Vendetta: Newt Gingrich Has Made It His Personal Mission To Destroy Mitt Romney

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Newt Gingrich is so angry right now that his head just might explode.  Less than a month ago, Gingrich had a massive lead in Iowa.  At one point he was averaging 31 percent support in Iowa polls.  But after an unprecedented onslaught of negative advertising his numbers began to drop like a rock.  Ultimately, he finished in fourth place in Iowa with only 13 percent of the vote.  Pro-Romney “Super PACs” spent over $3 million on negative ads that just ripped Gingrich to shreds.  Of course considering his track record, that is not hard to do.  But Newt Gingrich is not someone that is just going to “forgive and forget”.  Gingrich honestly believed that he was going to win Iowa.  In fact, he was so confident at one point that he told ABC News that he would “be the nominee“.  Now that his dreams have been shattered by pro-Romney forces, Gingrich has apparently decided that he is going to make it his personal mission to destroy Mitt Romney.  The next few weeks of the Republican race should be very entertaining as Gingrich pursues this vendetta.


Of course both Romney and Gingrich are absolutely horrible candidates and nobody should ever vote for either of them.  Both of them are virtual clones of Barack Obama.

But the Gingrich vs. Romney feud does have the potential to shake up the Republican race.

At this point, the mainstream media is portraying Mitt Romney as the inevitable nominee.  The conventional wisdom is that nothing can stop him now.

But if Gingrich is able to derail Romney, at least to a certain extent, it could present an opportunity for another candidate.

For most of this campaign, Newt Gingrich had been trying to take the “high road”, but Gingrich has become visibly angry in recent days, and after his dismal showing in Iowa Gingrich could barely contain himself.

According to a Politico article that just came out, Newt Gingrich plans to never congratulate Mitt Romney for his win in Iowa.  In fact, Gingrich seemed even angrier on Wednesday than he was on Tuesday night….

At a news conference in Concord, N.H., Gingrich was asked by CBS correspondent Dean Reynolds why he congratulated Rick Santorum but not Romney.

Gingrich stared at the reporter and raised his eyebrows in silence, eventually drawing laughter from some of the reporters.

“Because I know you would be a man of great professionalism, I know that’s a rhetorical question. And a good one,” Gingrich said.

Normally following a loss, it is customary to give a speech congratulating the winner.   On Tuesday night, that is not what Gingrich did.  He refused to mention Mitt Romney by name and he sounded like a man that was ready for war….

We’ll have — one other great debate and that is whether this party wants a Reagan conservative who helped change Washington in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan and helped change Washington in the 1990s as Speaker of the House, or we want a Massachusetts moderate who, in fact, will be pretty good at managing the decay but has given no evidence in his years in Massachusetts of any act to change the culture or change the political structure or change the government.

Let me be clear, because I think it’s important given all the things that were done in this state over the last few weeks.  We are not going to go out and run nasty ads.  We’re not going to run 30-second gotchas.  But I do reserve the right to tell the truth and if the truth seems negative, that may be more a comment on his record than it is on politics.  So this is going to be a debate that begins tomorrow morning in New Hampshire and and will go on for a few months, and I’m convinced that the Republican party will pick an era of Reagan and somebody with a track record of changing Washington.

But this is not something new for Gingrich.

In fact, he has a long history of playing nasty when it comes to politics.

The following comes from a Mother Jones article that was just posted….

Gingrich, as is widely known, entered the House in the late ’70s, throwing bombs. He aimed them at both the stodgy leadership of the Republican House minority and at Democratic leaders, whom he routinely called “corrupt.” For years, he hurled harsh and bombastic rhetoric, routinely comparing those with whom he disagreed to either Nazis or Nazi appeasers. It was often hard to keep track of his faux historical analogies. (For a partial list of his excesses, see this run-down.)

During his venom-laced rush to the top, Gingrich sought to institutionalize his hate politics. His political action committee, GOPAC, sent out a memo to Republican candidates counseling them to use particular words when describing Democrats, such as “decay,” “betray,” “traitors,” “pathetic,” and “corrupt.”

And Gingrich has already begun his assault on Romney in New Hampshire.  On Wednesday a full-page ad appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper which contrasted the “Bold Reagan Conservative” Newt Gingrich with “Timid Massachusetts moderate” Mitt Romney.

In addition, Newt Gingrich is now publicly criticizing Mitt Romney during public appearances, which is something he had not really done before.  For example, Gingrich made the following statement during a public appearance on Wednesday….

“Governor Romney was first a independent; then repudiated Reagan-Bush; then voted for Paul Tsongas, the most liberal candidate in the 1992 campaign; then ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy in 1994 [in Massachusetts]; then became a moderate to run for governor in 2002; and then with ‘Romneycare,’ for example, included state-funded abortions and specifically designated Planned Parenthood as a Romneycare; appointed liberal judges in order to placate Democrats and raised taxes on business, which I think will be a job killing approach. So the contrast will be very wide and that will be a key part of what we describe going forward.”

Not only that, Gingrich has also floated the idea of forming an “anti-Romney” alliance with the other candidates.

So will the attacks by Gingrich work?

It is certainly possible.

The truth is that the national poll numbers for Romney have been in the mid-20s for months.  He just can’t seem to go much higher.

Romney may have “won” Iowa, but he still only got 25 percent of the vote.

Just like in the rest of the nation, 75 percent of the Republicans in Iowa did not want Mitt Romney.

But the Republican establishment desperately does want Mitt Romney.  They have been showering him with money and they have been trying to pump him up as the most “electable” candidate.

For the Republican establishment, there are two scenarios at this point.

Scenario A: Mitt Romney wins the nomination

Scenario B: Make sure no other candidate wins 50 percent of the delegates and force a “brokered convention” where the Republican establishment can handpick a nominee.

So could Gingrich or some of the other candidates spoil the party?

It will certainly be interesting to watch this “Republican civil war” play out.  Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond recently told the New Hampshire Union Leader the following….

“We will fight Romney on the airwaves, on the beaches, on Interstate 93, on WMUR and in every county”

Gingrich himself may have given us a taste of the blood that is coming when he made the following statement on Wednesday….

“I suspect it’s going to be a very lively campaign.”

  • Cinderella Man

    Who cares what Newt Gangrene-itch thinks? The man acts like a spoiled child that got his toy taken from him! Waaaaaah! Who really should be pissed is the Paul camp. This caucus was totally stolen from him. Why do you think they counted the ballots at a secret location? Duh! The RINOS are terrifed of Ron Paul. So instead were supposed to support Butt Romney? He is a total fraud! If we are stuck with him prepare for more episodes of the soap opera “Life with Barry” season 2!

  • T.M.

    LOL. Where did you find that picture?

  • Gay Veteran

    Newt is a dumb person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.

    You can always vote for Santorum who is fixated on Teh Gay. I see a major sex scandal in his future. Any time some right-wing politician or preacher goes on and on AND ON about Teh Gay they end up in a gay sex scandal.

    Reagan? The decline of the middle class started under him.

    • Kelly

      Agreed on the Reagan thing. .

  • mondobeyondo

    Let Gingrich and Romney sling a little mud among themselves. It would be the window of opportunity Ron Paul needs.

  • mark

    Newt needs to grow up. he didn’t cut it with the voters and so he acts liked a little spoiled boy and needs to get even. Wah, wah ,wah,I didn’t win. His head is to big to accept the truth that many voters don’t like him.

  • Afi K. James

    Gay Veteran
    January 4th, 2012 at 11:58 pm · Reply

    Newt is a dumb person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.

    You can always vote for Santorum who is fixated on Teh Gay. I see a major sex scandal in his future. Any time some right-wing politician or preacher goes on and on AND ON about Teh Gay they end up in a gay sex scandal.

    Reagan? The decline of the middle class started under him.

    Actually it was the federal reserve.

  • i’vegivenup

    The Republican party is in total disarray. They have NO viable candidate and as a result Obama’s chances of being re-elected are increasing day by day. At least we know where Obama stands (be it good or bad..right or wrong) Whereas the others…????…

  • Gary2

    I LOVE watching the right implode. I will doing anything to help it along.

  • Gary2

    get over it-Obama will easily win. Hopefully we can move FAR left!




      I know you are a hardcore lefty, in the tradition of the Green Arrow, but don’t be a total sucker by voting for Obama again in 2012 and hoping that somehow the inner democrat in him will finally escape his rightwing prison and reign happiness and joy throughout the land.

      IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN………………….

    • Gay Veteran

      People are nostalgia-crats, they think of their father’s Democrats. There are no liberals in politics anymore. Nothing left but corporate whores.


