Replies

You wrote: “In regards to this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831171/posts I did not hear Rush yesterday. So this was my first exposure to what Rush said about Newt attacking capitalism using class warfare like the left, which he wasn’t.”

Since Rush played the soundbites of leftists and quoted leftists making the EXACT same points Newt was making, it PROVES that he, too, was using the class warfare rhetoric of the left.

Read it yourself:

Newt Sounds Just Like Obama
January 10, 2012
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/10/newt_sounds_just_like_obama

[...snip...]

Let’s go to audio sound bites, let me illustrate some of what I’ve said. We’ll start with Newt. This was on Fox & Friends this morning. The co-host, the weather guy, Steve Doocy, said, “I was driving around yesterday my car,” and like every other American,
“I was listening to Rush, and he was talking about you and how you’ve gone after Romney and Bain Capital. He said you’re using the language of the left to beat up Romney over Bain. He said it makes him uncomfortable because that’s what the left is gonna do if Romney’s the nominee.”

GINGRICH: I don’t think I’m using the language of the left. I’m using the language of classic American populism. Main Street has always been suspicious of Wall Street. Small businesses have always worried about big businesses. People have a natural concern when they see financiers come in from out of town, take over a company, take all the profits, and then leave people unemployed behind. There’s a big difference between people who go out to create a company, even if they fail, if they try in the right direction, if they share in the hardships, if they’re out there with the workers doing it together, that’s one thing. But if somebody who’s very wealthy comes in, takes over your company, takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment, I think that’s not a model we want to advocate and I don’t think any conservative wants to get caught defending that kind of model.

RUSH: Well, but that’s not the model. That’s not what happens. See, this is why my old buddy Jay Nordlinger in Impromptus at National Review is pulling his hair out, because that is language of the left. You could say that Newt actually compounded this and made it worse with these comments on Fox this morning. Small business has always worried about big business. Main Street’s always been suspicious of Wall Street. People have a natural concern, they see financiers coming from out of town, take over a company, take all the profits and leave unemployment behind? My gosh, that’s what the people who indict capitalism say. So it continues to make me uncomfortable.

The next question came from Gretchen Carlson. She said, “Well, what constitutes acceptable capitalist behavior, then, in your mind?”

GINGRICH: To put in $30 million and get back $60 million would be a fabulous return. To put in $30 million and get back $90 million would be a fabulous return. Did they really need to take out $180 million if leaving $30 or $40 million behind the company would have survived, the people would have been employed, the jobs would have been there? I just say Romney’s gonna have to have a press conference and walk through case by case the places — these are not places where they lost money when a company went broke. These are places where they made money while a company went broke.

RUSH: How do you translate that? You want me to show you how you translate that? Here’s how you translate that. Audio sound bite number four, Mister Broadcast Engineer. Here’s how you translate what Newt just said.

: I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money, but, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service.

RUSH: (imitating Obama) “Yeah, but we don’t want that. At some point you’ve made enough, and we’re gonna be the ones to say so, and then we’re gonna have you appear at a press conference, defend yourself, making too much money. That’s what we’re gonna do. And after you defend yourself, we’re gonna take it, because you don’t need that much, we’re gonna decide how much you need.” The way Newt’s talking here — I never heard him speak this way before — I must tell you, and the way he’s speaking, this sounds like left-wing social engineering, does it not, when I have to play an audio sound bite from Barack Obama to translate what Newt said about Romney and Bain. What’s the number of companies that Bain took over? It was two out of a hundred and some odd. ...

....when you have to play Obama to translate what Newt just said, basically, “Romney, it’s okay they made that much, maybe it’s okay they made that much but at that point nobody needs to make that much, $180 million, no, you can leave some of that in there and not fire a bunch of people and what have you.” It’s none of his business. It’s none of the government’s business. This stuff, if you just leave it alone it will all shake out. You could have read this in an Occupy Wall Street flier. (interruption) I know, a lot of people don’t think Newt should have taken a million dollars or whatever it was from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, it was too much, he didn’t need that much. (interruption) Right, left the mortgages standing, I know. I know. Where does this stuff stop once you start going down this slope?

So here is an ad. Newt’s got some super PAC money now. Let’s put it this way, there is a super PAC now for Newt. We gotta be very careful, because the candidates are not allowed to have any contact with the super PAC, and I don’t want to be misunderstood saying that there has been between Newt and his. Newt’s super PAC has got an ad running out there on the YouTube channel called Winning Our Future, and we’ve got the audio. It’s about 21 seconds. Here it is.

ANNOUNCER: A story of greed, playing the system for a quick buck. A group of corporate raiders led by Mitt Romney. More ruthless than Wall Street. For tens of thousands of Americans, the suffering began... (dramatic pause) when Mitt Romney came to town.

RUSH: (laughing) It’s funny listening on the radio. (imitating voice) “The suffering began....” Music stops. “...when Mitt Romney came to town.” (laughing) The suffering began. A group of corporate raiders. The left could not improve on this. (laughing) Hey, you people at the Newt PAC, you need to add a line, you need to add Romney saying, “I love being able to fire people” at the end of this ad. “The suffering began when Mitt Romney came to town. ‘Hi, I’m Mitt Romney, and I love firing people.’” Why don’t you close the loop, make this ad really good? Now, then they brought forth — this is not all that’s in the ad. Then they brought forth a parade of victims, little old ladies whose lives were ruined by Mitt Romney.

ANNOUNCER: Mitt Romney became CEO of Bain Capital the day the company was formed. His mission? To reap massive rewards for himself and his investors.

MAN: Mitt Romney, them guys, they don’t care who I am.

WOMAN: He’s for small businesses. No, he isn’t. He’s not.

WOMAN: And that hurt so bad, to leave my home, because of one man that’s got 15 homes.

RUSH: David Axelrod’s shop, they’re listening to this stuff, they’re looking at these ads and saying, “Man, these Republicans are good. These Republicans are great at playing the class envy game.” Of course they can use it. Fair usage, take a ten second excerpt of it. At least I’ll say this. At least Romney knows how many homes he’s got. McCain didn’t, if you recall. ......”

Now today, Newt backs off - “I crossed the line”

POLITICO:

Newt: I crossed the line
By: Jonathan Allen
January 11, 2012 02:36 PM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71336.html

SPARTANBURG, S.C. Newt Gingrich signaled Wednesday that he believes his criticism of Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital is a mistake and that he’s created an impression that he was echoing Democratic rhetoric.

Gingrich conceded the problem when pressed by a Rick Santorum supporter at a book-signing here Wednesday.

“I’m here to implore one thing of you. I think you’ve missed the target on the way you’re addressing Romney’s weaknesses. I want to beg you to redirect and go after his obvious disingenuous about his conservatism and lay off the corporatist versus the free market. I think it’s nuanced,” Dean Glossop, an Army Reservist from Inman, S.C., said.

“I agree with you,” Gingrich said. “It’s an impossible theme to talk about with Obama in the background. Obama just makes it impossible to talk rationally in that area because he is so deeply into class warfare that automatically you get an echo effect. … I agree with you entirely.”

After ditching promises of a positive campaign, Gingrich had been leading a multi-candidate pile-on of candidates attacking Romney’s Bain record, starting in Sunday’s debate and continuing in campaign events Tuesday. If he pulls back on the criticism now, it would be the latest abrupt shift in tactics from a candidate whose campaign has been full of them.

In addition to providing another example of Gingrich’s erratic campaign style, the decision could put the former House speaker in a precarious spot: the pro-Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future is set to begin a $3.4 million airtime buy for a 27-minute long documentary showcasing people who lost their jobs when companies Bain was invested closed. Through Tuesday, Gingrich had expressed support for the film.

After the event, Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond argued the film was not actually about Bain specifically.

“It’s the decisions that Romney was making as CEO that are under review of public opinion,” Hammond said. “We’re not bringing Bain up, we’re responding to questions” prompted by the video.