Newt Gingrich’s campaign is going to start running ads in South Carolina that “will be built on excerpts from a scathing movie about Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mr. Romney once ran. The movie, financed by a Republican operative opposed to Mr. Romney, includes emotional interviews with people who lost jobs at companies that Bain bought and later sold.”
The Republican operative first shopped the ad campaign to Rick Perry and John Huntsman, who both turned it down as being too dirty. After what Romney did to Gingrich in Iowa, Gingrich said “Bring It On!”
Maybe I was just too young to notice it, but have we ever before, from either party, since this level of intra-party viciousness in campaigns? It seems to me that primaries are usually more a matter of “we agree on most points, but I think I would be better than the other guy because…”, not all this mudslinging. I mean, surely everyone should realize that attacking your own party-mates just helps the other party’s candidate, right?
Gingrich may hurt Romney, but the Bain Capital thing wasn’t exactly a secret and it was going to be an issue in the primaries and in the general election one way or the other. And as far as pissing off Gingrich goes- what else was he supposed to do? They’re in competition. Anything short of winning was going to make Gingrich angry.
Most people have no idea what a company like Bain Capital does, and if you try to explain it their eyes glaze over. This film puts it in terms “real Americans” can understand and it will piss them off. At the very least it will prevent the Tea Partier from lining up behind Romney and extend the primary season. The Republican establishment wants this to be over and have as much time as possible between the last nasty ad and the general election so every forgets the nasty stuff.
That would make sense. But in this 7-way battle to the death, you end up choosing between the sole survivor and the incumbent (whom nobody named"…"(R) wants). That’s how what’s left of the GOP seems to be thinking.
My secret hope is that there actually is a viable, moderate GOP member who simply chose not to enter the double whammy of primary fighting AND challenging an incumbent, especially in 2012. I say it’s still too soon to tell whether Obama will have a good and lasting legacy for America, but one thing is certain: things are still not great and the solutions still are not obvious. If I’m the GOP sleeper I’m thinking, “Give Obama another term to either prove he and his party can’t do it, or to fix things well enough that the rewards will surface during my first term; and don’t associate my name with the pool of whack-jobs currently trying to be the least horrible choice.”
Not since 1968 for the Dems, 1976 for the Pubs. Not even the Dem primaries in 1980 sank to this level; probably because they were only about whether Carter or Kennedy should be POTUS, and not about the party’s general ideological direction.
The 11th Commandment used to be Thou Shalt Not Attack a Fellow Republican.
That was mostly honored in the breach, of course, and previous campaigns had lots of mudslinging. Talk about the evils of negative campaigning go back decades.
You might be hearing more about it. We didn’t used to live in a world of 24/7 cable coverage and the Internet. Every tiny item now becomes a huge kerfluffle because they have to fill time somehow. In addition, the ability of PACs to do the dirty work of negativity on a candidate’s behalf "with no coordination whatsoever’ is new. Used to be that there was total coordination when friends of the candidate put out dirt so that the candidate had plausible deniabilty. And there is far more money involved so everything is louder. And this is worst batch of candidates in history, so being positive is not a winning strategy.
But I guarantee that nothing, absolutely nothing, we’ve heard so far is one-thousandth as dirty as campaigning used to be. And nothing so far is one-hundredth as dirty as the presidential campaign will be. Gingrich’s friends told the truth about Romney? That’s mudslinging?
Negative ads are one thing - the volume of negative ads in Iowa was something different. It seems to me that Gingrich is the only candidate Romney is scared of, given his actual experience in Washington and his relative sanity compared to the far right loons.
As for the ads, yes they would have happened anyway in the final campaign, but they will be tested now, and seem more legitimate coming from other Republicans.
I hadn’t expected them to happen yet since Republicans tend to shy away from attacking business.
Newt Gingrich is perfectly willing to cut off his nose to spite his face AND the GOP. I mean, the guy orchestrated a government shutdown because he was told to use the rear door on a plane. He admits it was an avoidable mistake, but I don’t think he has grown and matured in the intervening years.
So, it doesn’t have to benefit Gingrich for him to be willing to do it, if he is mad enough. And I think he’s mad enough.
All this is a bit late for Gingrich. He needed to go on the counter-attack in Iowa in those crucial weeks in December when he was being pounded by Romney and Paul.
But I have to say I am surprised at how much Romney is being attacked from the left for his Bain work by the likes of Gingrich and Perry. That is bad news for him in the general. If his opponents think these attacks work in the GOP primary, think how much more effective they will be in the general. Plus by making Obama’s arguments for him, Gingrich and Perry are validating them and giving them a bi-partisan legitimacy.
Gingrich’s fatal flaw was playing positive and believing fellow republicans would follow suit. It may be too late for him sadly. I have wanted him to run for many years if anything to raise the level of debates because Im so tired of hearing canned phrases and non answers from politicians. It’s likely he will not become nominee but Im happy he’s in the race and making great points (breif history lessons as a bonus).
Romney seems to bring out the worst in people, honestly. He’s a smug prick who thinks he’s entitled to it, and will just buy it with near-infinite money from super-rich friends. Also, he will literally say anything he thinks will help him get elected.
Yes, other campaigns have been nasty (and much, much nastier when you go back before the modern era), but usually they are nasty behind closed doors and in the darkness. Opposition research on affairs, and getting columnists to do hit-job op-eds, and the like. Rarely do the candidates bare their teeth on camera like they do toward Romney.
Likely, neither is Romney. They’re both good looking, smooth talking guys who consider it natural for people to give them money and to win at popularity contests. If you don’t like one of them, you’re likely to call that “feeling entitled”, but removing political affiliation they’re pretty much the same person as best I can tell.
That’s probably the main reason I wouldn’t want Romney. What’s the point in switching?
How could anyone ever regret pissing on Gingrich? Oh, wait . . .