Skip to comments.Gingrich's Main Backer Plays Two Angles (Report: Adelson after Rick)
Posted on 02/14/2012 5:07:46 PM PST by VinL
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson, by far the biggest financial backer of Newt Gingrich's presidential bid, is preparing to open his wallet again. But this time, the casino magnate appears to have more than one agenda.
In a bit of political chess, Mr. Adelson is ready to not only directly support the former House speaker in the Republican primary, but to use his cash to push Rick Santorum from his position atop the latest national polls, according to people to have discussed the matter with Mr. Adelson.
Enlarge Image ADELSON ADELSON Las Vegas Review-Journal/Associated Press
Sheldon Adelson, shown with his wife, Miriam, at a Nevada caucus meeting in Summerlin, Nev., could give an additional $10 million to Newt Gingrich.
If Mr. Gingrich could afford to continue campaigning, one of those people said, he might be able to draw off conservative and evangelical voters from Mr. Santorum, improving the chances of Mitt Romney, who Mr. Adelson believes has a better chance to win November's general election.
"Sheldon says we all have to keep our eyes on the goal herebeating Obama," said a person who talked with Mr. Adelson.
According to the people who have discussed the matter, Mr. Adelson could give an additional $10 million or more to an independent group supporting Mr. Gingrich before Super Tuesday, March 6, a likely pivotal day when 10 states go to the polls. The Adelson family has already given $11 million to support Mr. Gingrich since December.
Mr. Adelson has repeatedly declined to comment on his donations. He "holds his cards tight to the chest because this has been such a seesaw primary you don't know where it's going to go," said Andy Abboud, vice president for government relations at Las Vegas Sands Corp.... (snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Let’s see..... no names, just rumors and no comment by Adelson...
Boy! Romney must really be scared of Newt. This smacks of the underhanded kind of knifing Mitt is good at.
He knows that going after Rick Santorum is fraught with higher negatives soooooooo he smears Newt’s biggest donor and then say’s Adelson is doing it all to help....Mitt.
Dubya, stop cheer-leading- no amount of “rah-rah” will change facts. -:)
The sole issue of fact is: will billionaire Adelson fund Newt? If he does not, then, you’re likely right- Newt can’t compete without money.
On the other hand, if Adelson gives Newt millions, then Newt might well sweep the South (including Texas), and then, it’s a new(t) ballgame.
I submit to you that it helps Obama’s scheme when anyone confuses Santorum’s personal beliefs on contraception and the sexual revolution’s devastation of the family with Santorum’s campaign for the presidency.
Of course Santorum has perfect right to his views and to express them.
But he’s running for president and we are depending on our nominee to defeat the Democrats, period. Our nation’s very existence depends on it.
If that becomes a campaign issue focus, it plays totally into Obama’s and the Dem’s now naked efforts to convince American women...and men, but especially women...that he, and perhaps other conservative Republicans, are in favor of outlawing contraception.
WE know he’s not trying to outlaw it, but the Community Organizer in Chief knows how to divide and conquer by using this fear as one of his diabolical themes.
IMHO, the United States has strayed far from the path that was laid out for it and that God alone can heal this land.
Add this point:
Obama and the Dems say, not only do you risk the outlawing of contraceptives if you vote Santorum or even merely Republican, but if you don’t buy into that fear, compare their side with what WE offer you...
We have ordered insurance companies to GIVE YOU FREE CONTRACEPTIVES.
And our authority for doing so is our great and wonderful OBAMACARE.
Vote for us and keep Obamacare and free contraceptives.
Meanwhile, Santorum has quotes about the evils of contraception, and the GOP is vowing to repeal Obamacare.
Do you see the pit as it opens up before us?
Let’s keep our eyes wide open as to what the evil Left is preparing.
Religion and not Legislation.
It appears that Romney is attacking Santorum over his religious beliefs.
It seems to me that Romney saying Santorum can't separate his religious beliefs from his religion opens Romney's Mormonism up to discussion.
This is odd, though, since it's well known that Mormons consider the Catholic Church to be the Church of Satan.
And it seems to me that if Obama does the same, then Obama's "liberation theology" becomes an issue too.
This smacks of the underhanded kind of knifing Mitt is good at.
Cin-wife, that’s the reality, isn’t it? Consider, Romney made a personal phone call to Adelson after Fla- and we all know what the message likely was—”I have the backing of Goldman Sachs/Wall St- all the people you do business with. If I become President, you’re obviously not our friend.”
So, with Romney, it’s not just personal attacks- it’s squelching the candidate’s money from big donors.
If Mr. Adelson continues to give money to Newt in the face of this intimidation, one has to admire his courage and loyalty.
When you defend pork for YOUR district, you are at the same time defending pork for EVERY district.
It is inescapable.
That’s how we got here.
Earmarks, bridges to nowhere and the rest.
Rick Perry understood that earmarks aren’t the giant budget busters that entitlements and big government, period, are.
