I heard this data read on Mark Levin this afternoon, and picked it up from the CNN PoliticalTicker blog by way of Lucianne.
I’ll provide the nothing shy of jaw-dropping stats below… how you choose to absorb this ugly reality about election campaigns and negative advertising is, of course, completely up to you.
Me? To use the “he who dies with the most toys…” old saying, paraphrased, obviously he who has the most money for a campaign, combined with the least scruples, wins.
Statistics provided by the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG).
“I spent much of my academic career telling reporters, ‘Relax, this is not the most negative campaign ever,'” CMAG President Ken Goldstein said. “Well, this IS the most negative campaign ever.”
Numbers from CMAG show a total of 11,586 television spots aired in Florida between January 23 and January 29. [Mata Musing: that’s 1655 per day, or close to one every minute of a 24 hour period… no wonder my relatives were complaining…] Of those spots, 10,633 were negative and 953 were positive.
Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich’s campaign ran, 95% were negative. Mitt Romney’s campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.
The two super PACs supporting the top candidates were more divergent in their ad strategies. Restore our Future, supporting Romney, ran 4,969 spots, all of which were negative. The Gingrich-backing Winning our Future ran 1,893 spots, and only 53% were negative.
Correspondingly, the bulk of ads in Florida – 68% – were negative toward Gingrich. Twenty-three percent were anti-Romney spots. Gingrich got support from 9% of ads while pro-Romney spots accounted for less than 0.1%.
With these stats, the lesson learned is that Romney never won by positive campaigning… only by tearing down his opponent. How Obama’esque of him…. I’ve already got a POTUS with this version of ethics. Do I really want to replace him with another, just because he fakes an “R” behind his name?
Romney, of course, was busy playing the victim, whining like a little kid to his Mom, pointing fingers saying “he started it!” in reference to Newt. Unfortunately, that’s not how it went.
It was Romney’s well timed onslaught of SuperPac spending in Iowa that crashed Newt’s momentum there. Romney also outspent Newt 2 to 1 in South Carolina. Florida? Well, the above tells the story.
Needless to say, Romney’s feigned innocence and cries of “victim”, after outspending Gingrich four to one, are somewhat disingenuous to put it mildly.
In fact, as of Jan 10th, 96% of the SuperPACs’ spending on negative ads were targeting Gingrich. It’s amazing the guy’s gotten as far as he has, vacillating between being the front runner and in second both in the state, and nationally. As of the 20th of January, the SuperPAC spending had clicked up to about $33 million (both positive and negative of all candidates), with Romney leading the pack with $11 million, or 1/3rd of all SuperPAC spending alone.
While Mitt’s busy spending money, hands over fists, to destroy his competitor, what will he have left to defend himself again Obama’s massive war chest in the general? If Romney is, today, gloating over a win based on buying a State Primary with negative ads, saying they served him well, he’s got little hope of out spending Obama in the general.
There’s no money back guarantee on a Mittens candidacy if or when he loses to Obama when cast as the heartless, soul’less capitalist pig. The man who is the epitome of everything that Obama rails against. We sure know that health care will be off the table, since Romney was the architect of Obama’care. Mandates that force citizens to buy a product, simply because they live and breathe, are no more Constitutional at the state level than they are at the federal. Our inalienable rights do not stop at State boundaries.
Meanwhile, for some primary return fun, the folks over at ABC have decided to publish their predictions of by just how much Newt would be losing to Romney in Florida, in percentages ranging from 7-8% to 28%. It’s 6:41PM PT, and the cable news has called the election for Romney at 47%/Gingrich with 32% with 81% of the vote in (ever changing). Guess they’ll have to wait to declare the winner.
Wonder if they’re running a pool for cash…
AMY WALTER – ABC News Political Director
Romney- 45%
Newt- 29%
Santorum- 14%
Paul- 12%JONATHAN KARL – ABC News Senior Political Correspondent
Romney – 41%
Gingrich – 28%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 11%RICK KLEIN – Senior Washington Editor
Romney – 45%
Gingrich – 27%
Paul – 15%
Santorum – 11%Z. BYRON WOLF – Politics Editor for ABC News.com
Romney – 37%
Gingrich – 27%
Santorum – 12 %
Paul – 12 %Eric Noe – ABCNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
Romney: 43%
Gingrich: 29%
Santorum: 16%
Paul: 12%SHUSHANNAH WALSHE – ABC News Digital Reporter
Mitt Romney – 36 %
Newt Gingrich – 29 %
Rick Santorum – 15%
Ron Paul – 13%GEORGE SANCHEZ – ABC News Washington, DC Assignment Editor
Romney – 49%
Gingrich – 21%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 12%ELIZABETH HARTFIELD – ABC News Political Unit
Romney- 41%
Gingrich- 28%
Santorum- 14%
Paul- 11%CHRIS GOOD – ABC News Political Unit
Romney – 38%
Gingrich – 30%
Santorum – 12%
Paul – 11%MATT NEGRIN – ABC News Political Reporter
Romney – 36%
Gingrich – 29%
Paul – 17%
Santorum – 15%AMY BINGHAM – ABC News.com Reporter
Romney- 43%
Gingrich- 28%
Santorum- 12%
Paul- 9%SARAH PARNASS – ABC News Intern
Romney – 46%
Gingrich – 27%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 11%ALEXA KEYES – ABC News Intern
Romney -44%
Gingrich – 29%
Santorum -14%
Paul – 11%
We have a problem, folks. While I support the voters’ right to choose via elections, even if not my candidate of choice, the amount of money and the sleazy tactics that have permeated our process are beyond alarming. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t celebrate the primary results, as it’s going now.
