Desperate Romney Using Leftist "Big Lie" Tactics: Newt Was Vindicated

Romney said there's no place for attacking from the Left in GOP politics. Actually, Newt was attacking from the Center, home to many a Reagan Democrat. But in perpetuating the big lie from a political prosecution courtesy of Nancy Pelosi, a desperate and now flailing Mitt Romney is most definitely taking a page from the Left in his ugly and unnecessary attacks on former Speaker Newt Gingrich. God, America hates sore losers.

And that's precisely what Romney is beginning to look like. He thought he owned the nomination and it was his for the taking. How else, besides incompetence, to explain such a weak performing campaign? This below via Legal Insurrection, read it all - with video. Newt was vindicated of the charges Romney is now lying about in attacking him.

In 1999, Brent Bozell wrote a great column about how the media covered up Newt’s vindication, Newt Is Vindicated, But Nobody Knows It:

Mitt Romney’s campaign is in trouble.  The trouble is not just the South Carolina vote count.  Romney’s internal polling almost certainly also showed that he was behind in Florida, as public polling released today reflects.

More worrisome for Romney is a growing chorus of doubters within the Republican establishment and conservative media who are beginning to wonder out loud whether Romney is electable in the primaries or general election.

Now you can add to the list the Romney campaign, which uses the worst of Nancy Pelosi’s machinations to its advantage, and like the mainstream media, hides the truth.

 

Comments

[ljm]

Mr. Riehl,

Newt was never exonerated for intentionally or recklessly misleading the ethics committee.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/newts-erroneous-ethics-alibi/

[Reaganite Republican]

Romney is lost when he can't just order or buy what he wants, I would say he has no idea what to do know... how else to explain resorting to the same negative tactics that came back to bite him last week

Mitten's campaign strategy is non-existent if the attacks aren't working... and now that he's playing catch up, he can't hide behind them anymore either, he's got to debate

Like a skilled tank commander, Newt has drawn him on to the battlefield of his choosing... and advantage

[ljm]

"Like a skilled tank commander"...that's a joke right?

[RefudiateObama2012]

ljm, first of all, using factcheck.org as an authority is laughable. Here's what happened:

"The first 'charge' from the ethics committee is that he "may have" violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.

The second 'charge' from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. And what was this "false information?" Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to "Renewing American Civilization." He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide. But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions. For this, there was an uproar about Newt's ethics, and he was fined.

Basically, Newt was fined $300,000 because he didn't read his lawyers' documents carefully. I could really get into the hypocrisy of this in light of the fact that people want to excuse Bill Clinton for lying under oath, (maybe if the course Newt had taught was about SEX the Democrats would feel differently) but that's not the point of this article.

Well, after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. "The ... course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician."

Well isn't that nice - and isn't that what Newt had been saying all along?

In other words, the ethics charges David Bonior filed against Newt were ALL bogus. Every single one of them. In the end, what was Newt's "ethics problems"? One of the papers filed by his lawyers had an error and Newt didn't catch it. That little oversight cost $300,000."

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html

What was done to Gingrich has a lot of parallels to what was done to Sarah Palin when Obama released his minions on her.

[Edward Cropper]

Reading this web cite is like reading a Gingrich campaign ad. You are so enamored by Newt you can't see the garbage for the garbage. Romney has more problems than you can count, but that doesn't minimize Newt's reckless and self promoting ego in the least. We need a candidate who is concerned about the country not some egoistic
self centered slob.

[ljm]

Using a non partisan site like factcheck is laughable and using a site titled rightgirl is good research.

umm..okay..but do you think the general population is going to buy it?

If you really want to refudiate Obama in 2012 you are going to have to do better than that.

Is it any wonder that:

The Republican Party is on suicide watch in Florida.

The Re

[ljm]

PS. "What was done to Gingrich has a lot of parallels to what was done to Sarah Palin when Obama released his minions on her."

I rest my case.

