt’s crushing 30 point defeat in Nevada I wouldn’t use “electable” anywhere near Newt. I know. It’s his new “Win by losing” strategy.
It’s clear you believe in magic.
Hold on to your dreams and keep reaching for the stars….
NickDeringer on February 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM
If you think my criticism of Romney has anything to do with Newt, you are dreaming. I am not a Newt fan.
I will vote against BHO and for the guy with an (R) next to his name in the general, but in my judgment all our candidates are much more than mildly flawed.
And I make my assessment based not on the current campaigning but on their records.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on February 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM
And Romney can be summed up in 3 words: formless gray blob. It’s why his approval was in the 30s at the end of his term and why had he run for re-election Deval Patrick would’ve mopped the floor with him. “Electable” is not the term I’d use to describe Romney, either.
ddrintn on February 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM
Prepare, then for Romney to be out-”competented” by 0bama. Watch 0bama get Romney tossed off a ballot or two by last-minute rule changes. You think it can’t happen? State election laws are loco, jefe. What does Romney bring to the table in the general election in which he is not far outclassed by the Chicago Mob?
Sekhmet on February 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM
And you’re about to see once again that Obama can run one hell of a competent campaign.
ddrintn on February 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM
It is the only area in which he excels, true.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on February 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Yep. They can out-sewer rat the best of them. Romney will be torn to shreds.
ddrintn on February 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM
Well, as long as Mitt Romney is only running against a guy who has to beg for table scraps from a casino magnate to fund his campaign, he should do pretty well then.
Armin Tamzarian on February 6, 2012 at 9:24 AM
I don’t like Mitt, but I do respect him. If you’re gonna play, play to win. I’m disappointed that the other candidates didn’t come with their A game.
beatcanvas on February 6, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Newt does not have the entire MSM, the entire in place established government rent seekers, and the entire conservative alternative media doing this research for him. Romney does. Even if Newt had the goods to fight back with, none of those groups would back him up with sunshine to the “we the people”, who are just peons working to provide them with their daily dose of elitism.
I think some of Romney’s activities at Bain are questionable. In unison now. ATTACK ON CAPITALISM.
I think the minimum wage should automatically rise. In unison now. He just misspoke.
I think Newt should give back all of his consulting fees he got from working for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In unison now. Romney is so awesome to call Newt out on that.
I think Romney should give back all of his consulting fees he got from companies he ultimately bankrupted. In unison now. ATTACK ON CAPITALISM!
astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 9:52 AM
Why vote for a man that all he focuses on is his opponent’s faults instead of talking about how good he is.
This confirms my decision and several family members.
evergreenland on February 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM
I don’t think that’s fair. McCain actively hated the Republican base and made no bones about it. He spent a good chunk of his nomination acceptance speech attacking Republicans, and flirted with naming Joe Lieberman as his running mate.
Romney isn’t very exciting and has few enthusiastic supporters. But he doesn’t hate the base like McCain does. In that way, I think his closest analogue would be John Kerry, who got the Dems’ nomination in 2004 on an “electability” theory. (And, truth is, Kerry would have beaten Bush but for his medal inflation from Vietnam and the “I voted for the $87 bn before I voted against it” line).
Outlander on February 6, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Also: I don’t think it’s fair to hit Romney for “playing dirty” when his attacks on Gingrich have, by and large, been tough but fair. Gingrich has a checkered past–one that contains ample evidence to suggest he lacks the sound judgment needed to be President. Pointing that out is perfectly fair.
You want to see “playing dirty?” Look at what Obama and the MSM did to Sarah Palin in 2008. That’s dirty.
Outlander on February 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM
How about let us make that decision , you think that only you and Romney were around when Newt was a Speaker?
But you know that your side is using some tactics made very famous by Alinsky, and now I am thinking that the establishment knew how Obama and DNC are masters in dirty plays and realized that only Mittens can be equal to them.
evergreenland on February 6, 2012 at 10:37 AM
from reading some of these comments its clear many of you are scared of the Obama-machine. man up and fight back IMO. Obama and his ilk are creepers but they can be beaten.
gatorboy on February 6, 2012 at 10:46 AM
evergreenland on February 6, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Mittens has no meaningful conservative accomplishments beyond balancing Massachusetts’ budget–which he did primarily through budget-cutting, but also through the enactment of hundreds of millions of dollars in new “fees.”
As for Gingrich, you’re quite right that the “Contract with America” was instrumental to re-taking the House in 1994. But what Gingrich giveth, Gingrich taketh away. He went on Meet the Press in 1995 and strongly suggested he shut the government down because Clinton made him board Air Force One from the rear, which made the Republicans lose the government shut-down war. He supported tax increases in 1998. He impeached Clinton despite knowing that he had no chance of being removed from office, and did so while cheating on his wife. He cost the Republicans seats when he talked about letting Medicare “wither on the vine.” (And these are just a few examples that come to mind from his Speakership).
Outlander on February 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM
I think Massachusetts has a balanced budget requirement in their constitution. He had no choice but to do it.
Not arguing with you, just pointing out.
astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM