Alluding to Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney warned today that voters should not support a “zany” presidential candidate.
“Zany is great in a campaign,” Romney told the New York Times in an interview. “It’s great on talk radio. It’s great in print, it makes for fun reading. But in terms of a president, we need a leader, and a leader needs to be someone who can bring Americans together.”
Romney did have one sentence of praise for the former speaker; he called Gingrich a “great historian.”
"Zany" is the least of the slurs that Mitt's supporters (including me) have to combat. Drudge is pushing a RealClearPolitics report on an ~MSNBC~ line that Mitt is playing the KKK card.
Violence will come to American politics. There is only one way to answer the sort of calumny that spews out of the rancid mouths of the MSNBC leftist bigots. They can not be answered with rational arguments. They have big corporate power and they use it to assault conservatives with blood libels. They will, one day, succeed in igniting the very violence that they pretend to fear and deploy. I only hope that there is minimal collateral damage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt is definitely *not* helping his conservative creds by dumping on fellow Republicans to the NY Times, of all places. He might as well run an ad for the DNC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a load of crap - they're not pushing a blood libel. They're just referring to Mitten's new slogan: "Keep America American" This was widely used by the Klan in the '20s and now Mittens wants to run with it too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKeep America American?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom the guy who made his fortune outsourcing American jobs?
OH, I see. Now it's "MItt Romney" who was outsourcing American Jobs.
As an actual conservative, I've always thought it was confiscatory tax policies, onerous regulatory burdens and unfriendly labor laws that has pushed American manufacturing offshore.
Nope, apparently it was someone named "Mitt".
Thanks for clearing that up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt absolutely was him doing it. His company didn't come in and try and figure out how to SAVE American jobs, they figured out how to make the most money they possibly could while destroying them. What do you think he was making his millions of dollars for?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs this Mother Jones or National Review? Dennis Kucinich couldn't have made a more articulate case against Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, after NR's behavior during the nomination process, Mother Jones looks a hell of a lot more insightful.
But it's not surprising. The only people who take conservatives seriously are conservatives themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMIttens did it, he'll have to live with the political consequences of that act.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseToo bad Exalted Cyclops Senator Robert Byrd isn't around to verify that slogan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe result of Romney's leadership is RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
The result of Gingrich leadership was Republican House, balanced budget, and welfare reform.
Leave alone that Romney could not win most of elections. He already lost to Obama, because he lost even to the guy who lost to Obama. Romney is unelectable.
Sure we need a leader. Gingrich has a chance. Romney does not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"zany" has been obliterating you in debate after debate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt seems to be having trouble "outselling" a man who he considers "zany".
Maybe he would do better if he didn't use words like "zany" to describe his opponent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseROMNEY CAMPAIGN: GINGRICH TOO 'GIGGLEDY, SQUIGGLEDY, OFF ON A LARK' FOR U.S. PRES.
Former Mass. governor joined by Mary Poppins
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusein critique of rival
All the presidential candidates want to repeal or defund Obamacare, or otherwise kill it. What will they tell the additional 2.5 million people between 19-25 who have insurance coverage because of the bill? Can they really convince Americans that Republicans favored this part of the bill but fought against the entire legislation?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe would tell them to get a job and get their own insurance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease clarify, does the Act require taxpayers to fund this insurance for these young people. I have two nieces and a nephew in this age range, and my understanding is that their parents are now able to purchase the health insurance as part of their family plan, as opposed to before when the kids would've had to purchase it on their own. Also, it would be great if commenters wouldn't tell people to leave the country just because they ask the board for their opinion on a thorny question. It just makes you look intolerant or worse, not interested in considering both sides of an issue (or at least how an issue might play out in a debate).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe're not going to say anything to those between 19-25.
80% of those between 25-105 hate the legislation.
So, I'll say it for the GOP:
The Spoiled rotten underachieving generation that the baby boomers created can all like it or lump it that the nation never intended to give you health care insurance for free at our expense.
Moreover: Move to Sweden.
Capiche?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat 19 to 25 part of the bill is one of the parts that absolutely sucks the worst. Sure, I admit that it will be a political problem to convince the beneficiaries of this outrageous bit of socialism that it should be taken away. But it should.
The left pretends that you can simply GIVE this coverage to a few million young Americans and NOBODY has to pay for it! Like you can just REQUIRE insurance companies to extend coverage in this way. The pretense, of course, is that these young Americans were not covered merely because the thieving insurance companies wanted to line their pockets with additional unearned profits. It was the lowest sort of seductive pandering to get more and more people, in one way or another, on the government teat. (In this case, the government doesn't directly nurse the beneficiaries....they just pass a law requiring private insurance firms to nurse them.) This is the way that command (i.e., socialist) economies work. Well, "the way they fail," I should say.
Why don't you move to Cuba, Richard Fetter?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't really see Gingrich as a "zany" candidate, although he's certainly more likely than Romney to engage in shenanigans and hi-jinks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse