Posted on 01/15/2012 1:43:04 AM PST by Mozilla
CHARLESTON, S.C. — Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Saturday that Republicans will err if they don’t scrutinize Mitt Romney’s role in a private equity firm called Bain Capital.
Gingrich, the former House speaker, said President Barack Obama will hammer away at Bain if Romney is the nominee this fall.
“I don’t see how you can expect us to have a presidential campaign in which an entire sector is avoided,” Gingrich said on a Fox News program that included five of the six Republican candidates. Each fielded South Carolina voters’ questions for almost 20 minutes.
Many Republican and conservative leaders have rebuked Gingrich for criticizing Romney’s role at Bain.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You’d think the Republican establishment would be willing to go over their golden boy with a fine tooth comb, to make sure there aren’t any surprises.
Support Newt; but wish he would get back to criticizing Obama; offering his pro-America vision; including, how he would halt/undo the damage done; and remind voters what candidate is 'establishment/status quo;inside the beltway; and which one, is not. (And which one; by experienced Leadership; should win.)
2012-2016 could be some very tough years for whomever is governing and the GOP may be trying to avoid getting to into office so they aren't holding the bag when everything goes to shiatz.
That would help explain why no superstars ran this time around.
Although you'd think that, in that case, a superstar would step forward. He has the chance to become as well renowned as Reagan, if he led this country through turbulence.
I think they are all stuck on stupid here about romney’s bain deal
has obama ever touched anything he didn’t kill and cost OTHERS money to do it ?>?
Obama’s people will attack it whether republicans ‘vet it’ or not.
I agree.
I can't see why anybody would want to wade through what ZERO has done, I don't think we know half of what he has done. We can't give him another 4 years. CAN'T. . . . .
I would vote for Mickey Mouse over ZERO. . . .
By making his attacks against Mr. Romney as pathetically stupid as what the liberals will do, Newt Gingrich is starting the process of inoculating Mitt Romney against those attacks. The most effective way to make money from a troubled company is to buy the company at a low price and run the company more effectively. If the company can’t be saved that way, then selling off the parts and using the capital raised on the next prospect is the best next option. I’m not surprised that Democrats are ignorant of these facts, but I’m frustrated to see so many Republicans believing the anti-business nonsense.
Thanks for the informed post. It’s not about defending Romney, it’s about defending capitalism against the wave of ignorant OWS/Obama class warfare.
Newt can claim to be doing a service all he wants, he’s still innoculating the press and Obama, not Romney. I can just hear Anderson Cooper or some other twit saying “Newt Gingrich has criticized your predatory financial dealings, and Rick Perry has called your methods ‘vulture’ capitalism, how can you stand there and claim that government shouldn’t regulate these things when even the most conservative of Republicans is critical of your past dealings?”
Questioning someone’s business record is anti-business?
I think you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I don't think that Newt Gingrich is trying to do any good for Mr. Romney. I'm sure he's trying to torpedo the Romney campaign. However, his "King of Bain" nonsense is pathetically stupid. I'm hoping that if "King of Bain" becomes a joke, we can make every anti-market attack into a joke just be referring to "King of Bain" advertising. I am worried that the situation will be exactly what you describe.
Repub or Dim rats? Snake Newt attacks Snake Mitt after being bitten by the Mitt snake...all’s fair in war and scumbag politics, right?
Gingrich is right. He has made it clear that his private equity has a role, but Romney needs to be clear about his record. If Romney cannot be clear now, he will be destroyed by the Obama-MSM machine.
Romney is not a conservative, will not govern as a conservative and cannot be allowed to be our nominee.
Any of the flawed candidates would be superior to Romney.
No. But using using an attack movie, that uses Michael Moore-like, highly misleading, manipulative interviews that attack some of the very basics of capitalism is. Newt has no shame.
His PAC put it up—if you know how PACs work, you know Newt has no direct control over them. Further, he’s called on them publicly to correct any inaccuracies or take it out of circulation altogether.
I know what I’m talking about. You are just desperately grasping for any straw to save Newt Gingrich’s dying campaign.
They could have just used footage of McCain and Huckabee in '08 pointing it out. Calling it an attack on capitalism is just the RINO establishment trying to stifle the debate. Just like saying any criticism of Obama is racism. It's the Romney elitists who are acting like the socialists here - they learned well from Obama.
In the words of Leroy Jethro Gibbs..."Ya think?"
Conservatives should not kid themselves. The conservative movement is filled with social conservative, some of whom are working class and not all that keen on the idea of creative destruction.
Romney might get all the college educated, invested rino vote, but he’s toast with many conservative, independent, and reagan democrat working folks. They would much rather support a Santorum or a Perry or a Gingrich who at least are calling for fairness.
Romney is going down. If the rinos continue to push him, then they’ll find him going down in the general.
Obama will eat his lunch.
Just ask yourself this one question:
If the two massachusetts candidates were running against each other — Kerry and Romney — which one would have the upper hand?
Mitt Kerry is who we are running. A rich flip-flopper from Massachusetts who couldn’t even hold on to his own gubernatorial office.
That was a test of character he created for himself, and then failed miserably.
People who live by their scruples don't say "I'll do this until someone attacks me, then I will do the thing I said I won't." You don't respond to others' attacks by altering your principles--that's the time to hold steady to what YOU believe in, and to hell with the other person's slimy attacks.
Newt didn't attack until he decided to attack. That's like being pro-life until you get someone pregnant and suddenly you want an abortion.
At least Kerry went to Vietnam and killed gooks. Romney went to France and killed a French girl. Kerry is the better man.
The question here is if one can make millions of dollars whether a company succeeds or fails then where is the risk-taking Romney speaks of so fondly? Look there isn't any evidence to suggest that Romney or Bain made their money illegally. Yet you don't have to support the Occupy movement to know that the playing field is pro-business, not pro-market. So it is disingenuous on Romney's part to decry welfare dependency as a poison to be fought when he has been more than happy to go before the government, role up his sleeve and have another form of poison injected into his arm and then come back for more. Romney is equally disingenuous to suggest that any criticism of his tenure at Bain Capital is an attack on free enterprise itself especially when he never practiced free enterprise in the first place. Mitt Romney is what I would call a corporate welfare bum.
Pro-Newt super PAC responds to Newt's call by challenging Romney
Newt is a smoldering IED in the middle of the entire Republican party—every time he vents his anger he destroys the chances of house and senate take over but that’s good according to him because he will have gotten his revenge. I was a huge fan but no more. Do you trust this angry man to have his finger on the red button?
“Mr. voter, was your vote today to support capitalism?
No, it was about jobs.
“Mr. voter, was your vote today to support capitalism?
No, it was about the economy.
“Mr. voter, was your vote today to support capitalism?
No, it was about beating Obama.
“Mr. voter, was your vote today to support capitalism?
No, It was to support our military
“Mr. voter, was your vote today to support capitalism?
No, it was about energy independence
“Mr. voter, was your vote today to support capitalism?
No, it was about gun rights and freedom
“Mr. voter, was your vote today to support capitalism?
No, it was about downsizing government.
“Mr. voter, was your vote today to support capitalism?
No, it was about our debt & deficit
“Mr. voter, was your vote today to support capitalism?
No, it was about religious freedom
Bingo. If this didn't happen now, and Romney is the nominee, this would have been the MSM 24/7 October surprise (or before).
Newt is overplaying this Bain business several times over.
Sometimes that sounded good in the early debates, and sometimes there was an air of phoniness about it. Looking back, I think Newt was just trying to lay out some great sounding ground rules that were really designed to shield him from criticism by.the other candidates.
As many have said, no Republican candidate has more baggage than Newt, and it was in his interest to create rules that protected him from criticism. But since everyone didn't follow his self-serving rules (what a shock!), Newt then became the most vicious attacker of all.
For many, this probably confirms what they've thought about Newt all along; lots of negatives come with his positives.
And it was a total joke to pretend that a group of ambitious politicians would go through a long campaign and never use negative ads.