It turns out that all we feared may be true, as it plays out before our very eyes and with documented facts… that offices of our central government are, indeed, for sale to the highest bidder with those with the most creative lies.
A “must read” … C. Edmund Wright’s American Thinker article 2/1/12 – “Mitt’s Scorched Earth Win”.
Another “must”…Thomas Sowell’s primary day column, “The Florida Smear Campaign”
George Neumayr’s American Thinker article, “Romney’s Cheap and Empty Win”… tho I might disagree as to how “cheap” it was in a monetary perspective.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
H.R. Dang, H.R. You got a mouth that would shame a Marine boot at P.I.
Obviously(see #105) you’ve had little schooling as a lady.
Semper Fi
Richard Wheeler
lay of my friends, you have enough work to do on your own grammmar;
now take the blow like a MARINE CAN, WITHOUT THE REPLY TO HIS SUPERIOR,
AND NOW STAND UP STRAIGHT and salute.
bye
Richard Wheeler
what Donald Bly said, might not happen because the DEMOCRATS ARE SO SCARED BY THE OBAMA GANG, THEY won’t find the guts to talk because they are to full of themselves and want to keep their job,
they couldn’t care less FOR AMERICANS, THEY couldn’t care less of what AMERICA IS ABOUT, THEY FAILED AMERICA.
Ms Bees As a former Marine Captain I’m happy to salute my superiors. But H.R.? Be serious.
Off subject Will an endorsement from “The Donald” in L.V. help anyone other than ‘The Donald”? IMO Mitt should ignore it,same as when he ignored Trump’s debate.
@Richard Wheeler:
How so?
(I think we would have a big problem if we told people how they could or couldn’t spend their money, but that’s just me)
Your selective analysis is noted, Gaffa. While I disagree that a vague spread of 7-8 points to 28 points translates to “remarkably accurate”, I see you had to dance around the fact that every one of them underestimated Newt. As I said, considering that 92% plus of all negative ads target Newt specifically, the fact that he’s a strong second, and a sweep in a red state like SC are a trend they wish to ignore… that the movement for any one but Romney is quite strong. *And* that for Newt to still remain so strong in the face of that paid slander storm is a testament to his appeal. Santorum and Paul have been left virtually untouched by comparison, and yet they don’t come close to Newt’s numbers in red or swing states.
NH and IA? Both predominantly blue states likely to be in Obama’s tally at the end of the day anyway. I might as well use Oregon’s small percentage of conservatives as a barometer.
@gary kukis, twice you have expressed disappointment in Gingrich’s response (I assume to the Florida primary?) as “pathetic” or “played like a fiddle”. Pray tell, what specifically do you find “pathetic” and being “the fiddle”? Can’t address such vague observations.
rich, if you examine the race results of 1976, you’d see that the ensuing races in the following states could have altered the outcome either way. Reagan won 11 of the primaries following Florida. Ford won 13. Had the results been reversed, or the more delegate heavy states swung a different way, the outcome would also have been reversed.
Thus the point Missy was making – and apparently zipped right over your head because you are impatient to crown the easiest guy for Obama to beat – was that the winner of the Indy 500 is not decided by who is leading in the 30th lap, but only after the other 470 laps are also run.
@Donald Bly, considering the fiscal woes of the nation, challenging instability in the Middle East, and rising powers of socialist regimes in South America, I think that spending a high profile effort on impeachment – instead of getting the Blue Dogs to get off the Pelosi/Reid reservation to reverse some very dangerous spending trends and needed reform entitlements – is a huge mistake. I still shake my head that most believe the greatest power lies in the Executive Branch, and not the Legislative Branch.
An Obama WH has three effective years, since the 4th lame duck year is traditionally frozen in campaign battles. A GOP majority Congress… even along the modest majority numbers of the mid 90s… can be effective in moving the country towards the right, despite a Dem in the WH. Newt proved this to be quite possible.
Instead of playing offense against what will eventually be a neutered POTUS, they should be creating a formidable union with the Blue Dogs, who are more fiscally sane than their leadership.
Nan, negative campaigning has been around since there was politics, so not to be unexpected. And yup… there are genuine purposes in doing so. The obvious agenda is to get the win, even if done by lying, because negative ads have been proven effective over and over.
It becomes especially prolific in our Info Age society because one need only plant the seeds a few days before a vote, it goes viral, and the lies don’t get disseminated from the truth until it is too late.
The largest issue is what to do about it. Educated voters are absolutely the most important key. Unfortunately the voters use the media to get that education, and rarely have the time and interest to get both sides of the coin – despite the fact it’s easily available. That’s because it is time consuming.
The largest problem is that the media, themselves, play the “negative ad” game, disguising their ads as “news” or “commentary”.
Agenda driven reporters will always dig up some personal tidbit against a candidate (sometimes related to issues of concern, and more often not), that a candidate will have to respond to. You can not take away their 1st Amendment rights. And it is too bad that journalist ethics are all but in the toilet.
Then again, the free market response to their obvious lack of ethics is the overt voters’ distrust and distaste for the media – a reality which tends to make them very defensive. Media types differ little from the political animals they cover… when any of their own in the industry are attacked, they circle the wagons because they place far more importance upon themselves – as a group, despite differing views – than the nation’s voters themselves. The elitist attitude is not confined to just the elected ones.
You can, however address how such accusations are responded to, and limit the spread and inflammation of the attacks. And that is the second largest issue – to look at how candidates get their cash, and who controls their message, or responses to media accusations.
It’s a dicey situation, but my philosophy is that a candidate, *alone*, should be in charge of his ad messaging… not third parties. I’m not interested in hearing how my neighbors, organizations, or unions promote a candidate via paid ads. I’m not voting for them. I’m interested in how the candidate promotes himself. If any of the 3rd party entities wish to lend themselves as an endorsement, or their cash, thru the messages controlled by the candidate, that’s fine. But I’m quite tired of having virtually everyone but the candidate control what’s out there on them, their issues and their candidacy.
How that can be achieved, *without infringing on 1st Amendment rights*, needs to be more thoroughly explored.
@Richard Wheeler, I know this is difficult for you, but please stop being so petty and arrogant. If you don’t like what HR is saying, that’s one thing. But it always falls to this predictable assault that one is superior to another in the use of language and grammar.
As demonstrated on another thread, with your particular use of phrasing… remember that “unlike you, Mata” moment?… you’re hardly one to be schooling others here. And, in fact, I’d say that HR was far more concise in relating his point that you apparently were with your “unlike you, Mata” moment. A clear understanding of what the other is saying takes priority.
Bees, it seems rich is a Murtha type Marine. Classless and proud to be part of a group that harms America and it’s people.
Minarchist,
yes you’re right, BUT if they keep spreading lies on and on toward their opponent,
they should be judge as ARROGANT CRUEL SOB WHO WOULD BE UNFIT TO RUN AMERICA,
AND VOTED OUT, NOT TO WIN AS FLORIDA DID,
Aqua #73 Thanks. I always enjoy your reasoned and intelligent commentary.When I said that to Word there was concern it would hurt his street cred in the F.A. community. He seems to have weathered any storm.
Reasonable people should be able to communicate civily and find solutions for the challenges that face our great country.
Couple of suggestions Term limits for all.”Politician” should never be a chosen profession.
Reinstate the draft. ALL should have skin in this.Yellow ribbons on your car not enough.
Abolish the IRS and initiate a Fair Tax system.Rather than fight over % to pay,pay on consumption.
Protect the Civil Rights of all and stand for Human Rights where possible.
Protect the land, the oceans and the environment we live in. It’s all we got.
Thanks again. Good luck to Jimbo. We all mourn the loss and respect the achievements of the great Joe Pa.
@Mata
if you add up all those predictions and divide by 13, you’ll find their predicted gap between Romney and Gingrich was 14 percent – same as the result. Yes they are all under for Gingrich, but then 11 of 13 of them underestimated the percentage Romney got. This is because they thought Paul and Santorum would do better.
And I don’t understand the complaints about Romney’s negative ads. Gingrich was giving out negative ads and playing dirty during Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina – more so than Romney. So when this started to work in South Carolina Romney changed his gameplan and dramatically upped the negative ad campaigns against Gingrich. To fight fire with fire. He stepped into the gutter where Gingrich already was. To bitch about that now – or that Romney is spending more on negative ads is like the Nazi complaining that the allied bombed their cities x5 when it was they who started the bombing of UK cities. So Gingrich should stop whining if he is getting a taste of his own medicine and some:)
This is the problem with those who choose to weigh in, sans any facts. The negatives began by Romney in IA – Newt, on the other hand, had nothing negative until late in Dec when he responded in SC, while Romney continued the negatives also in SC… to the tune of 2 to 1 to Newt. Romney then swamped Newt in Florida, 5 or 6 to 1.
And you have the naivety to say that Newt “started” this and actually did “more”?
Gaffa = zero credibility. Facts simply do not support your fantasies.
@Richard Wheeler:
Gingrich isn’t going up against a sitting president.
Gingrich is finished. Trump’s endorsement of Romney will hurt Gingrich marginally in a Repub. race he already trails.
But here’s the kicker.Trump,egomaniac that he is, left OPEN the possibility he’ll run 3rd Party if Gingrich wins the nom. We all agree that would elect Obama.
Ya gotta love Politics.
Who in the heck cares who Trump the Chump endorses except for Trump?
Mata, re your comment’s conclusion to me at #111, yeah, but, as Voltaire kept pointing out to us all in Candide, this is (NOT) the best of all possible worlds.
In such an ideal world we would have a way to ignore what comes into our ears.
But the reality is we can’t.
Unless we’ve had some brain damage or are really doing something else using all our attention we will hear negative ads in this imperfect world.
I think we have brought the time between the lie and the debunking of that lie down to less-than-a-day.
Remember, it took three days when CBS lied about President Bush’s National Guard service with their Microsoft Word ”memo” from the 1960’s. LOL!
Now it only takes a few hours.
No more October Surprises will work.
But instead of railing against the idea of negative ads and how stopping them would affect our First Amendment rights, we should publish the debunking.
Nan, I neither “railed” against “the idea of negative ads”, nor believe you can eliminate them. I don’t believe in utopias, except those created for the big screen in Hollywood.
What I did rail against is the amount of money out of control of the candidates and their messages about themselves, being skewed because of campaign funds availability in the current McCain-Feingold environment. It’s always been a problem with money in politics. But this primary indicates this is a problem completely out of hand. This is an in-your-face purchase by he who has the most uncontrolled money, spent by special interest groups. And if anyone thinks Romney’s uncontrolled money is a lot, I assure you that Obama’s SuperPACs will dwarf any GOP nominee’s.
As I said, paid campaign ad messages – whether negative or positive – should be under the control of the candidates and not corporations, unions, and individuals bonding together to emulate them. This differs completely from what bloggers and media, as individuals exercising their 1st Amendment rights, tend to opine positive or negative.
And I couldn’t disagree more, as both Iowa and Florida have proven that “October” last minute surprises will continue to work just fine even in the Info Age. Cain is another example… the lasting impression to this day is one of assumed guilt. It’s the same as the original negative campaign ad to begin with… which “debunking” has the most resources to spread the rebuttal wider and faster.
LINCOLN LOVED THE LAUGH, HE USE TO HAVE BOOK OF IT,
a person yelled at LINCOLN
LINCOLN YOU HAVE 2 FACES, HE REPLY; If I had 2 faces, do you think I’d be wearing this one?
MATA
it was also mentioned that endorsement could hurt ROMNEY TOO TRUMP SAID MIT is tough smart and sharp,
that is the same and more for NEWT, SO why else, well he is building hotels in the GEORGIAN COUNTRY, the PRESIDENT WAS AT FOX saying, SO maybe he had endorsement from MITT ON THAT DEAL,
Bees, I’d say that Soros, flat out saying that having Romney or Obama in the WH would make no difference to liberals, is a more dangerous endorsement to Romney than Trump. Gingrich couldn’t have created a better attack ad himself….
Meanwhile, johnny-come-lately Lindsey Graham, comes out as one of those who supposedly “threw Newt out in disgrace”… untrue… and says they were “too hard” on Gingrich.
Ya think? The guy wasn’t guilty of the ethics charges, but they decided to make a scapegoat of him, charge beaucoup bucks for an undeserved penalty, and have been spinning it since. This group has no moral authority to complain about throwing people under a bus from here on out.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
That was a great line from Abe.
Got any more?
No one should be able to contribute to an election campaign unless they are a registered voter in the district of the election…. Last I checked… neither unions or corporations are able to register to vote! Course that works best at the local level to keep outside influences from buying seats in congress. Doesn’t help much at the national level… except the “registered voter” part.
Ya know, Donald Bly.. had a somewhat laughable thought. If we are all to accept that he-who-has/raises-the-most-campaign-money-and-SuperPACs-wins as our new way of elections, why not just have the candidates do the fund raising based on their schpiel, tally up the totals, anoint the guy with the most money and skip the election. Then take all the donated funds of both/all candidates and apply it directly to the debt and keep it completely out of the hands of Congress to redirect. LOL
MATA
yes of course as I thought when I read the ROMNEY’S OUT OF CONTROL ADDS AND TO SEE HIM GARGLE
SNEERING ON THE SIDE AGAINST NEWT GINGRICH WITH A CROOKED SMILE, TELLING A LOT ON HIM,
WAS A REVELATION AND A CONFIRMATION OF IF HE WIN, NOTHING WILL CHANGE,
EXCEPT A TWIN TAKING THE JOB OF HIS TWIN BROTHER,
BYE
Mata… you may be on to something there…. Madison Ave would scream bloody murder though…
Nan G
yes I liked it enough to bring it here, I read it at FOX A GUEST LADY, WHICH HAD MANY OF ABE
bye
Hard Right
I’m late to congratulate you on your smart 100 win comment
not easy to get with Rich Wheeler around.
bye
Thanks Bees. I’d like to thank my family for supporting me, me friends for always being there…
Mata, we could also have the candidates pick a champion and take it to Thunderdome. 2 men enter, one man leaves. Pay-Per-View of course.
@GaffaUK: You said:
This is patently false.
Sitting here watching Hannity press Romney in Nevada, asking him if he will be bold as POTUS. Sean Hannity does a really good job, but his insistence on playing it down the middle on this election is kinda befuddling.
It is almost as if he believes what Romney says.
But Sean was there when Newt took power in the mid 90s, so you know he is got to be doubting Romney.
@Mata
lol – Gingrich has always been negative towards his opponents…
Lipsman pointed out that Gingrich was the chairman of an organization that in 1990 mailed Republican legislative candidates a pamphlet urging them to use specific words against their opponents, such as “sick,” “traitors,” “bizarre,” “self-serving,” “shallow,” “corrupt,” “pathetic,” and “shame.”
Vilification works, Gingrich wrote in the pamphlet, called “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” which was was released by GOPAC when Gingrich was chairman.
And Lipsman noted a speech Gingrich gave to college Republicans in 1978 during his third bid for Congress, a race he won.
“And I think that one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the camp fire, but are lousy in politics,” Gingrich said at the time.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/22/is-newt-gingrichs-outrage-over-iowa-attack-ads-hypocritical-longtime-strategist-says-yes/
His outrage against negative campaigning is as phoney as his outrage against extra-martial, as phoney as his self-styled positioning as a Washington ‘outsider’, as phoney as his complaints about earmarks, as phoney as his attacks on Freddie Mac, as phoney as his attack on ‘flip-floppers’ and as phoney as his desire to clean up Washington’s corruption. When Gingrich points a finger – you know three fingers are pointing back at him. I guess you can’t see any hypocrisy in his values!
Still – what do you reckon the result will be in Nevada? Let’s see if you or the ABC are closer:)
Anticsrocks Pretty boy Sean has one goal; defeat Obama. He could care less who does it.
Rich Wheeler
yes TRUMP show his dirty side by saying he might run if another take the lead, that is vicious,
I’m sure he fell down in the mind of the people,
NEVADA, LET’S GIVE THAT PUNK A LESSON SO HE NEVER WILL FORGET, THAT THE PEOPLE DECIDE THEIR LEADERS, NOT JUST ONE CLASS OF THE SOCIETY,
LETS PROVE HIM WRONG.
GaffaUK
you should know that GINGRISH had a gift and was using it to work for the people not for those elected with
selfish intent to raise their profiles for themselves only,
so he made enemies by discarding them as they tried to stepped on him, one by one greedy and jealous of his position they where drooling to get him out, by any means they could.
@GaffaUK, Larry W already tried your “Newt is so nasty” meme… hilarious considering the rhetoric that comes out of the Dems. But instead of rehashing the same debunking, and tearing you a fresh new one, I’ll just give you the links to the pertinents, and a summary, and let you share Larry’s more spacious tear.
INRE the 1996 GOPAC memo, “A Key Mechanism of Control”, see my comment #27 in that thread.
You can read that supposedly “nasty” memo in total at that comment… with a list of words that have been traditionally used by Democrats in the prior years.
And all pales to the nastiest campaign waged in American history…. Democrat and sitting POTUS LBJ vs Goldwater. That’s where LBJ put out children’s coloring books with Goldwater dressed in KKK robes. In case it’s not obvious to you, that’s pre’Newt days, and set the tone of how campaigns are to be waged, Democrat style.
As far as how nasty Newt is supposed to be, my comment #20 on that same thread provides a link to an Annenberg study about civility in Congress. Not only was the Congress under Newt not the nastiest and most disrespectful era, Newt was not on the list as the most common offenders. But he was listed as one of the most targeted of nasty remarks by Congressional members that resulted in reprimands for their “take down” offenses.
You’ll find more in that thread as the discussion between Larry and I progresses. That is if you have a curious bone in your body about fact instead of lies and campaign talking points.
So you say:
Newt is an outsider – he has that status because he was ostracized by his own turncoat party, seeking to use him as a scapegoat. At the time, they were in an election year, taking hits in popularity for both their campaign issue for Clinton impeachment, and weathering the false attacks and witch hunt by the Dems on the Speaker with the fake ethics accusations.
It’s difficult to resign in “disgrace”, as Romney repeatedly says, when he wasn’t guilty of anything. Now, if you want a more accurate assessment of the era’s politics, read Byron York’s article, “What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?”
I will remind you that Newt was not guilty of a one of those accusations. Out of the 88 accusations, all but one were dropped, and the Clinton IRS exonerated him a year after his voluntary resignation as Speaker and Congress in Jan 1999.
Only now, does Lindsy Graham issue a pathetic apology for himself and his party members for throwing an innocent Newt under the bus.
Does that half hearted attempt to admit the Republicans were scum for not backing their own innocent speaker against slander sound like an elected elitist, talking about an “insider”, to you? He was despised by most in Congress… both parties… for one (or both) of two reasons – his personality, and the fact that he’d compromise and actually get legislation thru (to the advantage of the Republicans to boot).
Thus the reason he was, and remains, a genuine outsider. A man who knows how the inside works, made it work to the conservatives and party’s advantage, yet was still offered up as the sacrificial lamb because – despite his success – they still hated him. Perfect for me.
You complain, like most of your peers, that the Republicans are unyielding and obstructionists. Newt overcame that and led compromises that actually achieved more for the conservatives than liberals after the negotiations. It was a Newt Speaker, working with Clinton, that got the Dems to do a tax cut.
Yet you all hate him? Why? He did exactly what you say you want the Republicans to do…. work across the aisle, compromise, and get the job done. And I find it really interesting that Republicans love to praise the Newt 90’s Congressional achievements (but disassociate Newt), and put Reagan… another successful compromiser… up on a pedestal while trashing Newt for the same. Talk about hypocritical. You don’t want a guy who will really do what you say you want him to do, and has a record to prove it.
But then, were a Newt WH actually to force the chambers to actually perform in the next four years, you’d lose your talking points about a “do nothing Congress” and “Republicans are obstructionists”. We can’t have that, eh?
Newt was also bold enough to hold the debt ceiling as hostage for reform, and shut down the government. Would have worked if Bob Dole didn’t cave in. But I like a leader with principles, and not afraid to use the tools at hand to fight for those principles.
Comparing the Romney SuperPACS assault on Newt in Iowa – when he was running a positive campaign with NO… let me repeat that… NO negative attacks – is a desperate attempt to rewrite history. Neither the pamphlet, nor his behavior as Speaker in Congress ever included lies about the opponent. Romney and his SuperPACs, fearing Newt’s rise in Iowa, took the low road that is common with liberal campaigning.
Then again, Romney is a liberal. His “compromise is just another way of describing doing the MA Democrats bidding. What a joke.
About the attacks on Romney about Freddie and Fannie. That is a direct result of Romney himself. And that is because of how each of the two men view the GSEs as a viable business entity.
Newt did not want bailouts for them. He wanted reform, and better oversight. And most importantly, Newt has *never advocated dismantling them*. For Newt to invest in the GSEs – entities that he supported, but wanted to reform – is not hypocritical. If you had a business, run badly, that I felt was a valued business, my investment in your business (and attempts to reform it) runs true to my principles.
Romney’s another story. What is most hypocritical about Romney is he says he wanted them dismantled, but he was quick to invest in them to take advantage of their subprime profits. And to pile on, he lied about his GSE investments, saying they were in a blind trust.
No… they weren’t.
Apparently, when Romney can make money, his principles about supporting corporations that he thinks should be dismantled doesn’t get in the way. That’s just dandy if you’re just another private sector businessman. But that is not the ethics I want from a POTUS. If you believe a business should be eliminated, put your money where your mouth is… and don’t give them cash to keep going. Principles and money for Romney are two different roads. Apparently Romney is a believer in too big to fail, otherwise he would not have put his money there, against what he felt was the best course for the GSEs.
Then again, I don’t think that Romney has any principles outside of his own interests and gains.
As far as the next run of primaries, I fully expect Romney to win. As we’ve all seen, the WH is for sale, and Romney is the highest bidder. The meme pushed by media and the GOP that “only Romney can win” will triumph over any genuine alternatives, and evoke the herd mentality. Pity. The nation isn’t ready for genuine reform to fiscal conservatism until they stop acting like sheeple, and letting the GOP lead them around by the nose. It is what it is.
Perhaps they won’t get to that point until the nation has actually fallen off the cliff, and is free falling into the chasm. Hopefully it won’t be too late, but that’s what I’ve come to expect any more. I can only rejoice that less than half are willing sheeple today. Perhaps, in 2016, maybe 70-90% will not be willing sheeple, and a genuine conservative can be nominated.
So I also predict that not only will less than half want Romney, but that Newt will still be the second choice… despite all the lies and money thrown at trying to destroy him. And that, to me, is an indicator of strength.
Romney will lose to Obama in November as the nominee. Never believed he could win. He’s Obama’s iconic demon and villain for his campaign, and Obama will be able to outspend Romney 3 to 1. Works for me. Because I’ll take my changes with Rubio in 2016 instead of Mittens “Grandfather of O’healthcare” Romney for eight years.
@MataHarley:
Ouch. Cleanup aisle 7!
It looks like someone left a pile of hamburger on the ground.
LOL, HR… well let’s see if we can get Gaffa to have to double his Depends padding, shall we? Figures for Romney and Newt’s superpacs, as of today from OpenSecrets
Romney’s is Restoring our Future.
Romney’s has spent $16,923,850 to destroy Newt, compared to $396,653 to give a gentle poke to Santorum. They’ve only spent $811,954 touting Romney’s positive attributes.
Newt’s primary superpac is Winning our Future
Out of Newt’s Winning our Future’s $8 mil approx, $3,538,391 was negative against Romney. THere was actually $2,172,271 that was positive for Romney as a fellow Republican.
The cash spent on Newt’s positive attributes was $3,158,335. This makes the ratio of Newt’s superpac as 60% positive to 40% negative.
Tuck your tail under, run home, Gaffa… and take your lies, scandals and calumny with you. LOL
@Richard Wheeler: Because I admire the way he has risen from bartender/construction worker to political pundit/tv personality makes him my “pretty boy?”
So you don’t admire any public figures, huh Rich?
And by the way, my one goal is to defeat Obama, also.
Your point?
@MataHarley: I was going to rebut the idiocy that Gaffer spewed, but you beat me to it and, if I say so, did a much better job than I would have done.
Kudos, Mata!
Gaffer – lol dude, quite while yer’ behind……way behind. So funny to equate a talking points memo with millions and millions of dollars in patently false attack ads.
Only in your word, Gaffer. Only in your world!
Anticsrocks, being no fan of Sean “I speak in mantras”/RepubBot” Hannity, I have to say that Hannity’s rise to success is a testament to the opportunity available in this country to any and every one. That one of so little talent and original thought can rise to such a lofty level of influence in the media is nothing short of a Cinderfella story.
Anticsroks My point? Your kidding. He wants to beat Obama and unlike you he’s just fine with Romney doing so. My guess,he believes Romney’s got a better shot.
You admire Hannity. I admire many including my friend and fellow Marine Jim Webb.
@MataHarley:
Cancel cleanup. Call in Hazmat. The ground chuck just got nuked!
So let me get this straight, As speaker and whip, Open Marriage Newt grew our government, increased our debt, increased government regulations, increased earmarks, etc. In the past(just before he decided to run for president) he’s supported Cap & Trade, the idea of having a system like RomneyCare, taxpayer subsidized Green Energy. He supported the bailouts and has stabbed the Tea Party Movement in the back on several occasions(Paul Ryan, Doug Hoffman). He’s consistently tried to snuff out our gun rights(Gun Free Zones, Thumbprint Databases for gun owners), property rights, freedom of speech, etc.
And you guys wont vote for Romney if he wins?
~~~
“That is why I worked so diligently as Speaker of the House to protect the Endangered Species Act, historic legislation that has been mired in some controversy…it is an essential conservation tool.” – Random Quote from Realpolitik Wilsonian Newt Gingrich (He just loves it when the government takes your land)
Can only answer for myself, Minarchist… no one else. No… will not vote for Romney… the grandfather of O’healthcare and creator of the mandate, which he still supports.
But that’s a nice round up of the Romney talking points you neatly compacted.
