A Scandal per Day – Newt’s Greatest Hits

Here is a list the scandals that have involved Newt Gingrich in the last week. As you read this list, ask yourself if this man would be fitting representative for our country as president of the United States.

1) Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne Gingrich, reveals on ABC News that Newt asked her for an “open marriage” so he could continue to have an affair while remaining married. 

2) After the “open marriage” allegation, Gingrich stated in his defense that he “offered several witnesses” to ABC news who could counter the allegations but that ABC news “wasn’t interested.” A few days later, Gingrich then admits that he lied and that he never offered counter witnesses to ABC.

3) Forbes magazine reports that Gingrich very possibly is a tax cheat and that he didn’t pay all the necessary taxes for 2010. Gingrich owes up to $69,000 in taxes to the IRS.

4) Politico runs a story that proves conclusively that Gingrich supported and praised the model used by Freddie/Fannie to make home loans. This model allowed for “subprime” mortgages to be used widely in the U.S. and eventually lead to the housing crisis. Politico’s story contradicts Gingrich’s many claims that he was simply a “historian” for Freddie/Fannie and that he warned against the model. 

5) Countering Gingrich’s recent claims that he was Ronald Reagan’s greatest supporter/follower, many insiders to the Reagan White House wrote that Gingrich “repeatedly insulted Reagan”and said that Reagan was responsible for America’s moral “decay.” Newt goes on to say thatReagan’s policies were “flawed” and “insufficient” to counter the spread of Communism and the Soviet Union. 

6) A new video of Newt Gingrich is uncovered that shows Newt in 1985 bashing Ronald Reagan saying “the Reagan administration has failed” and that “Harry Truman has accomplished vastly more in foreign policy in five years than Reagan in the same amount of time.” 

7) At a recent rally in Florida, Gingrich said “I never criticized Clinton for having sex with Lewinski.” That is truly an astonishing thing for Gingrich to say. 

8. In an interview with CBN, Gingrich says that his many mistakes, like being a serial adulterer, makes him look more “normal and relatable” to people.

9) Joe Scarborough served in the House as a Republican during Newt’s time as speaker. Scarborough writes about how Newt passed the Contract with American and then fought with the GOP to break key provisions of that same contract. Scarborough also brings up how Gingrich “compared Reagan with Neville Chamberlain, dismissed Reaganomics as flawed and called Reagan’s approach to the Soviet Union an utter failure a few years before the U.S.S.R. was relegated to the dustbin of history.”
 

10) In 2007, Gingrich said that Spanish is the “language of the Ghetto.” Fact-checkers have verified that Gingrich has given several explanations for this comment but he has never really apologized for it.

11) Aside from the scandals, there are also just plain “Zany” comments made by Gingrich. In a speech in Florida recently, Gingrich vowed to create a “permanent colony on the moon by the end of his second term in office.” And that colony will “become the 51st state in America.

12) Former GOP presidential nominee, Bob Dole, issues a stinging anti-endorsement of Gingrich pointing out that hardly anyone who served under Gingrich has endorsed him.

Did I forget anything else that happened in the last week or so? Those are just the scandals I could think of off the top of my head. Just imagine what the Democrats could do with a list like this. And remember, that is only last week.

Gingrich Sour on Romney’s Sweet CNN Debate Performance: “Audience Stacked”


Newt Gingrich is feeling sour today.

After NBC’s presidential debate on Monday (Jan 23rd), when host Brian Williams asked the audience to withhold applause and verbal reactions to “ensure this is about the four candidates here tonight and what they have to say” Newt Gingrich didn’t fare so well. Mitt Romney was strong and steely. Gingrich employed his usual grandiose theatrics, but wasn’t rewarded with shouts or standing ovations. Like a sugar addict without his lollipops-’n-gumdrop buzz, Newt bombed.

The next day on Fox & Friends, Gingrich complained:

“I wish in retrospect I’d protested when Brian Williams took them (the live audience) out of it, because I think it’s wrong. And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate.

“And we’re going to serve notice on future debates, we won’t (mumble), we’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. …”

Newt got his wish last night. Clapping and verbal confectionery was allowed at CNN’s debate. Jab, jabbing at Gingrich, Governor Romney was clearly in command. In the end, Newt was tootsie rolled.

Now, Gingrich says the audience was stacked for Romney:

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich rode a strong performance and crowd enthusiasm at a debate in South Carolina to victory in that state’s primary, but the crowds at two debates in Florida this week haven’t been as wild for Gingrich. Now his campaign is claiming that rival Mitt Romney’s campaign stacked the audience at Thursday’s debate with its supporters to shift the energy toward Romney, the Huffington Post reported.

“They definitely packed the room,” Kevin Kellems, a Gingrich adviser, told the Post.

But that’s not the case, according to both the Florida Republican Party and the Romney campaign. The party, which doled out 900 of the 1,200 tickets, says most of them went to “rank and file” Republicans.

We did a very thorough job of getting them to the rank and file, vetting them to make sure they went to registered Republicans and then making sure they went out to people that were not knowingly affiliated” with the campaigns, Party spokesman Brian Hughes told the website.

(emphasis added)

Like gluttonous Augustus Gloop (character from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory), when deprived of choco-accolades, Newt Gingrich dives into distortion and begins to fudge.




► Jayde Wyatt

~Addendum by Ross
Newt’s silly immigration attack on Mitt has caused Arizona Gov. Brewer to come to Mitt’s defense:

Mitt’s Debate Strengths, Newt’s Weaknesses On Display

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.
(more…)

CNN Florida Debate Wrap Up – Romney The Clear Winner!

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.

CNN Florida Debate

CNN Florida Debate


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.

Who Won the Final GOP Debate in Jacksonville Before Florida Votes on Tuesday?

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 Debate in it’s entirety

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. (more…)

Newt TRASHES Reagan . . . New Video #Newtorious

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!

Serious Anti-Newt Backlash

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:

(more…)

Videos of Mitt on the Kudlow Report and Full Univision Interview

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. (more…)

Liberal Gingrich: Sticks SEIU Sword in Romney’s Conservative Immigration Stance & In Himself

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has rebuked Newt Gingrich for his dishonest FL ad on Romney's stance on illegal immigration. Jan 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:

(more…)

What does Nancy know? Newt: “I don’t know”

A Few Comments About Newt Today

What does Nancy Know?

I’m going to throw out a couple additional thoughts about the topic of Vic’s article below summarizing the charge of Nancy Pelosi last night that Newt will not be president.

Says Nancy: “That’s not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it. It isn’t going to happen.”

How can she be so sure? She said: “There’s something I know.”

My surprise was, when Newt was asked if Pelosi knew something that would derail his presidency, Newt’s answer was: “I don’t know.”

What? “I don’t know?” Seriously? You’d better come clean, Mr. Speaker. The right answer is “Absolutely nothing.” If there is something she might know, you’d better ‘fess up, and soon, or the GOP will be waking up with collective groans in October when Pelosi does her data dump a week or two before the election.

Mr. Speaker, release the notes to the House investigation into your conduct. Yes, there’s quite a public record there, but what about the sealed part of the records? And your arguments that Mitt should disclose unspecified information about his business dealings carry much less weight: Mitt worked in the private sector for a private company and there’s been no suggestion he may have done anything unethical. All reports indicate he’s squeaky clean. You’re the person, Mr. Speaker, who was the first Speaker in US history to be removed and to have to resign, largely as a result of ethics violations. There’s not even a hint of smoke regarding Mitt’s activities, but with respect to yours, embers of fires are still burning these 15 years later, rekindled by your walking the line of illegal lobbying activities. Call yourself what you want, but you’re quacking and waddling. I’m calling you a (grandiose) duck.

And let’s not forget one of our favorite gems: did he whisper something to her on that couch?

Newt to Run from Future Debates?

I loved the Brian Williams debate. It allowed candidates to talk freely about ideas without the emotional intervention of a crowd. A comment on my post yesterday was very observant:

When you play football, you have a pep rally. Newt is great at the pep rally. Pep rallies don’t win games.

