Newt Gingrich threatens TV stations over [Romney PAC] ad

Politico ^ | February 17, 2012 | KENNETH P. VOGEL

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Newt Gingrich’s campaign is threatening to sue TV stations in upcoming primary states that are airing or plan to broadcast an ad from a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC accusing the former House Speaker of supporting the “one-child” Chinese policy that has been criticized as inhumane.

The ad in question, which is the work of the Restore Our Future super PAC and is already airing in the former House Speaker’s home state of Georgia, asserts Gingrich “co-sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal one-child policy.”

A letter from a Gingrich campaign lawyer sent to every TV station in the states with upcoming contests in the GOP presidential primary calls the ad “fundamentally NOT TRUE, or as PolitiFACT.org put it – a “Pants on Fire” lie.

If the stations air the ad “it will be a knowing publication of a false statement. As such, it represents a defamatory communication, which exposes this station to potential civil liability,” the letter asserts, demanding stations “immediately REFUSE, ad if started, CEASE airing any such advertisements and refrain from broadcasting their content until such time as the libelous statements have been removed.”

The ad refers to a 1989 bill for which Gingrich was among the co-sponsors (in all, 144 members attached their name to the bill). While the bill, House Resolution 1078, directed money to the U.N. Population Fund, which President Ronald Reagan opposed because it supported Chinese family planning efforts deemed inhumane, a provision in the measure explicitly prohibited funding for “the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning.”

The ad is a slight variation of one that Restore Our Future has been running heavily in multiple states since December, and the Gingrich campaign did not respond when asked why they were launching the official challenge now.

A well-connected Washington, D.C., campaign finance lawyer suggested the timing may be related to the fact that McKenna Long & Aldridge, the law firm of Gingrich’s top outside campaign counsel Stefan Passantino, represents TV stations in Georgia.

In fact, the Gingrich campaign paid another law firm, the Atlanta-based Hall Booth Smith & Slover, to send the letter to TV stations “to ensure there are no conflicts,” said Gingrich campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond.

The Gingrich campaign said some of the stations that received the letter intended to report on it, but did not answer when asked if any planned to remove the ad.

This is not the first time that the Gingrich’s campaign has written TV stations to complain about a Restore Our Future ad. Last month, the campaign demanded more than 50 TV stations remove an ad from the super PAC that asserted Gingrich had been “fined” $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee in the 1990s for violations.

Restore Our Future pushed back in its own letter to the stations and none appear to have removed the ad. The super PAC did not respond to a request for comment on Gingrich’s latest demand.

[Marguerite]

Newt Gingrich Challenges Romney’s Abortion Record. Whatch Mitt lying through his speech. His body language reveals it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZuStXCpQCE

Romney on Abortion - 2002

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

Willard Mitt Romney’s flip-flops on Abortion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CUL8I3KZO4&feature=related

[Marguerite]

“I don’t see how Newt supports him if he is the nominee, Romney’s campaign wants to “destroy Newt.”. Therefore, Romney is working to detroy a brilliant voice of conservatism, individual freedom, and limited, small government policy. It is a damn shame. We need voices like Newt’s right now.”

Gingrich’s consistent pro-life standard is reflected by the following:

1. 98.6% Lifetime Pro-Life Rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). For the 20 years that Gingrich served in Congress (1979-1999), Gingrich supported the pro-life position in 70 out of 71 votes. (In the one instance that he did not take the NRLC position, it was because the NRLC opposed an early 1995 version of welfare reform because it changed certain welfare payments for mothers with children; NRLC did not oppose the final version of Gingrich’s welfare reform passed in 1996)

2. Supported the Hyde Amendment. Gingrich consistently voted for the Hyde amendment and other bans on government funding of abortions.

3. Partial Birth Abortion Ban. During Gingrich’s tenure as Speaker, the House of Representatives twice passed legislation banning partial birth abortions. President Clinton vetoed this legislation both times. Finally, a partial birth abortion ban was signed into law in 2003. The legislative effort to ban partial birth abortions had a very positive impact increasing pro-life support in the United States.