1: “open marriage”: unproven accusation of disgruntled ex wife/mistress
2: “increased our debt”: all the parties and leaders have done this, but the Newt House/Congress balanced a budget and, combined with the bubble economy, reversed the trend for a fleeting moment in history. I will also add that, despite seven more years of Republican party majority control *after* Newt left, it’s never been done since.
3: “increased government regulations”: virtually every bill that gets passed entails more regulations. Romney did the same at his state level. Don’t want anyone who has that on his record? Pick Herman Cain or Donald Trump because they’ve never been involved in central government. What’s your point?
4: “increased earmarks”. I’m sorry.. do point to us the legislation that increased earmarks that Newt advocated, sponsored etal? When, in fact, as Speaker, he voted for very few bills as most Speakers do. How is the legislative add ons, and votes of the House membership solely the blame of Gingrich?
5: “supported Cap/Trade, health mandates, AGW, etal”: Has reversed decisions on all. May I remind you that the conservative Heritage Foundation put out analyses in late 1980s/early 1990s that also promoted the health mandate? These studies influenced many a conservative and Republican. However the Heritage analyses were constructed by one of their economists. There is no doubt that a mandate would cure the economic funding of healthcare… pulling healthy people into the system to pay for those who use it. However when Heritage redid their study from the Constitutional aspect after the challenges from the states, they put in an amicus brief that reversed their formal position based on the unconstitutionality of the mandate. And Newt, as well as other conservatives did as well. That was 2009.
Newt would also not be the only convert from AGW believer to skeptic, when more and more became transparent. On the other hand, Romney’s been in front of coal plants with his enviro regulators, protesting. And one of them is in Obama’s EPA now, busy working to eliminate all coal plants.
Shall I now forever discount everyone who has changed their minds on an issue because of new perspectives (not political convenience, like Romney), and instead vote for the guy who not only is the granddaddy of the mandate, but supports it to this day? Not likely
6: “supported bailouts”: That’s always given me a smile… Newt, of course, was not in the House to lend any vote of support to the bailouts since he resigned almost a decade earlier. And, in fact, five out of the eight major candidates supported TARP. This makes him different, how? Or that Romney’s flip flop is somehow superior, why?
But INRE what you suggest is some gung ho “support” for the bailouts by Newt, why don’t you read his positions in 2008, when it was going down. Probably more accurate the revisionist history or memories.
“reluctantly and sadly”… wow. There’s some fiery support there.
7: “stabbed the Tea Party in the back”: Yeah.. that’s why the Tea Party Patriots Dec straw poll had Newt winning with 31%, Bachmann second at 28% and Romney with only 20%. That’s also why all the exit polls show that those who think of themselves as very conservative or Tea Party go to Gingrich and not Romney. pffft
8: “snuff out gun rights”… uh, right. I guess the NRA disagrees with you, and you’d rather play with the disgruntled wannabe-the-NRA, NAGR. Mostly they are annoyed that most of the candidates ignored their survey because they are, in the wide scheme of things, irrelevant. NRA, on the other hand, gives Newt an A record, not to mention handed him the 2010 Defender of Freedom Award.
Romney, on the other hand, was considered anti-gun rights by Buckeye Firearms. And rates about the same as Obama, with a B from the NRA.
Now how was it that Romney, the granddaddy of O’healthcare and mandates, that he *still* supports, is so superior? Or aren’t health mandates an issue for you?
Minarchist Freedom Fighter
WOW, that’s a lot of stones you’re trowing at NEWT, he is a big guy and took a lot then from hateful envious people,
he always got the answer for their accusations, so let’s get NEWT TO ANSWER IT.
@MataHarley:
Oh man. Clean up on aisle 8! We’re gonna need a bigger store.
@MataHarley:
Because if I’m not for Newt than I’ve got to be for Romney, right?
So she’s being like Realpolitik Wilsonian Newt when he lies and says he’s a conservative.
MataHarley, at some point your going to have to get rid of this apologist gymnastics routine and admit the truth…Newt’s just not a conservative. Never was. (Romney and Newt are made of the same progressive(regressive) cloth)
BTW, sellout traitors like the The Tea Party Patriots and the NRA don’t carry any weight. That’s just a fact.
http://nrawol.net/
http://tinyurl.com/77hzeol
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/
OMG. The NRA is imperfect!!1!!!11!1.
Because they are imperfect and have made mistakes they are outright traitors? Wow.
HR, I do believe that Ivan has found a kindred “I hate everyone and everyone is a sell out” kindred soul in Minarchist. Won’t spend much time on this one either. Already hung my FA gnat swatter back up.
@Hard Right:
Imperfect = Consistently selling out the Second Amendment every chance it gets.
What else would you call a group that sells out its members and does the complete opposite of its mission statement?
Actually, this is the only babble with which I can somewhat agree. I’d call that group the Democrats and the Republicans. Your point,other than another “I hate everyone” tirade?
Try to recognize two simple facts. Ron Paul is not going to get the nomination, and Ron Paul is not a conservative. He’s a libertarian.
Nope… because were I to take your chosen cyber-handle into consideration, I’d say you were likely of the 7-11%ers – aka Ron Paul supporters.
But I chose to answer based on the way you framed the question… need a reminder? First the litany of traditional Romney’ites mantras (plus some from other candidates), followed by your question…
If you wanted me to frame it from Ron Paul’s perspective instead of Romney, you should have asked. Then I would have answered much the same using your Romney’s campaign litany, but instead framing it from the Ron Paul perspective. However the truth is the truth, no matter who is spinning the lies.
But that’s not what you chose to contrast.
I’m afraid Newt’s credentials as a conservative, based on the general ratings system, are nothing as you portray. He has a 92-96% conservative voting record.
Ron Paul? Never led a thirsty burro to a water filled trough in Congress for all his time in the House. The only bill he’s ever gotten to pass was to get a historic property sold. Got few bills to the floor. Leadership qualities? None. Influence over peers? Zip. Successful record that’s consistent? Nope. Most especially on Israel and earmarks.
Ron “the military loves me!” Paul? What a joke. SC exit polls proved that a pie in the sky leap into fantasy. So did Jacksonville, where the military is the single largest employer in Duval County. Ron Paul? 7% I notice that he’s finally stopped babbling that lie in his campaign, and his supporters… after being hit with the ugly truth… don’t try to perpetuate the myth that 1000 or less donors is a poll for 2 plus million military employed anymore.
But I’d dearly love to see him as Treasury Secy or Fed Reserve chair in the next admin. Beyond some fiscal issues, he’s closer to Dennis Kuchinich or Sheila Jackson Lee than a conservative. But then you libertarians have your own version of conservative. Open borders, legalized drugs, isolationist foreign policy, and as RP says… “a few good submarines” as a military for national security.
’tisn’t an apology whatsoever. I provide links and historic facts after taking quite a long time to survey the lackluster political menu.
What do you provide? Emotion from your libertarian/anarchistic viewpoint. Perhaps you should be apologizing for not defending your guy adequately, eh? Or not framing the question to get the answer you want?
And I see you’re pissed that the Tea Party doesn’t give Ron Paul the time of day. Well, perhaps that’s because Ron Paul doesn’t give them the time of day. He refused to participate in the Tea Party straw poll.
Minarchist Freedom Fighter
you haven’t learn nothing did you. here is the expert, telling you the truth, debunking all your lies,
and you keep at it.
what’s your point? do you prefer to believe the previous disgrunted wife out to punish her husband who took of after he probably saw the monster in her trying to keep her claws on him forever,
or are you so envious of the man that it’s killing you, and you want to destroy him along.
aren’t you showing real bad here.
and you are telling of your hateful self by attacking the TEA PARTY PATRIOTS WAY UP HIGHER THAN YOU ON THE SCALE OF BEST
FOR AMERICA
@MataHarley:
You read my mind. I was thinking the exact same thing about him and Ivan.
While I support the NRA, I was a member of GOA and they are more hardline. I doubt he’d like them either tho.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I’m not lying about this douche bag.
I’m not envious of him.
He’s not what’s best for America.
He cheated on his ex, he made their relationship an open marriage. So yes, I believe her.
The Tea Party Patriots, for all the reason I listed and more, have discredited themselves with their support of Big Government Newt “Moon Base” Gingrich.
@Minarchist Freedom Fighter:
SHE claimed he wanted an open marriage. His daughters say otherwise. Not to mention, she was his mistress until he married her. Sorry, not proven. If you want to believe it, fine. Don’t expect us to until you present actual proof. Hint: an accusation isn’t proof.
@MataHarley:
I’m sorry, I don’t know what ‘7-11%ers’ is and I’m not a Ron Paul supporter.
Because Realpolitik Wilsonian Newt’s a Big Government Progressive and strictly talking about him makes it all the more obvious, right?
No, I didn’t want no such thing…The question was rhetorical. I was gobsmacked that certain people in this group actually thought one big government progressive wasn’t as good as another.
According to who and why is their opinion worth more than anyone else’s?
Oh come on, I think when it comes to Newt you’ve lost all objectivity.
Example: when you wrote “the Newt House/Congress balanced a budget” you forgot to wrap it up with this:
Fiscal Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
Newt’s a great leader because he cooked the books and pretended this debt didn’t matter.
Note: 96-97 are the only two budgets that newt had a role in assembling and shepherding through the House.
Yup, HR… another “I hate everyone” Ivan. Wonder if he’s a sockpuppet? LOL
And no, genius, the budgets that followed the 1996 budgets passed by the Speaker Gingrich House were subject to the legislation that led to the continuing decline in debt, and aided by the dot com and housing bubble. You might as well say that once a POTUS leaves office, his actions and policies no longer affect the process. Or that when a Congressman who sponsored an enacted bill retires, his bill no longer affects the bill’s subject matter.
Dang… about as bright as Ivan too. Think we ought to get them a room, HR?
SOCK PUPPET ALERT! SOCK PUPPET ALERT!
It seems that “Minarchist Freedom Fighter” is also one and the same as “Ron Paul Is Right”.
Therefore not only is “minarchist” a sock puppet, it’s a liar about being a Ron Paul supporter.
oh my….
That would be a random, and *edited* quote from the dishonest (ahem) presenters.
The full quote is from Newt’s 2007 book, Contract with the Earth.
Now I don’t disagree that there are flaws in the legislation. Heaven knows in Oregon, it’s a battle between fish in the food chain and humans all the time.
But I also don’t disagree that there should be regulations prohibiting an open season on endangered species. Had there been no regulations from the 1973 act, the American bald eagle would only be a memory. It went on the list in 1978, and only when the population had recovered in 2007, was it removed.
MATA
I’m always amaze to see how you find it every time,
bye