To actually win the game, you have to prepare, plan, practice, practice, then practice some more. Then you execute your prepared game plan. Newt stinks at all of that (missing the Virginia ballot, lack of fundraising, lack of endorsements, volatile campaign staff, erratic campaign…). So how in the world could anyone think he would be a great president? He would not even be a good president…

Newt would be a great sideline cheerleader in the Superbowl of politics, but should not take the field.

Thanks, “kimntim.”

Newt, knowing he performs much more poorly when he actually has to discuss his “big ideas” without the Fox made-for-TV rah-rah, has threatened not to participate in more debates unless they’re on his terms. From Reuters:

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, coming off one of his most subdued debate performances of the campaign, signaled on Tuesday he may skip future debates unless his supporters are given full license to clap, cheer and roar.

And:

Without a roaring crowd to encourage him, Gingrich took a heavy pounding from Romney on Monday and spent long stretches of the debate on the defensive over his record in Congress and his work for mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

And this is the guy who says he can stand up to Obama in a debate? Newt, your tail’s between your legs. That’s not a convincing position of power. You can try and run and hide from Mitt in future debates, or hide behind a planted crowd, but in the presidential debates vs. Obama, the format is what you fear most and where you performed most poorly: no crowd interaction. And yes, that’s the format where Mitt shined most. Bring on Mitt vs. Obama! Anyone wondering about Mitt vs. Obama should also see also my article from yesterday in which the Financial Times says that’s just the matchup America needs.

Taxes

Another topic worthy of discussion that I haven’t had a chance to tackle, and will probably do so poorly, but that merits a start: taxes. Besides Mitt’s charitable giving of well over 10% of his income, Mitt’s taxes revealed he made tens of millions of dollars and was taxed at an effective 14% tax rate. Democrats look at that and think that’s a travesty. Republicans look at it and think “everyone should be as successful.” $6 million in taxes last year is not chump change! Looking at tax charts, the top 1% of this country already pay a disproportionate amount of the tax dollars. Yes, the tax rate may be lower on capital gains vs. ordinary income, but there’s a policy reason for that: to encourage investment, and because it’s quite likely those dollars were already taxed once. When you start adding up all the times Mitt’s money was taxed, my guess is it amounts to much more than a 14% rate. For example, any C corporations in his portfolio are paying taxes on their income before they distribute any dividends. And he may well have paid ordinary income rates or cap gains rates on invested money already, and the Federal government is getting a 2d or 3d bite at the apple. All in, my guess is Mitt’s real tax rate is much higher.

On this question generally, I favor a lower cap gains rate to assure continued investment in the US. Others will do a better job than I laying that out, but when Obama says we all need to pay our “fair share,” and reserves the right to define “fair,” I get very worried. I’m reminded of the French revolution, in which the values espoused were “liberty, equality and fraternity.” Liberty I can agree with. Fraternity is great. But be careful around equality: we love equality of opportunity, and the French seem to like equality of result, i.e., wealth re-distribution. All that does is disincentivize those most able to work, and pay those that are less productive disproportionately, leading to a perpetually depressed economy.

If I heard correctly, Obama wants to double the cap gains tax to 30%. What will happen to investment in the US if that happens? If the US is taxed more, an investment there is less profitable and that money will be invested elsewhere, end of story. Obama doesn’t seem to realize this, or doesn’t care. Mitt knows the real impact due to his time in the real economy. Obama doesn’t. Newt doesn’t. Mitt does.

Overall, the release of Mitt’s tax records only proves to me that Mitt succeeded at the American Dream by keeping the rules, paying just as much as he’s required to under the law, and wisely managing what he was blessed with to keep the money he’s entitled to. Do I want someone who’s played by the rules and who succeeded to be my president? Absolutely. Do I want someone who so poorly manages his finances that he pays more than what he’s required? Not at all. Reminds me of the type of guy who couldn’t even manage to get on the ballot in his home state.