[tj]

Must be a lefty...all that name calling. This was payback to Newt for Clinton' Impeachment. Ask Nancy she knows! Mr cropper. 84 changes all dropped, irs exonerated him...read much? look it up

[bluespapa]

I love the excuse that Newt agreed to be fined $300,000 for trusting an incompetent lawyer. The Speaker of the House of Representatives couldn't find a good lawyer in Washington.

How about, he agreed he was guilty of ethics violations for misleading the ethics committee. That's also part of the record, too.

You don't have to like Romney or his campaign tactics to understand that Gingrich was overwhelmingly reproved by his own party for his ethics violations, and his leadership overwhelmingly rejected.

[Phillip]

What is it with you and Mark Levin, that you are so out to get Mitt Romney. What Mitt did at Bain Capital was Capitalism, not Corporatism.

You want to see a cry baby and a sore loser? Just look at how Newt reacted to losing in Iowa. He totally distorted Mitt Romney's record and claimed that Mitt was buying the election...?!? Is Newt Gingrich not worth 60 million dollars? Newt goes around calling Mitt a Massachusetts Moderate, saying that he approved of gay marriage and abortion... How does a conservative go into a state that has legalized gay marriage overcome that court ruling in a 85% Democrat controlled state? I think Mitt handled himself in the best way he could in the situation that he was in.

If anyone has been petty, it's been Newt Gingrich. I don't think Mitt Romney has been immersed into the Conservative side of Politics in the country in last 30 years like Gingrich has. It makes sense seeing where Mitt Romney grew up as compared to Newt who was there when Reagan became a national figure. Mitt maybe hasn't been fully versed in the Conservative founding of our Country like most talk radio listeners feel like they have been. Plus, Mitt needs to be more aggressive.

My question is... How does Newt overcome his 56% unfavorable rating among voting Americans? (if the poll is right on that)

[ljm]

Did you hear Newt's squishy defense of the recklessly and or intentionally misleading the committee reprimand? Squishy.

I just thought of the knock-out punch that Romney needs in the debate tonight.

Mitt on Newt's defense of his ethics reprimand:

"Speaker Gingrich, with all do respect, your excuse for misleading the committee sounds like "it depends on what the definition of is - is."

[Eric Eikenberry]

Mittens would be wise not to go anywhere near a growling grizzly bear hovering over fresh meat. To attack Newt, who was there, over a negligeable typo in a document filed in an ethics complaint would be folly. Mitt is seeking sound bites with his pointed attacks and questions, and instead he's going to get whacked with the Stoopid Stick by the man who was there and who lived through it.

Of course, I don't expect Mittens to see this in advance. He never does. Even Sarah Palin has better political instincts than Mitt "Any Way the Wind Blows" Romney.

Furthermore, arguing that Mitten's views were the only way a conservative could govern in a liberal state is the exact reason WHY we don't need Mitt Romney to be a NATIONAL candidate. Mitt sees himself as a champion of conservative values, based on his NE US beer goggles. WE, in flyover country, see him as very slightly to the right of Barack Obama. The entire problem with his campaign is one of someone with money subverting the normal political process because he can, based on his slanted view of himself. Good businessman, erratic politician. I think that's what Dan's been trying to say.

[ljm]

Tank commander, growling grizzly bear ? When Newt is actually put in a position where he might have to deal with an issue, like the day after his ex-wife went on tv. He yanks his grandson out of school and positions him between himself and the press and public on the campaign trail.

When asked to explain his reprimand by the ethics committee he offers this:

“It was a mistake,” Gingrich said. “So the one mistake I made was signing a letter written by our lawyers, a firm which frankly did me a great disservice. And that's the only thing.”

It was his lawyers fault. The truth is the lie in the letter had been told by Gingrich to the committee previously. He lied to the committee then he followed that up with a letter, signed by him, from his lawyers.

Nancy Pelosi knows this. Everybody on the committee knows this. James Cole knows this. According to Larry Sabato there is a sense of panic in the house from members who are afraid they might have Newt at the head of the ballot in 2012.

