Pro-Romney Group Buys $500,000 In Michigan TV Ads (Newt Targeted)

NY Times ^ | February 13, 2012 | Jeremy W. Peters

[red flanker]

Mitt Romney is getting some heavy air support in Michigan — the state where he was born and raised — as the “super PAC” supporting him invests almost $500,000 on television ads there.

According to someone who tracks Republican media spending, Restore Our Future has committed just over $470,000 for commercials starting Tuesday and set to run through Feb. 20. That marks the group’s largest purchase yet in Michigan, where it will have spent more than $700,000 on ads by next week.

The group said Monday that it would continue for now to run an ad called “Risk” that targets Newt Gingrich using images and attacks that have by now become familiar advertising fodder. It cites the proliferation of earmarks during his tenure as House speaker and shows a shot of him sitting with Nancy Pelosi on a couch in front of the Capitol, a shot taken from a public service announcement on global warming.

[napscoordinator]

Christie,
I apologize for my nasty post. I didn’t mean it.
Sincerely,
Bob

[Gator113]

We will see. My bet says he won’t make it.

[Patton@Bastogne]

Willard is an almost evil Guy but these “foolish” Michigan ads against may be driven by a wealthy power broker ... who goal is the strategic destruction of Newt Gingrich ... Moreover, how much will Romney spend to try to destroy Newt in Georgia and Texas? Have Romney’s “masters” decided to use him as a kamakazee to ultimately reelect The Kenyan?

[Mangia E Statti Zitto]

Wow! This is interesting. Right now I’m not sure there’s any kind of “deal” b/w Santorum and Romney. I think Santorum is running because he truly wants to be President. So why would Romney spend money knocking down a guy that everyone except us Newt supporters think is on life support?

Maybe because Romney knows this race is extremely volatile, and Santorum’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep. And even though Newt didn’t do well in Florida, he’s proven he can knock out everyone with one stellar debate performance. And there’s a debate next week.

[GVnana]

Santorum will dump his delegates on Romney. This is becoming obscene.

[GVnana]

I’d like to see that. Got any links?

[Ozymandias Ghost]

“I guess Rush is too busy with Two if By Tea to look at Rick's actual record. I have studied Ricks moderate record. He's quite weak on the 2nd Amendment. His votes on the 2nd amendment alone indicates whatever is flowing through Rick, it isn't a deep respect for our Constitution.”

______________________

I actually have no idea what Rick's stand is on the 2nd Amendment ...haven't heard him talk about it and haven't yet read his book ...but I will. Would like to hear from those who do have some info on Rick's level of support for the TRTK&BA.

It has been my experience over many years of listening, that Rush never says very much about the 2nd Amendment; unless it's as an aside to some other issue or what some pol has said regarding the TRTK&BA. Rush seems to be primarily a fiscal conservative; although he does pay some attention to other Constitutional issues.

Now, if someone was trying to ban golf clubs or put a high tax on greens fees or ban pro football, I am sure that would draw an immediate and vociferous response from Rush ...but the 2nd Amendment seems more of a philosophical exercise w/Rush; not something that he really considers part of his world; other than, perhaps, hypothetically for his 5-man, executive security detail (which I presume he has; or at least SHOULD have.)

Take care,

-Geoff

[napscoordinator]

You mean besides his lack of much of a fiscal conservative record, his lack of ideas, and his lack of a trace of charisma?

You guys don’t understand that he was part of the Republican trifeca. Do you not realize that? Had he gone against the Republicans at the time, you guys would have been pissed and called him unpatriotic. Now as far as his lack of charisma....aren’t we sorta done with the slick talker that we have now? Wouldn’t it be great to have a somewhat reserved adult after 4 years? That is all I am saying. Sometimes boring is good.

[VinL]

I knew you didn’t, my friend-

Regrettably, however, you are supporting the wrong guy, but you’ve always been a class act. -:)

Continued good luck to Rick and you— and nice post. God Bless you and your family.

Vin -:)

[Lazlo in PA]

Fair enough.

[Gene Eric]

A humorless Bush reincarnate who offsets his lack of grace with paternalism.

Say NO to big government statism. Say NO to Santorum.

[GVnana]

Eeeewww. Yucky!

[napscoordinator]

Thanks for getting me back to reality. I will be voting for Newt or Santorum in the general FOR SURE. We must have no more than those two {unless we go to the convention and we pick Sarah or something. :-)}

[Gator113]

You are a LIAR. But, you have become too looney to bother with.

[Darren McCarty]

Which 2nd Amendment votes? I've been following that issue for 20 years and from what I remember, Santorum's one of the better ones out there.

Romney's about as bad as Obama on that issue. He signed a ban. R

[napscoordinator]

Liar? You refuse to vote for Santorum in the general and you call me a liar. Sheesh. You might as well just vote for Obama. I never hear anybody but liberals say they won’t vote for Santorum in the general....you fit that picture pretty well.

[VinL]

As for drafting Sarah, check out the link at post #6. Never can tell.

[napscoordinator]

True. I really hope that Obama does not pick Hillary. That would just make things harder and unnecessary for our side.

[Joe 6-pack]

"I have studied Ricks moderate record. He's quite weak on the 2nd Amendment. His votes on the 2nd amendment alone indicates whatever is flowing through Rick, it isn't a deep respect for our Constitution."

Both the NRA and GOA give Santorum higher lifetime ratings than Newt.

Just sayin'.

[LADY J]

"Or—It will take a Gingrich/Rubio to beat Obama/Hillary."

I disagree!!

GINGRICH/WEST WILL BEAT THOSE TWO SOCIALISTS!!