Lauer to Newt: Aren't You Making Obama's Eventual Attack on Romney?
On Monday's Today, NBC's Matt Lauer dwelt on an "extremely negative" attack on frontrunner Mitt Romney from a super PAC that supports Newt Gingrich and asked the former Speaker, "Can't you already hear the ads from President Obama's team saying this is a guy whose own party members called him...a predator and ruthless?" Back on January 4, CBS similarly played up Gingrich calling Romney a "liar."
Midway through the interview, the anchor noted that the super PAC, "Winning the Future," attacks Romney as a "greedy, ruthless corporate raider who has slashed jobs for profit." He then asked his guest, "Are you completely in favor of the running of that film, and do you agree with everything it says?"
Gingrich initially answered, "I have no idea. I haven't seen the film yet, but I will at some point." Lauer pressed ahead and replied, "But you've read about it." Gingrich then added, in part, "I've read about it, but what I've read about it said that it's based upon historical facts. I think, at some point, Governor Romney is going to have to hold a press conference and walk through, with considerable detail, some of the companies that Bain took over, where they apparently looted the companies, left people unemployed, and walked off with millions of dollars."
The NBC journalist then raised the possibility of his GOP opponent being the nominee and how the President's reelection campaign may use the Republican infighting to their advantage:
LAUER: But considering the fact that Governor Romney- considering the fact that Governor Romney may eventually be the nominee of the party, can't you already hear the ads from President Obama's team saying this is a guy whose own party members called him a corporate raider, a predator, and ruthless?
Gingrich replied, "Any Republican who gets the nomination is going to have [David] Axelrod and Obama figuring out every possible way- they are going to raise a billion dollars. They're not raising- as the governor himself said in your quote, this ain't bean bag. They aren't going to raise a billion dollars for fun. They're going to come after any Republican."
The presidential hopeful also appeared on CBS's revamped morning show, CBS This Morning. New anchor Charlie Rose twice cited Gingrich's "pious baloney" barb at Romney during the segment and wondered if his guest needed to "gain some momentum by tearing down Mitt Romney."
The full transcript of Matt Lauer's interview of Newt Gingrich on NBC's Today, which aired five minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour:
LAUER: Newt Gingrich is in Concord, New Hampshire this morning. Mr. Speaker, nice to see you. Good morning.
GINGRICH: You know, it's good to be with you. It's an exciting time-
LAUER: Governor Romney- go ahead.
GINGRICH: By the way, I was going to say happy birthday. I remember as a child watching the Today show in black and white television. It gives you a sign of my age. Congratulations on 60 years. It's a remarkable achievement.
LAUER: You had me nervous. I thought you were going to say as a child, I remember watching me on the Today show. (Gingrich laughs) Let me just say that Governor Romney has a chance to do something here that no other non-incumbent Republican candidate has ever done: win Iowa and New Hampshire. If he pulls it off tomorrow, is he the prohibitive favorite for the nomination?
[NBC News Graphic: "Decision 2012: Newt Gingrich One-On-One"]
GINGRICH: No. This is his third best state after Utah and Massachusetts. If he were not to win here however- if it's very, very close, which it could be because he's been sliding now for four days, I think it is a defeat for him. This is a state that he's bought a house in; this is a state that he's lived in; it's a state where was governor next door. It's a state where he's been buying advertising since 1994, as a candidate, on Boston television, which reaches much of the state. I think that he was the prohibitive favorite going in, and if anything, I think his position is more precarious this morning, based, at least, on the Suffolk poll. He's clearly not moving toward a decisive win, and he may be moving toward a really surprisingly weak finish.
LAUER: In the weeks before Iowa, you surged to the lead, and then, you got a big target on your back. (Gingrich laughs) You became the center of a lot of negative ads, and let's face it, they worked. Did they work because your support was soft? I mean, it seems it would be hard to shake firm support with negative ads. Did they work because your support is soft?
