I’ve been upset about the choice of attacking Romney’s Bain experience from the get-go. Out of all the other weaknesses that they could have targeted, it’s just a shame that conservative Republicans decided to get into a urinating contest over capitalism instead.
As I understand it, the candidates cannot legally have any direct contact or influence over what the superpacs do. So what Newt is trying to do here is indirectly indirect the content of the ads, which the superpac can ignore if it chooses.
I think Newt’s strategy may be a sound one here. He’s setting this up as an issue at the debate. He can turn to Romney and say I’ve called off the dogs. Are you going to do the same?
I don’t know exactly what is in Romney’s attack adds (having never heard them) so I can’t say if Newt has a legitimate beef or not.
I understand Romney’s Superpac latest attack add is against Santorum about earmarks. He’s my guy but that is probably true. Thing is, if you’re in the Congress for 20 years, chances are you are going to have voted for earmarks whether you agreed with them or not. There might be a great bill but it has earmarks you don’t agree with. So you vote for it because the bill overall is good. Earmarks is not that big of an issue with me. It’s a small part of the federal budget and there are much bigger fish to fry. For all we know his signature bill (welfare reform) had odious earmarks in it. He still should have voted for it IMO. So while it’s true, it’s misleading.
These guys need to go after Romney on Romneycare!!!!