Gingrich and Jindal blast Romney for the "gifts" comment

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/gingrich-calls-romneys-gift-comments-insulting/story?id=17760399#.UK5Eg6Xd1IA

Gingrich Calls Romney's 'Gift' Comments 'Insulting'

By EMILY DERUY (@emily_deruy )
Nov. 19, 2012
Former Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich has joined a growing number of Republicans in criticizing Mitt Romney for saying he lost the election because President Obama gave "gifts" to minorities such as African-Americans and Latinos.

"I just think it's nuts," Gingrich told Martha Raddatz on Sunday on ABC's This Week. "I mean, first of all, it's insulting."

"This would be like Wal-Mart having a bad week and going, 'The customers have really been unruly,'" he continued. "I mean, the job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can't offer a better future that is believable to more people, we're not going to win."


Jeff Roberson/AP Photo
This Sept. 24, 2012 file photo shows former... View Full Size

Mitt Romney: Election Loss Due to Obama's 'Gifts' Watch Video

Mitt Romney: Obama Gave Hispanics Obamacare Watch Video

Mitt Romney: Bill Clinton Thought I Was Going to Win Watch Video
It's not the first time Gingrich, the former House Speaker, has expressed his displeasure with Romney's remarks. He told NBC's Today Show earlier that Republicans "owe [Obama] the respect of trying to understand what they did and how they did it."

He added that he would have been "dumfounded" before the election at the idea of Romney getting fewer votes than John McCain.

Gingrich also slammed Romney during an interview with KLRU-TV in Austin, Texas.

"I'm very disappointed with Governor Romney's analysis, which I believe is insulting and profoundly wrong," he said. "First of all, we didn't lose Asian-Americans because they got any gifts. He did worse with Asian-Americans than he did with Latinos. This is the hardest-working and most successful ethnic group in America, okay, they ain't into gifts."

"If it had been that simple, my question would be, 'Why didn't you outbid him?' He had enough billionaire supporters, if buying the electorate was the key, he could have got all his super PAC friends together and said, don't buy ads, give gifts," Gingrich continued. "Be like the northwest Indians who have gift-giving ceremonies….Go town-by-town and say, 'Come here, let me give you gifts. Here are Republican gifts.' They could have an elephant coming in with gifts on it.

What I like most about the video above is the analysis about the 47% and how they exist because of conservative policies like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax credit. Some policies were even created by Reagan.

In general, Republicans need to roll up their sleeves and learn about these groups and how they can better reach them. Otherwise, they are going to continue being stuck.

They will need to do something similar to what Clinton did with the "New Democrats".

LMAO.....Gingrich is a slime opportunist that is kicking Romney while he is dowm........wasn't Newt during the primary that called Obama the FOOD STAMP president because under Obama people on food stamps went from 30 million to 47 million? yeah I'm sure Newt was reaching out to them....LMAO!!!

Newt before the election was praising Romney and after the election, he is kicking him while he is down.....LMAO!!


If Newt would have been the nominee, Obama would have won 45 states and by 15% in the popular vote.



by the way Bori: The earned income credit was originally enacted in 1975, Reagan wasn't even President.....and the tax child credit was passed in 1997 by Clinton and Newt.....I wish you do a little research before you repeat the propaganda you hear from the left media.

Newt is a progressive .....not a conservative.......Glenn Beck and others exposed him on that.


Newt is part of the problem why the market collapsed in 2008, the problem started in the late 90's and exploded in 2008........why would anybody listen to this slime back stabber opportunist?

of course Romney told the truth! Some people don't like to hear it.

We live in a society that a large % believe that the government should take care of them in every aspect of their lives and personal responsability means crap. I know this personally because that's the way Puerto Rico is.


and the sad part is those social programs of dependency hasn't done nothing for the blacks and latinos but they still vote for the party over and over in high numbers.

Under Obama the unemployment and poverty has gone up for blacks and latinos and they voted for the same thing in high numbers and then they wonder why they can't advance in life.

Mitt Wasn’t All Wrong About “Gifts” By Patrick J. Buchanan



“What the president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote, and that strategy worked.”

Thus did political analyst Mitt Romney identify the cause of his defeat in a call to disconsolate contributors.

Republicans piled on. “Completely unhelpful,” Gov. Bobby Jindal told Wolf Blitzer. We don’t advance the “debate by insulting folks.”

“A terrible thing to say,” Chris Christie told Joe Scarborough. “You can’t expect to be the leader of all the people and be divisive.”

Oh. Was not Abe Lincoln at least mildly “divisive”? Did not FDR insult Wall Street folks by calling them “money changers in the temple of our civilization”? Was Ronald Reagan a uniter not a divider when he said, “Let the bloodbath begin!” and mocked “welfare queens”?

And Harry Truman, did he not insult and divide — and win?

“I just think it’s nuts,” Newt Gingrich told ABC’s Martha Raddatz of Romney’s remark, kicking him again in an Austin TV interview:

“Gov. Romney’s analysis … is insulting and profoundly wrong. … We didn’t lose Asian-Americans because they got any gifts. He did worse with Asian-Americans than he did with Latinos. This is the hardest-working and most successful ethnic group in America, OK, they ain’t into gifts.”

Now, Newt does have a point.

What explains the GOP wipeout among Asian-Americans? Folks of Korean, Chinese and Japanese descent have a legendary work ethic, are academic overachievers, and are possessed of an entrepreneurial spirit. They should be natural Republicans.

But Mitt also has a point.

Consider America’s largest, fastest-growing minority.

Hispanics constituted 10 percent of the electorate, up from 7.5 in 2008. But Mitt got only 27 percent of that, the lowest of any Republican presidential candidate.

This, we are told, was because of Mitt’s comment about “self-deportation” and GOP support for a border fence and sanctions on employers who hire illegals. If only we embrace the Dream Act and provide a path to citizenship — amnesty — the GOP’s problem is solved.

The Republican capacity for self-delusion is truly awesome.

Set aside the idealized Hispanic of the Republican consultants’ vision. What does the real Hispanic community look like today?

Let us consider only native-born Hispanics, U.S. citizens.

According to Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, which analyzed Census Bureau statistics from 2012:

— More than one in five Hispanic citizens lives in poverty.

— One in four Hispanic-American men 25 to 55 is out of work.

— More than half of all Hispanic women 25-55 are unmarried.

— Half of all Hispanic households with children are headed by an unmarried woman, and 55 percent depend on welfare programs.

These numbers do not improve with time, as they did with the Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish and German immigrants who poured into the United States between 1890 and 1920. Third-generation Hispanics do worse than second-generation Hispanics in all the above categories.

This is a huge community being sucked into the morass of a mammoth welfare state. Consider a typical Hispanic household with children.

It is headed by an unmarried women who receives food stamps and public housing or rent supplements to feed and house her children.

Her kids are educated free from Head Start to K-12 and fed by school breakfast and lunch programs. Should they graduate high school, Pell Grants and student loans are there for college.

For cash, mom gets welfare checks. If she takes a job, she will receive an earned income tax credit to supplement her income. If she loses her job, she can get 99 weeks of unemployment checks.

For health care, there is Medicaid and Obamacare. And like 45 percent of all Hispanic households, she has no federal income tax liability.

Why should this woman vote for a party that will cut taxes she does not pay, but reduce benefits she does receive?

Rename Romney’s gifts “government services,” writes Aaron Blake citing a Washington Post poll, and one discovers that 67 percent of Latinos favor “a larger government with more services.”

These are big government people. And why should they not be?

According to Heather Mac Donald, writing in National Review, a 2011 survey found that California Hispanics by four to one objected more to the GOP on class-warfare grounds — the party “favors only the rich,” Republicans are “selfish” — than to the GOP stand on immigration.

Writes Mac Donald: California’s Hispanics will likely prove more decisive in passing Proposition 30, to raise state income taxes to 13.3 percent, the highest level in the nation, than to Obama’s victory.
Nor is this unusual. Populist programs to stick it to the rich have always had an appeal south of the border.

There are 50 million Hispanics in America today. California is lost to the GOP. Nevada and Colorado are slipping away. Arizona and Texas are next up on the block.

With the U.S. Hispanic population in 2050 projected to reach 130 million, the acolytes of Karl Rove have their work cut out for them.

Gingrich estotalmente carente de credibilidad. Ha tornado su carrera politica en una vaca lechera de donaciones...

Jindal esta buscando pista para el 2016...

Estos dos van a aprender que "Karma" es una cabrona vengativa...

