Posted on 01/12/2012 1:36:51 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
For those who might have missed it, Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren interviewed Newt Gingrich last night and asked whether he was “backing down” on his “attack on Bain capital.” Gingrich replied:
Well, first of all, I’m not attacking Bain Capital; I’m questioning Mitt Romney’s judgment, I’m questioning Mitt Romney’s decisions. He’s the person who has gone around saying that his business career is one of his two credentials. The other is his governorship. He doesn’t want to talk about his record as governor ’cause it’s too liberal for a Republican primary, and he doesn’t want anyone to talk about his business career….
“You know, this isn’t about free enterprise….This isn’t about capitalism. This isn’t even about private equity funds. This is about one person who wants to be president of the United States. He owes the country an explanation: Why were certain decisions made? How were they done? What was the consequence of them? Does he stand by them in retrospect? Now, surely, if he’s gonna go around running for president saying his 25-year business record is proof [that people should vote for him], he ought to be willing to discuss the 25-year business record, instead of suddenly jumping up and saying any questions are a sign you’re attacking free enterprise. That’s baloney.
“I have a very long record as a Reagan conservative. I have consistently worked to make sure we had more enterprise, not less; more jobs, not less; more entrepreneurs, not less. And in fact I would say that Mitt Romney did pretty well under the tax laws that I helped Ronald Reagan pass in the 1980s. So he ought to be happy with my role in expanding free enterprise and my role in the 1990s as speaker in cutting the capital gains tax — the largest tax cut in capital gains in American history came while I was speaker, so this is not about free enterprise. This is about one person, Mitt Romney, and what he did.”
In response to a follow-up question, Gingrich added,
“The question here is, various newspapers have reported, and an entire documentary has been made, about three or four cases that are very specific. Now, I think if Governor Romney thinks there’s nothing there, he ought to just hold a press conference, walk the news media through it, explain how it was done, let people see it. But I find it strange that they are so sensitive on this issue that they’ve sort of pushed the panic button.
“But understand me: This is not about free enterprise. This is about the character, values, and judgment of a particular person who is running for president of the United States. And it strikes me, just as with his record as governor, where his record’s very different from his advertising, he owes the country some candor, and he owes the country some facts. That’s all I’m saying.”
Van Susteren then asked Gingrich to explain his apparent about-face on running attacks ads. Gingrich said that, after Iowa, he and his wife Callista had a day-long discussion about whether his campaign should continue its policy of unilateral disarmament in that regard, and he decided that doing so would effectively mean “getting out of the race,” which he wasn’t prepared to do.
During the interview, Gingrich also went on the offensive:
“[N]ow we’re in South Carolina, which is my country. This is where, as a Georgia conservative, I have a pretty good idea how to campaign. And we’re gonna make it a clear race: a Reagan conservative from Georgia? — or a moderate from Massachusetts?
“...[I will] lay out [Governor Romney’s] liberalism on issues like abortion, gun control, raising taxes. These are all issues which, when the voters of South Carolina understand them, he’s gonna get remarkably few votes down here, because he’s not pro-life. He in fact put Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, into Romneycare. He has tax-paid abortion in Romneycare. His administration approved building an abortion clinic for Planned Parenthood. He appointed pro-abortion judges. These things all happened after he claimed he was pro-life....”
Moments later, Van Susteren interrupted and playfully deadpanned, “So I guess it’s fair to say you are gonna fight back.”
Immediately thereafter, Van Susteren interviewed Rick Santorum, who said,
“I think what Newt just talked about with going after Governor Romney’s record in Massachusetts is absolutely dead-on. Governor Romney’s record in Massachusetts is deplorable. It is not a conservative record. It’s tax increases. It’s, as he mentioned, $50 taxpayer-funded abortions in Romneycare. There are a whole host of fees and things that the governor put in place that, actually, he even proposed and a Democratic legislature wouldn’t got along with some of his tax increases….
“As Newt said, gun control, abortion, and a very bad record on taxes and spending — those are the kinds of things that I wanna talk about here in South Carolina.”
The GOP and the communists Democrats will make sure Romney wins.
Newt makes so much sense and can explain so clearly it is down right scary
If the voters in SC could just hear him Romney wouldn’t have a chance in hell
Immediately thereafter, Van Susteren interviewed Rick Santorum, who said, “Yeah, what he said!”
:~)
Who gets all the money for advertisements? The more conflicts, the more advertisements needed.
Now there's a sentence worthy of a two-hour debate.
Yes, I listened to it. As usual, Newt is quick on his feet, very very clear and concise.
But 40% of the people on this forum don’t want to hear this. They don’t see it the same way. They’re giving up on Newt and Perry for that matter.
Romney is getting a clear pass when he has a lot of explaining.
PS-BTW, are you warming up to Newt finally?
Newt CONSTANTLY has to go back and clarify or apologize for dumb things he does. That to me is a problem. He is so compulsive. Why? Why can’t he think before he speaks or does an action? Santorum is always steady and methodical. That is 1/2 the reason I am for Santorum.
Thank you.
“I don’t agree with attacks on free-market capitalism at all but I don’t believe this is really what is at the heart of Gov. Perry’s criticism of Romney and his time at Bain,” the former Alaska governor replied.
The idea that Perry and Newt are “attacking capitalism” is idiotic at best, diabolical at worst. To sat that Romney ran a company that plundered pension funds, bankrupted the corp, then forced the taxpayers to bailout the pension funds has nothing to do with “capitalism.” It has to do with using the raw power of capital to take from workers and companies that which they themselves cannot protect. It’s not illegal, it’s just immoral.
I don’t understand why the others aren’t hitting Romney for putting so many liberal judges on the bench, and supporting gay marriage.
He's clarifying what Romney and others have claimed he was saying, pretending he was going after capitalism itself, or saying Newt was attacking Romney from the left.
He did neither, he's reminding people what was the main points of what he (Newt) was saying, not what Romney bots (and a few others) are claiming he was doing.
Those of us who remember Newtus Magnificus are familiar with all his bluster and remember his monstorous goof in handling the Slick Willie/Monica fiasco.
Wouldn’t you say Newtus’ mouth is a prayer book. Always truthful and always wiser than the rest of us. Har Har Har.
Rick Santorum is my guy. Give a hoot, don’t NEWT.
Caddis the Elder
Thanks for posting....
Perhaps stupid people should pay close attention to what Newt actually says the first time and then he wouldn't have to clarify later. I do not like much about his personal life and some of his progressive policy stances, but I have never had a problem understanding what he meant or where he is coming from.
Mitt’s in decline, as Newt’s (counter) attack ads start to bite: Romney’s only up 2 pts in SC in the latest poll, and Gingrich is out front in NC already- the day’s soon approaching when Romney is going to regret forcing the doughboy to go nuclear.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right Mittens?
ha ha ha ha ha
This morning Megyn Kelly interviewed McCain. He said, and I’m paraphrasing, to just look at GM. They got a bailout, they had to fire a lot of people and that was painful but now they’re on a big upswing and are hiring again. That’s how capitalism works.
So, there you have it. Capitalism now means taxpayer funded bailouts.
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.