In the aftermath of President Obama´s victory over Mitt Romney, there has been a lot of attention paid to how the Obama campaign successfully defined Romney as an out-of-touch corporate raider. And most of the credit has gone to Obama campaign boss Jim Messina, who made a "grand bet" to saturate the summer airwaves with anti-Romney ads while the GOP nominee was still recovering from a drawn-out primary battle. But this victory narrative misses a very large point: Messina´s gamble was enabled by Newt Gingrich. The Romney campaign was well aware that Bain Capital
Comments: Rick Perry did his share of that type of attack, too, much to my disappointment.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Kelly White, 11/10/2012 6:25:29 AM (No. 9004509)
Oh please!! How culpable was George H.W. Bush is Reagan´s 1980 loss? You remember, all that stuff about "voodoo economics"/s. Romney got the Republican nomination because he went super negative on Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, and Bachmann. He lost the presidential election because because he failed to go super negative on Obama. Negative campaigning works - as Rush says, "Learn it, love it, live it".
Our political system has been corrupted and usurped by an agenda driven media who failed to vet obama or report the news. I question whether this is the media the founding fathers really wanted to protect. They have become the enemy, rather than reporting on the enemy.
Here in MA I listened to too many people who advocated for what the dems were saying....steal the money of the rich, target certain groups and just take what you want. I hold the voters and our public education as a reason for this awful political set of people. And a DEADLY lack of common sense.
What #2 said..In all my years of voting, I have never seen a Conservative-Republican attacking capitalism... Newt Gingrich did. Shame on him. obama would have done it anyway, but I´m sure he appreciated the leg up he was given by Newt and some of the other GOP candidates during the Primaries. There is more than enough blame to go around for losing the election. We Republicans are known for pointing fingers at each other, while the demonrats party on.
the whole bunch of them in the primaries were no help to Mitt in Nov. It was like Mitt was running against ted Kennedy again. Mitt was the nomiminee from the beginning and they all knew it. The whole agonizing process helped the dems by tarnishing Mitt and making him spend millions where he could have used that money last week. I also said last winter that if gingrich did get the nomination, he would never be able to physically campaign and would look like a harggard old man buy Nov.6.
The new rule is that you are allowed to lie to get elected. ´I´ll cut the budget in half,´ ´I´ll go through the budget line by line,´ ´I´ll have the most transparent administration ever.´ Obama had no intention of doing any of this. He still doesn´t. Do you think he worries about the debt? The murders in Benghazi? He doesn´t, and half the people, and the old media, don´t care either.
You people need a memory check. Newt and Herman Cain were the only two NOT attacking other Republicans through all the debates heading into Iowa, and Newt was forging ahead. Then the field attacked Newt in Iowa, including primarily Mitt´s campaign and his super pac. Then Newt did respond poorly with Bain, but Obama was going to do that anyway. But check your history. Mitt, Ron Paul, and Michelle´s camps started the internal food fight. Up til then, Newt was focused on only Obama.
It is truly a shame because Mitt had many of the correct ideas to solve our problems. He was a bad candidate however. He never took on Obama, except for the first debate . He let the Dems (not Newt) define him as opposed to fighting back against the slime campaign. Had too many skeletons in the closet, and on election day his GOTV software didn´t work in the battleground states! Now that could have been sabatoge, but no matter, it should have been anticipated....or the person incharge of that on the implimentation level was a poor hire.....which reflects poorly on the boss in such a crucial area.
Why was Newt--or Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann--even running? They had no chance of getting the nomination,let alone winning the Presidency. All they did was split the votes and, in Newt´s case at least, damage the candidates who did have a chance. Granted, it was a weak field, but I hope the next time around, we see maybe two or three strong candidates who honor Ronald Reagan´s commandment.
When your party chooses a candidate most likely to be caricatured by the opposition, and that candidate rolls over and allows the caricature to stand - and even be strengthened - this is what happens. I felt heartsick during and after the third debate. Kept thinking, Why did they send Milquetoast MItt out when it should have been Mitt the MIghty? I had to take the dog out for an extra long walk after that debacle to clear my mind and work out the anger I felt, that I had finally been duped into believing Mitt could win and that I could vote for him (instead of against 0).
Newt showed them all how to handle the press - invaluable lessons - and MItt chose to ignore this gift. Mitt is a good man. He was a lousy candidate. Ramona (the Pest)
Totally agree that Romney was part of the food fight. Not that Newt would have been a good candidate. Herman Cain was smeared out of the primaries because he would have showed the Obama voters what an actual decent hardworking man of color looked like. Liberals just hate that.
#2 - Sorry, but your perceptions may be a bit confused. You should have watched the ugly, ferocious anti-Gingrich ads that the "independent" pro-Romney group (run by an ex-campaign staffer of MItt´s) were running down here in Florida 24/7 on TV. And I wasn´t someone who was backing Newt for President, but these ads left me with a very sour stomach. Add to that the desire to clear the decks of Sarah Palin -- and her dingbat supporters, like me -- and you have someone who eventually reluctantly dragged herself to the polls to vote for Romney.
Unlike some others I know, I wasn´t turned off enough to sit home, but I would strongly suggest that the insults, direct and implied, showered on supporters of candidates other than Romney, produced their own bitter fruit. Blaming us for Romney´s deficiencies as a candidate, and his supporters´ deficiencies as "fence-menders" is hardly going to set the GOP on the road to recovery.
People this isn´t about negative ads, they all ran negative ads. This is about a candidate Gingrich a so called conservative attacking capitalism, along with that dope Perry. We had our own candidates attacking capitalism, the core of conservatism, Those of you who see a Rino conspiracy to get Romney elected, I suggest you get evaluated for medication
After the primaries, I got behind the Romney campaign. BS for blaming Perry or Gingrich on Romney´s loss. Romney wasn´t playing softball during the primaries nor should have his opponents. Romney´s team was as nasty as they come in making personal attacks on the other candidates, even if his hands were technically clean. After Romney sewed up the nomination, he failed to respond to the wave of democrat attacks. On this very sight - for months - folks speculated as to why Romney failed to counter the democrat´s attacks. I kept hearing, "just wait for ..." Romney chose a strategy, followed it, and failed. There is no other culpability. To suggest otherwise is to suggest it was Romney´s "turn" and the other candidates owed him treatment akin to how the MSM strokes Obama.
Gingrich conducted a positive campaign by design up until Florida, when he was ahead and Romney was drawing his usual, six year, 26% support when Romney´s PAC flooded Hispanic airwaves lying about Gingrich´s immigration policy. Prior to Pennsylvania, Romney trotted out his "revised" tax plan, which looked an awful lot like Gingrich´s website. Gingrich was specific on approach to immigration and the dangers of Obama foreign and domestic visions for America. His message resonated, he drew larger crowds. To revisit history in an effort to offer some romanticized version of the wonderful candidacy of MHR is nonesense. He was a well funded, well organized liberal republican unable to connect. Gingrich may not have been the right guy, but he had the right message. No matter how handsome, a guy who made his money closing plants and making wealthy insiders more wealthy is never going to get traction with a populist message.
The establishment wanted a guy who wasn´t going to upset their political status and wouldn´t allow the T party to expand its antiWallstreet, antiWashington message. They got him, he lost. Predictably. OWN IT.
There was a conservative message out there that had traction. Right message, probably the wrong guy. You nominate a liberal republican mouthing vague conservative platitudes nuanced by consultants with no vision beyond the Sunday talk shows, conservatives work hard on his behalf, he loses. Don´t blame Gingrich.
Have to find someone to blame as they cannot pin the loss on Gov. Palin, try as they might. She endorsed 5 for Senate and 4 out of 5 won. A milktoast candidate on par with the McCain of 2008---not even the "Elitist Establishment" wanted him as first choice-----remember all they tried and failed to talk into running. That plus what seems to be massive voter fraud put the Fraudulent idiot back into the WH. The only hope would be for Congress to be strong enough to prove the treasonous acts during the last 4 years to get an indictment and put him and his cronies in Leavenworth.
Joshua Strange will never forget the girl he met in May 2011. Both were underclassmen at Alabama´s Auburn University when a common acquaintance introduced them. "We instantly became attached at the hip and did everything together," she recalled six months later. "I rather quickly moved into his place. . . . Everything was great until pretty much June 29." That night, an intimate encounter in Mr. Strange´s bed went wrong. She called police, who detained him for questioning. She said she had awakened to find him forcing himself on her; he said the sexual activity was consensual and initiated by
Sen. Ted Cruz isn’t on the ballot next year, but as candidates meet Monday’s filing deadline for Republican primaries, he appears ever-present. Cruz’s tea party-fueled, come-from-behind trouncing of David Dewhurst in the Senate race last year has provided him a gravitational pull that is moving GOP candidates further right and producing scores of would-be first-time officeholders. “You’ve got two things happening,” said Republican political consultant Bill Miller. One of them is the “Cruz phenomenon, and he is the phenom at this moment,” he said. “The other is that conservatives believe that if they’re going to succeed — with the Democratic administration in Washington
Six months after the Internal Revenue Service´s inspector general revealed that the tax-collection agency had been targeting conservative organizations for added scrutiny and delaying their applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS has proposed new rules for handling political activity by nonprofits. The proposed rules would plunge the agency deeper into political regulation. The rules would upset more than 50 years of settled law and practice by limiting the ability of certain tax-exempt nonprofits, organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, to conduct nonpartisan voter registration and voter education. Such organizations would be forbidden to leave records of officeholder votes