Romney tenia el mejor plan de ambos partidos con esta epidemia de inmigracion ilegal que esta costando billones a los estados y jodiendo la economia y bajando los estanderes del pais.


tu no les das trabajo ni benificios a los ilegales y se van, tu no le haces la vida facil y se van .......cual es el plan de Newt y Obama? AMNESTY!!!!! ..todo para votos....que se jodan las leyes del pais y que se jodan los imigrantes que entran al pais LEGAL y hacen las cosas correctas.


que se joda si Romney cojio 30% del voto de los latinos, el esta correcto sobre esto, esto demuestra lo ignorante que son los latinos cuando bajo Obama el desempleo entre latinos esta en 15%......esto es lo mismo que tienen que hacer con los dominicanos ilegales en la isla.


JIndal es un idiota y Newt? hace tiempo enseño su verdadera cara y va donde el viento sopla.

Para darte una idea lo idiotas que son los latinos que votaron por Obama y su amnistia anticonstitucional para menores de 30... Con quien tu crees que eson ilegales y sus crios van a competir por empleos? Con los gringos o con los hispanos con legitimo derecho a trabajar? A quien tu crees que le van a apretar los salarios?

Asi de brutitos son...

1) bueno como el 30% de latinos votaron por Romney y como 70% votaron por Obama incluyendo a Boricuas en la Florida, como yo lo veo, siempre la minoria de los latinos y Boricuas son los mas inteligentes y la mayoria no saben porque estan votando.....se ve en la sociedades que vienen y tambien estoy hablando de P.R. .....votan con la boca envez de votar con sentido comun y con la cabeza.

2) Los democratas, la prensa y hasta algunos huele estacas del partido Republicano como Newt, Perry y Jeb Bush atacaron a Romney por su idea de implementar la LEY que esta en los libros.........lo llamaron ANTI-LATINO y ANTI-INMIGRACION.....Yo me quedo como esto es la realidad o el twilight zone?


3) Como tu implementas la ley hacia los ilegales ahora y en el futuro? SIMPLE!! NO le den trabajos, no le den beneficios y no le hagan la vida facil para que ellos regresen a su pais y si quieren entrar lo hagan LEGAL como la ley lo pide como todos nosotros que tenemos que seguir las leyes y nosotros somos cuidadanos de este pais.


4) Romney era el unico que hacia sentido sobre esto......no habia que tumbar puertas ni traer el ejercito......no le hagas la vida facil y ellos tarde o temprano tienen que regresar y entrar legal al pais.....ahora quieren otorgar licencias de conducir en el estado de Illinois.....falta ahora que le den tarjetas de credito y nosotros pagamos por eso....esto es un chiste.


4) y despues estos pendangos latinos en California, Florida y New York se preguntan porque el desempleo esta alto y no hay trabajos que paga lo suficiente....HELLOOOOO!!! Anybody home???? ..........pero el problema es Romney que es anti-latino....

Stuart Stevens escribio ne el Washington Post de manera muy elocuente:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-good-man-the-right-fight/2012/11/28/5338b27a-38e9-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend

Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.
By Stuart Stevens, Published: November 28
Stuart Stevens was the chief strategist for the Romney presidential campaign.

Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing. It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate.

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.

The Obama organization ran a great campaign. In my world, the definition of the better campaign is the one that wins.

But having been involved in three presidential races, two of which we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000 or enough Ohioans stuck with us in 2004. Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the electoral college in 2012. Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire.

In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans. He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics.

There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?

Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.

On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future.

Este tipo es verdaderamente nauseabundo... Newt Inc, parece haberse subastado a GOP-Inc. y traicionando el dogma conservador... Prueba adicional de que el GOP ha dejado de ser un partido conservador para convertirse en un partido Neo-Con, o sea, liberal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/newt-gingrich-mitt-romney_n_2337895.html

Newt Gingrich On Mitt Romney: 'I Would Have Probably Done Better' Against Obama
Posted: 12/20/2012 10:12 am EST | Updated: 12/20/2012 12:27 pm EST

WASHINGTON -- Newt Gingrich blames Mitt Romney for being a bad candidate.

More than that, he blames the Republican party for fostering a corrosive culture that produced Romney as its candidate. The former House Speaker argued that the GOP has grown stale and introverted, putting itself on the wrong side of history on issues like immigration and painting itself into a corner on others, like gay marriage.

Romney's failed candidacy was just the latest illustration of this, the 69-year-old Gingrich said in hour-long interview that dealt, in large part, with the GOP’s problems and what he hopes to contribute to their solution.

Gingrich, whose staying power in the Republican primary has surprised many observers, was Romney's most acerbic critic during that intraparty contest. He would go on to play the role of dutiful soldier during the general election, only to revert back to form a month and a half after the national contest ended with Romney losing handily.

"I think either [Texas Gov. Rick] Perry or I would have probably done better [against Obama]," said the former speaker, exhibiting a bit of his trademark braggadocio.

Gingrich didn't go so far as to say he would have won outright as the Republican nominee. But even as he walked himself back momentarily, he couldn't help but offer another boast.

"[I]f Obama had pounded on my weaknesses as intensely as Romney, who knows what would have happened. So I don't want to be arrogant and say I would have done better," said Gingrich. "I would say my impression is that, from the Obama team's standpoint, the two candidates they found the hardest to cope with were Perry and me."

One thing was indisputable, he added: The Obama campaign was "begging for Romney," growing more and more confident of their chances against the former Massachusetts governor as the Republican primary progressed. In particular, Gingrich said that Romney's talk of "self-deportation" for undocumented immigrants was like "watching an exercise in self-destruction."

"The degree to which you have to be isolated from human behavior to think grandmothers are going to self-deport and leave their grandchildren? So you end up losing Asians by a bigger margin than Latinos. Do you know how hard that was, technically?" he said.

For all of Romney's shortcomings, however, Gingrich blamed larger forces for the November loss (a loss that he himself failed to predict). It was politically inept for Romney not to engage with constituencies and media outlets beyond those that were explicitly friendly, he argued. But that skittishness was mainly the byproduct of a consultant-dominated GOP culture whose risk-averse mindset shielded candidates and stunted their ability to respond dynamically to different points of view.

"If your candidate isn't growing," Gingrich said, "if they're not writing their own speeches, if they don't know what their own policies are, why would you think they're going to be able to function in the real world? It's a very big, deep problem."

Fresh off of finishing a new novel of historical fiction, Gingrich said he is set to embark on a six-month study of what went wrong with the GOP this past cycle, "just rethinking and looking at and analyzing every aspect of the last four years."

He was not impressed with the committee that was created by the Republican National Committee for a similar purpose.

"I don't think these guys have a clue. Let me just say, you're inviting in the guys who were wrong to give you a report six weeks later on why they're now right," he said. "I'm working with [RNC Chairman] Reince [Priebus] and he is supporting what I'm doing, but part of the reason why I'm doing this is I don't see any institution in the party prepared to think deeply enough."

Some of the recommendations Gingrich has to offer won't take six months to develop. Asked, for instance, if he would get rid of the controversial Ames straw poll -- the quadrennial Iowa cattle call of Republican primary candidates -- he had a different idea.

"Just ignore it," he said. "It has no meaning. The only meaning of the last Ames straw poll is that it drove [Tim] Pawlenty out of the race."

Other topics are weightier and harder to game out. But as with most matters, Gingrich had opinions. On immigration, for instance, he advised House Republicans to show immediate legislative progress by passing "six or seven free-standing bills" instead of trying to agree to one huge piece of law.

"Do them in parallel but simultaneously, but try to figure out a majority for each bill, because I think what happens with a comprehensive bill is the sheer weight of it kills it," he said, predicting that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) would have to give his imprimatur to most efforts.

Gingrich recommended one bill dealing with border security, another aimed at creating a guest-worker program that does not provide permanent citizenship but manages the large undocumented population, and finally “a path toward citizenship for young people” similar to the Dream Act.

On gay marriage, meanwhile, Gingrich argued that Republicans could no longer close their eyes to the course of public opinion. While he continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, he suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a "marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state" -- the latter being acceptable.

"I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with," he said, noting that the debate's dynamics had changed after state referenda began resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage. "It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period."

Stepping back from the political, Gingrich noted that he has a personal stake in the gay marriage debate. His half-sister works at the Human Rights Campaign. He has gay friends who've gotten married in Iowa. The man who once compared same-sex marriage to paganism is now worried that the Republican Party could find itself trapped in a bygone era on the matter.

"I didn't think that was inevitable 10 or 15 years ago, when we passed the Defense of Marriage Act," he said. "It didn't seem at the time to be anything like as big a wave of change as we are now seeing."

"I think either [Texas Gov. Rick] Perry or I would have probably done better [against Obama]," said the former speaker, exhibiting a bit of his trademark braggadocio.

Newt esta en crack. Este huele estaca NUNCA ha corrido ni ganado al nivel nacional, el solamente pudo ganar en distritos conservadores seguros en Georgia cuando estaba en el congreso.

El plan de Newt era "ganarle" en los debates a Obama y ese era su plan para las elecciones generales.

Obama le hubiese ganado a Newt 45 estados con el voto popular de 15%+ y tambien el congreso se va a los democratas.