Posted on 02/22/2012 6:08:31 AM PST by jimbo123
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter recently mocked Newt Gingrich's fiscal conservative credentials by pocking fun at Gingrich's defense that he did not, in fact, take $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, but, rather, after calculating for "overhead" his take was solely $35,000. "There's a great fiscal manager,"Coulter quipped.
The pro-Romney Coulter may raise her eyebrows at her own candidate now. The Mitt Romney campaign is demonstrating anything but fiscal prudence in the presidential race - and Romney, like Gingrich, is running on his assumed skills to balance the budge; often citing his tenure as Massachusetts governor (where he did balance the budge) and restoring solvency to the 2002 Salt Like City Winter Olympics.
For the month of January, the Romney campaign spent $18.8 million and took in $6.5 million. Leaving the campaign with a monthly deficit of $12.2 million and only $7.7 million left in the campaign war chest. Newt Gingrich, by comparison, spent $5.9 million last month - the next biggest spender. At this rate the Romney campaign, writes the New York Times' Nate Silver, "would have only about 20 days of expenditures before money [runs] out."
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
These attacks on Santorum over his Ave Maria speech are clearly coming from Romney. Pretty pathetic for a guy who has spent the past five years whining that we’re all picking on him because of his religion.
What does Clown Romney have to show for his millions spent?
Not much.
Speaking of Ms. Coulter, she sure has been quiet in recent days. Maybe Mitt's most recent check bounced.
That's why Mitt is spending so much money. His entire campaign is based on his veneer of "inevitability". Once that veneer cracks, by dropping out of first place on delegate count, he's got nothing left.
Please freepmail me if you wish to be added or dropped from the mitten ping.
I'm starting to feel as if Romney has spent an easy mil by simply annoying the crap out of me with robocalls and "independent poll" calls. Sheesh, I cannot wait for this primary to be over!!!
LOL! Things must be dismal - who will buy her CONservative books? He promised her so much.
Anyone want to explain here on FR why Coulter is so far up Mitt’s a$$, when she built her whole career around being a supposed super conservative? She sold herself out for a RINO?
Coulter is supporting Romney because he promised the VP slot to her good buddy Chris Christie.
With, or without the monkey?
the infowarrior
Could be she has entertained mormonISM, and wishes to be SEALED to Mitt for some celestial planet, or wishes to be a second wife here, besides he's very RICH. She certainly makes no bones about the fact she is in love with him.
Actually, he does...and quite a few of them. Recently, as he has been dropping in the polls, they have begun to dry up, but he still has them all over the country.
I expect, at any rate, that money will not be the issue for Mr. Romney. It will remain to be his past positions on the issues and his inability to effectively articulate how he came to the current positions that he is now espousing and wants us to get behind him on. Santorum has a much better record on the same issues, as does Newt...though each has their own baggage to one extent or another.
Rightn now, I am supporting Santorum, and then Newt.
If Romney somehow became the nominee, I would vote for him in order to defeat Obama. But that would be the condition upon which my vote for him would hinge.
As it is, in our Idaho caucus, I will be promoting and voting for Santorum...unless something happens between now and then and Newt rises again and is the best positioned to get the nomination.
Please tell us all why you favor Santorum. Is it that he’s the best anti-Romney we have at the moment? When you look at Santorum’s record, it’s anything but conservative. I think he’s probably better than Romney, but that may be a difference without a clear distinction. Then there’s Ron Paul, who, for all his years in Congress hasn’t passed anything. Sure, he’s a principled man, but he has done nothing to advance this country. He’s just a gadfly.
I’m just going by the recent polls that show something like 80% support him. Even if you arbitrarily drop it to 50%, that’s a huge number of potential donors given the size of the church.
And my own anecdotal experiences with the normally conservative LDS members I know who try to convince me their support has nothing to do with his religion and is based completely on his awesome conservative cred. I think there are a lot more like that than like you who are really researching the issues.
Not surprising. After George gave Michigan the gift that keeps on taking (income tax) he enlarged the government to use all of those lovely tax dollars. It's a shame Mitt didn't get a personality when he got that from his dad.
None of them are without problems and issues. I am split right now between Santorum and Newt. I would vote for either over Romney or Paul.
I would vote for any of those four over Obama.
Sadly, we do not have the true conservative remaining that we would all like at this point. I believe Santorum is fiscally and socially conservative enough to turn the tide back from what we are seeing. I believe his commitment to those principles is stronger than the others.
Newt can get people going and riled up and he has big ideas. He has accomplished some ood thoings in the past. But he is also suseptable to emotional influence and I have never been given an adequate (or actually, any) reason for his association with the politics of the third wave and his endorsement for and book signing for Toffler, who is as big a progressive as they come and who openly states the US Constitution is outdated and needs to be replaced. In fact, Newt made that man’s book, that stated as much, required reading for the freshmen GOP congressmen when he was speaker.
I’d like someone to ask him about that and see if he would repudiate it.
Romney has been all over the map in his political career. He is saying the right things now and I believe if we were to elect a strong Senate and House that he would absolutely follow through and be a decent president...but I do not want to risk that unless I have to because of his historical record.
Paul is absolutely constitutional and conservative on most all issues. I have known and respected him a long time. But his world view as regards Iran and other agressor nations is too lenient and although he would have a strong military and would definitely strike back hard at any attacker, I believe we would have to be attacked directly before he took appropriate action and with Iran that means we will potentially lose hundreds of thousands of Americans before he responds and I just cannot countenance that if I can avoid it.
America at the Crossroads of History
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
Here in Florida I kept hanging up on the Romney calls. Money can’t buy you love & maybe not even votes.
Did you know Mitt is going to be at Chisholm Hills Saturday?
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.