Fact: The IRS targeted conservative and tea party groups requesting tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. That’s a fact. Congress held hearings — embarrassing hearings. Three top Internal Revenue Service officials resigned. No heads rolled, but for the Obama administration, and the lawless Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., that amounted to a major scandal. Even White House spokesman Jay “Circus” Carney called the IRS’ actions “inappropriate.” Fact. But President Obama, in an interview last week with sycophant Chris Matthews, now says the entire scandal was made up by the media. “When we do things right, they don’t get
Bob Dole once made a droll crack to the New York Times about Newt Gingrich, then the speaker of the House. “Gingrich’s staff has these five file cabinets, four big ones and this little tiny one,” Dole said. “Number one is ‘Newt’s ideas.’ Number two, ‘Newt’s ideas.’ Number three, number four, ‘Newt’s ideas.’ The little one is ‘Newt’s Good Ideas.’” Here’s one from Gingrich’s little file: he has been pushing back against some of the more thoughtless conservative reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela. The backlash has ranged from the merely tone-deaf—think of Rick Santorum drawing comparisons between Obamacare and
More than any other subject, apolitical sorts will ask me about Fox News. “Is it really crazy?” my British friends inquire, flashing the sort of smile that a botanist might exhibit while examining a newly discovered species of moss. “Is it, like, really right wing?” The question has always slightly irritated me, showing as it does that the considerable success that the Left has had in demonizing its opposition extends even across the Atlantic. Certainly, both Fox’s commentary and its ostensibly straight reporting are marked by the right-leaning proclivities of its owners. But the notion that the network is unique in
The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly 1.6 million Americans have enrolled in ObamaCare so far. The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments. Medicaid is already America’s third-largest government program, trailing only Social Security and Medicare, as a proportion of the federal budget. Almost 8 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends goes to Medicaid. That’s more than $265 billion per year. Indeed, already Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for 48% of federal spending.
The question all week long was this: Who are you going to believe, an illegal alien or the president of the United States of America? Obviously, if it’s a president who once went by an alias, Barry Soetoro, you go with Uncle Omar, 100 percent, no questions asked. And so it was that the White House finally admitted to another, uh, misstatement — despite previous denials, Barack/Barry did sleep on his beloved Uncle Omar’s couch in Cambridge when he first moved here to attend Harvard Law School (speaking of which, we’re still waiting to see the president’s grades and his LSAT scores). But the
How do you get your arms around the catastrophe known as Obamacare? Is it even possible? At this point, I’m not sure it is. The list of individual disasters which threaten to ruin one-sixth of the U.S. economy and what has been, up until now, the best healthcare system in the world is exhaustive, and exhausting. The examples I will identify here barely scratch the surface. First but by no means foremost, we have the supposedly new and improved HealthCare.gov. Except it’s not, even the visible part. Stories still abound of people still failing to get in or to get through the enrollment
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has announced a new five-year strategic plan to improve safety for elderly drivers and passengers. Although they are statistically among the safest on the road, the number of older drivers is increasing dramatically — and with it, that group´s numbers of injuries and deaths. Since 2003, the population of older adults, defined as age 65 and older, has increased by 20% and the number of licensed older drivers increased by 21% to 35 million in 2012, according to NHTSA. Last year, NHTSA reported that 5,560 people older than 65 died and 214,000 were injured
President Barack Obama’s Facebook page on Saturday posted a message honoring the dead from Pearl Harbor—accompanied by a picture of Obama descending the stairs next to the Pearl Harbor Memorial. The picture barely fits the name of the Arizona Memorial so it can frame Obama in the foreground. The post´s statement reads: Today, with solemn pride and reverence, let us remember those who fought and died at Pearl Harbor, acknowledge everyone who carried their legacy forward, and reaffirm our commitment to upholding the ideals for which they served. President Obama The Obama Administration´s current shipbuilding plan shrinks the size of
Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack,
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the hapless, goalpost-shifting so-called "architect" of Obamacare, told Fox News´ Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that President Barack Obama´s promise "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" was absolutely true--with one important caveat: if you like your doctor, "you can pay for it." Wallace grilled Dr. Emanuel, challenging his false claims that California´s enrollment was keeping pace with the percentage of the young population necessary to keep the system afloat, and pointing out that the president´s promise on doctors would collapse once people lost their insurance or their
The U.S. isn´t called "America the Beautiful" for nothing. Each year, millions of tourists come from home and abroad to see the country´s majestic landscape and iconic sites, from the Grand Canyon to the Statue of Liberty. But there are also cool, quirky attractions, like Vermont´s Ben & Jerry´s Factory and Tennessee´s Graceland, the former home of Rock and Roll King Elvis Presley. From California to New York and everywhere in between, the country is chock-full of incredible attractions that keep luring in visitors. Here are the best tourist attractions in every state.