Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt hammers Santorum with Romney's attacks
Politico ^ | 3-8-12 | Haberman

Posted on 03/08/2012 6:40:29 PM PST by VinL

So much for conservatives uniting ahead of Alabama and Mississippi.

Newt Gingrich's team just came out with what I believe is its first sharp hit against Rick Santorum of the campaign, a video montage of the former Pennsylvania senator talking earmarks, endorsing Mitt Romney in the 2008 presidential race and taking "one for the team," as he memorably put it in the final GOP debate in Arizona last month.

If the lines of attack seem familiar, it's because Team Romney - the campaign Gingrich has said he wants to thwart - has been using them against Santorum for weeks.

It's Gingrich's last stand at wooing conservative Southern voters to his side ahead of the Alabama and Mississippi primaries next week, contests that his aide RC Hammond said yesterday he needs to fare well in to justify moving on.

And while there have been some indications of a campaign in the last stages in Newtworld, it doesn't seem that the end will come before Tuesday. The only question is how much damage Santorum incurs in the process.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antinewt; blowhardnewt; blowhardrick; canttalkaboutrick; canttalkofsantorum; emptyvest; gingrich; hate4newt; hatingnewt; hitjobonnewt; liars4newt; liars4rick; newt4dede; newt4dole; newt4pelosi; newt4romney; newtforrockefeller; newthaters; newtspoiler; politico; politicohit; politicohitjob; rickslies; ricksplittingvote; rickspoiler; santorum4romney; santorum4specter; santorumlies; whatasnob; whatsgood4thegoose
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
To: Kenny
Nah, I don't see this as evidence Gingrich is some sort of stalking horse. I see it as more a sign of a campaign trying anything to gain traction (or for Conservatives such as myself, a type of scorched earth campaign), and that's kind of sad.
21 posted on 03/08/2012 7:00:05 PM PST by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Newt endorsed Romney in 2008? Was that worse than endorsing Dede Scozzafava?

When the 2008 campaign started, quite a few Freepers favored Romney. He was a businessman, he fixed the Salt Lake City Olympics, he was a real conservative.

I remember arguing for months about that. And you can’t entirely blame people, because the truth only came out little by little.

Romney saved the Olympics? Yeah, with a huge barrel of pork from Washington.

Romney was pro-life and pro-family? Yeah, that’s why he was the guy who imposed gay marriage on Massachusetts when even the liberals in the State legislature hesitated to do so.

And he was the guy who put a member of Planned Parenthood as a permanent member of the Romneycare Board.

And he was the guy who ran on a plank that was pro-abort, although in 2008 he was saying that he had always been pro-life.

But people didn’t KNOW these things, until we dug in past the media lies and the Romney lies and figured out what he actually stood for.

Rick Santorum was very strongly pro-life, and he never would have endorsed Romney if he hadn’t believed his lies—as many people did, until they got to know him better over the months of the campaign. They certainly weren’t told by Romney, the Media, or the RNC.


22 posted on 03/08/2012 7:00:50 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VinL

That’s pretty good.

Though in my opinion Perry has had the best ads of the primary thus far. They were uber. :p

I LOVE this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8EL5Atp_vF0


23 posted on 03/08/2012 7:00:50 PM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
At least Newt admitted to his mistake about Scozzafava. So what is Ricky's excuse?

Santorum Touts Work With Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton In 2006 Ad

24 posted on 03/08/2012 7:01:25 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Blind Jealots or plants not sure which.


25 posted on 03/08/2012 7:03:00 PM PST by Bailee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eleventh_Commandment_(Ronald_Reagan))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Funny, from your FR link:

“If Mr. Gingrich could afford to continue campaigning, one of those people said, he might be able to draw off conservative and evangelical voters from Mr. Santorum, improving the chances of Mitt Romney, who Mr. Adelson believes has a better chance to win November’s general election.”

“Sheldon says we all have to keep our eyes on the goal here—beating Obama,” said a person who talked with Mr. Adelson.

FUMR!


26 posted on 03/08/2012 7:03:28 PM PST by Carthego delenda est
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Aw cmon. The Newt guys are just having a lil fun.

Kinda odd way to have a good time, but to each dey own.

27 posted on 03/08/2012 7:03:57 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

Nice try.

Santorum never attacked Newt on anything that Romney attacked Newt on. You know why? Because Romney and Newt had the Same Position! TARP, Climate Change, and Support for the Individual Mandate. Those have been the 3 Consistent items Santorum has gone after BOTH on. Romney went after Newt on ethics charges.

Once again, a double standard though. Gingrich says he is going to campaign “positively” and the Gingrich people write this ad off. Which means they obviously can’t complain about any of the tactics Romney used to take Newt down in Florida. Because it’s the same tactic going on here with Newt trying to take down Rick.


28 posted on 03/08/2012 7:05:34 PM PST by parksstp (I pick RIck! (If he's good enough for Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, he's good enough for me))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Speaking of mistakes.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UPuhr8eqn0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ44xpfSsFY


29 posted on 03/08/2012 7:05:40 PM PST by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rational Thought
And more mistakes by Ricky.

Santorum loved Romney in 2008. These days, not so much


30 posted on 03/08/2012 7:09:44 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

No No No, it’s simpler than that.

The reason many people supported Romney in 2008 (and something Romney played off of) was that the base and many conservatives hated (I mean despised) John McCain. Romney used this to his advantage and tried to position himself accordingly, as the “true” conservative alternative, even though his record suggested otherwise. People didn’t care though, they just flat out hated McCain.

This is essentially what Newt is trying to do this time around in 2012. He was grouped in with the rest of the RINO’s, but because of the sheer hatred of Romney, Newt is looked at as pure as the white driven snow, which most people know is BS.

As for Santorum in 2008, it was clear he absolutely did not get along with Mr. Gang of 14 in the Senate, who also used the “F” word to John Cornyn when he “parachuted” into the Senate to take control of the immigration issue. If it’s a choice between Romney and McCain, to Santorum, it was a no-brainer.


31 posted on 03/08/2012 7:12:58 PM PST by parksstp (I pick RIck! (If he's good enough for Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, he's good enough for me))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel


Therefore, the correct title of the Politico piece should be Santorum attacks Santorum with Santorum videos.
32 posted on 03/08/2012 7:13:45 PM PST by red flanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rational Thought

“...this might boomerang against his campaign.”

Bull.


33 posted on 03/08/2012 7:14:40 PM PST by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: parksstp

An, boo-hoo!


34 posted on 03/08/2012 7:16:49 PM PST by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

True, this damages them both. And we can anticipate a return volley with Santorum &/or Mitt utilizing the big flubs Gingrich had (think Pelosi and Global warming, Scozzofava etc). In the end, I prefer the candidates vet each other rather than live the election results of ‘08.


35 posted on 03/08/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by wtd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

Right, it is Santorum talking about Santorum.


36 posted on 03/08/2012 7:17:52 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
The Santorum folks are just too funny on this one.

If Newt really wanted to win the nomination, he'd be going after Romney. The only way it makes sense to go after Rick is if he wants Romney to win.

Plain facts, Romney has the numbers and is the only one at the moment in danger of actually closing the deal. Both anti-Romneys should be trying to stop Romney. There's no excuse for this trash especially at this point in time.

37 posted on 03/08/2012 7:18:10 PM PST by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: VinL
The only question is how much damage Santorum incurs in the process.

Hopefully, not enough to let Romney win.

38 posted on 03/08/2012 7:19:30 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

You are very wrong. Your “just plain facts” are just plain wrong. And I really don’t care to hear anything from the folks whose guy has shamelessly attacked Newt for many weeks.


39 posted on 03/08/2012 7:23:49 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Yeah, I noticed that too. They have selected memory.


40 posted on 03/08/2012 7:26:03 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson