Can Newt Be Trusted? Calls Mitt Romney ‘Anti-Immigrant’ in Spanish-Language Ad

Posted on | January 25, 2012 | 53 Comments

You may remember last week’s CNN debate in South Carolina, when Rick Santorum hit Newt Gingrich with this:

I will give Newt Gingrich his due on grandiose ideas and grandiose projects. I will not give him his due on executing those projects, which is exactly what the president of the United States is supposed to do.
Four years into his speakership, he was thrown out by the conservatives. . . . I served with him. I was there. I knew what the problems were going on in the House of Representatives when Newt Gingrich was leading there. It was an idea a minute, no discipline, no ability to be able to pull things together.

The “grandiose” Gingrich doesn’t seem to think the rules apply to him, and the things he has been saying about immigration are . . . well, nuanced.

So now Newt’s defenders will have to explain to us once more why Gingrich is a trustworthy conservative, after his campaign aired Spanish-language radio advertisements accusing Mitt Romney of being “anti-immigrant”:

Sen. Marco Rubio scolded Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign over a Spanish-language radio ad that accuses rival Mitt Romney of being “anti-immigrant”
“This kind of language is more than just unfortunate. It’s inaccurate, inflammatory, and doesn’t belong in this campaign,” Rubio told The Miami Herald when asked about the ad.
“The truth is that neither of these two men is anti-immigrant,” Rubio said. “Both are pro-legal immigration and both have positive messages that play well in the Hispanic community.”

Michelle Malkin notes that Gingrich’s attack echoes Spanish-language ads by SEIU (!) making similar accusations against Romney, and adds:

The truth is that neither Gingrich nor Romney has a strong, consistent overall record on border security and enforcement. But at least Romney’s been traveling in the right direction…while Gingrich once again echoes left-wing language and plays the race card to get ahead.

Immigration is an issue where almost no one is tough enough to suit my inclinations. I’m somewhere off to the right of Tom Tancredo and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, waaaay out there. And you know something funny? Malkin linked a report card by the tough-on-immigration group Numbers USA ranking the current candidates for president.

Guess who scores the best grade? Just sayin’ . . .

Category: Election 2012, Florida, Immigration

Comments

53 Responses to “Can Newt Be Trusted? Calls Mitt Romney ‘Anti-Immigrant’ in Spanish-Language Ad”

Anonymous
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:14 pm

Without exception, each of the Republican candidates for president is opposed to existing federal immigration law (that being not only the omission of an enumerated, but a prohibition on any, federal power related thereto in the Supreme Law of the Land).

So the question really becomes “which of these candidates is promising the least violation of his oath of office, with respect to immigration, if elected?”

Gingrich has made some mild feints in that general direction. The rest of them unequivocally state their hatred of the American way.
Finrod Felagund
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

Santorum isn’t being honest either when he says conservatives in the House threw Newt out. It was more an alliance of Democrats still pissed at him for putting them in the minority party and Establisment GOP types who viewed him as a threat to their power.

And how would Santorum know what was going on in the House, anyways? He may have served with Newt in the House, but when Newt was becoming Speaker of the House, Santorum was being sworn in at the other end of Capitol Hill as Pennsylvania’s junior Senator.
DAN
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

Newt is targeting Cuban and Hispanic voters.

Which is smart.

Obama has maxed out the black vote, and it’s mathematically impossible for him to do better with that voter group.

Obama is on an almost hourly basis, bleeding support amongst white voter. It’s gotten so bad that a union apparatchik, well connected with the obama White House, came out and confessed that they’ve given up on the white middle class.

Which leaves voter fraud, ———— which Dems will avail themselves of in a major way.

And Hispanics.

Which means the Dems are pinning much of their reelection hopes on ratcheting up their share of Hispanic voters.

Once again, Gingrich, ahead of the curve, is doing his best to blunt whatever traction obama might gain in that community.

This isn’t dirty pool. Nor is it a demonstration of a conservative heresy. It’s smart politics.
DAN
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

Democrats created a cloud of supposed corruption attending all things Newt. They did it because:

A} He dispossessed them of their control of the House; and

B} They were bitter, MAJOR-LEAGUE bitter.

The media, working hand in glove with the Democrats, {as usual} echoed and amplified these deceptive and malicious attacks against Newt.

Newt had demonstrated himself a force, and the Democrats were determined to stop him before he did them more damage.

Republicans, {big surprise here…} wearied of the struggle defending the guy who gave them their majority status. They wanted to fold.

They did.

The fine was paid, as Mark Levin remarked the other day, merely to get the thing behind them. But as all now see, IT WASN’T PLACED behind all of us merely by virtue of folding to Democrat attacks.
Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Fighting Back works the Gingrich model » Datechguy's Blog
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

[…] The fact that Newt fights doesn’t mean he fights according to Hoyle So now Newt’s defenders will have to explain to us once more why Gingrich is a trustworthy […]
richard mcenroe
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

Precisely 28 Republicans voted against removing Newt as Speaker. And NO ONE forced him to resign his Congressional seat. Newt did that because he’s a quitter. Back-bencher was good enough for Churchill but not for him.
richard mcenroe
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

It’s Newt screwing the base. He’s always supported amnesty, when he could find the time in his busy schedule of supporting the individual mandate, bank bailouts and cap and trade.
Rubio Hammers Gingrich For 'SEIU' Type Ad Calling Romney 'Anti-Immigrant' - The POH Diaries
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:52 pm

[…] from Stacy McCain and Michelle Malkin. Tweet Tagged with: anti-immigrant • Florida • […]
Anonymous
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

No, you’re wrong, Finrod: Democrats had nothing to do with it. After Republicans unexpectedly lost seats in the 1998 mid-term elections — when they had expected to gain seats because of the Lewinsky scandal — there was a rebellion in House GOP ranks. Newt saw that he was going to lose the speakership in the upcoming Republican caucus vote and announced that he would retire from Congress instead. I remember that like it was yesterday.

There are some who say that, under the subsequent leadership of Denny Hastert and Tom DeLay, House Republicans were even worse than they were under Newt — DeLay’s arm-twisting for Medicare Part D is often mentioned in this regard — but in 1998, they were overwhelmingly fed up with Gingrich’s personal melodrama, and glad to be rid of him.
Newt Joins SEIU to Attack Romney from the Left on Immigration | The Lonely Conservative
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

[…] attacks. She has more on where the candidates stand on immigration. Newt’s worse than Romney. You’ll never guess who’s best.I just don’t get why so many conservatives are willing to completely overlook Newt parroting […]
CO
January 25th, 2012 @ 2:56 pm

That link scoring Romney & Santorum toughest against Amnesty what a hoot!

None of them are tough and you can’t trust a word any of them say, it’s what they have done; check out their records. Newt is the only choice.

This nation’s in a wreck heading for the precipice. We are going broke and that is the priority. If we go bankrupt we will have no nation the creditors will own us. The first and only thing to concentrate on is saving the nation from bankruptcy and Newt can and will do it. When we have resuscitated the US then we may engage secondary problems.

Save the US from the bankruptcy creditors, vote Newt.
Finrod Felagund
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

The ‘quitter’ line is bullshit when it’s used on Newt and it’s bullshit when it’s used on Sarah. Both knew that they could no longer be effective in their position and decided to resign and let someone else that could be more effective give it a try. If more politicians would do that we wouldn’t have so many of them that have been in Congress for half to two-thirds of their lifespan, taking up space and spouting inanities.

I live in Newt’s district and I voted for him in 1998. I was disappointed when he resigned but I understood why. Too bad others don’t have the mental comprehension to understand why politicians resigning is often a good thing. Otherwise the voters have to get pissed off and throw them out of office– like what happened to Santorum.
Finrod Felagund
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:03 pm

Democrats had nothing to do with Gingrich leaving Congress?

Have you lost your fucking mind, Stacy?

Democrats were doing practically nothing BUT trying to get Gingrich to leave Congress from the day he was sworn in as Speaker. Hence the 24086708972563246 bogus ethics charges filed against him.
Finrod Felagund
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

Democrats had nothing to do with Gingrich leaving Congress?

Have you lost your fucking mind, Stacy?

Democrats were doing practically nothing BUT trying to get Gingrich to leave Congress from the day he was sworn in as Speaker. Hence the 24086708972563246 bogus ethics charges filed against him.
ThePaganTemple
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

If you all believe any of these candidates, any single damn one of them, are going to crack down on illegal immigrants the way you personally would like to see them do, you’re living in a dream world I seriously doubt its possible to wake you up from.
richard mcenroe
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

Then Democrats had NO power to remove Gingrich from a Congressional seat he had just lawfully won. That was Gingrich’s decision; he quit in a huff, the way Newt always quits in the crunch.
richard mcenroe
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

Newt folded on the government shutdown, he folded on his wives and he folded on his Congressional district. So he would have been a common back-bencher instead of Speaker. So. What. It was good enough for Churchill and he used it to earn his way back to greatness. Newt just wants to get there by yelling at reporters.
Anonymous
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

Wait .. wasn’t this the Rove startegy with amnesty?
Adjoran
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:38 pm

If your view of the Constitution is correct, you can prove it. Fortunately, the Constitution itself provides a mechanism to resolve such disputes – the courts. You can sue. If you are right, you will win.

Of course you won’t win, because you aren’t right.

But if you truly supported the Constitution, wouldn’t that mean you accepted all of it, not just what you pick and choose?
Adjoran
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

His ego couldn’t take the demotion. He could have had his pick of Committee chairs.
Adjoran
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

No, they voted against reprimand. He resigned from the House because he would not be supported by the Caucus for reelection as Speaker.

There was no vote to toss him out.
Adjoran
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:46 pm

Democrats didn’t get a vote in the Republican Caucus. It was indeed the conservatives who refused to support his failed leadership any longer – the establishment guys like Livingston and Hastert were fine with him staying on after his plea deal.

There is no Chinese Wall between the House and Senate. The whole country knew what was going on. We all watched Newt flounder, flail, and put his own ego over the interests of the conservatives and the Party time and time again.
Adjoran
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

The House Ethics Committee was, as it is now, evenly divided between the parties to prevent partisan witch hunts, and the Republican members were hand-picked by Gingrich. They fought to allow him the plea deal.
Adjoran
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

His plea deal on the ethics charges allowed him to stay on. Democrats tried but couldn’t do it.

Conservatives threw his worthless ass out.

Stacy may be out of his mind, but not on this point, and at least he has one to lose.
Adjoran
January 25th, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

Newt is lying, which is dishonest.

But then, some things never change.

Of course, the gullible fools who support him believe he wasn’t an influence peddler from the day he left office, too. And probably in fairies.
Anonymous
January 25th, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

Adjoran,

That comment would be a great picker-aparter for Stacy’s current obsession with fallacies.

1) The plain text of the Constitution, the ratification debates, and 90 years of congressional adherence “prove” my view of the Constitution correct vis a vis original intent.

2) Since I am not attempting to migrate into the United States, I have no claim to sue upon.

3) Whether or not my view of the Constitution is factually and historically correct has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I “accept” it. Three of a kind beats two pair in five-card draw whether I’m playing or not.
Anonymous
January 25th, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

Sorry for the duplicate, Disqus is being weird today.
Bob Belvedere
January 25th, 2012 @ 5:09 pm

And Stacy was there at The Times.
Bob Belvedere
January 25th, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

Hello, Dcmick.
Bob Belvedere
January 25th, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

If fairies don’t exist, explain ‘gay marriage’???
Anonymous
January 25th, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

Yes, Newt our savior! Bring on the unicorns!
Pathfinder's wife
January 25th, 2012 @ 5:19 pm

And what happens when the bill for all this vote pandering comes due? Who will end up paying for it?
Adjoran
January 25th, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

Speaking of Newt’s “fundamentally transformative” dishonesty, he’s been wrapping himself with Reagan a bit too much according to someone else who was there at the time – Elliot Abrams: http://tinyurl.com/6lr29xj
richard mcenroe
January 25th, 2012 @ 8:15 pm

Newt is pulling a Meg Whitman stunt, sweet-talking the Hispanics in Spanish ads while talking tough for all us gringos in English.

