Donate to Romney's campaign: Click here!

Last night’s debate highlighted Mitt’s debate strengths and Newt’s weakness.

Mitt’s Strengths

Preparation: No one on the stage is ever more prepared than Mitt for a debate. In 19 debates, topics have covered issues as varied as contraception to moon colonies. Last night Mitt was fully prepared not only to make his points, but to anticipate the counterpoint and to respond with strength. Case in point: the Fannie Mae lobby question. As Mitt made his point that Newt was for all practical purposes a lobbyist, I watched Gingrich, who could barely hold in his glee as he anticipated his response. He thought he had Mitt where he wanted him. Newt then leveled his accusation that Mitt had investments in both entities, thinking he’d just scored the zinger of the night. Mitt coolly explained that the stock he owned was through a blind trust over which Mitt does not have investment control, through mutual funds. Mitt then countered with the point that Newt, too, has investments in these entities. OUCH! Newt’s only counter was that his investments were much smaller than Mitt’s. Not terribly satisfying.

Discipline: When Mitt is asked a question he knows how he wants to respond. Often he has 3-4 points he wants to make, and methodically goes through that list. Newt does not show this discipline. In the NBC debate this week it was clear that Newt thrives on emotion, not mental discipline, in his performances. He relies on the audience’s response to pump him up, and when he’s on defense he glowers and fumes. When Mitt’s on defense you can see him take notes and prepare his counter. And Mitt gets energized when needed: last night’s response to Newt’s negative immigration ad was widely praised as a glowing moment for Mitt. See more on that point below.

Strength of Ideas: It’s been widely noted now after the NBC debate that Newt was very flat without the crowd. Meanwhile, second to perhaps last night, Mitt’s performance at the NBC debate was his best. It was idea vs. idea. Newt’s “grandiose” ideas vs. Mitt’s disciplined ideas, and Mitt won. And that’s the format that the debates against President Obama will be: reduced, if any, audience participation, one on one, idea vs. idea. In that context Newt floundered, Mitt prospered. The last two debates have indisputably made clear Mitt’s the man to debate Obama.

Presence: Debate success requires presence. CNN’s Todd Graham, national championship and award-winning debate coach, wrote today in an article entitled “Romney beats Gingrich at his own game”:

No matter how good your argument is, your delivery must be convincing. Romney made his stand in Florida. He changed his demeanor. And that one change was more important than all the other improvements combined. I believe Republicans in the South Carolina primary rejected Romney because he didn’t look or act like a winner in the debate there. He does now. He bested Gingrich on attitude in front of a raucous crowd — Gingrich’s usual “comfort zone.” In other words, he beat Gingrich at his own game.

The first example was when he told Gingrich to stop calling him “anti-immigrant.” Romney stared down the former House speaker and said, “The idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. Don’t use a term like that.” What followed next was telling. Gingrich looked away and actually mumbled (almost inaudibly) “I’ll tell you what … ” And trailed off. The lecturer (Gingrich) got lectured! It wasn’t the slick Mitt with the professional style anymore. It was a man-to-man stare-down. And Newt blinked. Romney was indignant and believable. That one debate moment might have shifted the balance permanently in his favor.

Newt’s Weaknesses

Riding the crowd: Even in the debate last night, in which the crowd was not hushed but was just plainly pro-Mitt, Newt was, again, flat. Said Politico:

Gingrich was never totally able to find his groove with this crowd, which was sitting in Jacksonville, a Romney stronghold. He seemed to try to tailor some of his statements at different points to the crowd, but it was never a perfect fit.
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING…

What relevance does this photograph have to what I have written below? Nothing. I include it here because 1) I love photography, 2) Every photograph tells a story and I like this story, and 3) This photograph from last year, around Christmas, is the best one I have ever found depicting the next President of the United States of America. How cool is this shot? I wish I could claim this photograph as one I had made!

What about last night’s debate? Mr. Gingrich is discovering firsthand, the cool, steely determination of executive authority. The alpha male of the Republican presidential candidates is clearly Governor Romney.

What we witnessed last night is called “command.” Governor Romney possess leadership command. Need I write more?

And Gingrich? How long must Americans continue to provide a forum for an undisciplined, pompous, chest-beating, name-dropping Washington insider to pontificate? Do Americans really want a President that has spent the last half of his life in self-promotion and self-love — who is still “maturing?” The two million dollar “historian?” Someone who might awaken the day after his coronation as President and decide to build an island in the Atlantic ocean so he can claim a 51st state for his legacy?

Contrast Mr. Gingrich with Governor Romney. Until this week, Governor Romney’s demeanor has been that of a confident, but modest gentleman — secure in the confidence that comes from decades of extraordinary accomplishments in leadership — beholden to no one. Some have mentioned to me that his style has been humble; a possible reference to his Christian upbringing in which the virtue of humility is considered above almost all other human character traits. “Well, let me tell you this” (to quote Newt). Governor Romney had enough of the Gingrich “baloney” last night and decided to put Mr. Humpty Dumpty in his place. One of the best examples of that moral authority was Governor Romney’s response to Gingrich’s immigration attack — Gingrich appeared to cower, afraid to even glance in the direction of Romney as he pierced him with one dagger after the next (Governor Romney’s height advantage helps too).

Why does Gingrich keep whining about “attack ads?” This week Gingrich has begun to flail. He does not want to take on a defensive posture, so he jabs at the wind with his weak, empty attacks, resorting to personal labels such as “Liar!”, “Wrong!”, “Desperate!”, etc. (complete irony). Governor Romney’s message is meant to resonate with Americans who are thoughtful; thinking.

Gingrich’s message is directed to the lowest common denominator; those that will believe anything he says or to those that want to believe the pander (lunar colony). Hence, if he says that Governor Romney voted for a Democrat, it is like Pharaoh Ramses declaring, “Let it be written! Let it be done!” All are to then fall in line behind Gingrich. Why can he not just answer to truth?

He demanded that Governor Romney release his taxes. Done. Romney demanded that Gingrich release all the secret files supporting his ethics sanctions. Deflection. Everything about Gingrich is deflection. Even when he has no good answer in the debate, he talks by complimenting the competitors – deflection by flattery! Gingrich is a master of the cunning. You can even see it in his countenance.

Pre-Iowa, the PACs promoting Congressman Paul and Governor Romney were generous with Gingrich by letting up when Gingrich tanked after a few days of truth letting (revealing a mere 1/100th of his laundry). Frankly, they should have flattened Gingrich right then and there to end his political career before he got a second wind to promote anti-capitalism.

If Gingrich were to leave the race today, he would best be remembered for his liberal rhetoric and the damage he exacted on the Republican Party. He feigns surprise as more truth is revealed. It is no fluke that just about every staunch conservative is coming out against Gingrich, except the entertainers (Limbaugh / Hannity — those who profit most by liberals in the saddle).

AN ASIDE — DEBATE TRIVA: Did any of you notice some subtle details from the debate? As Blitzer announced the names of each candidate, only one candidate clapped each time: Governor Romney. Two candidates sang the Anthem: Senator Santorum and Governor Romney. Most of the candidates often dissolve to the casual in addressing one another by first name. Governor Romney almost always refers to the others with the respect they deserve by their mere presence in a presidential debate: “Senator Santorum, Speaker Gingrich, Congressman Paul.” Note: People often refer to Governor Romney as “the most presidential…” referring to his appearance. It is called “command presence.”

As a political hack, I have followed the details of campaigns since the Iran hostage crisis. What we have witnessed these past weeks in presidential politics in unprecedented. I saw part of an interview on O’Reilly last night with Ann Coulter that I think summarized what has seemed absolutely clear to me for months. O’Reilly was pressing her to opine as to why the avalanche of major conservatives pummeling Gingrich. My quoting her probably is imperfect, but in effect she said, “I think it is because they are seeing that Romney is running as a moderate and will probably govern as a conservative. Gingrich is talking like a conservative, but may govern as a liberal . . . “ She said Gingrich might wake up one day and decide he was serious about a lunar colony while the debt keeps escalating!

We probably posted to this Ann Coulter article already, but I love this paragraph from her article yesterday titled, RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT! (a must read)

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, “when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],” but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging “the Establishment” — because, again, “the Establishment” is anyone who opposes Newt.

And this:
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING…

Normally I do a report card for the candidate’s debate performances, but as this race has progressed I think we’re to the point that we can begin looking at the thesis statements of these candidates and ask them to defend it, rather than looking for how skillfully they regurgitate talking points. If I had to declare a winner I would not hesitate to say Mitt Romney ran away with this one, but I think it was a good night for other candidates for reasons I’ll outline below.

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum really made an effort to stand out from the pack tonight. His language was fiery, his voice was strong and he sounded like he was speaking with conviction, however overall I think Rick’s problem is he loses his audience about half way through what he is saying. He starts to drone on and on and the intensity in his voice starts to wane as he thinks of different ways to make his point. Someone should tell him that you have the time, but you don’t have to take all of it if you’ve said what you need to say.

Where Rick sounds good is on his firm stances regarding foreign policy. While I don’t personally agree with some of his tough talk, you don’t get the sense that he is someone that would run from a fight when push came to shove. Unfortunately, as he demonstrated tonight, his resolution to stand his ground becomes a weakness when he doesn’t have all the facts straight but insists that they are actually fact.

To Santorum’s credit, he has no problem calling it like he sees it and will firmly defend his position until his last breath. Unfortunately, when you’re wrong, that makes you really wrong.

Ron Paul

I thought Ron Paul actually had a really good night. He was funny, n point (mostly) and showed us a little more playful side of himself which generally makes him more endearing.

One thing I have heard repeated when discussing Ron Paul’s debate performances is that no matter what question you ask him, his answers will be the same. It’s as if each minute he is given will be his last so he tries to cram as much into that minute as he possibly can. I don’t really blame him, prior to the last few debates it was clear that he was not being given his “fair share” of questions.

Where Ron Paul did well tonight was in scaling back his sense of urgency in his responses and making them pertinent to the questions he was asked. He didn’t do this perfectly but it did appear that he was making the effort. Specifically I think Paul did a great job taking advantage of the Freddie & Fannie back and forth by asserting that he warned of this problem years ago when no one else was paying attention. It gave him some credibility I think he both needs and deserves.

Do I think Ron Paul is going to run away with this thing? Absolutely not, but would we be wise to pay him more respect than we do? Without a doubt.

Mitt Romney

The clear winner tonight was Mitt. He had a strong showing Monday night when he cornered Newt on his ties to Freddie and Fannie and neutralized his abilities to deflect and redirect. CNN knew how to get the brawl going and allowed Mitt the opportunity to respond to Newt’s allegation that he was “the most anti-immigration candidate”. Willfully taking the bait Mitt turned on Newt and immediately put him on the defensive. It was particularly interesting because this is something Newt likes to be able to do to his opponents first.

It didn’t stop there. Gingrich, in an attempt to regain the upper hand, went after Romney for having stocks in Freddie and Fannie. Mitt quietly waited for Newt to finish and responded by taking Newt back to school. He explained that it was a blind trust, that investments had been diversified and that he didn’t own any stocks. Mitt could have taken it a step further by saying anyone with a 401K will find they have similar investments but he stopped short. Romney was clear, precise and carried a tinge of condescension no doubt giving the speaker a taste of his own medicine. “We don’t have a problem with 11 million illegal grandma’s” and “we needed a whistle blower not a horn tooter” will no doubt become social media gold in a myriad of creative ways.

Romney also said something tonight I thought was very important, and it is something none of the other candidates are saying. Romney mentioned that while unemployment in Florida is above 9%, the real unemployment numbers are at around 18%. He is rejecting the narrative of the media that the economy is getting better and is refusing to do anything but make Barrack Obama own the failures of his “wing-it” presidency and lack of leadership. By subduing Newt and making it about Obama, Romney has cemented himself as the only real contender for the presidency.

Newt Gingrich

It’s been a bad couple of debates for Newt. After getting it handed to him Monday night, Newt made the rounds on tv and radio saying things about Romney that he was unable to defend tonight when confronted with them. He made a few attempts early on to take Mitt back down a notch and not let him get the upper hand, but was unsuccessful.

After being handled by Mitt, Newt (perhaps in an act of self-preservation) became much less combative and began deferring to just about everyone else on the stage. There was little that really strengthened his case for being the most conservative. In fact, his advocacy for the lunar colony was shot down by every other candidate as being too expensive and a totally misplaced priority.

While I respect all the candidates who are and have been in this race, I think the time for games and petty politics is over. The sooner we can declare our nominee the sooner the republican party can put itself back together and hopefully present a united front against the 1 Billion dollar Obama smear machine that will be seeking to destroy us. Romney is absolutely right; this fight is for the soul of America. Will we be a European style socialist state, or will we restore America to her former glory? For those of us who support Mitt Romney, the choice has been clear for quite some time.

