Romney descends into the depths

Kathlene M. writes:

And now to make matters worse for Romney, the Romney campaign has sent out a mass email repeating Nancy Pelosi’s latest insinuation that “there’s something I know” about Gingrich. This is beyond vile. I have lost all respect for Mitt Romney.

Here is the article Kathlene sent, it’s by William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

Romney campaign sends mass email quoting Pelosi threat against Newt (Update: Pelosi backs off)

I told you this morning that anti-Newt forces would try to use Nancy Pelosi’s claim that she had secret information about Newt.

And the Romney campaign didn’t waste any time, sending out a mass e-mail quoting Pelosi as well as Romney attacking Newt on Fox & Friends about Pelosi’s statement.

Here’s the e-mail (click to enlarge).

Newt sat on a couch with Pelosi. The Romney campaign is getting in bed with her.

Update: Just as the Romney campaign was seeking to use Pelosi’s threat, Pelosi was backing off. Pelosi’s office says she has no new dirt on ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (h/t Weasel Zippers):

“The ‘something’ Leader Pelosi knows is that Newt Gingrich will not be President of the United States. She made that clear last night,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said in a statement….

But on Wednesday, Hammill repeated that all of the information from the investigation is in the public realm. [LA replies: Do you see the significance of this? Romney has gone so far out that he is making allegations about some dark hidden Gingrich wrongdoing from the ’90s which Pelosi herself has not made and from which she has explicitly dissociated herself. So Romney is not just a slanderer of a fellow Republican, as I wrote this morning; he is a bigger slanderer than the Democrats.]

Jacobson linked to an image of the Romney campaign e-mail. Here from HotAir is the text of the Romney interview at Fox which the Romney campaign itself included in the e-mail:

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Mr. Romney, what does Nancy Pelosi know if it would be such a bombshell as to why Newt Gingrich couldn’t be president?

ROMNEY: I wish I knew what that was [laughter]. I’d tell people what it is right now.

But that’s one of the reasons why I’m saying that all of the records that were part of the ethics investigation, all of the transcripts, all of the records have to be made public.

Not just the final white-washed report but the full record, the reason that 88% of the Republicans in the House voted to reprimand their own Speaker….. we need to understand why that is, and those records need to be released, because you know that if Nancy Pelosi knows those things right now, she will hand them to Barack Obama’s campaign if Speaker Gingrich were our nominee.

Think of it. The Democrats spent four years trying to destroy their arch-nemesis Newt Gingrich with trumped-up charges. He gave a college course on politics, and claimed tax free status for it; but they said that the course was really to advance his political ideology and career, and therefore the tax free status was fraudulent. The IRS ultimately found that the course was indeed educational, not political. This was the trivial and innocent matter that the Democrats—facilitated by the liberal media with all their power—blew up into a horrible-sounding scandal and used to taint and bring down Gingrich. And so lacking is Romney in minimal principle, in minimal decency, in minimal conscience, that he is now jumping on the Democrats’ Destroy-Gingrich bandwagon from the 1990s. I cannot print at VFR the words that I have for Romney.

- end of initial entry -

Kathlene M. writes:

What on earth has happened to Romney? I supported him four years ago over McCain because I too thought he was intelligent and at that time inspiring. Maybe he’s been campaigning too long and he’s become disassociated from his own beliefs. Maybe he’s been surrounded too long by too many liberal advisors. Maybe his transformation to “conservative” was only skin-deep.

This will be a depressing situation if Romney does become the Republican nominee. At this point I just cannot vote for him knowing that he really doesn’t intend to repeal Obamacare, nor does he care about the social/cultural issues that are important to many conservatives.

I could probably hold my nose and vote for Gingrich if necessary (barring any major future surprises from him) but I honestly don’t know if Romney can redeem himself at this point.

LA replies:

When Romney was trying to be a social conservative, in 2007-08, he made substantive and interesting, even inspiring statements, but now that he has returned to his business-consultant true self, he is, at best, vapid and empty. And at his worst he is, as I said above, unspeakable.

Spencer Warren writes:

What you write here about Romney is fair. But in my view the much more important point is that Gingrich’s colleagues, who owed their newly won power to him, in just a few years forced him out as Speaker because of his terrible flaws as a leader. This alone should disqualify him as a reputable candidate. [LA replies: I don’t think “reputable” is the right word. If someone has failed or been rejected as a leader, that does not make him “disreputable.” There is no moral equivalence between being an incompetent leader and committing vile slanders. This does not mean that I regard Gingrich overall as reputable, but that it was not his service as Speaker or his resignation as Speaker that makes him disreputable.]

Further, I find repellant the sleazy “consulting” payments he took from Freddie Mac—so typical of the stinking influence peddling that is the essence of Washington. Some reformer. At least Romney earned an honest living. Also, last evening Jeffrey Kuhner of the Washington Times, speaking as substitute host on the Savage Nation, played audio clips of Gingrich recently suggesting he was an active Goldwater supporter in 1964, despite stating in another audio clip from the late eighties that he supported Rockefeller.

At this point he is much more likely to lose than Romney, despite the latter’s weaknesses (summed up thus: he switched his position on abortion, just like the repugnant GHW Bush).

I now believe Santorum is best. As a conservative he won two Senate terms in a tough swing state, Pennsylvania, while maintaining a principled conservative voting record. (And he had an excellent record on animal humane issues.)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 25, 2012 02:33 PM | Send