Apparently no one but Newt is smart enough to speak two languages.
richard mcenroe
January 25th, 2012 @ 8:53 pm

Backing up the plumbing, but finally with a plumber’s license.
DAN
January 25th, 2012 @ 9:11 pm

In 1992,

1992!

Romney donated money to Democrats.

’92!
DAN
January 25th, 2012 @ 9:14 pm

The guy that made the GOP a majority party can never be accused of “screwing the base.”

There are more Hispanics than Black Americans right now.

That’s a little known fact.

If we allow the Hispanic vote to go the way of the Black vote, then we’ll be looking at electoral college defeat for a generation or more. Easy.

That’s not pandering.

That’s wise political positioning.

And we had all better get used to it……………..

It’s not the best situation, to be sure. None of us supported the immigration policies that have warped the nation’s demographics. But that’s a reality now.
ThePaganTemple
January 25th, 2012 @ 9:14 pm

You say that like there’s something wrong with yelling at supporters. There’s some I would dearly love to yell at. And there are some I would love to force at gun point to do despicable things. Newt’s got nothing on me.
richard mcenroe
January 25th, 2012 @ 9:59 pm

Sarah Palin resigned because she was facing bankruptcy and the business of the governor’s office was at a standstill due to frivolous lawsuits.

Newt resigned because his feelings were hurt and he didn’t want to the job every other Congressman in the House did daily.
richard mcenroe
January 25th, 2012 @ 10:01 pm

Yelling at reporters is fun and amusing but it ain’t governing and it ain’t leading. Also, Newt seems to be not so brave about yelling at reporters without a crowd to back him up.

Also, he’s apparently willing to yell at reporters over lame questions that affect him but not questions that affect the country, or why didn’t he go after Brian Williams.

Newt’s little theatrical tour worked because John King is a pussy. Chris Wallace would have fetched him up short and Brit Hume would have cut him to ribbons.
richard mcenroe
January 25th, 2012 @ 10:03 pm

Not unless you want a two-hour Newt lecture on the breeding cycle of unicorns.
richard mcenroe
January 25th, 2012 @ 10:35 pm

Right. Still only 28 GOP voted for him and only 1 on the the ethics committee.
Anonymous
January 25th, 2012 @ 11:10 pm

The Hispanic vote is not a unitary bloc like the blacks. Mexicans hate the Puerto Ricans, both of them aren’t too keen on the Cubans, and the Central Americans generally despise the Mexicans. Aside from that, the partisan breakdown among Hispanics tends to be more along income lines and how many generations have grown up here rather than by ethnicity. We don’t all speak the same kind of Spanish, we don’t all go to the same churches any more, and we damn sure don’t all vote in a bloc.
Anonymous
January 25th, 2012 @ 11:10 pm

I’d rather have that than another SOTU like we had last night.
Bob Belvedere
January 26th, 2012 @ 7:34 am

Oh…
Anonymous
January 26th, 2012 @ 8:51 am

Actually, richard, yelling at reporters is a part of governing, and will be until we quit referring to them as the Fourth Estate. That’s especially true for non-Copperheads, since the press acts as the Copperhead Party PR department.
Bob Belvedere
January 26th, 2012 @ 8:52 am

BTW: Fairies wear boots
And you gotta believe me
Yeah I saw it, I saw it,
I tell you no lies
Anonymous
January 26th, 2012 @ 8:54 am

“the business of the governor’s office was at a standstill due to frivolous lawsuits.”

And the same argument could logically be made about Newt and the Speakership. Of course, facts and politics aren’t even distantly related.
Finrod Felagund
January 26th, 2012 @ 10:17 am

Shows what you know. Newt was broke in 1998; Marianne had called him up on his birthday, told him she wanted a divorce, and cleaned out his house while he was out of town.
richard mcenroe
January 26th, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

Except that there’s no evidence the investigation interfered with the working of Congress. How much time did Newt have to take away from Speakerin’ to not deliver information when the committee asked for it.