PLEASE RT http://twitter.com/#!/C0MM1TT3D/status/162709630437441536 ASAP!

Then, VOTE for Mitt in the following polls:
Drudge Report
My Fox Philly
The Swash
News Press
World Magazine
Tea Party Brief
Amherst Patch
International Business Times
Your Political News Group
Right Turn
ABC News
Big John and Amy
Orlando Sentinel
Exeter Patch

What a day it has been! Mitt’s momentum is very strong and tonight’s CNN presidential debate is a fantastic opportunity to make that momentum unstoppable. Please stay vigilant throughout the debate to show when Mitt is being falsely attacked and when Mitt is correct.

The CNN/GOP FL debate begins this evening 8 p.m. ET and will be hosted by Wolf Blitzer. Follow it on Twitter at #CNNDebate. For real-time coverage of the Florida primary, go to CNNPolitics.com or to the CNN apps or CNN mobile web site.

The chat box has been moved back to the sidebar.

Click here to see the Best Tweets of the Night.

A little treat for anyone who hasn’t seen this before.

FInally, watch Larry Kudlow take Newt Gingrich to task below the fold. CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING…

If you’ve been over to Drudge Report or listened to Rush Limbaugh (today’s transcript) in the last 24 hours you’ve seen/heard a few clips of Gingrich bashing or distancing himself from Reagan/Reaganism. If Newt hadn’t been wrapping himself in the robes of “The True Reagan Conservative” and taking co-credit for all of Reagan’s accomplishments in debates and on the stump then I guess this wouldn’t seem so hypocritical. Megan Kelly, Fox News anchor, said that in one speech Newt referred to Reagan/Reaganism over 50 times.

Well, this NEW video below is the most damning to Gingrich’s claim to be a true Reaganite than anything I’ve ever seen so far:

Newt’s been running around for months giving Mitt grief as the “Massachusetts Moderate” because, in a 1994 debate vs Ted Kennedy, Mitt said “I was an Independent during Reagan-Bush, I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush” (the context was spending and fiscal policy … unfortunately these were definite weaknesses for Reagan and Bush). Would you say that “turnabout is fair play” here?

Newt is undergoing a hyper-speed “death by a thousand cuts.” I felt the tide turning around 48 hours ago and stated here that this was the beginning of the end for Newt. I honestly didn’t think it would come this fast, but I’m not complaining.

Newt and his fans I’m sure will blame Romney and his team for this . . . but that’s not the truth at all. Newt tried to build a skyscraper campaign on a toothpick foundation. He’s spent his entire career spouting off on every issue (most of the time on both sides) and now he’s “SHOCKED” that he’s being held to account for his own words. He’s practiced scorched earth politics his whole career, and burned plenty of bridges in the process. Fewer than 10 of the congressmen that served under him have endorsed him (Mitt has over 70 congressional endorsements . . . and more coming), a telling sign that Newt is plenty capable of losing his clout and influence all by himself … no reason to blame Mitt. If Drudge can take out Newt in 2 days, just imagine what Obama/Reid/Pelosi could do to him with the mainstream media cheering all the way along. Getting rid of Newt as a potential nominee is a service for which ALL Americans should be grateful!

This open letter from Bob Dole comes as many conservatives feel this is their last chance to speak their mind on creature of Washington that is Newt Gingrich.

Read it, comment on it, and share it far and wide in hopes that it will prompt a decision among the undecided:

I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.

Gingrich served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. Already in 1997 a number of House members wanted to throw him out as Speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when the writing was on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.

Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. He loved picking a fight with Bill Clinton because he knew this would get the attention of the press. This and a myriad of other specifics helped to topple Gingrich in 1998.

In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty ice-bucket in his hand—that was a symbol of some sort for him—and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it.

In my opinion if we want to avoid an Obama landslide in November, Republicans should nominate Governor Romney as our standard bearer. He has the requisite experience in the public and private sectors. He would be a president we could have confidence in.

UPDATE: I published this post regarding the intense anti-Newt pushback I saw yesterday before seeing the following Politico article, which covers many of the same topics, and is itself a great read. Here’s a salient quote from Politico, then the main body of my original post:

A top conservative media figure said the flood of attacks reflects a “Holy crap, it could happen” moment in the movement, as Republican leaders began to realize after Gingrich’s South Carolina victory that he could become the nominee, the global face and voice of their party and theology.

“It could happen, and it would be a disaster,” said the conservative, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect private conversations. “All of us who were around and saw how he operated as speaker — there’s no one who’s not appalled by the prospect of what could happen. He thinks he embodies conservatism and if he wakes up one day and has a grandiose thought, he is going to expect all of us to fall in line behind him.

“There’s just so much risk on so many levels,” the official continued. “Everyone’s thinking, ‘It could really happen.’ He could win the presidency if there’s a way to win with 45 percent — a second recession or a third-party candidate. The immediate worry is him winning the nomination and losing the election, tanking candidates down-ballot. In a worst-case scenario, you could see unified Democratic governance, and we’d be back where we were in ’09 and ’10. It’s insane.”

Original Post:

In what can only be called a deluge of anti-Newt news, people seem to be coming out of the woodwork to tell the real truth about the winner of the South Carolina primaries in order to make sure he doesn’t also win Florida. Insiders know that Newt would be a disastrous nominee for the GOP, and even Nancy Pelosi knows he’d never be president.

Here are a few of my favorite headlines up tonight:

From the Drudge Report: “INSIDER: GINGRICH REPEATEDLY INSULTED REAGAN.” The link is to a National Review story in which a former Reagan administration member tells it like it was regarding Newt: he was often standing against Reagan, particularly in Reagan’s approach to the USSR that Newt today tries to co-opt. Why is this relevant? To hear Newt tell it, he and Ronald Reagan worked hand in hand to defeat communism and save the free world. But in reality while Newt would vote with the caucus, Newt worked against Reagan. One of many damning quotes from this inside source:

Here is Gingrich [saying]: “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.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” 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.”

This article is definitely worth a read. It makes clear that Newt does not deserve any of Reagan’s credit for defeating communism.

Next up: “William Jefferson Gingrich.” This article compares Newt’s and Clinton’s most endearing shared qualities. Self-centeredness and a disdain for the rule of law when it disagrees with their own ego. Here’s a good quote, one of many:

Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess, a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee.

He blew the impeachment and in fact his role as Speaker. He backed out in disgrace. He now says Republicans in the House were exhausted with his great projects. Nonsense, I knew many of them, and they were exhausted with his atrocious leadership. He is not a leader. He is a huckster. Today Mitt Romney has 72 Congressional endorsements. Newt has 11. Possibly the 11 have yet to meet him.

Now he has found his key for hustling conservative electorate. He is playing the liberal media card and saying he embodies conservative values. Like Bill with his credulous fans, Newt is hoping conservatives suffer amnesia. Possibly some do. Perhaps they cannot recall mere months ago when this insufferable whiz kid was lambasting the great Congressman Paul Ryan for “right-wing social engineering” — more evidence of Newt’s not-so-hidden longing for the approval of the liberal media.

After his Ryan moment Newt’s campaign was a death wagon, and it will be so again — hopefully before he gets the nomination. Conservatives should not climb onto his death wagon. He is a huckster, and I for one will not be rendered a contortionist trying to defend him. I did so in his earliest days and learned my lesson.

And perhaps the most important quote of the article, warning us against the same result we can expect if we nominate Gingrich (remember Clinton was effectively rendered powerless during the last portion of his presidency due to his personal indiscretions). At a time the GOP really needs the White House to put the country back on the right track, we can’t afford an October surprise, or a post-nomination or post-election surprise:

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING…

Before you do anything else, VOTE HERE for Mitt as the most trustworthy candidate

Part 1 of Mitt on the Kudlow Report

Part 2 of Mitt on the Kudlow Report

Ann Coulter did a good job on Glenn Beck yesterday.

Full Univision Interview below the fold. CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING…

The newest trend in skirts — Mitt Romney yard signs twitter.com/streitfeldcnn/…

— Rachel Streitfeld (@streitfeldcnn) January 24, 2012

Think Newt Gingrich is conservative?

Voters can’t ignore the flashing liberal daggers coming from his mouth.

Gingrich gleefully bashes private-equity investment/capitalism.

Get him in front of a crowd and he coughs up class warfare “Mitt Romney is trying to buy the presidency… people power beats money power every time.” Yes, he’s criticizing Romney for being organized, planning ahead, and convincing Americans that he’s the best candidate to lead America… enough so that they’ve given him their money. (Newt is all about DEFLECTION; remember that leisurely Greek Isle cruise he took right after announcing his candidacy when he could have been working/organizing/seeking financial backing for his presidential run?)

Don’t forget Gingrich’s “right-wing social engineering” en garde against Paul Ryan’s medicare reform plan (see video below).

Now, Gingrich is sticking the SEIU sword into Romney’s conservative solution for illegal immigration. And, Newt doesn’t care that in his flip-flop about-face flailing, he’s stabbing himself:

“Newt Gingrich borrowed talking points from Barack Obama and the SEIU on illegal immigration and used them to attack Mitt Romney’s conservative approach. He was rebuked by Marco Rubio for doing it, and had to retreat. Then he attacked his own position on immigration. This is who Newt Gingrich is: an unreliable leader who undermines conservatives, hurts our party, and emboldens President Obama and his liberal allies.” –Albert Martinez, Romney for President spokesman

Gingrich opposes an immigration position he supported:

This morning in Miami, Newt Gingrich came out against self-deportation. “‘How close were to breaking out and laughing out loud about this fantasy?’ Newt said mockingly while discussing Mitt Romney’s idea of ‘self deportation’ during his interview with Univision this morning.” (Charlie Spiering, “Gingrich Mocks Romney’s Wealth; Self-Deportation,” The Washington Examiner, 12/25/12)

But, just two months ago, Gingrich’s spokesman, speaking about Newt’s immigration plan, said this: “It’s likely the vast majority of them would self-deport.” “On the Gingrich campaign website, the top item in the ‘solutions’ section presents a 10-step plan for addressing illegal immigration. … A spokesman for Gingrich said only a small percentage of current illegal immigrants would likely be allowed to stay. ‘It’s likely the vast majority of them would self-deport,’ said spokesman R. C. Hammond.” (The Concord Monitor, 11/29/11)

In December 2010, Gingrich agreed with radio host Laura Ingraham that self-deportation was the right choice. LAURA INGRAHAM: “We have to enforce this law. We have to do that first. No work, self deportation. Come back. We can figure out our immigration system after we enforce this border. You’re not going to get the support of the people unless we really see that border enforced.” GINGRICH: “I agree with you. I’m against comprehensive reform.” (“The Laura Ingraham Show,” 12/3/10)

In 2008, Gingrich’s American Solutions website declared: “Anything Less Than Requiring Those Who Are Here Illegally To Return Home To Apply For Legal Status Is Amnesty, Plain And Simple.” “Everyone currently working in the United States illegally must return to their home country to apply for the worker visa program. Anything less than requiring those who are here illegally to return home to apply for legal status is amnesty, plain and simple.” (American Solutions Website, www.americansolutions.com, Archived 10/22/08)

Gingrich was forced to pull down his false anti-Romney attack ad:

Senator Marco Rubio Demanded That Gingrich Pull Down His “Inaccurate, Inflammatory” Anti-Romney Ad. “‘Sen. Marco Rubio scolded Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign over a Spanish-language radio ad that accuses rival Mitt Romney of being ‘anti-immigrant’ ‘This kind of language is more than just unfortunate. It’s inaccurate, inflammatory, and doesn’t belong in this campaign,’ Rubio told The Miami Herald when asked about the ad.” (“Rubio Scolds Gingrich Camp, Says Ad Bashing ‘Anti-Immigrant’ Romney Is ‘Inaccurate, Inflammatory’,” The Miami Herald, 1/25/12)

“In the wake of Sen. Marco Rubio’s denunciation of Newt Gingrich’s ad calling Mitt Romney ‘anti-immigrant,’ the Romney campaign’s Hispanic leadership team – headlined by former Sen. Mel Martinez – is demanding that Gingrich pull down the radio spot. But Gingrich already plans to do it. ‘We respect the senator’s wishes,’ said Gingrich’s campaign chairman.” (“Romney’s Hispanic Leadership Team: Newt, Pull Down Your Ad. Gingrich: I Will,” The Miami Herald, 1/25/12)-equity

Today, Hispanic leaders united to write an open letter to Newt Gingrich asking him to pull down the offensive Spanish language radio advertisement running in the Miami market:

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING…