The Gingrich campaign is out with a new website depicting Mitt Romney as an opportunistic liar: TalesofMitt.com. The site argues that Romney made five misleading statement during Thursday’s debate, and highlights this video:
I found the ad quite ineffective - without context it is hard to know what Mitt meant.
However, one can turn to Newt's floor speech from 1986 where he clearly calls Reagan's rhetoric "adequate" and his policies weak, inadequate, and destined for failure.
Neither candidate represents Reagan's legacy but only one candidate is trying to convince us otherwise: Newt.
Mitt Romney straight up lied when he said 'I've never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot'. There is no other context to this declarative statement other than the fact that it's a lie. It can be inferred by his artful dodge that it was a practiced debate response. It wasn't even artful: It was awkward.
This is lame but I resolved to my self that we need our own liar to beat that other liar in the White House. Romney appears ready to lie. lie, lie.
Romney said he voted for Tsongas because George Bush was already coasting to a primary win, and therefore Mitt's vote was not needed in the primary. He voted for Tsongas because he wanted to choose the candidate he regarded as the weakest Democrat in the general. A lot of people crossover to mess with the other side. Operation chaos was an example of this.
Instead of believing the worst, try listening to the whole truth, and not just what you want to believe. And if Romney lies lies lies, point to some evidence, because I doubt you can.
Newt Gingrich is the one who is lying his pants off in the primary, not Mitt.
Wow...Romney was way ahead of his time on that operaiton chaos stuff!
"He voted for Tsongas because he wanted to choose the candidate he regarded as the weakest Democrat in the general."
So wrong...Tsongas was widely recognized as a barely left-of-center technocrat with a public policy forte including in the area of health care. Romney was a "progressive non-Reagan" at the time. Both from MA. It is more likely Romney felt Tsongas was the best Presidential candidate.
Newt is now stating that Mitt Romney is being funded by Wall Street. OWS much, Newt? Is that the demographic you are now reaching out to? Pathetic.
On one hand, you have Senator Marco Rubio, while endorsing no one, defending Gingrich's claim comparing Romney to Crist of Florida (Newt compares himself to Rubio). Senator Rubio actually states this is not true because Romney is "conservative." This will now brand Tea Party candidate Rubio (who I voted for twice) as a "RINO" as well as an "elite establishment" wonk by the Romans hurling rotten tomatoes and spittle in the Coliseum. Then Newt attacks Romney's character, and many defend this, including Tim Pawlenty (now also wearing the "RINO" brand across his back).
It is time for the immature name-calling hysteria to stop. I am prepared to vote GOP in November vs Obama, no matter the outcome of tomorrow's primary. And, yes, as a former Pawlenty/Perry supporter, I am voting Romney tomorrow, as I did in 2008, then voted McCain/Palin in the National. This is how it is done, folks, and how it has always been done: you vote GOP vs the Democrat, as that is the goal: to defeat Obama. The choice is clear to me, especially after Gingrich's antics of the past two weeks.
For a guy who wraps himself in the mantel of Ronald Reagan constantly, Newt sure breaks his 11th commandment a lot. Do these guys even consider how much free work they are contributing to the Obama campaign? Beyond that, how is either one supposed to support the winner and unify the party for the fall campaign?
Newt's going around today complaining that Romney cut out Kosher food for elderly Jewish folks under Medicare. I swear to God, it won't be long before Newt launches into a discussion of the more interesting aspects of the Mormon faith.
Well of course. Last week the Florida pastor who introduced him said Mormonism is a problem, it's a cult, and that there were Mormon death squads who went around killing anyone who was not Mormon.
So, yes, Newt will go there. He already has in not denouncing the pastor.
Well of course. Last week the Florida pastor who introduced him said Mormonism is a problem, it's a cult, and that there were Mormon death squads who went around killing anyone who was not Mormon.
So, yes, Newt will go there. He already has in not denouncing the pastor.
Is this really a line of attack Newt wants to pursue? It will blow up on him even worse than the debacle of his Fannie/Freddie attack against Romney on Thursday night.
Analysis shows that Gingrich deviates from the truth on the debate stage far more than any of his opponents. Some 59% of Gingrich's fact-checked assertions rate as mostly false or worse, compared to 38% for Romney, who ranks as the most truthful of the candidates.
My god! the New York Times calls Newt a liar! Quick, 'Conservative" Esquire, get them to tell us who to vote for--that'll solve everything. Thank you so much for pointing to such a venerated conservative source.
Perhaps you can't read: PolitiFact is the one that rated the candidates' truthfulness in debates, not the New York Times. PolitiFact is, you know, the same organization that just last month declared the Democrats' claim that "Republicans voted to end Medicare" 2011's Lie of the Year, so there's no ideological agenda on their part in showing that 59% of Newt's fact-checked debate assertions are mostly-false or worse. But, hey, don't let that get in the way of your tin foil hat delusions and fantasies of Newt's persecution.
Newt Gingrich's cynicsm and hypocrisy is breathtaking.
