1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser
Advertisement

SuperPACs Attack Mitt Romney’s Attacks On Newt Gingrich By Airing Attacks On Newt Gingrich

video
» 9 comments

Earlier today, we brought you Ann Coulter‘s flip-flop on flip-flopper Mitt Romney (a Möbius flip of sorts), and in keeping with that snake eating its tail theme, anti-Romney superPACs American Bridge and Priorities USA have teamed up to attack Mitt Romney for attacking Newt Gingrich…while simultaneously airing those same attacks. American Bridge put out an ad today that frames Romney’s history of going negative as part of his willingness to say anything to get elected, and as a betrayal of Ronald Reagan‘s 11th Commandment.

The ad, supported by a background memo from Priorities USA, starts out with a clip from a pro-Romney superPAC ad that ticks off Gingrich’s $300,000 ethics fine and his Freddie Mac booty, before cutting to some cable news footage of Megyn Kelly name-checking Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment (“Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican”), and a review of Romney’s attack tactics during the 2008 election. It’s a neat little twofer, or a threefer if you count the copious Reagan references, sure to get under the skin of any conservative:


Superficially, it seems unfair to attack a politician for going negative, especially the day after the same politician put out an ostensibly positive ad and was savaged for it, but the distinction here is that Romney doesn’t just go negative often, he goes negative early. While American Bridge and Priorities aren’t exactly neutral, plenty of political observers on all sides have observed that the Romney offensive has a desperate, kitchen-sink whiff to it.

That’s an important distinction to make, because there isn’t a liberal out there who wants to declare a kibosh of any kind on negative campaigning. Republicans have gotten used to Democratic presidential candidates, even winning ones, leaving the best ammo in the can, but if early signs are any indication, the Obama reelection effort will be bringing a squadron of Predator drones to this gunfight.

Here’s the full text of the ad’s accompanying memo, from Priorities USA:

TO:                  Interested Parties

FR:                  Bill Burton, Priorities USA Action

Video: American Bridge 21st Century

RE:                  Sunday Memo: Romney’s Recurring Negative Campaign

 

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po-Gr9tzYlU

Link to memo: http://www.prioritiesusaaction.org/blog/2011-12-memo-romneys-recurring-negative-campaign

 

As we learned from the 2008 campaign, the more desperate Romney gets, the more negative he becomes. This week is the beginning of the 2012 edition of Mitt Romney’s GOP Desperation Express. His negative campaigns are kissing cousins of his positive campaigns in one regard: He’ll say and do anything if he things it will help him get elected.

 

During the 2008 campaign, Romney launched attacks against every one of his major rivals– Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani. His Republican opponents said of the ads: “distortion,” “hypocrisy,” “lying,” “desperate,” “dishonest,” “simply aren’t true,” and “clear willingness to say and do anything for political gain.” While the Republican candidates disagreed on much, there was a general agreement that Romney’s relentless attacks were unfair.

 

Many commentators argued that the ads backfired – helping to propel Huckabee and McCain to come-from-behind victories in Iowa and New Hampshire. But in 2008 and 2012, a scorched-earth campaign is the only strategic path for a candidate who has shown for six years that the appeal of his positive message is limited to 25% of Republican primary voters.

 

It’s not just the negativity of Romney’s attacks that turns off voters, it’s that their message reinforces Romney’s key weakness. In 2008 and now, Romney launched harsh immigration attacks accusing opponents of supporting “amnesty” when he had earlier defended the same plan and said it was “not amnesty.” He bashes opponents as career politicians despite his 17-year political career. He attacked John McCain for opposing tax cuts that he had refused to take a position on.  He went after Giuliani for pro-choice views despite his own long history of claiming to support abortion rights.

 

These obviously hypocritical attacks may help explain why nearly half of Republican voters believe Romney “will do or say anything to win.”

 

As we learned from the 2008 campaign, the more desperate Romney gets, the more negative he becomes. This week is just the beginning.

 

Background

 

Nearly Half of Likely GOP Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire Believe Romney “Will Do or Say Anything To Win.” According to a Bloomberg Poll conducted by Selzer & Company, 48% of likely Iowa Caucus goers and 43% of likely New Hampshire primary voters say Romney “will do or say anything to win.” [Bloomberg, 11/17/11]

 

Senator McCain had to defend himself against Mitt Romney’s attacks in 2008. Responding to Mitt Romney during a 2008 debate, John McCain defending his immigration plan saying, “It’s not amnesty. And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won’t be true.” [ABC News transcript, 1/5/08Video]

 

Giuliani Campaign: Iowa Voters Can’t Be Bought By Romney Attacks. The Giuliani campaign responded to Romney’s mailing saying, “Iowa voters can’t be bought and they certainly won’t buy what Mitt Romney is selling distortion, hypocrisy and a clear willingness to say and do anything for political gain.” The campaign added that when he was governor, Romney had “a record that included allowing the number of illegal immigrants to skyrocket while he was in charge, and even hiring some of them to work on his lawn while he was governor.” [Associated Press, 11/6/07]

 

Mike Huckabee criticized Mitt Romney for running attack ads in the 2008 campaign, calling him “desperate” and “dishonest.” In a December 2008 appearance on Meet the Press, Mike Huckabee said, “Mitt Romney is running a very desperate and, frankly, a dishonest campaign.  He’s attacked me, and, and yesterday–or Friday, I guess it was, he launched then just a broadside attack against Senator McCain.  Now, Senator McCain and I are rivals for the presidency, but I’ve said on many occasions, I’ll say it again here today, Senator McCain is an honorable man, and I believe he’s an honest man.  I believe he’s a man of conviction.  And I felt like that, when Mitt Romney went after the integrity of John McCain, he stepped across a line.” [Meet the Press transcript, 12/30/07]

 

Mike Huckabee criticized Mitt Romney for negative ads during the 2008 campaign. According to the Washington Times, Huckabee accused “Mr. Romney of directing dishonest attacks at the entire Republican field. ”If he becomes president, he will likely not start being honest in the job if he had to be dishonest to get there,” said Mr. Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor.” [The Washington Times, 12/30/07]

 

Mike Huckabee criticized Mitt Romney’s 2008 campaign for negative attacks, calling them “out of bounds.” Speaking to CNN, Huckabee said that, “And I just think that the attacks by the Romney campaign have gotten really kind of out of bounds for good politics, particularly within the Republican Party, totally violating Reagan’s 11th commandment. And it’s certainly not the kind of, I think, discourse that makes for a good election and for a good decision on the part of the voters.” [CNN transcript, 12/31/07]

 

John McCain criticized Mitt Romney’s 2008 campaign for negative attacks. Speaking to reporters in South Carolina, McCain said “I wish we could talk about our own qualifications and vision rather than attacking other candidates which apparently the Romney campaign seems to be doing rather frequently and I don’t think it helps.” [CBS News, 12/11/07]

 

John McCain criticized Mitt Romney, saying that his attacks were “the best indicator that I’m doing very well.” Speaking to reporters in New Hampshire, McCain said “”The best indicator that I’m doing very well is that when you’re attacked by Romney,” he said, suggesting his rise in New Hampshire polls is provoking this attention from Romney. ”And I don’t know how to respond to some of it because his position may change tomorrow,” he added.” [CBS News, 12/28/07]

 

Romney Attacked McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich for Supporting “Amnesty,” Despite His Previous Praise for the Same Plan. In the 2008 campaign, Romney claimed in a debate that he was not calling John McCain’s plan “amnesty” but had two television ads running that made that claim, despite the fact that Romney had previously said McCain’s plan was “not amnesty.” McCain said, “you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won’t be true.” Romney then claimed while he was attacking McCain for supporting amnesty, he couldn’t define it himself, saying, “you’re going to have to define the word for me.” This year Romney has attacked Gingrich for supporting “amnesty” and was corned on Fox News for seeming to favor the same policy. [Boston Globe, 11/29/11; Rush Limbaugh, 11/23/11McCain Challenging Romney on Immigration in 2007 Debate]

 

Mitt Romney attacked Rudy Giuliani’s for being pro-choice despite Romney previously claiming to be pro-choice. While speaking to reporters in New Hampshire, Romney said ”I believe it’s important for someone to be pro-life, to be pro-family and pro-traditional marriage, to be in favor of legal immigration but against illegal immigration and to have a record of insisting on the highest ethical standards, and I’m afraid that on all four of those measures that Mayor Giuliani would be the wrong course for our party.” [Washington Post, 11/26/07]

 

Romney Criticized McCain For Not Supporting Bush Tax Cuts. Romney said, “I don’t recall Senator McCain saying…that he was wrong to vote against the Bush tax cuts…I think he was.” Romney also said that “he was quicker than McCain to endorse President Bush’s tax cuts.” The Romney campaign aired a television ad attacking John McCain for voting against the Bush tax cuts. [Washington Post, 12/29/07; International Herald Tribune, 12/28/07; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 12/23/07; East Valley Tribune, 11/14/06]

 

“Romney Rather Pointedly Refused To Endorse The Bush Tax Cuts In 2003.” “Romney is correct to say that he never publicly opposed Bush’s tax cuts. But while he may have supported them, we find no record of his doing so in public. Indeed, Romney rather pointedly refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003.” [Factcheck.org, 1/7/08]

Follow us on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

Email Twitter Facebook Digg Reddit Stumble Upon Yahoo Buzz LinkedIn Tumblr Delicious
  • Anonymous

    Tommy, By publishing the full Bill Burton memo, you are either too lazy to provide your analysis or you are now in full campaign mode using your “column” as a front for the Obama side. Sad state of journalism.

  • Anonymous

    Pass the popcorn!

  • Anonymous

    Mitt is so incompetent at attacking anyone, what do you think he’ll do against obama? Kiss him on each cheek?

    This is Chicago politics, Mittens.  Either you go for the throat or obama will.

    Further irony:  Mitt calling Newt non-Conservative when Mittens has “0″ Conservative accomplishments. WTF is that all about?

  • Charleston Voice

    When a candidate’s morals & character don’t matter to you:

    And you thought Romney was an American patriot? Yikes!

    Romney’s Advisors Are Leftist Elites

    http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/10/romneys-advisors-are-leftist-elites.html

    The Irrelevance of the Republican Party

    http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/11/irrelevance-of-republican-party.html

    Newt Gingrich’s Skeleton Closet

    http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/11/newt-gingrichs-skeleton-closet.html

  • Anonymous

    It’s called providing primary sources.  LOL

  • Anonymous

    Lamar Smith’s (R-TX)
    ‘THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT’ is
    also a zero-tolerance bill, that if past can outlaw illegal aliens from the
    workplace. Businesses that are violation of the law will be audited and the
    owners harshly fined and even sent to prison. It is better recognized by
    hundreds of thousands of candid companies that E-Verify will red flag illegal
    aliens, opening payroll jobs for lawful residents and the citizenry. 
    E-Verify is a progressive disincentive that is being continuously upgraded by
    the Homeland Security and ICE.  Just like H.R.140, titled the Birthright
    Citizenship Act, E-Verify ‘THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT’, H.R. 2885, is a innovation to stop this travesty of our immigration laws?

    Today with the failure of the numerous administrations to construct the real
    2006 Secure fence, consisting of two fences with a wide expanse in between for
    the movement of rapid interdiction of Drug, weapons and the massive influx of
    illegal migrants. What is already been built is still incomplete and droves of
    illegal aliens cross, including terrorist who are impersonating Mexican
    individuals. Neither the 1986 Immigration nor its 1974 version of these laws
    after enactment were enforced. The 1986 Immigration reform and Control Act was
    rife with fraud, and both laws have been neglected and abused. One huge lie
    played on the US taxpayer by politicians, who sold their souls to the huge
    abhorrent special interest lobbyists and open border radical entities.

    Currently it needs serious action by all patriotic Americans. This can be done by the voter contacting
    Washington 202-224-3121 and giving your name, address to the political aid and
    insisting your representative in the Senate-House uphold the law and co-sponsor
    both laws. More and more legislators are moving to co-sponsor both laws, to
    begin enforcement by Attrition, or self deportation, as jobs being
    commandeered by illegal aliens are returned to the
    rightful American workers.  The website of NumbersUSA can be Google’d,
    where you can send free faxes and read in detail about the corruption at the
    highest levels of federal and state government.

     

     

    Right now, a bunch of polling firms and news media have used
    this as a chance to do polls that manipulate questions in a way to seem to show
    that most Americans want most illegal aliens to stay, showing that pro-amnesty
    doesn’t hurt a candidate and causing rumblings through Congress that maybe it does
    make sense to reconsider amnesty over the next couple of years, after all. The
    pollsters are doing this with the Big Trick of never offering voters an option
    of Attrition through Enforcement (forcing them to choose either mass
    deportations or mass legalization).

    In short, Mr. Gingrich has revived the whole national debate on amnesty which
    had been essentially dead after you/we defeated the DREAM amnesty last
    December. Any chance for amnesty votes was essentially dead until Gingrich
    revived the idea. Whatever you may think of presidential candidate Newt
    Gingrich or his recently announced legalization plan, the fact that he has
    broken the 4-year Republican taboo against amnesty has unleashed pro-amnesty
    efforts everywhere. Any mass amnesty will ignite CHAIN MIGRATION that will be
    more billions of dollars, taken from your taxes. Gingrich amnesty calculated by
    ‘The Heritage Foundation’ could cost us $2.3 Trillion dollars, that is not
    including CHAIN MIGRATION of following family members and further attracting
    even million more to these shores or through borders—adding even more—POVERTY–
    to American low income bread lines we have now. This is Dire Poverty unseen
    since the Great Depression of 1929? This country is broke, from corruption,
    attributed to both political parties and we are facing a upward spike in the 15
    Trillion dollars we have already.

     

    The pollsters have a single “Big deception” that
    skews all the results:

    The polls don’t give voters the option of Attrition through
    Enforcement.

    Instead, they make voters basically choose between mass
    deportations or mass legalization.  In the case of a National Journal poll
    just released, voters were given a third choice of half-mass deportations and
    half-mass legalizations (which is essentially the Gingrich Amnesty).

    But nowhere do voters hear that there
    is an “ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT” such as the E-Verify option that doesn’t
    involve mass deportations or mass legalization.  What Attrition does do
    is:

    Quickly (over a couple of years) moves illegal aliens
    out of their payroll jobs.Quickly takes away taxpayer-provided benefitsGradually over perhaps 10 year period, will cause
    illegal aliens to go home. The Tens of Millions of TEA PARTY members should not
    fall for this clever ruse.

     

     

    Attn: Keep an eye on Democrats as they
    are intentionally pushing non-citizens to vote in all coming elections, that
    includes the 2011 presidential. They are also trying to change electoral laws,
    so you can register and immediately vote, using groups like the fraudulent
    canvassing of the ACORN group, that’s reappeared under another name.
    Additionally the Left is introducing legislation, so you don’t even need a picture
    ID; this to me is as close to fraud as you can get? Already there has been instances of Voter Fraud, including an Indiana
    forged signatures registration for Obama before he became president, that is
    being investigated currently.

     

    In conclusion, insist that Obama and
    his cronies expedite the ‘Keystone’ pipeline, as it will bring cheap oil into
    America and less need of petroleum from unfriendly countries. Its installation
    from Canada to Texas will require the hiring of 20.000 US Workers. Unless the
    present administration gets its finger out, our Northern neighbor will quite
    possibly sell this commodity to Communist China. Use the phone number above and
    tell the Democrats in Washington to do something for Americans.

     

     

  • Anonymous

    So Ging-Grinch is our best bet?

  • Anonymous

    So Ging-Grinch is our best bet?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VK7U6RFTAUIPW2JR2NGPBP2IYA super

    but i doubt he will ever do that for anything negative about the democrats/obamas.

© 2012 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Jobs | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | RSS RSS
Dan Abrams, Founder | Power Grid by Sound Strategies | Hosting by Datagram