[Ragspierre]

"It should be noted — as the Gingrich campaign already has done — that ultimately the IRS ruled that the former Georgia congressman did not violate any tax laws, as Democrats initially claimed. The original complaints were indeed partisan, and overreaching, and an attempt to even the score for Gingrich’s role in the humiliation of former Democratic Speaker Jim Wright.

Bonior was seeking retribution against Gingrich for filing an ethics complaint in 1988 against Wright, who was ultimately cited for 69 violations of House rules, and later resigned as speaker and retired from the House. At the time, Gingrich’s camp blamed Bonior — not Pelosi — for driving the ethics effort. Gingrich spokesman Tony Blankley issued a statement when the complaint was refiled in 1995 that read, in part: “If Newt had a dog, Bonior would accuse him of kicking it. Well, Newt doesn’t have a dog and Bonior doesn’t have a case.” And that proved to be true for 83 of the 84 counts — as Pelosi agreed by her vote."

"...ultimately the IRS ruled that the former Georgia congressman did not violate any tax laws, as Democrats initially claimed. The original complaints were indeed partisan, and overreaching, and an attempt to even the score for Gingrich’s role in the humiliation of former Democratic Speaker Jim Wright."

Put up your link showing that Gingrich "misled" Congress, when we know he was not lying about the root charge.

So far, ljm has been caught lying LOTS of times on these threads.

Seems he has a real kink about Mr. Gingrich.

The truth is on suicide watch in ljm's skull.

[Ragspierre]

"The truth is the lie in the letter had been told by Gingrich to the committee previously. He lied to the committee then he followed that up with a letter, signed by him, from his lawyers."

Support that.

[ljm]

Rags if you would spend less time in the schoolyard and more time in the classroom your reading skills would improve. I have provided two links previously. One from WAPO which we all know is one of Newt's favorite papers as he was fond of quoting their fact checking pinnochios until his own Superpac movie was roundly dissed by the same paper. I also provided a factcheck.org link for your convenience.

you said: "we know he was not lying about the root charge." It is squishy defensive arguments like this that will kill Newt in the general election, if not before. It is squishy ethics that got Newt into trouble in the first place. As we found out from another famous political scandal: "It depends on what the definition of what IT - is," is not a defense.

[Ragspierre]

"...you said: 'we know he was not lying about the root charge'."

That is a lie.

I said, "Put up your link showing that Gingrich "misled" Congress, when we know he was not lying about the root charge."

If he was truthful about the root charge, about what can you SHOW he was lying?

See? Now don't run this time.

Here's ANOTHER lie...

"It is squishy ethics that got Newt into trouble in the first place."

Even your flackchekz story makes clear that this was a partisan hit job from the git.

If you would like, I will be delighted to highlight some of your other legion lies.

Just keep it up, moron.

[ljm]

I quoted you precisely. What, you say, I took the words out of context? I got the "ROOT" of the comment though didn't I?

Even if reading newsprint is too difficult, surely you have the reading comprehension to make sense of one of your own posts. Well on second thought...never mind.

I have posted this before but I'll do it again you know 'cause of the ortshay ttentionay anspay.

"Cole said he had concluded that Gingrich had violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. He said the committee members were reluctant to go that far in their conclusions, but said they agreed Gingrich was either "reckless" or "intentional" in the way he conducted himself."

Class if over. Put the lid back on the paste, your chair under the desk and head for the bus.

[Ragspierre]

"One would have thought that, when we pointed out the letters, he would have read them," Cole said. "And if something was wrong, you thought he would bring it to our attention. But he did not. . . . Instead he sends us a letter repeating what he said before. He doesn't see anything wrong. Well, that makes it tough for us to understand that in fact this is as innocent as some people would have us believe."

You, again, are lying.

Or, perhaps more charitably, you are supporting Cole's lie. See?

Or are you too stupid/hate-crazed/self-righteous to see all the qualifiers in that paragraph?

Here's one of your lies from yesterday...

"Gingrich would be denied a government security clearance for his ethics violations..."

Actually, that contains at least two lies.