In South Carolina, he complained about "dishonest" adds by pro-Romney PACs - adds which merely made characterizations he doesn't like - while the pro-Newt PACs ran the "Bain" add that included blatant falsehoods and deception - for example a factory closure that was done under a later ownership (not Bain).
He complains that Romney has gone negative, when the commercials that I hear are all pro-Newt anti-Romney commercials that our both vicious and deceptive.
He complains about the "influence peddling" and "resigned in disgrace" characterizations - but those are reasonable characterizations to make, not blatantly false. Meanwhile Newt's attack on Romney as "pro-Abortion" isn't a characterization and is really dishonest; it would be another thing if Newt said that Romney is " 'supposedly' formerly pro-Choice." Further, Newt has absolutely been going around insiuating borderline illegal activities on the part of Romney - from "Swiss Bank Accounts and Cayman Island funds" - using leftist demogagary to hide the fact that we are talking about investment funds that are based in the Caymans and no tax dodge occurred... and then Newt quibles about what the meaning of "is" is when discussing his 1.6 million for Freddie Mack.
Newt has a penchant for projection - but he's truly the example of the man who has few if any principles (see the pandering to the NASA people, the fliriting with the Gold Standard to try to attract Paul voters, etc.) and will do and say anything to try to get elected.
Newt, not Romney, went Nuclear in response to standard negative adds first. And then Newt threw a tantrum. Which was the criticism of Newt all along - that he lacks the temperment to be President.
In the same way he through Paul Ryan under the bus for his own self-aggrandizement with the media - "right wing social engineering" - so to has he been playing the lefts game for self aggrandizement against Mitt. He should have just stuck to the plain old "Massachusetts Moderate" ads - at least those were legitimate.
I voted for Tsongas in the 1992 primary. He had been through hell with his cancer and had given a lot of thought to what might work to get us out of the hole we were then digging ourselves. Most of his ideas were neither liberal nor conservative - just good common sense. I do remember that Tom Selleck (big supporter of Reagan and National Review) contributed the max to Tsongas just so he could keep talking. Much of what Perot said (but with charts) was what Tsongas had been saying and some of his ideas were wisely picked up by Clinton and helped us all.
The assumption the entire ad is based upon is that calling oneself an independent precludes voting for a Republican -- that independents only vote for Democrats. Since that assumption is obviously false, the ad is ridiculous.
I found the ad quite ineffective - without context it is hard to know what Mitt meant.
However, one can turn to Newt's floor speech from 1986 where he clearly calls Reagan's rhetoric "adequate" and his policies weak, inadequate, and destined for failure.
Neither candidate represents Reagan's legacy but only one candidate is trying to convince us otherwise: Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe is, in fact, a very accomplished liar. Somebody needs to point that out. You guys are not likely to do that...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt Romney straight up lied when he said 'I've never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot'. There is no other context to this declarative statement other than the fact that it's a lie. It can be inferred by his artful dodge that it was a practiced debate response. It wasn't even artful: It was awkward.
This is lame but I resolved to my self that we need our own liar to beat that other liar in the White House. Romney appears ready to lie. lie, lie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney said he voted for Tsongas because George Bush was already coasting to a primary win, and therefore Mitt's vote was not needed in the primary. He voted for Tsongas because he wanted to choose the candidate he regarded as the weakest Democrat in the general. A lot of people crossover to mess with the other side. Operation chaos was an example of this.
Instead of believing the worst, try listening to the whole truth, and not just what you want to believe. And if Romney lies lies lies, point to some evidence, because I doubt you can.
Newt Gingrich is the one who is lying his pants off in the primary, not Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow...Romney was way ahead of his time on that operaiton chaos stuff!
"He voted for Tsongas because he wanted to choose the candidate he regarded as the weakest Democrat in the general."
So wrong...Tsongas was widely recognized as a barely left-of-center technocrat with a public policy forte including in the area of health care. Romney was a "progressive non-Reagan" at the time. Both from MA. It is more likely Romney felt Tsongas was the best Presidential candidate.
What lame spin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo. No. No. Romney exactly said: "I never voted for a democrat when there was a republican on the ticket".
That's a lie.
Once again: Perhaps we need a good liar like Romney to beat the other liar in The White House?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt is now stating that Mitt Romney is being funded by Wall Street. OWS much, Newt? Is that the demographic you are now reaching out to? Pathetic.
On one hand, you have Senator Marco Rubio, while endorsing no one, defending Gingrich's claim comparing Romney to Crist of Florida (Newt compares himself to Rubio). Senator Rubio actually states this is not true because Romney is "conservative." This will now brand Tea Party candidate Rubio (who I voted for twice) as a "RINO" as well as an "elite establishment" wonk by the Romans hurling rotten tomatoes and spittle in the Coliseum. Then Newt attacks Romney's character, and many defend this, including Tim Pawlenty (now also wearing the "RINO" brand across his back).
