Mitt Romney: Wins WA — Super Tuesday Delegates — “Most Qualified” — Georgia: Can Gingrich Fail?

Following the big Michigan and Arizona wins this week, the WSJ published an article titled, “Contest Shifts to Super Tuesday’s High Gear.” See excerpts here along with table illustrating the delegate count leading into next Tuesday:

Of course, by prevailing on Tuesday night, Mr. Romney also increases the stakes for his opponents. Mike DuHaime, a Republican strategist who managed Rudy Giuliani’s White House bid in 2008 and remains unaligned this year, said Mr. Romney’s win “creates a great deal of pressure on the other candidates to show strongly next week, or the pressure will mount for them to drop out so as not to unnecessarily drag out the process.”
[...]
Sen. Rob Portman, chairman of the Ohio Romney campaign, said he believed Mr. Romney would overtake Mr. Santorum after voters focus on his economic policies and message. “Mitt Romney will provide the type of conservative leadership that we need to spur economic growth and create jobs,” said Mr. Portman.

SUPER TUESDAY DELEGATES

Looking ahead to Super Tuesday, Governor Romney won the Washington caucuses today by a healthy margin. The New York Times reported this:

The victory gives Mr. Romney some momentum heading into the big contests this week on Super Tuesday, when 10 states vote. With 81 percent of the Washington votes counted on Saturday night, Mr. Romney had won about 37 percent, with Mr. Paul at 25 percent, Mr. Santorum at 24 percent and Mr. Gingrich at 11 percent.

“The voters of Washington have sent a signal that they do not want a Washington insider in the White House,” Mr. Romney said in a statement as he campaigned in Ohio.

The article continues after referring to a Santorum comment as to how he would transform Ohio if elected (several more photos too): (more…)

Pledge to VOTE for Mitt on Super Tuesday

MittRomney.com has set up a way for voters in all 10 of the Super Tuesday states to pledge that they will vote for Mitt on Tuesday. Send these links to voters in their respective states.

Oklahoma: http://mittromney.com/forms/oklahoma-pledge-vote

Tennessee: http://mittromney.com/forms/tennessee-pledge-vote

Virginia: http://mittromney.com/forms/virginia-pledge-vote

Vermont: http://mittromney.com/forms/vermont-pledge-vote

Alaska: http://mittromney.com/forms/alaska-pledge-vote-mitt

Idaho: http://mittromney.com/forms/idaho-pledge-caucus-mitt

Massachusetts: http://mittromney.com/forms/massachusetts-pledge-vote

North Dakota: http://mittromney.com/forms/north-dakota-pledge-caucus-mitt

Georgia: http://mittromney.com/forms/georgia-pledge-vote

Ohio: http://mittromney.com/forms/ohio-pledge-vote

Did Mitt just get another endorsement? (more…)

Newt Gingrich: A Little More Truth-Letting as He Sells More Books

Frequent visitors to MRC know my thoughts about Mr. Gingrich. His narcissism, self adulation, and condescending style disqualify him from higher office. Most Republicans have resigned themselves to the fact that very few, if any, of Gingrich’s pursuits are noble. He is driven by ambition and revenge.

Oh to know Donald's thoughts about now -- Two peas from the same pod?

Gingrich knows how to sell books and frankly, that is exactly what I think he is all about. As a wealthy man, he seeks to expand his image with power. He would accept power of course, but all he really wanted was a forum to sell more books. So little has been exposed on Gingrich and yet, each time we do a little truth-letting, Gingrich drops like a rock in the polls. What is he now, fourth or fifth in the polls? Oh wait, there are only four candidates left.

Every time I turn around, I keep running into these little gems of truth about Mr. Gingrich. I guess since I have never known any person this arrogant, it fascinates me. The fact he is duplicitous, terrifies me. Candidly, I don’t understand how he gets even one supporter, let alone thousands. Fascinating!

Yesterday, The Washington Post’s Jerry Markon published an article, exposing a few more facts behind the true nature of Mr. Gingrich. My excerpts below are only a glimpse.

The files offer a candid glimpse of the former House speaker, a man who could be charming and self-effacing one moment, ambitious and grandiose the next, an admittedly disorganized manager who viewed his role as nothing less than saving the Western world.

“When I say save the West, I mean that,” Gingrich said in a 1979 address to his congressional staff, preserved in the files. “That is my job. . . . It is not my job to win reelection. It is not my job to take care of passport problems. It is not my job to get a bill through Congress. My job description as I have defined it is to save Western civilization.”
[...]
While Gingrich differed sharply with the Reagan administration on issues such as defense spending and foreign policy, he effusively praised the president for national audiences.

“He is the most articulate, most charming, most aggressive conservative we’ve had, possibly since Theodore Roosevelt,” Gingrich was quoted as saying in a 1983 Associated Press story.

Yet behind closed doors, Gingrich raged at Reagan and other conservatives, especially after House Republicans lost seats in the 1982 elections. And back in Georgia, newspapers quoted him as saying something different. “Really, Reaganomics has failed,” Gingrich said.

The entire Washington Post article is very good. I recommend it highly: CLICK

Romney Dominates Nevada Caucus; Entrance Polls Tidbits

Well, the final results aren’t final yet . . . but it’s clear that Romney won this important swing state’s caucus, and won it big. (Update . . . Romney did get just over 50%, but the entrance poll results have just been revised this morning, so much of what you see quoted below is somewhat off from what the linked poll says NOW. Sorry, I’m not going back and re-calculating things at this point).

He’s got 43% of the vote with 43% of precincts reporting, but the results of Clark County (Las Vegas) as not coming in as fast as expected. Don’t fret though Romney fans, Mitt will win a majority of the votes and I’m guessing he’ll be somewhere between 52-55% of the total vote when all is said and done. If things track as closely as they are in the entrance polls, Clark County should go for Mitt by over 60% (and they’ve nailed the non-Clark County…rest of NV…percentage at 43%, exactly how the real results have turned out)

Debunking the “Romney won Nevada because of the Mormon factor” myth:

Yes, Mitt dominated among LDS voters with 90% choosing Romney, BUT (and it’s a very big “but”), EVEN IF NOT A SINGLE MORMON WENT TO VOTE, ROMNEY WOULD HAVE WON THE STATE WITH A 42%-26% margin over Gingrich.  Romney won Catholics 52%-19% over Newt and “White Evangelical/Born Again” by a solid margin of 46%-26% over the former Speaker.

Debunking the “See, the poor won’t vote for Romney” myth:

On CNN’s coverage tonight, the anchors/pundits seemed to be getting as much mileage as possible out of the fact that the only economic demographic that Romney did NOT win was those that make $30,000 or less (which were only 10% of the voters in NV last night).  They were trying to tie this to Romney’s “I’m not concerned about the very poor” comment and even went on to conclude that this “underscores the fact that blue-collar workers, who you can’t win without their support, do not see that this is a guy that will fight for them.”  SERIOUSLY?!?!?  I realize that these pundits aren’t statisticians, but it’s pretty straightforward to figure out why he didn’t win this demographic.  First off, he hardly “lost” this demographic.  Paul and Newt both got 31%, and Mitt got 30%, a virtual 3 way tie for first.  Secondly, the age of the voter is VERY determinative of income when looking at your youngest age group especially.  Voters aged 18-29 were only 8% of the vote (quite similar to the 10% in that income of $30K or less), and Paul won that group 40% to 39% over Romney.  Paul has been wining the young college-aged voters in almost every state . . . it’s his base and he’s definitely turning out this group of folks that do not typically vote in a GOP primary.  Good for Paul. But these college kids are a HUGE portion of the “makes less than $30,000 year” group, and I don’t think anyone would consider college kids “the very poor,” they are just in a temporary low-income stage of their lives.

“Strong Moral Character;” Mitt good, Newt Very Very Bad:

In perhaps the most revealing entrance poll finding, those that felt a candidate having “Strong Moral Character” was their number one trait they sought in a President, Mitt got 54% of the vote … Newt got 1% of those voters.  No, that is not a typo, ONE PERCENT (Paul got 32% and Santorum got 13%).  Looks like Nevada voters are pretty good judges of character, eh?  THIS IS WHY YOU’RE LOSING NEWT!! YOU BLAME MITT FOR YOUR LAGGING VOTE TALLIES, BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR BUDDY!

Debunking the “Strong Conservatives and Tea Party voters don’t like Romney” myth:

Like New Hampshire and Florida, Romney, once again, won self-identified conservatives and supporters of the Tea Party in Nevada.  This time though, he won A MAJORITY of these groups.  Romney beat Newt 54%-21% among conservative voters and 50%-23% among Tea Party supporters.  Yet I still see pundit after pundit say that Romney still has a lot of work to do to appeal to conservatives (while they “obviously” love Newt).  CAN THEY NOT READ A POLL?!?  Among “very conservative” voters he Mitt still won 49%-24% over Newt, and even beat him 39%-30% among those “strongly supportive of Tea Party.”  Some narratives are hard to kill, but when a state in the Northeast (NH), Southeast (FL), and West (NV) all show Romney winning conservatives and Tea Party supporters I think it’s proof positive against that media meme. The real take-away/new-media-narrative should be that Newt has work to do to appeal to as many conservatives as Romney has been.

Odds and Ends:

The Economy was the number one (even by a majority) issue on voters minds, and Romney carried these voters by 62%.  By an even larger margin, the candidate quality of “Can Defeat Obama” was number one, and Romney absolutely dominated here with 73% of the vote.  WOW!  ”Right Experience” was the top quality to only 15% of voters, but Romney cleaned up here too with 55% (Rick Santorum pulled in a whopping 1% here).   Romney also continues to dominate the Suburbs winning with 69% there; historically this is a key demographic for winning a general election.

Turnout Issue:

Newt and some liberals keeps saying that Mitt’s trying to suppress turnout in order to win.  When we look at the field compared to 2008, however, I don’t think it’s any surprise that turnout is lower.  Last time around there was much more diversity, and much more famous personalities in the field.  You had a Pro-Choice candidate with strong personal appeal/popularity in Rudy Giuliani, War Hero John McCain, popular actor Fred Thompson, and folksy former pastor Mike Huckabee in addition to Mitt and Paul all in the race this far into the process.  Substituting character-challenged Gingrich and personality/experience-challenged Rick Santorum in place of Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee is beyond even comparing apples and oranges. They all had more money and organization that either Newt or Rick too and that is how turnout is driven. Like all of Newt’s complaints/excuses, this one rings hollow as well.

CONGRATS MITT AND NEVADA!! ANOTHER GREAT WIN FOR ROMNEY!!

Mitt Romney doesn’t care about poor people? WRONG!

In the 24 hour news cycle, the story of the day has been Mitt’s comments to CNN in the early morning after his Florida win. While I think even the most ardent Romney fan would admit that this could and should have (and will be) phrased more adeptly, the liberals have taken and run with the partial quote that he’s “not concerned with the very poor” … It looks worse in print that in the context of the interview:

Mitt cares deeply about the poor, and his actions speak louder than words. How many “journalists” have bothered to mention that Mitt has given over $7,000,000 (SEVEN FREAKING MILLION!) to charitable organizations in just the last two years? Records from before then show the Romney’s consistent giving millions upon millions to organizations that care for the poor. By contrast, Joe Biden gave only $3690 to charity in an entire decade … that’s PROOF of someone that doesn’t care about the poor. From 2001-4, the Obamas made nearly a million dollars, but donated LESS THAN 1% of that income to charity.

Or what about when Mitt gave cash out of his pocket to the lady in South Carolina who said God guided her to follow Romney’s campaign bus to find help to keep her lights on? The EXACT SAME CNN REPORTER (Soledad) even reported about that a couple of weeks ago … does she have no memory?

Mitt doesn’t care about poor people? Demonstrably false and easy to debunk (and this is without even delving into fact that Mitt, as a Mormon Bishop for several years, dedicated much of his time to caring for the poor in a very “hands on” fashion). If Obama and team push this theme it will come back to bite them. Mitt’s done more to care for the poor than any snarky reporter or any of his political rivals.

Recall Vic’s post from a couple days back that highlighted Romney’s life of service and included the following YouTube:

Additionally, Brit Hume on Fox News today adroitly argued that anyone who wants to “make hay” or be offended by this out-of-context quote wouldn’t be voting for a GOP candidate anyways. I’d have to agree.

EXCLUSIVE: Mark DeMoss Remarks to Evangelical Leaders — Houston Ranch, January 14, 2012

Mark DeMoss

Following this past Christmas, reports surfaced of a meeting by prominent national evangelical leaders to be held in Texas sometime in January. You will recall this meeting involved over 150 people at a ranch outside Houston, January 15th. The ostensible purpose of the meeting was to caucus and select one of the presidential candidates behind which all voters could unite — in effect, to choose the one “non-Romney” candidate that they thought could best defeat Romney. Fascinating!

As with any caucus, some were prepared to stand and persuade others to vote for the candidate they believed to be the best to select as the Republican nominee for President.

One of those leaders present that day, at the ranch outside Houston, was nationally known and highly respected Mark DeMoss, a prominent Evangelical. Mr. DeMoss stood for Governor Mitt Romney.

Though I have never met Mr. DeMoss and therefore do not know him, I can only imagine that his remarks to this body required a tremendous amount of courage, especially with the understanding that the vast majority of those present were intent on selecting a candidate they believed could best oppose, and therefore defeat Governor Romney! For this one act alone, I have tremendous admiration and respect for Mark DeMoss. I strongly believe that Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States — if so, I believe that history will hold Mark DeMoss out as a true American patriot in the stature of any this nation’s finest patriots of the past and present.

I am most grateful that Mr. DeMoss granted MittRomneyCentral.com the privilege of publishing his remarks to the group of 150+ Evangelicals exactly one week ago today. When I requested “an editorial” from Mr. DeMoss through our friend, John Schroeder of Article VI Blog, I never dreamed I would receive his remarks to the other evangelical leaders at the ranch that day.

Mark DeMoss’s speech that day is published below in its entirety — unedited.

[Almost exactly one year ago, Nate Gunderson published this outstanding article by Mark DeMoss that received over 2,300 views and 33 comments]

Mark DeMoss founded The DeMoss Group in 1991, and since then he has served some of the world’s most prominent and effective Christian ministries and enterprises. Mark has been involved in shaping some of the largest Christian events and campaigns over the past decade while simultaneously overseeing the growth of his firm. He has extensive media relations experience with both religious and mainstream media and provides particular expertise to clients in crisis/issues management and communications. Mark provides primary public relations counsel and strategic planning for The DeMoss Group. His first book, The Little Red Book of Wisdom, was published in 2007.

Favorite DeMoss Group Core Value > We demonstrate uncommon integrity.

REMARKS to HOUSTON EVENT January 13-14, 2012

By Mark DeMoss

In the summer of 2006 I began a search for the perfect presidential candidate. I’m here to tell you: I still haven’t found him—or her.

But I would suggest, neither have you—because there simply is no such thing. Just as there’s no such thing as the perfect employee, teacher, or pastor. None of us can find another person—including a spouse—with whom we agree on everything.

However, I’ll tell you what I did find that summer of ‘06. I found one of the most remarkable men and families I have ever met or known in Mitt Romney, his wife Ann, and their five sons. Governor Romney was my choice for president in ’08, and he remains my choice today. I didn’t arrive at this decision lightly.

So how did I, as a conservative and an evangelical, land on Mitt Romney? After reading all I could find and talking to people who knew him, I went to see him and told him I’d like to help him. I also told him he couldn’t pay me—ever.

I have a three-part litmus test for choosing a presidential candidate:

1. He/she must share my values (not necessarily my faith or theology)

2. He/she must be competent to lead and govern should they actually get elected.

3. He/she must be capable of getting elected.

So let me talk for a few minutes about values, competence and electability.

VALUES

  • First, while I am not interested in (nor worried about) giving platform to Mormon theology, I think this country would benefit from a good dose of Mormon values. Their overwhelming commitment to marriage, family, hard work, honesty, integrity, morality and character is something to be admired and modeled. Frankly, this church’s record in this area often outperforms ours in many ways. (I was reminded about this again just last weekend while watching one of our fallen evangelical leaders starring in ABC’s reality show Wife Swap.)

    I’ve been in the Romney home numerous times. I’ve been with Mitt in offices, holding rooms, hotel rooms, restaurants, cars and planes all across this country and everything about him is real. I’ve gotten to know dozens of his friends, colleagues and advisors. I’ve even attended his church.

    His marriage of 42 years is rock solid, and I’ll tell you this: I don’t worry about waking up one day to a headline about Mitt Romney like we have been saddened to hear about leaders among our own ranks like Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Ensign, Sen. David Vitter, and countless pastors.

  • Gov. Romney has fought hard for values we care deeply about. For example, he immediately condemned the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in his state, and then lobbied hard for a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.
  • Keep in mind; Mitt had an 85% Democratic legislature in Massachusetts. This is an important point, which I think is either unknown or lost on many conservative critics. An 85% opposition legislature means bills and measures the governor proposed could be changed at will. It also means measures he vetoed could be overridden at will.

    (By the way, Mitt cast 800 vetoes as governor of Massachusetts—that’s one veto every day-and-a-half for four years.)

    Finally, it means he had to know how to work constructively with people on
    the other side, which is something we could use more of today.

    So when you hear Mitt Romney did something as governor you don’t like, take a minute to find out if he did it, or an 85% Democratic majority did it over his best efforts and objections. A fair and honest assessment of his record requires this.

  • Under his leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began offering middle school classroom programs on abstinence from a faith-based organization.
  • As governor, Mitt Romney vetoed bills providing access to the “morning¬after pill” and for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research.
  • He staunchly defended the right of the Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care, and filed a bill to protect such religious liberty.
  • National Review political reporter John Miller wrote that, “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting environment.”
  • Listen to what one notable Republican had to say about Mitt Romney.

    “In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party’s nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear. Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party.”

    Who said this? Rick Santorum did when he endorsed and campaigned for Mitt just four years ago. Nothing in Mitt Romney’s record, speech, or life has changed since Sen. Santorum offered that endorsement, which, knowing the senator, I believe was offered seriously, genuinely, and as a matter of real conviction.

  • I have concluded that Mitt Romney’s values more closely resemble my own than any president in my lifetime.

(more…)

WSJ: “Bain Capital Saved America”

Artwork by Chad Crowe

Daniel Henninger wrote this excellent article in yesterday’s The Wall Street Journal, Opinion section.

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich would lead voters to believe that Mitt Romney was involved in some kind of evil for his work at Bain Capital. Americans know differently. Governor Romney does need to find opportunities to provide the many examples of how his turn-around work improved the lives of thousands of families.

Henninger’s opinion piece is outstanding.

Not only did Bain Capital save America, but no matter what turn Mitt Romney’s political career takes, Bain Capital may stand as the best of Mr. Romney’s lifetime contributions to the nation’s economic well-being. If only he’d tell the story.
[...]
Properly understood, the 1980s, including Bain, were the remarkable years when an ever-resilient America found a way to save itself from becoming what Europe is now—a global has-been.
[...]
Read through S&P’s justification for last week’s downgrades of nine European countries. Along with the expected dumping on those countries’ fiscal profligacy, one finds as well a blunt recognition of Europe’s moribund “fundamentals,” meaning their ability to produce “strong and consistent” economic growth.

If not for Bain Capital and the other, bigger players who commenced a decade of leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers in the 1980s, the odds are that the U.S.’s “fundamentals” would be similarly weak. Instead, the U.S. corporate sector remade itself during the Bain years.
[...]
Thousands of Mitt Romneys allied with huge pension funds representing colleges, unions and the like, plus a rising cadre of institutional money managers, to force corporate America to reboot. In the 1980s almost half of major U.S. corporations got takeover offers.

Singling out this or that Bain case study amid the jostling and bumping is pointless. This was a historic and necessary cleansing of the Augean stables of the American economy. It caused a positive revolution in U.S. management, financial analysis, incentives, governance and market-based discipline. It led directly to the 1990s boom years. And it gave the U.S. two decades of breathing room while Europe, with some exceptions, choked.
[...]
Mr. Romney’s answer appears to be that voters want to keep hearing about him and his management résumé. Voters don’t want one man’s story. They want someone who understands how the next 10 years can produce an American economy that offers the opportunities for them that the 1980s produced for Mitt Romney.

* * * * * CAPITALISM * * * * * *

“What’s immediately profitable is the only kind of logic that capitalism understands.” — Susan George

“Whether we look at capitalism, taxes, business, or government, the data show a clear and consistent pattern: 70 percent of Americans support the free enterprise system and are unsupportive of big government.” –Arthur C. Brooks

,

Marianne Gingrich Grants ABC News Exclusive Interview — Scooped by Drudge Report

Photo Credit: Drudge Report


Drudge announced breaking news with an exclusive report early Wednesday evening, stating that ABC News had conducted an interview with Newt Gingrich’s second wife Marianne Gingrich for a program to be aired in the future. Following is that initial report:

**Exclusive**

Wed Jan 18 2012 18:47:14 ET

Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview.

Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.

But now a “civil war” has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!

MORE

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be “unethical” to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.

A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted . . .

[emphasis added]

According to this first report, the breaking news stated that the interview would first be aired next Monday after the South Carolina primary. It was later reported that ABC News would air it on Friday. Then the Associated Press reported that ABC News would air it Thursday night. Sure seems confusing!

Contrary to what Gingrich keeps telling reporters this week (that Governor Romney will resort to “dirty tricks”), don’t believe any of it. This is between Ms. Gingrich and ABC News. According to Drudge, Gingrich cancelled a news conference yesterday to deal with the breaking news. What is there to “deal with” anyway? There is no new information except that she granted an interview.

Photo Credit: Drudge Report


Of course, without excerpts of the interview, it is difficult to know if what Marianne Gingrich discussed in the interview is revealing at all or just some additional insight into what is already known about the former congressman. But here’s a guess. Based on the fact that ABC News first intended to release it Monday, then moved it to Friday, and again to Thursday (“tentative”) seems to point to big news. Interviews with his second wife are rare in recent times. And if what she talks about is in fact big news, it is unlikely good news for Mr. Gingrich. Since we are precluded from publishing the AP short, click here to read the published report directly. It is hard to imagine Marianne Gingrich revealing anything more damning than what she said in August 2010.

Marianne Gingrich granted an interview to Esquire in 2010 in which she said of her former husband, in part,

“Newt always wanted to be somebody,” she says. “That was his vulnerability, do you understand? Being treated important. Which means he was gonna associate with people who would stroke him, and were important themselves. And in that vulnerability, once you go down that path and it goes unchecked, you add to it. Like, ‘Oh, I’m drinking, who cares?’ Then you start being a little whore, ’cause that comes with drinking. That’s what corruption is — when you’re too exhausted, you’re gonna go with your weakness. So when we see corruption, we shouldn’t say, ‘They’re all corrupt.’ Rather, we should say, ‘At what point did you decide that? And why? Why were you vulnerable?’ ”
[…]
Though Gingrich had made history and achieved extraordinary power, he still felt like an outsider, and the hatred touched something primal inside him. “All he wanted was to be accepted into the country club,” Marianne says. “And he arrives at the country club and he’s just not welcome. ‘Yeah, but I belong here,’ he said. ‘I earned my way to this. I earned it.’ ”

Next came the government shutdown of late 1995, which so alarmed the country that the poll numbers for Republicans went into a steep overnight decline. “Newt’s shocked, doesn’t know what to do,” Marianne says. “He’s like, ‘Whoa, wait, wait! This isn’t just my fault! We need to work this out!’ ”

Greta Van Susteren weighed in on Drudge’s “siren” with this in her GRETAWIRE:

This is not to say that news should be suppressed (it should not) but news should also not be used to ambush. Thus…in light of the close time to the South Carolina primary…if I were ABC, I would hold this interview until after the polls close on Saturday (or I would have showed it a week ago.)

Politico released a letter by Gingrich’s two daughters in their “Marianne Gingrich Speaks” article along with this,

But Drudge’s siren-headlined bulletin – his splash came a day after the 14-year anniversary of him breaking word of the Lewinsky scandal — ensures much more focus on [the] interview by the rest of the press.

The New York Times, in its “Gingrich Camp Responds to Ex-Wife’s Interview” article published the following,

Marianne Gingrich, the second of Mr. Gingrich’s former wives, was married to him for 18 years. After they divorced, Mr. Gingrich married his current wife, the former Callista Bisek, with whom he admitted conducting a lengthy affair while he was still married.

Word of the interview was leaked to The Drudge Report, which reported on Wednesday afternoon that a debate was taking place within ABC over whether it was fair to broadcast it so close to the crucial primary in South Carolina on Saturday.

An ABC source confirmed there was disagreement over the timing of the interview, which was conducted by Brian Ross of the investigative unit, which operates separately from the political news division.

The push-back on ABC from the Gingrich campaign was in the form of a letter signed by Mr. Gingrich’s two daughters from his first marriage, Kathy Lubbers and Jackie Cushman, who regularly accompany him on the stump.
[…]
An ABC News spokesman confirmed Wednesday night that “Nightline” will broadcast the interview at 11:35 p.m. Thursday; excerpts will be released earlier in the day, before a Republican debate sponsored by CNN on Thursday evening.
[…]
At ABC’s competitors like CBS and CNN, executives scrambled to figure out if someone at their own shop had scored a big scoop.

Just after 7 p.m., as the evening newscasts ended, the Web site revealed that it was ABC that had interviewed Ms. Gingrich.

The Drudge Report declared that there was a “civil war” inside ABC News about when to run the interview, though if there was, it was a short and bloodless one.

[emphasis added]

NOTE: It is the hope of the Mitt Romney Central team that ABC News will take a very responsible, fair, and truthful approach to their editing of anything Ms. Gingrich said. Reports indicate the interview lasted two hours. After accounting for TV commercials, the net broadcast time of the Nightline show is approximately 23 minutes total (normally divided among three segments). Even if ABC News takes the entire 23 minutes for this broadcast, they will edit out over 80% of it. With so little time left before voting in the primary, Team MRC hopes that whatever ABC News chooses to report is fair and not taken out of context.

Just prior to publishing this post, National Review Online reported this in “The Corner,” that the Gingrich campaign “will fight back” and then also later they “predict that Gingrich will likely ignore the story.” This is the last paragraph of the NRO post:

ABC News wanted Gingrich to come on Nightline to offer a rebuttal of sorts but Gingrich’s advisers declined. “This is a sideshow, a distraction,” the third source says. “Is it helpful? No. But is it a game-changer? No.”

