Pot Calls Kettle Black: Romney Blasts Gingrich

 

Is Romney Kidding?

Dan Balz, writing for the Washington Post, reports that Willard “Mitt” Romney criticized Gingrich as being “extremely unreliable” as a conservative leader.  Of course, Mitt goes on to admit that he made a mistake in 1994 by not supporting Newt’s “Contract With America” while he ran a losing campaign against Edward “Ted” Kennedy of Massachusetts for the Senate.  If we’re to believe Mitt, he’s a conservative, but Newt’s not.  If ever there had been a case of the pot calling the kettle “black,” this must be it.  Romney is not now, and never has been a conservative, and as late as 2002, he admitted that much as he campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts, fairly bragging about being a progressive.

Let’s be honest enough to admit that neither are conservative in the sense of the word most American conservatives and Tea Party patriots use the word, but let’s also stipulate that if anybody is going to criticize Gingrich on the matter, of all people in this race, it should not be Romney.  This is why the Republican electorate doesn’t trust Mitt, and hasn’t made him the front-runner:  He’s simply not credible, and this line of attack on Gingrich simply punctuates the matter.

There’s no reason to belabor the point: Mitt Romney isn’t a conservative. To now come out and assail Newt Gingrich on some of his decidedly un-conservative views merely demonstrates Willard’s desperation, particularly since we know Mitt doesn’t like to be pinned down on his own positions.  If ever there had been a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it.  The video below helps demonstrate the point even more clearly:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU]

Let me state this one more time, lest some become confused about my position: I do not support Newt Gingrich either, having made no decision about who I may support in the primaries, but I thought all of the attacks on him emanating from the Romney camp and Romney surrogates needed to be placed in context.

When a candidate assails another as being other-than-conservative, I would suppose that candidate would do so from a strong position of a thorough conservative record of his or her own.  Sadly, Romney’s finally realized that he cannot win the nomination without conservative support, and he’s trying to undermine Gingrich on that basis.  I’m sorry, but it’s simply too late for Willard to now come looking for my support by attacking Newt as a progressive or liberal, because Romney has been one virtually all of his political career.  Until now.  Now he sees he will need the votes of we conservatives and Tea Party members.  Now, “Newt’s not conservative.”

Congratulations Mitt!  The problem is, neither are you.

Like Be the first one who likes this post!
  • http://barthingtonpost.wordpress.com mcbarth

    Interesting post, I can understand why conservatives haven't jumped on the Romney bandwagon yet (at least past the 20-25% threshold). What's interesting about this race is that, for various reasons, each Republican candidate seems to be desperate – Perry, desperate to connect after his debate flubs – Romney, desperate to prove that he, not Gingrich is a conservative – all the others are desperate simply to get attention, except for Gingrich. Gingrich has nothing to lose with this race, which I think may be why he might win it. He seems like he wants a place in American history. He has it. Worst case scenario for him is that he goes back to selling books (now in greater numbers) and giving speeches, getting the full benefits of a public life without the consequences of public office.

    If Romney loses, there goes the last five, six years of his life. He'll retire with a uneven record of one moderate term as Governor and seven extreme years of trying to connect with the baser elements of the base. If the others lose, who cares? Gingrich can lose, because he knows if Romney wins and things don't get better immediately he'll be looked at by an large segment of the electorate that wished they'd voted for him.

    (this comment is getting long…might actually use it for a post on my blog…) Anyway, interesting post man.

  • oldtexasgal

    I honestly am not standing up and 'shouting' for either. Here are two interesting Gingrich articles you may wish to read. http://www.myfirstthirtydays.com/government-man-ghttp://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo220.htm

    Sure wish Santorum would come across a bit stronger!!

  • http://gravatar.com/tropicalguy tropicalguy

    Really silly statements here.Mitt Romney had 844 vetoes while Governor. If you bothered to take a look at them, they were conservative vetos. If you understood civics and that he went against a liberal veto proof legislature then maybe you would understand something.

    He cut 341 social government programs to balance a state budget 3 Billion in arrears. That is downsizing Government.

    He defunded sanctuary cities with illegal aliens…that is conservative

    He changed laws to help businesses grow and brought in 111 new businesses to take his state from 50th in unemployment to 11th. If that doesnt impress you nothing will.

    In his veto's you will see many strong statements on the side of pro life and he was lauded by the family organizations.

    Mass healthCare, in its original form was written by the heritage Foundation. It was a plan to alleviate an issue of a debt of 484 Million Dollars in the state Health care that would cause hospitals to fail if something was not done.

    The Democrats who held the house and senate changed many things in it. Mitt Romney vetoed those 8 things, and by due process was vetoed back. He did his part. Conservatively.

    He is against cap and trade. He calls it a economic nightmare. Conservative again.

    He is against Abortion and his governing showed that.

    He is against amnesty and is for enforcing the laws at hand

    He is against federal mandates and believes in states rights.

    He had a much better record of Governor in a liberal state than Reagan did in a liberal state.

    I see nothing unconservative about Mitt Romney.

    Gingrich is for Federal mandates
    There is a long list..amnesty
    He is a globalist

  • http://gravatar.com/tropicalguy tropicalguy

    Conservatives are just as ignorant as the Liberals really. Much based not in facts but emotion.

    • http://www.markamerica.com MarkAmerica

      TropicalGuy,

      If I'm to understand your two comments correctly, you're saying that Mitt is a conservative, and you're vouching for his credentials, but then you go on to call conservatives ignorant and emotional, suggesting you don't have the first clue what it is that constitutes conservatism. This is the very sort of thing I expect from those who claim the "moderate" position.