From Fox’s Special Report with Bret Baier Monday, December 12, 2011
On the bet Mitt Romney jokingly offered to Rick Perry during Saturday’s debate in Sioux City, IA
On the bet, if he had said $1 million, it would have been understood as not an actual offer but something that is outrageous, meaning this is a slam dunk. But being Romney, he thought well, maybe $1 million is too high and $10 will not be understood. So he chose the middle path, which of course was the wrong thing to do.
On the back-and- forth Monday between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich:
What I thought was remarkable is what Newt did today. It wasn’t just that he went negative. He pulled out the heavy artillery….
What kind of attack is this of one so-called person of the right to another? What conception of capitalism do you have if you’re attacking your opponent for entering the risk taking of capitalism? It’s the old line from Schumpeter, which is that capitalism is creative destruction. This kind of attack is what you’d expect from a socialist….
it makes you wonder about the core ideology of Newt himself.
On how Newt Gingrich should have responded to Mitt Romney’s call for Gingrich to return the money he made with Freddie Mac:
Defend what he did, which he didn’t do because it is indefensible.
Second, he tries to make a comparison… between what he did, which is essentially peddling influence, and what Romney and others have done to invest in the economy to succeed and [sometimes] fail.
Third, he didn’t have to do it by attacking what is… the essence of capitalism, taking risks.
There were a lot of ways to answer that question. There was a lot of the old Newt here. I’m not sure it was the new, avuncular Newt.
On American forces’ withdrawal from Iraq:
Well, I thought it was remarkable. Here is a president having failed in the job he had, which was in three years to negotiate an agreement with Iraq where there was some U.S. presence. There’s going to be none, which means that our influence will be greatly diminished.
And in fact, we are now going to have 16,000 people in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Well, that would make sense if we were a major influence in Iraq, which we won’t be. And without our own military for protection, do we really want that many Americans out there relying on protection of others? I think they’re going to be sitting ducks….
The generals wanted 20 to 25 [thousand], something comparable to the [US] presence in the countries after the Second World War — in Korea, Germany and Japan and elsewhere. It would have been less [in Iraq], but it would have been effective.
This video says it all, Brit Hume offers a vivid does of reality:
External Link
Newt Gingrich's anti-Capitalist tirade is the Beltway Insider disaster.
Newt fully enables the most absurd leftist nonsense, while demeaning the very engine of Our Free Society -the Private Sector. Newt has no clue, and will sink all boats if foolishly granted the Nomination.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Rombots get more desperate and more bitter with each passing day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseto be expected at National Romney Online ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh please ...
if you think Newt is a lefty you may have a point but you don't think that ... you want to ascribe leftists ideals to Newt based on one snarky response to Ronmey ... Romney is poking at Newt ... so when Newt pokes back you jump on his response as PROVING he is a leftists anti-capitalist ... wow ...
looks like typical passive agressive behavior ... poke at your opponent until he pokes back and then get offended that he poked back ...
armchair physco anaylsis at its worst ... by you and me ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you have an actual rebuttal of the argument?
Gingrich is attacking Romney for his work at Bain capital -- a company whose makes money using , you guessed it, capitalism.
Is there any dispute about what Bain capital does? If not, then how do can you defend Gingrich's remark.
This is such a good example of why Gingrich would be such a disaster. Despite all the proclamations of his genius, Gingrich is very prone to speaking without thinking first. He threw Ryan under the bus with his 'Right wing social engineering' comment, and here he throws capitalism under the bus.
Why is that so hard for you to see?
Ask yourself one honest question. If a democrat had made the remark about Romney, would you have defended that? Of course not. Words matter, and Gingrich cannot control his. That is a big big problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt never trashed capitalism, that's your sad, pathetic lie for this week, nothing more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe said that Romney did something wrong by advising struggling companies to lay people off. Unless capitalism includes some moral imperative for a firm to employ un-needed workers out of charity, I'm not sure how else to classify Newt's statement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt tied the comment regarding Bain Capital to Romney's attacks on his consulting company.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, it's only his sad, pathetic comment for the next five minutes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSadly, you continue to expose yourself. Do you understand the obvious anti-Capitalist rhetoric Newt provided yesterday? Did you even bother to see what Newt said?
Mr. Krauthammer is correct, Newt Gingrich sounded like a socialist.
Your posts are resembling the troubled Matt X, in massive denial and childish sophistry. He was clearly a Democratic Partisan trying to undermine Our Best offering in Mitt Romney.
Brit Hume said it well.
You should really take a step back and review the accurate editorial:
External Link
Newt Gingirch mimicked the Democrats in every aspect yesterday, bashing the very essence of how Our Free Market works. If he believed what he said, then it is clear Newt Gingrich has no concept of the Private Sector. What he did, taking the Fannie and Freddie money was not comparable to the capital/risk investment made by the likes of Romney and Millions of Americans who grow Our economy, empower Our Free Market, build opportunity and prosperity.
It is really quite interesting, to see the failure to understand what Newt Gingirch did yesterday. He was not speaking just as an "historian" but a leftist who has great disdain for the US Capitalist System.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo someone who isn't looking for more material to lie about, it is quite obvious that Newt is responding to the attacks about the money he earned working for Fanny and Freddy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Romney wants to echo Democrat talking points, it's fair game to echo them back at him.
Sure Old Fan, Bain Capital layoffs are just capitalism at its finest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNeoCon Charles strikes again:
"The generals wanted 20 to 25 [thousand], something comparable to the [US] presence in the countries after the Second World War — in Korea, Germany and Japan and elsewhere. It would have been less [in Iraq], but it would have been effective."
Tell me Mr. Krauthammer. Where were the car bombings in Tokyo and Munich after the total defeat of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany? Did a Shinto cleric in Japan have a private army? People like Charles told us once Saddam was thrown out the Iraqi people would welcome US occupation as an opportunity to build a new democracy just like in occupied Japan and Germany. I thought after what has happened the past decade some smart like Charles would drop the whole Iraq = post-was Japan and Germany argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat will Charles say when Obama, if Romney is the nominee, starts rolling out a billion dollars of ads with the now infamous photo of Romney and the other founders of Bain stuffing Benjamins in their suits or as Kennedy did showing actual people who lost their job at companies Bain bankrupted. Yes Bain did intentionally bankrupt some companies by borrowing to the hilt so it can pay itself a "dividend".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Romney had said "I'll bet you $10,000 for charity" he'd have made his point and come out looking good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1 - Mitt shouldn't talk about cash - it highlights the wrong aspects for him.
2 - Newt wants to win - does Mitt?
3 - See 2
4 - Iraq is just one buffet item in the smorgasboard of the POTUS's failures. It only helps that the MSM keeps referring to the "deal" Pres. Bush negotiated. Voters will get tired of trying to determine whether it's Bush's fault or the 2012 GOP candidates problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKrauthammer has lost his mind. One good snark deserves another. He has no problem with the initial populist nonsense that Mitt lobbed?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKrauthammer and many others are cafeteria conservatives; they only cite it when it serves them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Here is a president having failed in the job he had, which was in three years to negotiate an agreement with Iraq where there was some U.S. presence."
Incredible lying hypocrisy. That may have been George Bush's job, which he certainly failed at - though we've never heard a peep from his neo-con supporters, but in case Dr. K's forgotten, Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq. I'll guess that to most of us that means bringing troops home, but evidentally not to the endless war/permanent occupation crowd.
It's an entirely different debate when an embassy there is even justified and if so, how largely it should be staffed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan't disagree with Krauthammer that Newt's riposte springs from the left, although it is one of the Romney vulnerabilities that has always made him, to me, the LEAST electable Republican in the field. It's the criticism that Huckabee encapsulated when he described himself as the guy you ride to work with, and Romney as the guy who lays you off. Fair or not, it is on the mark, and something the Democrats will ceaselessly pound.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat Krauthammer and most others have ignored, though, is that virtually every attack Romney launched against Gingrich during the last debate came from a leftwing perspective, whether it was on Medicare, the Palestinians or child labor laws. It's a continuation of the same pattern you saw from Romney when Perry got in the race; his first act was to launch attacks about Social Security that could have come straight out of the DNC. It seems to be his default response -- when pushed, no matter how hard he has tried to disguise himself as a conservative, he reflexively counters from the left side.
What you are seeing in Romney is a desperate candidate willing to say almost anything to save his floundering campaign. When he finds himself cornered, he loses his message discipline and reverts to the kind of comments you would expect from someone used to tailoring his words to fit liberal Massachusetts. He is that sweaty-upper-lip salesman planted on your porch, who knows he has no way to pay the rent unless he can browbeat you into buying what he's selling. We've seen this kind of thing before, and it's name was Al Gore.
Of course, there's nothing new about Newt saying the first thing that springs to mind, either, since he has never held an unexpressed thought, no matter how much keeping his mouth shut would rebound to his benefit. Personally, I am sticking with Perry, who in at least one Iowa poll is now within the margin of error of both Romney and Paul, and, counting margin of error, within one point of Gingrich. Perry's current poll position is now better than Huckabee's at this same point in 2007. Based on both levels of organization in that state and local Iowa reporting, Perry does indeed seem to be getting a sustained second look and is well within striking distance. Given the time left before the caucuses and the proportional nature of the delegate allocations in early states, there is no reason to settle for either Gingrich or Romney any time soon.