It doesn't matter what ads Newt is running. Newt's angle was to be positive back when no one was paying attention to him - and through attrition still be standing so far into the primary. Not so long ago Newt was an afterthought.
The point is, Santorum is doing what candidates tend to do - which is, fight for the winnable votes (often using negative ads) and hope they can outlast the competition. Santorum is trying to win over the anti-establishment/conservative block of voters that have been going to Gingrich. Rick's goal is to stay in the race and hope Newt implodes. It's really not so far fetched either. Remember just a few months ago Newt's name was a laughing stock around here after he called Ryan's budget "right wing social engineering". Paul can't win the nomination and at this point all it would take was for some big piece of dirt to come out on Newt or to bait him into saying something he shouldn't. If Gingrich implodes the only one left standing to stop Mitt the chameleon is Santorum - and at that point he'd try to coalesce his votes plus what Newt is getting for a winnable majority.
Politics is nasty. People should stop whining about negative ads. They are fairly effective and are not going away. The reason the conservative candidates largely ignore Romney is simply because they know they aren't going to win over his "moderate"/RINO voting block. They've all assumed all along, I believe correctly, there that is a conservative majority to be had - which is why they fight one another for it until such time as we are legitimately down to Romney versus not-Romney. We just aren't quite there yet.
I am supporting Newt and have been since Perry proved he did not have the communication skills necessary to win the nomination. But just because many/most of us are supporting Gingrich doesn't mean we should adopt silly conspiracy theories about Santorum trying to secretly help Romney. I wish Rick would drop out too, but the reason he isn't is because he still sees possible scenarios remaining in which he can win.
The point is, Santorum is doing what candidates tend to do - which is, fight for the winnable votes (often using negative ads
*****************
My question to you was- can you reference a negative ad promulgated by Newt against a conservative? And, apparently, you cannot- which is proper- because Newt hasn’t aired any such ads.
In an interview, when informed of negative attacks by Rick, Newt dismissed them- saying that Rick had a long political history, and if Newt wished to reply in kind- it would be only to easy to do so. But, he would not bring down a fellow conservative.And, he still hasn’t done so.
Finally, you make the point that Newt was at one point an “afterthought”- a “laughing stock”- . You’re right, to the extent that you mean he wasn’t in the top tier. But, guess what? He didn’t run negative ads and smear opponents to tear down everyone else to claw his way to the top- despite the fact that some here think that’s “politics”.
Newt is for a conservative cause- and if the situations were reversed, I do believe Newt would have followed Gov. Perry’s lead and withdrawn.
But, if not that, I’m certain that he would not have gone on the attack against Rick, so long as Romney was still the front runner.
Does this Ad do any of those things? Or are we just saying that we don't want anybody to run any ads that would discourage people from voting for Newt?
Rick Perry, who people are praising here, ran Ads in Iowa that contrasted his positions with negative opinions of all the other candidates, including Santorum and Gingrich.
Here's the previous Ad by Rick Santorum, attacking Mitt Romney. The idea that Rick isn't attacking Romney is ludicrous.