It is time for the immature name-calling hysteria to stop. I am prepared to vote GOP in November vs Obama, no matter the outcome of tomorrow's primary. And, yes, as a former Pawlenty/Perry supporter, I am voting Romney tomorrow, as I did in 2008, then voted McCain/Palin in the National. This is how it is done, folks, and how it has always been done: you vote GOP vs the Democrat, as that is the goal: to defeat Obama. The choice is clear to me, especially after Gingrich's antics of the past two weeks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe has the worst ads. I hope that didn't cost his campaign too much money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor a guy who wraps himself in the mantel of Ronald Reagan constantly, Newt sure breaks his 11th commandment a lot. Do these guys even consider how much free work they are contributing to the Obama campaign? Beyond that, how is either one supposed to support the winner and unify the party for the fall campaign?
On a related note, my captcha is "mend fences."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt's going around today complaining that Romney cut out Kosher food for elderly Jewish folks under Medicare. I swear to God, it won't be long before Newt launches into a discussion of the more interesting aspects of the Mormon faith.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell of course. Last week the Florida pastor who introduced him said Mormonism is a problem, it's a cult, and that there were Mormon death squads who went around killing anyone who was not Mormon.
So, yes, Newt will go there. He already has in not denouncing the pastor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell of course. Last week the Florida pastor who introduced him said Mormonism is a problem, it's a cult, and that there were Mormon death squads who went around killing anyone who was not Mormon.
So, yes, Newt will go there. He already has in not denouncing the pastor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs this really a line of attack Newt wants to pursue? It will blow up on him even worse than the debacle of his Fannie/Freddie attack against Romney on Thursday night.
Analysis shows that Gingrich deviates from the truth on the debate stage far more than any of his opponents. Some 59% of Gingrich's fact-checked assertions rate as mostly false or worse, compared to 38% for Romney, who ranks as the most truthful of the candidates.
External Link
Getting into a truth contest with Romney - or any of the other candidates - is a losing proposition for Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy god! the New York Times calls Newt a liar! Quick, 'Conservative" Esquire, get them to tell us who to vote for--that'll solve everything. Thank you so much for pointing to such a venerated conservative source.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps you can't read: PolitiFact is the one that rated the candidates' truthfulness in debates, not the New York Times. PolitiFact is, you know, the same organization that just last month declared the Democrats' claim that "Republicans voted to end Medicare" 2011's Lie of the Year, so there's no ideological agenda on their part in showing that 59% of Newt's fact-checked debate assertions are mostly-false or worse. But, hey, don't let that get in the way of your tin foil hat delusions and fantasies of Newt's persecution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePolifact is left biased.
But the NYT says they're not--because of the same piece you point to.
How can you type with your head in the sand?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt Gingrich's cynicsm and hypocrisy is breathtaking.
In South Carolina, he complained about "dishonest" adds by pro-Romney PACs - adds which merely made characterizations he doesn't like - while the pro-Newt PACs ran the "Bain" add that included blatant falsehoods and deception - for example a factory closure that was done under a later ownership (not Bain).
He complains that Romney has gone negative, when the commercials that I hear are all pro-Newt anti-Romney commercials that our both vicious and deceptive.
He complains about the "influence peddling" and "resigned in disgrace" characterizations - but those are reasonable characterizations to make, not blatantly false. Meanwhile Newt's attack on Romney as "pro-Abortion" isn't a characterization and is really dishonest; it would be another thing if Newt said that Romney is " 'supposedly' formerly pro-Choice." Further, Newt has absolutely been going around insiuating borderline illegal activities on the part of Romney - from "Swiss Bank Accounts and Cayman Island funds" - using leftist demogagary to hide the fact that we are talking about investment funds that are based in the Caymans and no tax dodge occurred... and then Newt quibles about what the meaning of "is" is when discussing his 1.6 million for Freddie Mack.
Newt has a penchant for projection - but he's truly the example of the man who has few if any principles (see the pandering to the NASA people, the fliriting with the Gold Standard to try to attract Paul voters, etc.) and will do and say anything to try to get elected.
Newt, not Romney, went Nuclear in response to standard negative adds first. And then Newt threw a tantrum. Which was the criticism of Newt all along - that he lacks the temperment to be President.
In the same way he through Paul Ryan under the bus for his own self-aggrandizement with the media - "right wing social engineering" - so to has he been playing the lefts game for self aggrandizement against Mitt. He should have just stuck to the plain old "Massachusetts Moderate" ads - at least those were legitimate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI voted for Tsongas in the 1992 primary. He had been through hell with his cancer and had given a lot of thought to what might work to get us out of the hole we were then digging ourselves. Most of his ideas were neither liberal nor conservative - just good common sense. I do remember that Tom Selleck (big supporter of Reagan and National Review) contributed the max to Tsongas just so he could keep talking. Much of what Perot said (but with charts) was what Tsongas had been saying and some of his ideas were wisely picked up by Clinton and helped us all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe assumption the entire ad is based upon is that calling oneself an independent precludes voting for a Republican -- that independents only vote for Democrats. Since that assumption is obviously false, the ad is ridiculous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse