Sunday, January 15, 2012

Who threw the first punch... Mitt or Newt?

I'm getting a little tired of Newt whining about why he has resorted to attacking Mitt Romney and Capitalism, and why he now finds himself poster-boy for the DNC.

He claims that Romney started the attacks on him in Iowa and that he had run a positive campaign up to that point.

Liar..Liar..Pants on Fire!

Actually, It was Mitt Romney who ran a positive campaign UNTIL NEWT drew first blood.

During the November debate, Romney went after Gingrich for his statement of support for giving amnesty to those who came here illegally 25 years before. Romney expressed opposition to that and stated they should have to apply like everyone else.

Newt, not happy with being bested at the debate, tweeted the following:
.@MittRomney Here's a trip down memory lane: So what's your position on citizenship for illegals again? (I oppose it.)
With a link to the following video clip of a 2007 interview Romney gave on 'Meet The Press' (TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT) that leaves the impression that Romney is for Amnesty:

This of course received a lot of buzz for 3 or 4 days from the ABR crowd all over the internet and here as well by our resident ABR representative.

Ah!............The power of the internet.....and Google search.

That of course was only a 14 second clip from a much longer 2007 "Meet The Press" interview. Here is the Interview in it's entirety:

Here is the ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT for those of you who are video phobic: I've only pasted from Romney's statement and not the entire interview. If you want to read the whole thing, go HERE. I've also highlighted in RED, the part of Romney's statement that Newtochio ONLY wanted you to hear:
GOV. ROMNEY: Now let's, now let's look at those very carefully, OK, and you're, you're a careful reader. In the interview with The Boston Globe, I described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program, but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs. I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support--and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. And, of course, the Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don't recall in that much detail. But they had very different proposals. My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country--the 12 million or so that are here illegally--should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally. And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate.
MR. RUSSERT: But they shouldn't have to go home?
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, whether they go home--they should go home eventually. There's a set per--in my view they should be--they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there's a set period where upon they should return home. And if they've been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they'll be going home.
MR. RUSSERT: The children they had born here are U.S. citizens, so do the children stay here and the parents go home?
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, that's a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who've come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here, but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally. And likewise, if they've brought a child to this country or they've had a child in this country, that's, that's wonderful that they're growing their families, but that doesn't mean that they all get to stay here indefinitely. We're fundamentally a nation of laws. And let me underscore something here that I think's awfully important, because this immigration debate can sound anti-immigrant to a lot of people. It's not intended to be that by myself or, I believe, by the vast majority of others that talk about it. We value legal immigration. We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education, but we are a nation of laws. And our freedoms and our liberty are associated with following the law. We have to secure our border, we have to make sure there's an employment verification system to identify who's here legally and who's not. And then for the 12 million who've come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway.
So my friends as it turns out, Gingrich was the first to try and distort Romney's record by taking statements out of context. He started the war, And IS A LIAR by stating he ran a positive campaign until Iowa. So the next time someone tells you that Mitt started it, ask them to pass you a barf bag and you can pass them the link to this post.

BTW, I challenge anyone to find an example of Romney trying to distort Gingrich's past or taking any of his statements out of context before Gingrich's Tweet on November 23rd.

I'll save you some time, he didn't!

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


Anonymous said...

Yes. You can put it down that an adulterer is also a liar. And herein is Newt's downfall. It really stems with his own personal life and putting his own illegitimate appetites ahead of everything else. And so he's part of the biggest problem in America. The dissolution of honesty and moral principles by which this country became great. Gingrich may be good at some things, but not good enough to be an example to the rising generation of this country. He can repent but his actions don't show that he's really doing so and I think that by and by you will see him stumble over himself again with more moral gaffes unless he truly repents and experiences a mighty change of heart and has no more disposition to do evil.

Anonymous said...

The very fact that Newt ever got any traction at all was a shock to me.

And Newt always has an excuse and a person to blame.

I think the man is mentally ill.

Anonymous said...

Well I think you are right because serious immorality does breed mental illness. I just can't believe that the media gives him so much room to prattle on and on and on. It is nauseating. I've also noticed that he speaks in circumlocutions which is another sign of dishonesty. I once took a Shakespeare class from a brilliant professor who taught us how to detect dishonesty from the very speech that people speak from their mouthes. Liars tell on themselves by their very speech.

Also, one name for Satan is "The Accuser", and so a person under an evil influence will be an arch accuser of others, and particularly of those who are truly good, moral and upright.

marK said...

"I've also noticed that he speaks in circumlocutions which is another sign of dishonesty."

It can be. It can also be a sign of someone who has difficulty expressing themselves concisely. There's a member of my family that speaks that way. They have a very difficult time getting to the point. You could ask her what she had for breakfast, and she will rattle on for several paragraphs. It can drive you crazy.

She's been that way her whole life.

Is Newt dishonest? He proves that almost daily. Is his circumlocutions a sign of it? Probably. Is circumlocutions always a sign of dishonesty? No.

larry said...

Great post. This should shut up the mouths of those who mistakenly think Newt is some kind of victim

Kim said...

Bravo Bosman,

A home run.

I will post this link around for others to read

Machtyn said...

Even during his "Nice" period he would say, "I'm going to stay nice, unlike the other meanies." Notice that he is being insulting or mean while saying he is nice. I've noticed that he is very good at the double-speak.

Anonymous said...

Newt is a real sleazeball.

Why hasn't anyone in the news media confronted Newt with this when he tries to make Romney the villain? Romney only responded after being attacked.

Anonymous said...

The "bus has left the station" for Newt Gingrich. He just doesn't want to believe his chances at the Presidential Candidacy are over. Even if Newt Gingrich places strong in a couple of Christian Based Southern States, by accusing Romney in Gay/Abortion Ads, and implications against Romney's faith, that's as far as it's going. Gingrich knows this, and so do most GOP voters who have truly followed the GOP Primaries and watch the polls. In response, Newt is angry and spreading poison against Romney. As a result, Newt's attacks are "blue printing" Obama's Campaign ads against the GOP and Romney. In my opinion, Newt Gringrich needs to remember the goal is to Beat Obama, not destroy all GOP chances for a win out of vindictive jealousy. Sad, but true....

Slick-Willy said...

Anyone remember, "I'm not claiming... I'm just claiming to be more conservative than Romney."?

Newt threw that out there before Mitt had ever singled Newt out w/a negative slant at all.

Ohio JOE said...

"Actually, It was Mitt Romney who ran a positive campaign UNTIL NEWT drew first blood." That is plain false. Both of them have run a negative campaign.