Dems Prepare To Hammer Romney With The REAL Bain Onslaught (Newt's ad just the appetizer)
And I don't mean some passing reference to it where he has give any answer he wants that has Jesus in it and then they move on. I mean in depth questions about Mormonism with followups. I want gotcha type questions, because if this is not done now and Romney can prove that he can answer those type questions... then it sure as heck will happen during the general election when it's too late to change horses.
What I'm really saying is that Newt tried to establish all those early peace and harmony ground rules to protect himself, but when that didn't work, he became the most angry and vicious attacker of all. That was just a Gingrich campaign tactic that was unrealistic from the start, just as many Gingrich ideas are unrealistic or poorly thought out.
Are you saying that Newt should get a pass?
Believe in Newt and hope Repubs 'everywhere' appreciate as well. Certainly; the Independents - contrary to GOP 'wisdom'; can figure it out.
Newt has literally an American 'history' that fashions his vision; hope SC Conservatives can appreciate it - and not get hung up on failed marriage issues.
For our country's sake; No 'Kerry' redos; please South Carolina. . .
Romney gets a pass for starting the attacks in Iowa. And you never wonder why the press gave Romney a pass but not Gingrich. The press and the left can still play some people like fiddles.
You have a nice Sunday.
Obama is just waiting to tear Romney apart over this.
Newt and Perry are right. This needs to be outed now.
Lol, a classic surrender tactic disguised as a thoughtful response. It really does become beyond silly when some try to dismiss every statement they don't like as some surreptitious support of Romney.
I've been thinking for quite some time now that the GOP knows there's no saving our nation from economic disaster. They WANT a democrat in charge rather than a republican when it happens since the rats will just blame them instead.
Even worse, they want the collapse to happen, since they are basically in agreement with the rats on the way things work now, even if they have slightly different motives.
Here is an anti-Mitt video and an example of what is to come. Game, set, match for Obama and company if Mitt is the nominee. Kind of makes you wonder why the GOP is pushing Mitt. Forget the arguments about what is and isn't capitalism. Too many people are hurting and Mitt will be enemy #1.
King of Bain
Romney is the elites pick. By not helping get rid of him NOW, you are helping the GOP elites. Oh, and the left.
Romney likens himself to Obama. If Romney is the nominee, we're screwed. But you keep defending him. Because you hate Gingrich. The elites like you.
Again, have a nice Sunday.
Ping to video in #42. This is why Mitt won’t win. Bain is too easy of a target.
Well, you've definitely ruled Gingrich out as your candidate. The emotional aspect of his highly charged response to Romney's atttack ads has been widely observed, even if you missed it, or refuse to acknowledge it.
Actually, you've also ruled yourself out as anyone to be taken seriously.
What Gingrich is trying to explain must be carefully understood:
You can’t justify behavior based soley on the fact that it is done in the name of monetary profit.
The essence of our Constitution is liberty derived from moral truths. Economic freedom, apart from a moral code, is the death of all freedom.
“just as many Gingrich ideas are unrealistic or poorly thought out.”
Which Gingrich ideas, other than the “campaign tactic” you mention? (Maybe this claim of yours is poorly thought out.)
“They would much rather support a Santorum or a Perry or a Gingrich who at least are calling for fairness.”
“Fairness” is a code word for feel-good socialist bulls##t. Businesses fail and new businesses open. Only socialists want failing businesses be put on life support for the benefit of the “working class”.
Working class should try becoming productive class and quit their dependency on government-subsidized businesses.
In this sleazebag Mitt vs sleazebag Newt pissing contest, capitalism and free-market economy are the real losers.
His global warming romance with Pelosi, which he called one of the dumbest things he'd ever done/.
His nonsense about amnesty for illegal aliens who've been breaking immigration laws for 25 years, and who go to church, and don't litter or walk on the grass. He's for rewarding the very first lawbreakers after the amnesty to end the problem in 1986.
And the ridiculous idea of local boards to approve illegals for amnesty, when anyone knows that those boards would have to be rubber stamp committees, or they'd have a situation where some local boards would approve practically all illegals, and some almost none. Think there might be any difference in how many would be approved in Alabama and California? Then the endless lawsuits would begin.
But if you can't recall any half-thought through Gingrich ideas, you're probably so far in the tank him that it's a waste of time saying much to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.