Obviously this story will be all over the news today. Stay tuned. There is a very good chance that there is nothing new in the interview and that any hype associated with the Thursday teases will be nothing more than teases. In typical Matt Drudge style though, he gotten a lot of people to sit up and pay attention.

“Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.” – Helen Keler

“Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable than fidelity. Faithfulness and truth are the most sacred excellences and endowments of the human mind.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero

,

Gingrich: A Michael Moore Lemming, Heading into History as a Byword

Newt Gingrich Schooling Audience


If Ronald Reagan were alive and in attendance at last night’s debate, he likely would have reacted to Mr. Gingrich’s condescending remarks with, “Now there you go again Newt!”

Seeing Gingrich spread his arms, drop his chin to his chest, look down his nose at everyone, and say something like, — “Bret, you should have phrased that question in a more intelligent way, you simpleton” – makes for some entertainment, nothing more; it certainly does not add to the national deliberation of critical issues.

The mainstream media (yes, including FOX) want Gingrich and the others to keep running to elongate the race for ratings (cash) and drama. The simple proof was the post debate grilling of Romney by Hannity and his fawning over Gingrich not three minutes later, all the while effusively patting themselves on the back, declaring that FOX debate “the best ever!” Whatever respect I had left for Hannity evaporated completely last night.

The relentless attacks on Romney revealed a side of Governor Romney the world had not seen much before last night. He was strong but not overbearing. He displayed a disciplined intensity by answering the attacks as a graceful, patient gentleman. His stature was that of a supremely confident leader, undeterred by petty slander. In a word, Governor Romney was presidential. All the others appeared as ankle biters by comparison.

Governor Romney cited Michael Moore (referring to Gingrich) as quoted in The New York Times yesterday,

“I wondered who they stole from my crew,” Mr. Moore said in a phone interview. “It was fun to hear what I have been saying for 20 years, not just by any Republican candidate, but Newt Gingrich.”

Newt Gingrich will undoubtedly be quoted many times by Mr. Moore in his future propaganda. Yes, Gingrich is sealing his legacy in conservative circles — he will forever be known for doing his level best to degrade long held conservative principles of free enterprise as he selfishly attempts to exact revenge on Governor Romney.

Marc Thiessen of The Washington Post wrote of Gingrich,

When they meet in the green room before Monday night’s debate in South Carolina, Mitt Romney should probably give Newt Gingrich a big thank you. In just a few days’ time, Gingrich has managed has to do something Romney has tried and failed to do for more than five years: rally conservatives behind Mitt Romney.

Rush Limbaugh has called Gingrich’s attacks on Romney’s record at Bain Capital “indefensible,” “sad,” “absurd,” and “the language of leftists like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone.” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola declared them “disgusting” and called on Gingrich to “apologize to Governor Romney.” The Wall Street Journal wrote that those like Gingrich attacking Romney’s business record “are embarrassing themselves” and “taking the Obama line.”

As I have said many times in this forum, I don’t believe Mr. Gingrich the professor, is really that bright, contrary to what he thinks of himself and what others say of him. Why? Probably one of the biggest reasons Gingrich is failing in South Carolina is because the state is one of the few states that has very strict gambling laws on the books, which restrict gaming of all kinds — a fact South Carolinians are proud of. The source of funding Gingrich’s PAC is a Las Vegas casino owner — a fact that is offensive to voters of South Carolina. How smart do you have to be to avoid such a rookie error in seeking wealth from a gambling man?

I never thought Gingrich believed he could be a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States. His motivation has always been speaking fees inflated by continued fame and enhanced by book sales. Make no mistake, Newt Gingrich is a very wealthy man.

Joseph Curl of The Washington Times says it best in this article he titled, Goodbye, Newt, and Good Riddance:

Anyone who knows Newt Gingrich knows that Newt Gingrich is — and always has been — all about Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich doesn’t give a damn about the Republican Party. And Newt Gingrich sure doesn’t care about ousting President Obama, unless he’s doing the ousting. If Newt Gingrich can’t be the nominee, then Newt Gingrich will burn the whole place to the ground.

And that’s just what he’s done since plunging in the polls. Furious over the TV ads the pro-Romney super PAC ran against him in Iowa, Mr. Gingrich abandoned his pledge not to speak ill of his fellow Republicans and struck out on a course to destroy the Republican front-runner.

In one of many odd utterances, the former House speaker acknowledged as much in the run-up to the New Hampshire primary: “My real goal was to make sure that Romney did not win here by a big enough margin to develop real momentum.” Simple: Take Mr. Romney down, even if it brings down the entire Republican Party.
[...]
Mr. Gingrich’s descent into the nasty should surprise no one; the corpulent, thrice-married former speaker is clearly a man who cannot control his appetites. His decision to split for a vacation in the Greek islands during the first days of his campaign prompted his campaign team to resign en masse, leaving the candidate so rudderless he couldn’t even get on the ballot for some state primaries.

Without a disciplined team of advisers around him, Mr. Gingrich’s true character has shone through. Newt’s facade as an avuncular, even-tempered man of moderation has given way to the true Newt: angry, impulsive, irrational, undisciplined.
[...]
Here’s the fallout of Mr. Gingrich’s scorched-earth campaign for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination: The former speaker has lost his position as de facto head of the Republican Party — forever . . .

Yes, Mr. Gingrich’s continued presence in the national limelight is entertainment at best. It is sad to witness a man of his previous stature being reduced to a byword before our eyes.

“I am in love with you’, I responded. He laughed the most beguiling and gentle laugh. ‘Of course you are,’ he replied. ‘I understand perfectly because I’m in love with myself. The fact that I’m not transfixed in front of the nearest mirror takes a great deal of self-control.’ It was my turn to laugh.” ― Anne Rice, Blackwood Farm

“When the healthy pursuit of self-interest and self-realization turns into self-absorption, other people can lose their intrinsic value in our eyes and become mere means to the fulfillment of our needs and desires.” ― P.M. Forni, The Civility Solution: What to Do When People Are Rude

,
,

In Peach State, Rick Perry has a Pinocchio Problem



Rick Perry was in metro Atlanta today and his traveling companion, Pinocchio, wasn’t far behind

Governor Perry is desperate to shift attention away from his liberal policies that encourage illegal immigration. His repeated use of distortions and fabrications on the campaign trail shows that Rick Perry can’t be trusted to tell the truth.” – Ryan Williams, Romney Spokesperson

Rick Perry’s Pinocchio shadow: Inferring that Mitt Romney implemented Cap-And-Trade in Massachusetts. PERRY: “Another state – Massachusetts – was one of the first states to implement its own cap-and-trade program which included limits on carbon emissions for power plants.” (Rick Perry, Remarks, Atlanta, GA, 9/30/11)

The truth: Romney did not implement Cap-And-Trade in Massachusetts. “Former Gov. Mitt Romney opted out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in 2005, saying it could drive up energy costs for consumers.” (Steve LeBlanc, “Massachusetts Governor Patrick Signs First Multistate Greenhouse Gas Initiative,” The Associated Press, 1/18/07)

Romney’s Democratic successor – not Romney – signed the state on to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. “Deval Patrick making good on a campaign pledge, signed an agreement Thursday committing Massachusetts to the nation’s first multistate program to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.” (Steve LeBlanc, “Massachusetts Governor Patrick Signs First Multistate Greenhouse Gas Initiative,” The Associated Press, 1/18/07)

• “Former Gov. Mitt Romney Declined To Sign The Agreement In 2005 Because He Said It Would Lead To Higher Energy Costs.” (“Patrick Signs Up Bay State For Battle Vs. Global Warming,” The Lowell Sun, 1/21/07)

UPDATE – ‘Heartless’ Georgia Republicans question Perry’s tuition subsidies for illegal immigrants:

Attorney General Sam Olens: “Our country has a problem with illegal immigration. Programs like Rick Perry’s in-state tuition breaks for illegal immigrants only make it worse. Instead of providing special benefits for illegal immigrants, our nominee must be someone who will secure the border and end incentives for illegal immigration.”

State Representative Bruce Williamson: “Why does Rick Perry support tuition breaks for illegal immigrants that aren’t available to legal American citizens? It is clear that he is not committed to stopping the incentives that have created our illegal immigration problem. In order to stop illegal immigration, we must have a president who has a record of enforcing immigration laws, not one who has a record creating policies that encourage illegal immigration.”

State Representative Wendell Willard: “Why is Rick Perry in favor of taxpayer subsidies for illegal immigrants? Programs such as his tuition breaks for illegal immigrants only make the problem worse by providing incentives for people to break the law. It makes no sense to use taxpayer dollars to fund benefits for illegal immigrants over Americans from out-of-state.”

State Representative Lynne Riley: “Rick Perry’s support for in-state tuition does not line up with the values of Georgia voters. Georgians support enforcing immigration laws, securing our border, and stopping the practices that draw illegal immigrants to our country. Providing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants incentivizes illegal immigration and makes it harder for our country to stop a growing problem.”



► Jayde Wyatt

Page 1 of 212