4. Signed the Susan B. Anthony List Pro-Life Leadership Presidential Pledge (which Romney REFUSED to sign). In June 2011, Gingrich signed the SBA List Pro-Life Leadership Presidential pledge in which Gingrich pledges to the American people that if elected President he will (i) only nominate judges to the Supreme Court and federal judiciary who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, and not legislating from the bench (ii) select pro-life appointees for relevant executive branch positions, (iii) advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, (iv) defund Planned Parenthood; and (v) advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

5. Pledges to Sign Two Pro-life Executive Orders on the first day of a Gingrich Administration.

i. “Mexico City Policy” of Respect for Life. Reauthorize President Ronald Reagan’s policy – also known as the “Mexico City Policy”— to stop the federal funding of any non-governmental agencies or charities that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.

ii. Respect the Beliefs and Integrity of Healthcare Workers. No American working in a medical environment should be forced to perform any action or procedure that he or she finds morally or ethically objectionable. This protection should include, but not be limited to, abortion and sterilization procedures. Existing conscience clause protections need to be strengthened.

http://www.newt.org/answers#ProLife

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Look how the Washington Post has begun pulling out all the stops to take out Newt.

I don’t believe I have EVER seen an article that used so many negative quotes about someone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/georgians-against-newt-could-spell-trouble-for-gingrich/2012/02/17/gIQAXKO6JR_blog.html

[RitaOK]

” Newt will win Georgia. Santorum knows it. “

There was an earlier thread up this morning where Newt himself laid the possibility of a loss in Georgia. I didn’t internalize it, because I didn’t like hearing him say that, “the way things have been going, who knows...”, referring to whether he could win Georgia.

That is not a phrase for a healthy campaign, however, when
spoken by the candidate himself, if you know what I mean.

He has to have some wins but the crushing weight of the RINO’s assisted by the media black out has Newt effectively silenced, if not marginalized for the time being. How does a guy overcome that with so little money?

I am afraid that $10 million dollar donation will barely make it TO Super Tuesday, and without a sweep of sorts, it will be gone by Tuesday evening. Probably permanently.

I am having a fearful day dealing with “helpless” overload.

[Marguerite]

"The handwriting on the wall about Santorum is getting to be pretty plain."

"Any politician who regards the adult use of contraceptives as a matter under his own purview cannot lay claim to the limited government label, nor can he credibly invoke a tradition rooted in the pursuit of happiness." - Conor Friedersdorf

[Cincinatus' Wife]

....There was an earlier thread up this morning where Newt himself laid the possibility of a loss in Georgia. I didn’t internalize it, because I didn’t like hearing him say that, “the way things have been going, who knows...”, referring to whether he could win Georgia...

The full quote:

Newt: "“Look, given this kind of a year, who knows?” Gingrich told reporters outside of a Beverly Hills restaurant when asked if he could lose his home state in the “Super Tuesday” sweepstakes on March 6. “Romney could lose Michigan. Santorum could lose Pennsylvania. Who knows what’s going to happen?”

[Marguerite]

Now here's a full transcript of a 2006 Santorum video:

"Host: So, would birth control be covered by that notion of freedom without responsibility?

Santorum: I'm--look, I vote and have supported, you know, birth control because it is not the taking of a human life. But, you know, I'm not a believer in birth control--in artificial birth control. Again, I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that. And I don't think it--it breaks what I think--now, this is from a personal point of view. From a governmental point of view, I support, you know, Title X, I guess it is, and have voted for contraception--although I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women, I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that, you know, sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young, and I think it has--and we've seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to a society. So birth control to me enables that, and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country.

Sen. Santorum not only "doesn't vote against contraception," but voted to subsidize it.

(Title X was a Nixon-era family-planning program that directs federal taxpayer money to, among others, the pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood.)

[EDINVA]

Is there any information about who the donors, staff, and filmmakers for this SuperPAC are? Clearly they are free to work for or sponsor or create these ads, but it would be helpful to know who’s behind it all.

I’d also be interested in knowing if any of the professional staff for this SuperPAC were on the McCain campaign in ‘08 and had any part in the sabotaging of that campaign and/or the personal destruction of Sarah Palin.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[Marguerite]

“Romney is one of the biggest liars I have ever seen. He has no shame.”

“A defining moment in Mitt Romney’s post-pro-life-conversion political career came in his third year as governor of Massachusetts, when he decided Catholic hospitals would be required under his interpretation of a new state law to give rape victims a drug that can induce abortions.

Romney announced this decision — saying it was the “right thing for hospitals” to do — just two days after he had taken the opposite position.

the Massachusetts legislature considered an “emergency contraception” mandate. It would have allowed pharmacists to sell Plan B — an abortifacient — without a prescription and without parental consent. It also would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such “emergency contraceptives” and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion.

Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy organization of the state’s Catholic bishops, explained in testimony to the state legislature why Catholic hospitals could not do this.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2012/02/02/creators_oped

[Marguerite]

Mitt Romney Super PAC has been machine of destruction for his opponents

Whenever Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been down and in need of an enforcer, one has been there to prop him up.

Restore Our Future, the independent “Super PAC” that supports Romney’s campaign, has been a machine of destruction in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, swamping Republican rival Newt Gingrich with attack ads each time he has seemed to threaten Romney’s frontrunner status.

the group’s financial reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) reveal that private equity executives, hedge fund managers and other financial heavyweights are key contributors to the fundraising juggernaut that Restore Our Future has become.

The filings reveal that Restore Our Future had $23.6-million in the bank as of Dec. 31 — more than the Romney campaign itself. The PAC has spent $17.4-million in support of Romney, including nearly $11-million in Florida. Among the most generous contributors to Romney’s cause have been people who share Romney’s investment background.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/01/analysis-mitt-romney-super-pac-has-been-machine-of-destructi

[Java4Jay]

Here in Minnesota, Romney attack ads on Santorum have been running. Each time one pops up I dislike him even more. They aren’t working.

Newt 2012

[Java4Jay]

“Romney is one of the biggest liars I have ever seen. He has no shame.”

CPAC speech; “I was a severely conservative governor”

Romney is a fake!

[Marguerite]

A study by the Wesleyan Media Project shows Romney and his allies, particularly the Restore Our Future super PAC, had aired 12,768 ads in Florida compared with 210 for Gingrich and his allies.

Romney and Restore Our Future spent a combined $6.28 million on Florida ads in the final week leading to the primary, according to figures provided to the Associated Press. The total spent in Florida - $15.3 million for Romney and Restore Our Future.99% of Romney ads were negative attacks on Gingrich. 100% of the super PACs ads were negative against Gingrich.

Mitt is STILL trying to buy the nomination, by smearing Gingrich, whom he, his Wall Street supporters and the putrid GOP elite fear most.

[headsonpikes]

Fantastic graphic!!!

It sorta looks like something’s passing through a squadron of snakes... and that maybe we need a new snake!

Now there’s a rallying cry.

[Sal]

IMO Newt’s mistake here is threatening to sue only the stations. He should sue (not threaten) the principals running that PAC.

[Raider Sam]

Was it a lie? If we are giving money to a group who practices one child policy, whether we stipulate where the funds go or not, that amount of money will go to the one child policy. But we can wash our hands because of accounting.

Newt most definitely can defend himself without going negative and even without a debate. And who said he isnt allowed to defend himself in the first place?

As for the rot gut of this campaign, it is no worse than any other. We lose perspective easily, but every election cannot be the most important ever and every dirty trick cannot be the worst ever. There have been worse, just look at LBJ, or look at McCain and Huckabee teaming up. I hope he sues too, because he wont win and he will demonstrate the absurdity of suing someone in a political campaign.

[Raider Sam]

If you have to put in a stipulation that the money you are giving a group wont be used to aid 1 child policy, then you should not be giving that organization any money. This is no different than giving PP money and saying “dont use any of this on abortions.” While that money may not directly go to abortions, it frees up that same amount of pre-assigned money to now go to abortions, so the end result is you funded them. It says something about the gullibility of anyone who was pushing this legislation.

It very well could be put around Newt, because of the good intentions bad result aspect.

[af_vet_rr]

Romney and his millionaire SUPER PAC friends are really something!

Obama and his millionaire and billionaire SUPER PAC friends will make Willard and his sleazy buddies look like saints.

[Bigh4u2]

You are using circular logic that just doesn’t cut it.

It would be the same if I gave a bum $10 and stipulated that he buy food and not booze with it.

So it’s best to let the bum starve in streets than to make the attempt to help because he may use it to get drunk?

If that’s true, then no drunk or drug addict would ever receive the help they need.

“It very well could be put around Newt, because of the good intentions bad result aspect.”

Nope. Intent is everything and underlying reason to give in the first place.

Otherwise, what would be the reason to try to help anyone at all.