But as Santorum defended earmarks under the Washington system as it was then, and still is, Perry was calling earmarks the gateway drug to deficits and debt.
Like the MJ to the Cocaine and Heroin.
It addicts you to big government and the massive spending of other people’s money.
So you’re not in a good position to downsize government and return power to the states.
You’ve been gobbled up by the system.
That being said, we need to realize that contraception WAS outlawed in America for the better part of two centuries and it is inarguable that the moral AND fiscal states of our Republic were on a far better footing during that time.
We need a president who is not afraid to say that certain things are WRONG even if they happen to be legal. The left has spent over fifty years trying to convince people that legality is synonymous with morality and this notion is simply false.
Conservatism is a three-legged stool of fiscal and social conservatism alongside a strong foreign policy. It is only successful when ALL THREE of these legs are there. The main difference between Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980 was social conservatism and we need to remember that BOTH ELECTIONS were landslides. America will elect a genuine conservative, they won't elect a non-conservative trying to portray themselves as one.
Wow, thank you. That is awesome!
you all tickle me.....what we have here is a rich guy paying n playing everyone to get them in his debt...remember trump? im gonna endorse this guy no that guy no this guy....rich guy getting all three guys in his pocket
The point must be made that it is the “GIVING” that is the offensive point. The government that is BIG enough to give you everything, is big enough to take it all away (once there is no one left to give their fair share or has any leverage to object).
Obamacare -— healthcare — has the “power to give you” everything because they have taken away any choice you have. “Healthcare” can dictate the control and availability of anything humans touch (or that effects them), what they eat, what they think (mental health, national security).
THAT loss of CHOICE, is what they better drive home to the voters.
It will give them total say over what people can do or say.
Americans are not made with a cookie cutter - some will agree and some won't, but I want a President who lead on his spiritual knees before God.
BTW, Romney is no mere Mormon, he holds a very high position which means he embraces certain beliefs which are apt to be far more troubling to the secularists than a belief that abortion and other contraception are morally wrong.
Every Christmas and Easter there are TV specials on the "real Jesus" and other such nonsense that is produced to marginalize Christianity, but Christians have learned to pretty much ignore this.
If Romney is nominated, we will suddenly be deluged with HISTORICALLY ACCURATE specials on every network showing just how bizarre Mormonism's beliefs are. The average American is totally unaware what Mormons really believe and once they see it they will be shocked.
When the Government controls every aspect of our "health care" they can literally dictate to us what we can or must eat and what drugs we must take.
Obama is evil. There is no other word to describe him and his ilk.
― C.S. Lewis
Romney doesn't need money. Romney has plenty of money and right now it isn't doing him any good. What Romney needs is for Gingrich and Santorum to be competitive enough against each other to divide the conservative vote. With Gingrich falling way behind and Santorum pulling way ahead, this balance has been offset leaving Romney losing in 2nd place. This is where Adelson comes in to prop up Gingrich.
Obama and the Dems are counting on votes from people who don’t understand about the power and control issue.
They claim it’s about contraception. They claim it’s about affordability; in this case...free. They will claim that those who disapprove of contraception would either ban it if they could, or at the very least, fail to “give it to you”, as THEY have promised to do.
So they want you to vote for them on such a basis that it will be available and free.
And they will, and already are, running on that.
Rush has covered this at length, today.
I’m not saying that can’t be refuted.
But with people who don’t understand where their true interests as Americans lie, it will be even harder to refute that when one presidential campaign or one side has made it a point to say contraception is bad...not simply as a personal belief, but as part of their political belief system as well.
Santorum has said words to that effect.
Now we know why the question about contraception was asked in a debate, when nobody was talking about that as an issue at the time.
And now we know why suddenly the words pertaining to this are all over the news everyday, and why ginned-up, but firm, battle lines are being drawn.
Not all big money is scum. Just the pro socialism and pro pay to play big money. In this case big money is muting the influence of conservatives by keeping candidates floating that voters are rejecting so that the liberal can win. What does big money expect to get back from their investment? If they expect anything, they become scum that pollutes the whole idea of government for the people.
It’s up to the people to vote how they want to vote. No amount of money can force them to. Romney has been outspending the other candidates in every state and still generally loses the elections.
The premise that big money is keeping candidates afloat that the voters are rejecting is not based on fact. That’s just something you made up. All 4 candidates in the race now have a solid base of support among the voters. Some of those supporters have money and are exercising their first amendment rights by spending it to get their message out.
It’s legal for people to spend millions getting out the message that “Coke is it” or that the latest Adam Sandler movie is pure hilarity. Why in the world would it be a bad thing for someone to spend money to put out a more substantive political message? Should the only messages big money gets behind be mindless pablum?
Your premise that the conservatives will split the vote and cause Romney to win, if that’s what you’re saying, hasn’t proven true so far. It’s a possibility, but what seems to be happening more often is that in liberal states Newt and Rick’s combined vote total is lower than Romney’s total and in conservative states, one of the two finishes above Romney every time.
America will fall if voters are stupid, whether or not people are putting advertisements on TV or not. If they’re smart enough to do their homework and recognize that Newt is far and away the candidate who will improve our lives the most, then we’ll be in good shape. :)
Ross Perot ran as an independent. (In case you forgot.)
“So the big money scum will now completely control our elections. Still think the super pac decision is good for America?”
That seems about right. Some believe that Moot Gantry can buy this nomination. The voters of SC clearly rejected that in voting for Newt. The voters in Colorado, MO & MN also soundly rejected gantry.
So Moot has won the states everyone fully -expected- him to win.
So let’s hope that voters around the nation in the south and mid-west continue to reject this snake-oil salesman.
I have long been a Santorum supporter but voted for Newt in Florida because it looked like the best strategic option in Florida to possibly keep the win away from Moot Gantry.
I will support any candidate in the general election -except- for Romney. I encourage anyone who feels the same to sign the petition at http://www.MitigateRomney.com
and tell the media would-be king makers and establishment RINOs where to put their polls.
Who says so ? as the Newt supporters say, need links, proof, validation..
Who says so ? as the Newt supporters say, need links, proof, validation..
Yes, I read all articles thoroughly before I post. What’s your gripe, my friend?
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
What happened to the original story, where Adelson was reported to have given $20 million and again another $5 million. Now we hear $10 million total! Thankful, yes, but peanuts compared to what Romney opened the door with.
Adelson and all other potential backers to Newt have been roughed up somewhere along the line behind closed doors.
Bribery, promises, guarantees, contracts, titles and positions, threats, all to be gained, lost or outed, if they dare.
It is impossible that Newt would have so little muster behind him from big money, given what he has done for Republicans, business, and conservatives themselves could never have emerged as we have before he manhandled the Democrats to change the course of history back in ‘94.
Small donors have been destroyed and can not float a campaign of the proportion to take on Romnomoney and Obama coming up. A “free” election this is not.
quoting you - “Santorum makes Bush look like Ronald Reagan. But go ahead, ....” You listed exactly how Santorum voted — I _very_ much appreciate this. I need to tell some people about this.
- “highlights” as it were —
“Voted to allow sale of supercomputers to China” -
and “Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea” -—
Not to mention: — “Voted to allow food and medicine sales to state sponsors of terror and tyranical regimes such as Libya and Cuba.”
OK! I understand Santorum now! !
What if he just said, “Let’s give $500,000 to poor North Korea — the poor things...” That in itself would have been bad enough — Or maybe — Only ONE million, how ‘bout. But no ... 25 MILLION. I can’t *fathom* that.
Also: It’s great that Santorum has seven children [my mother had eight BTW]; but I see now that I can’t jump to conclusions about him just on that basis. I get it now.
well, let’s say Mr. Santorum only voted that way about twelve percent of the time. I still have a problem with him, anyway. Because the things that you listed there, are too many, and too serious, for me to ignore or make light of — I just can’t, ...
Like the thing about financially supporting countries like Cuba. It irritates me very much — Like with Israel / Palestine — We are supposed to be friends with Israel, but, we also give financial aid to the sworn enemies of Israel, who are bona fide / proven terrorists. ... doesn’t make sense. .... Cuba is right in our backyard [close enough to be a possible threat], and they are cruel to their own people.
No amount of money could make me vote for 0bama, or love Mitt. If everyone thought for themselves, and voted accordingly, the megacash would be meaningless.
*****He is very good fiscally which is the cherry on top.***
The below has been posted repeatedly and yet you continue to make that FALSE statement. He IS NOT good fiscally much less very good fiscally like you claim DESPITE HIS RECORD.
Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.
Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.
Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museums Olympic Sculpture Project (WA)
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million
Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL)
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a states highway allocation
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%
Voted against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.
Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against a allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.
Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.
Voted to allow the President to designate certain sites as interim nuclear waste storage sites in the event that he determines that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent waste repository. Those sites are as follows: the nuclear waste site in Hanford, Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; Barnwell County, South Carolina; and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.
Voted to make fuel price gouging a Federal crime.
Newt Skywalker would be a GREAT PhotoShop for someone so inclined...
The core value of all conservatives should be about being successful with values, and not about controlling the people and government.
The billionaire oligarchs want to control our candidates and government.
Conservatism (IMHO) has always been about the need for law abiding honest government, fiscal responsibility by all, personal responsibility, opposition to corruption and importantly against any form of cronyism.
Billionaires like Adelson want more. They want a disproportionate right to control our candidates and government. I oppose Citizens United for that very reason. Democracy is not about money. It is about commitment and values. Each of us should get only one vote and a unlimited amount of personal effort to campaign and that is the extent of our influence.
If everyone thought for themselves, and voted accordingly, the megacash would be meaningless.
Now, back to the real world where maybe 20% of the people think for themselves.