Site Meter
Share

Barack Obama wants to run against Mitt Romney.  He does not want to run against Newt Gingrich.

Why?
Why?
Why?

Why won’t Mitt talk to the press?  Why must he have handlers to keep them at bay?
Why is Newt so willing to visit and talk to the press?
Why won’t Rick Perry stop and visit with them?

It is increasingly obvious the liberals are going all out to destroy Newt.  They are giving Mitt a pass.  You see, according to the left, Newt can’t stand up under increased scrutiny – but Mitt can?  Do they think Republicans are THAT stupid?  We all know what Newt’s background is.  Of course with nasty little conservative friends like Michelle Malkin, who needs Dems?

The Pink Flamingo feels like a broken record, over and over asking the same question.  Why do the Dems want Romney to be the nominee?  When they keep interjecting the constantly repeated line, “Romney has the best chance against Obama” and “Newt doesn’t stand a chance against Obama“, I want to know what the punch line is.

I know there is one out there.  I know there must be a reason why they keep stating that Romney is the most electable.  They now absolutely adore Ron Paul, who will single-handedly destroy the GOP.  Please, try telling me this is NOT about getting Barack Obama re-elected!

Oh, wait, the punch-line is that conservatives are endorsing Huntsman!

Just look at a screen shot of the headlines from December 3rd’s RCP.

RCP

There is NOTHING positive about either Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich, but plenty of sympathy for Romney.  It is all about Barack Obama.  There is still nothing positive, only how conservatives may not like him.

“…The media will turn on Mr. Romney faster and with greater vengeance than they did Mr. McCain in 2008, and when they do, his poll numbers – unlike those of his GOP rivals who already have faced their firestorms – will crater like Mr. McCain’s did. I would guess they’re already hunting down every family with a grievance against Bain Capital for breathless “How Mitt Romney destroyed our family” news stories. Unfair? Absolutely. Damaging? You decide.

If you still don’t believe the Obama-friendly media are hoping Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination, Google “Mitt Romney money picture” and ask yourself why the media are – for now – holding back this unseemly photo. It shows the former Massachusetts governor beside his former business partners with cash pouring out of their pockets, lapels, shirt collars and even a few body orifices. Even unapologetic champions of the free market cringe with anticipation of the bonanza that photo provides for Team Obama, which already loves to blame the weak economy on “fat-cat” bankers. This photo will be Exhibit A.

The Washington establishment expects conservatives to fall in line and accept the unproven, if not mythical, dogma that Mitt Romney is the most electable Republican candidate. Why? Because it says so. However, the establishment’s track record of picking winners in the GOP primary is abysmal. Instead, Mr. Romney’s candidacy should be evaluated on its own merits, not on some insider, illusory promise of electability, particularly when Mr. Obama’s supporters are hopeful we take the bait….”

I rarely refer to American Thinker, because I think they’ve gone off the reservation.  But, Lauri B. Regan is stating the obvious here.  The Dems are not attacking Romney.  They don’t fear him.

“...While I like Newt Gingrich, I worry that he may not be that man.  It is difficult for me to ignore Bill Clinton’s support and wonder if there is an ulterior motive to his kind words for a man who used to be his nemesis.  Perhaps I am being cynical, but Democrats have consistently attacked Republicans they fear (David Plouffe recently claimed that Romney “has no core”) while building up the candidate they hope to see in the ring duking it out with a weakened Democratic president….”

The Dems are NOT afraid of Mitt.  When the MSM writes something about him, it is positive.  When they write about Newt or Rick, it is never positive.

Why?  Why is it that very few people are asking these questions.  John Podhorezt is one of the few who is.

NY Post

Instead, you see articles about why doesn’t the GOP like Mitt.  Of course, if you read NRO, it is rather obvious certain conservatives don’t like Newt.

They are not attacking Mitt they way they are attacking Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry. Does that not make you want to sit back and ask why that is?  They are doing it to enable the attack machine.

Then there are the alleged “conservative” appeasers who are nothing more than liberal establishment’s equal time. And as far as George Will, well, I remember when he was attacking Ronald Reagan. I remember it well.  I was sitting in the Palm Court of the Plaza, when I saw him walk by coming from a speaking engagement.  I was so mad at him, at the time, for slamming Reagan, that I wanted to confront him.  I must add that I was perfectly sober at the time.  Just because my mother, two cousins and I had just run up a $285 bar tab at Trader Vic’s, was no indication I was not sober.

WPost

Planned Parenthood is out to get Rick Perry.  You won’t see attack articles about Mitt Romney.

“…If cost-effective care was truly Perry’s objective, he would be investing in rather than attacking Planned Parenthood. Last year, 31 percent of the roughly 234,000 clients served with the state’s share of family-planning funds were served by Planned Parenthood at a cost of just $168 per client, Hagerty reports. In contrast, FQHCs served just 13 percent of those clients, at a cost of $225 per patient….”

Why does the right does not want either Newt or Rick, but are propping up Romney?  Why is the right not bothering to give Newt credit for what he did in 1994, but, instead are out to slam himm?

“…Those opinions are colored by personal experience with Gingrich during his years as speaker.  That’s not the case for most voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and the rest of the primary and caucus states.  While insiders remember Gingrich’s low points from the 90s, outsiders remember his triumphs.  They remember a Gingrich who had the vision to imagine a Republican takeover of the House when no one else could, and the skill to make it happen.  And when outsiders think of the two greatest policy achievements of the Clinton years — a balanced budget and welfare reform — they know Gingrich can legitimately claim a lot of credit for both.  So what if he was abrupt with colleagues? Or, for that matter, if he was the target of a Democratic-driven ethics attack?  As far as the 1990s are concerned, outsiders remember Gingrich’s high points.

When outsiders talk about the Old Newt, they’re mostly talking about his personal life — the man who had affairs and is now on his third marriage.  “I was all for Newt during the Gingrich revolution, but when he had his affairs, I swore I would never vote again for him for dogcatcher,” said South Carolinian Gene Bustard after a Gingrich town hall last week in Greenville.  “But as much as I try not to like him, I love what he says.”..”

 

Share
  • Pingback: Why Do the Dems Want Romney to Be the Nominee? « Feeds « Newt Gingrich For President- News Watch

  • charlene

    Girl, I normally do not respond to rep sites asI find them beyond reasonable,and a waste of time but yours is one of the few that I actually enjoy reading. You and David Frum are about the only 2 republicans out there that can both think and write rationally.

    In response to your question about why the president wants to run against Romney, instead of the Newt I don’t think he is spending much thought on it at this point.

    I am sure you know of the payroll tax extension that expires the end of this month. That is a much more important issue right now than the choice of Newt or Mitt. If the republicans do not find a way to resolve it, who runs on the ticket will not matter.

  • http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com SJ Reidhead

    I fear you are right!

    Thank you for the complement. My philosophy if you can pick our Republicans apart, and they still survive then we have something.

    SJR

  • Carpenter

    Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan both won massive landslide victories with Democrat support. They were both very popular with Democrats.

    Nixon 1972 49 States
    Reagan 1980 44 States
    Reagan 1894 49 States
    G.H.W. Bush 40 States

    Ronald Reagan had been a lifelong Democrat until he switched parties prior to the California Gov. race. In fact Reagan was a New Deal FDR Democrat that helped FDR promote his New Deal! Today Mr. Reagan would be known as a “F-ing RINO” for supporting FDR by the PaulBots and the TeaBots. But since he very important to the Religion of Conservativism so they ignore the truth.

    Nixon, Bush and Reagan all won without the help of the Libertarians who HATED them! They won BIG because Democrats voted for them too. They won BIG because Libertarians HATED them. Sorry but its true.

    The Libertarians HATED Richard Nixon so much that the Libertarian Political Party was formed in opposition to President Nixon’s landslide victory and policies.

    The Libertarians also HATED Ronald Reagan. They didn’t just dislike Reagan they hated his guts. They HATED Papa Bush, but for a damned good reason! In 1988 G.H.W. Bush beat Ron Paul by 47 MILLION votes. Poor Ron only got 0.001% of the vote.

    If the Democrats want Romney to be the nominee it could be that Romney is capable of winning Democrat support. He could spawn a whole new generation of Romney Democrats. I don’t think Gingrich is liked as well by Dems but I do believe that Newt would be a great addition to any Whitehouse at any level, even President.


WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera