Topic: Newt Vs. Mitt

[IronDioPriest]

This about sums up what I think.

How did it come to this...?

[trapeze]

Not that I'm defending Gingrich...I'm not...but this was posted this morning at HotAir.

There is something truly obscene about the full blown assault on Newt Gingrich’s strong Reagan conservative history from and on behalf of Mitt Romney, who unabashedly ran away from the Reagan legacy and conservative principles in his 1994 Senate campaign and 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Truly obscene.

The latest iteration comes from Elliott Abrams writing in National Review, quoting pieces of a single speech Newt apparently gave on the floor of the House on March 21, 1986, in which Newt criticized certain foreign policy decisions of the Reagan administration. Abrams does not link to the full speech or to other speeches of Newt at the time.

Instead much of the anti-Newt conservative media — including a screaming Drudge banner — accuses Newt of “insulting” Reagan.  It is part of a smear campaign which started when Newt surged in Iowa and National Review unloaded with it’s infamous “Marvin the Maritan” issue, and now it has resurfaced once again now that Romney is in electoral trouble.

A more honest assessment comes from Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator.  Lord, who was in a position to know because he witnessed first hand Newt’s interaction with Reagan, has written a critical column, Reagan’s Young Lieutenant,  Much like Byron York’s column debunking Romney attacks regarding Newt’s ethics charges, Lord’s column is a critical contribution to the truth in a sea of shameless lies.

Plus Politico has a story about what looks very much like a coordinated attack yesterday.

Additionally, there is this post which reveals that the "Newt bashes Reagan" video clip is selectively edited to make it look worse than it is.

[trapeze]

But hey, wouldn't it be great if by some miracle (because that's what it would be) Rick Santorum won Florida?

[IronDioPriest]

Not that I'm defending Gingrich...I'm not...but this was posted this morning at HotAir.

There is something truly obscene about the full blown assault on Newt Gingrich’s strong Reagan conservative history from and on behalf of Mitt Romney, who unabashedly ran away from the Reagan legacy and conservative principles in his 1994 Senate campaign and 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Truly obscene.

The latest iteration comes from Elliott Abrams writing in National Review, quoting pieces of a single speech Newt apparently gave on the floor of the House on March 21, 1986, in which Newt criticized certain foreign policy decisions of the Reagan administration. Abrams does not link to the full speech or to other speeches of Newt at the time.

Instead much of the anti-Newt conservative media — including a screaming Drudge banner — accuses Newt of “insulting” Reagan.  It is part of a smear campaign which started when Newt surged in Iowa and National Review unloaded with it’s infamous “Marvin the Maritan” issue, and now it has resurfaced once again now that Romney is in electoral trouble.

A more honest assessment comes from Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator.  Lord, who was in a position to know because he witnessed first hand Newt’s interaction with Reagan, has written a critical column, Reagan’s Young Lieutenant,  Much like Byron York’s column debunking Romney attacks regarding Newt’s ethics charges, Lord’s column is a critical contribution to the truth in a sea of shameless lies.

Plus Politico has a story about what looks very much like a coordinated attack yesterday.

Additionally, there is this post which reveals that the "Newt bashes Reagan" video clip is selectively edited to make it look worse than it is.

Yup. As I said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdBcsdk8pEY#

[Alphabet Soup]

The harder they try to push me in directions I do not wish to go, the more forcefully I will resist. It is distressing to note that I am not referring to dhimmicrats but to members of my erstwhile party.

[Libertas]

Still playing the MFM's games, that's how we got here!

 

[IronDioPriest]

I've had it. I just can't bring myself to get behind either one of these bastards. There are only two people on that debate stage with integrity and honesty, and that's Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, and I don't think either one of them have the presidential mojo.

[charlesoakwood]

Santorum voted against open shops, he said he did it because his state was closed shop.  
He endorsed Arlen Specter, he said he did it because party leadership wanted Arlen Specter.  
Honest answers yes.  Integrity, I don't know.  Unions, as they are today, are un-American
and a closed shop is an anti-American ticket to a failed state.  And endorsing a liberal over
a conservative because he has tenure at "the club" garners no merit.

Kansas City Star
And he said he voted against right-to-work legislation only because his state was against it.

Bloomberg
Santorum also wasn’t as reflexively anti-union as some Republicans, perhaps because he waged his first House campaign in 1990 in a Democratic-leaning, working-class congressional district in the Pittsburgh area.

In 1993, Santorum was one of 17 House Republicans who sided with most Democrats in backing a Clinton administration bill to protect striking employees from being permanently replaced by their employers.

Santorum’s Senate service shows a clear track record of supporting the Davis-Bacon Act, the federal law that requires government contractors to pay workers the local prevailing wage (USMMMNCH) and a perennial target for elimination by the business community and anti-union Tea Party activists.

And the affects of the Specter endorsement:

How disastrous was Specter prevailing over Toomey in 2004?

In April 2009, Specter switched parties giving the Democrats a 60th vote in the Senate when Al Franken was declared the winner in Minnesota and sworn in after court challenges in July 2009.

Specter put that vote to good use casting the 60th vote for cloture on Obamacare in late December 2009.
...
The historical fact is that if Pat Toomey wins in 2004, Democrats never get to 60 in 2009, and we never get Obamacare.  Santorum helped defeat Toomey.