        Gay Veteran,

        Agreed. Any true liberals there may be definitely live somewhere else…………When Obama raises over 750 million dollars for a job that pays 400,000 dollars a year you know something is wrong somewhere…………

      • LordRhynn

        This is true. But in fact, Democrats have never been the party of the poor or defenders of the free. The Republican party was founded to oppose Dem attempts to expand the slavery efforts of their “Captain of Industry” constituents in the first place.

        People don’t seem to get that. Dems are as rich or more than Repubs and are an older party – rife with corruption, with a history of exploitation.

        Playing both sides against the middle when they got to New York, formed Tammany and seduced European settlers into putting down roots in NY only to build up their voting base and political power, and then sitting on their hands while those same poor were sent South as cannon fodder against the very slave-owning Confederacy from which their party sprung. Champions of the poor and downtrodden?

        And Republicans? Formed to oppose that expansion of slavery out of the original slave states? They had their own reasons and didn’t really consider Lincoln “one of them” but oppose the movement they did. But in a way, it is no surprise that 90% of Americans have no idea why it’s funny that the Republicans are associated with racial intolerance, corruption and oppression, since the Republican party they’ve seen is so far removed from where it started that it’s ridiculous.

        Both sides have switched so many times it’s also ridiculous. So when brain dead Americans are still thumping their chests and bragging about their party affiliations, and then blaming either Bush or Obama for the destruction of personal freedoms and the establishment of a police state I have to shake my head. How do miss the fact that these two supposedly opposite thinking men had the same exact idea when it came to personal liberty, just cause, Constitutional rights of the individual, due process, the definition of war crimes, illegal detainment of American citizens, and the rest?

        They are not opposite thinking men, and they are not opposing parties. They are one party. And so long as a new President comes out of either of them, we will get the old all over again.

        But American dummies will always find a way to insulate themselves from reality. So long as nobody near and dear dies.

  • Justa Guy

    This is great. I don’t believe people are ever going to make Newt the nominee, and it’s great to know that he will be spending his campaign funds exposing Rombama for what he truly is, an elite puppet that tells people whatever he thinks they want to hear, till he gets to another group that wants to hear something different, then says something different. A flim-flam, bought-and-paid for candidate with no character or substance, just a talking head. With these guys taking each other out, and Perry taking himself out by himself, we stand a chance of getting a candidate of character that will put the well-being of the people of America first.

  • Kelly

    I don’t think ron Paul will win the nomination obviously because of the extreme insider corruption Michael here has enlightened me of.
    I believe that most major revolutions do not begin peacefully. I highly doubt a respectable candidate will be nominated president anytime soon; revolution will begin in chaos and violence. Good thing homeland security is prepared with FEMA camps!
    Perhaps during that chaos someone will decide to create a new USA, founded on the same principles D.C insiders have rejected.
    Do you guys think a newgood country will emerge in my life time? I’m 20.

    • Justa Guy

      The outcome is uncertain. There are so many variables it’s hard to tell if something great will rise from the ashes, or if this country will just be in ashes. Most Americans today are too self-interested in pleasuring themselves with entertainment. I do not believe they will ever unite enough to take this country back, which is what would be required. Not to mention that most Americans have no idea why these things are happening. Their cluelessness has been orchestrated by TPTB years ago, by having the educational system neglect to teach on the importance of the Constitution and how government is supposed to function. There are some ideas I have as to what might be coming. We owe a lot of money to China, and this is big. As we continue spiraling downward, will they come and cash in by buying up our country, and eventually rule our government? Will our country devalue the dollar to the point where other countries will no longer accept it? Since we no longer manufacture most of our goods, what will happen when we can’t get them from other countries? Our country has made a lot of enemies. What happens if things really crash hard and we can’t have the strong military we now have? Will one of these countries attack us in our weakness as we appear easy prey? There are a few things that seems sure. This country will probably never be the same country you grew up knowing. China has a lot of our debt, and when we try to massively devalue or default on what we owe them, they are going to be pretty mad.

      Don’t get into debt, don’t be too materialistic, and keep following events and learning about how and why things are happening. Consider becomming a prepper. Get to know Jesus and derive your joy from Him, rather than things.

  • Stuey

    There was voter fraud in Iowa. Look at how the percentages of votes changed for the top 3 in those last hours of counting the votes. It is a statistical anomaly how the perecentages changed that quickly.



    What is the logic of this article? If you Newt and Romney are both bad, which you have said in previous articles, then what is the significance of them destroying each other? To people who want sensible policies and honest government, we could care less if either are here tomorrow.

    There are much more important things to think and talk about than watching these two clowns take each other out……….

    • LordRhynn

      @Reed : The significance is this. Their constituents are too dumb and with attention spans too short to remember and consider how these two ripped each other the whole campaign, and you find that out the second one goes down. Whomever he decides to endorse, his followers will endorse as well no questions asked.

      Would you really have expected someone who purportedly hates Romney as much as Newt to start publicly talking about endorsing him once his own numbers dropped through the floor in NH? Or the followers of any of the others who’ve dropped out? But they either have, or they will.

      The closer it comes to Paul vs. anybody one on one, the more you’ll see that. You forget who we’re talking about. In a logical world, a one on one would mean vote for whomever is not a Repub Obama. In this world, not only does the Republican base feel it’s anybody besides Paul, they feel they’re ahead of the curve for thinking that way and anyone who doesn’t is insane.

      How many people here would want Romney and Newt to fall on each other’s swords leaving the Repub base to choose between Paul and Santorum. We’ve already seen how many are buying Rick’s BS. Too damned many.

  • Terry

    Newt and Romney destroy each other – perfect.



      Seems as if Michael has not found any newsworthy events to comment on. Must be a very, very, slow day…………….

    • Guido

      Good… Good. I can feel the hatred within you.

  • This is actually really good news. Hopefully they will all take each other out and Ron Paul will sneak in at the last minute.

  • El Pollo de Oro

    So, a friend here in Philly said to me, “You must be disappointed that Ron Paul didn’t win in Iowa?” My response: disappointed? No, actually I’m surprised that he even made it to third place in Iowa. You have to remember that this isn’t a Libertarian primary—it’s a Republican primary. And philosophically, Ron Paul is really a Libertarian rather than a Republican. He is out of step with most of the Republican Party, which is why so many Republicans hate him—including that obese drug addict Rush “Pillhead” Limbaugh and equally moronic neocons such as Sean Hannity and Jonah Goldberg.”

    Ron Paul is anti-imperialist, anti-bailouts, anti-fascist, anti-oligarchy, anti-Patriot Act. He wants to end the catastrophic War on Drugs and abolish the federal reserve. When cowardly Democraps caved into the Bush regime and supported the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, Ron Paul stood his ground. With those positions, it’s a miracle that he did as well as he did in Iowa. And sadly, there is no way in hell he will get his party’s nomination. Won’t happen. Most of the modern GOP favors killing brown people for the New World Order; Ron Paul opposes that, as do Alex Jones and Gerald Celente. So get ready for either a Romney Administration or four more years of Barack “Goldman Sachs” Obama. And The Banana Republic of America (formerly the USA) will continue to slide deeper and deeper into the corporate abyss.

    The future looks incredibly grim in the BRA, where we can look forward to widespread poverty, concentration camps, civil unrest, high unemployment, a crumbling infrastructure, an ever-weakening currency, and violent crime galore. We’re screwed.

  • A Dodgy Bloke

    Newt is just another Pol who’s loves hearing himself talk. Any who what’s the big deal a few posts back Mitt was Anti Christ, if Mitt and Newt rip each other’s intestines out I thought you would be thrilled. Maybe RP would have a shot?

  • Guido

    Did anyone catch the story on the news yesterday about Obama being asked if his actions aren’t rather imperial in nature? He’s being accused of acting like a ruler, a king, instead of a president. Very interesting…

  • Guido

    I hope Newt does rip Romney a new one. Romney’s the last thing we need as a president. He’s obviously a standard bearer for the status quo. As I’ve said before, he’s genuinely creepy, at least to me. As far as I’m concerned, a victory for Romney is 4 more years of Obama. Newt isn’t a leader, but he is a thinker. He may be a lot of other things, but I can respect his intellect. I hope Santorum can take advantage of their little spat and take the prize.

  • Monkman

    Old broken Dole vs Clinton ,crushed! old broken McCain vs Obama. crushed! old crazy Paul vs Obama crushed! get the picture. substance doesn’t matter all image. Scenario: Society breaks down and rioting starts. The old people who have been holding the jobs that were normally passed to the young will be the first to go. After violence starts and the medication stops flowing the old and anyone who’s sick will be doomed. So the fix is on. the big baby boom population is removed as so is the drain on Social Security, Medicare etc. The herd is thinned and the rich fly back in to buy up the assets for pennies on the dollar and put the able to work.

  • daddy’slittlefinger

    ron paul