Update: How close did Toomey come? He lost by just 17,146 votes out of over 1,044,000 cast in the primary.  Santorum’s endorsement mattered.

Rick Santorum says Arlen Specter is an important member of the Bush team

[Glock32]

When you're $17T in debt, 1/3 of it belonging to the current president in just his first term, and no one is even pretending to be serious about ever paying it off or staunching the bleeding, none of this dog and pony show amounts to a hill of beans anyway. I take a bizarre sort of solace in the inevitability of the looming disaster, it's sort of a "reality trumps all" thing.

[Pandora]

Mitt:  3:09", It's not worth getting angry about.   HUH?!  WHAAAAT?!?

Santorum V. Romney on Health Care

[charlesoakwood]

Romney's correct.  The Federal government mandates that medical facilities,
Hospitals, cannot decline service to anyone.  That means the taxpayer pays
for every unpaid visit, whether it's aspirin, maternity, or extensive surgery.

He is explaining an attempt to get freeloaders off the taxpayer's back
and not upset the federal edict.  This should be accompanied with a photo
ID card (driver's license).

Yeah, I can see that vein in forehead popping up.

[Pandora]

Damn straight you can.  And with good gawdamn reason.  Which, if I have to go into here, ain't worth 'splainin'.

[charlesoakwood]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CwY3WCNEwR8#!

[charlesoakwood]

Link

Mark Levin: Newt did more for the conservative movement than virtually all of his critics today

“Newt Gingrich, if he does nothing else, did more for the conservative movement and to stop the liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives than virtually everybody today who is criticizing him!”
Listen to the full segment. It is excellent: Link

[Sectionhand]

During the Reagan Administration Elliott Abrams was in a vantage point to have a clear view of where Gingrich stood and how he did or didn't support administration policy .

[Libertas]

That's true SH.  I am no hardcore rah-rah guy for Newt, he has his failings, which we all know.  But Elliott and others are being a bit too coy in how they attack Newt...it's easy to take a person out of their time, place and station and project that against common recorded history.  It makes it difficult to attack the attacker on facts and deflects attention away from context.  Newt was a bomb-throwing back-bencher that very few Republicans on either end the political spectrum was comfortable with.  He wanted to shake things up, he saw the Reagan Revolution as an opportunity for greater revolutionary ideas, and that was right in his wheelhouse.  He saw a way to capitalize on all the big themes which resulted in the Contract for America and capturing the House for the first time in 40 years.  Finding policy differences with anybody, friend or foe, is easy.  Heck, there were things Reagan did I wish he didn't do!  But you pick your battles.

We knew long ago that this crop of candidates as is contained people with flaws, but is torks me off that we and the candidates are so easily baited and trapped by the Leftists...we have Establishment Repubs and power-brokers from the past coming out slamming Newt because he's currently the lead dog and it is customary to whip the lead dog down till they are sufficiently shamed into acceptance of their assigned station.

The Left is enjoying the hell out of this drama and they are hoping the mess drags into the convention and results in dozens of votes before a candidate can be selected.

So far we appear to be dutifully marching to the Leftist drumbeat quite nicely.

[Sectionhand]

The Left is enjoying the hell out of this drama and they are hoping the mess drags into the convention and results in dozens of votes before a candidate can be selected.

So far we appear to be dutifully marching to the Leftist drumbeat quite nicely.

It's most certainly true that the left is loving the apparent disarray with-in Republican ranks . That disarray is our own fault and candidates campaigning against each other rather than against Stymie is the root cause . I've said before that they should be spending 90% of their time hammering Stymie and 10% showing how their programs (if they have one) will be most effective for the country . This business of throwing mud at each other like truculent school boys is unseemly at best and at worst horribly counterproductive to the ultimate goal which should be winning the White House back from that Marxist son-of-a-bitch .

[Libertas]

During the Reagan Administration Elliott Abrams was in a vantage point to have a clear view of where Gingrich stood and how he did or didn't support administration policy .

Oh oh, Rush is deconstructing Abrams' article, sounds like he got punked and didn't bother checking his facts and merely regurgitated somebody elses (Romney's) dirty work.  Looks like my contextual concerns were spot on.

Here is the article Rush is citing -

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/elliott-abrams-caught-misleadi

[Libertas]

The other thing pissing me off is Glenn Beck, he got bitchy with callers today because they are upset over his attacks on Newt.  He throws out the false flag that he is not a Romney guy, any listener knows Glenn favors Santorum and would take even Paul over either Newt or Romney, but he goes off on how much he is not a Romney guy but fails to realize his attacks serve Romney's purpose.  He may think it is possible to smear both Newt and Mitt and this somehow opens the door for Santorum to march in as the GOP savior BUT IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

If all these attacks stick and we get stuck with Willard, it's because all the Newt bashers let it happen.  The sooner this ends the sooner we can get on with whacking Obama over the head, until then I am getting damned tired of this crap!  Pretty much illustrates the struggle in the GOP and solidifies my belief that this party is merely acting out its last days.

These SOB's saddle me with Romney, they'll deserve 4 more years of that sh*thead Obama!

[charlesoakwood]

Pretty much illustrates the struggle in the GOP and solidifies my belief that this party is merely acting out its last days.