GINGRICH: Well, they worked because my support had been based on positive ideas, positive solutions for creating jobs, heading economic growth, getting to a balanced budget. Those are all positive ideas. Forty-five percent of the ads run in Iowa were attack ads against me. I have to say with a fairly long career in politics, that was a breathtaking achievement. When you would get up and eight or nine ads an hour would be attacking, six or eight pieces of negative mail a day, four or five robo-calls a day- it was pretty stunning. I was thrilled that we did as well as we did in Iowa because we didn't go negative, we didn't try to respond-
LAUER: Right, and-
GINGRICH: But it made clear to me you had to run a much more decisive contrast ad and contrast campaign with Romney, because you couldn't allow him to run false ads and then get away with it, and then, claim you didn't know what were in them. As you noted in the debate, by the way, he first said he didn't know what was in the ads, and then, he cited one of them. It was a pretty amazing-
LAUER: All right. Well, now, there is super PAC out there, 'Winning The Future,' that is supporting you, and it has purchased a 30-minute- I don't know whether to call it a film or a super ad- that is extremely negative about Governor Romney in his time as CEO at Bain Capital. It says he is- quote, 'greedy, ruthless corporate raider who has slashed jobs for profit.' As I said, it's being paid for by a super PAC, and by law, you can't have any direct contact with that super PAC. Are you completely in favor of the running of that film, and do you agree with everything it says?
GINGRICH: I have no idea. I haven't seen the film yet, but I will at some point-
LAUER: But you've read about it-
GINGRICH: I've read about it, but what I've read about it said that it's based upon historical facts. I think, at some point, Governor Romney is going to have to hold a press conference and walk through, with considerable detail, some of the companies that Bain took over, where they apparently looted the companies, left people unemployed, and walked off with millions of dollars. Look, I'm for capitalism. I'm for people who go in to save a company. I'm for people who take real risk. I'm for people who grow jobs, and I understand sometimes you fail. I mean, I've run four small businesses in the last decade. It gets tough out there. It doesn't always work- I get that. But if somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company, and then, leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that's not traditional capitalism, and I think Governor Romney's-
LAUER: But considering the fact that Governor Romney- considering the fact that Governor Romney may eventually be the nominee of the party, can't you already hear the ads from President Obama's team saying this is a guy whose own party members called him a corporate raider, a predator, and ruthless?
GINGRICH: Any Republican who gets the nomination is going to have [David] Axelrod and Obama figuring out every possible way- they are going to raise a billion dollars. They're not raising- as the governor himself said in your quote, this ain't bean bag. They aren't going to raise a billion dollars for fun. They're going to come after any Republican. That's why, I think, a Reagan conservative who's articulate, who can debate effectively, is much more likely to beat Obama than somebody who can't defend their record-
LAUER: Right-
GINGRICH: And I think Governor Romney will have to defend what he did at Bain. That's his record. He's proud of the fact that he wasn't in public office while I was- fine. He can take on my public record, but then, he owes us a report on his stewardship of his private record, and we ought to do it now, because whatever happens this spring, I guarantee you it will be much worse in September and October, and we wouldn't want to stumble into a campaign not knowing what's at risk.
LAUER: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich- Mr. Gingrich, it's nice to see you. Thanks for your time this morning.
GINGRICH: It's good to be with you. Thank you.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Gingrich's narcissism is
Submitted by goldwater89 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:00pm.
It must be Gingrich's narcissism that is keeping him in this race, because it's clearly not his poll numbers. He can't beat Obama.. PERIOD. He's only making it more difficult for the only guy who can win, Romney.
goldwater89
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:23pm.
So Paul *knows* he can't win, should he drop out too? What is it for anyway, this "vetting"? Could it be as Paul said - to shape the narrative?
If we took Mitt as is, it would be Obama lite. Pushing him to conform to what WE want is a GOOD thing, and Newt may be a creep, but he knows what we want!!!
Ronald Reagan
I'll take Newt the Creep over
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:02pm.
A lying Chicago thug any day.
Sorry, GW...
Submitted by retrocon on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:56pm.
I believe that Romney is the only one out there who could NOT beat Obama.
He loses a few percent of the hardest core evangelicals because he's a mormon (i don't like it, i just know it it be true).
He loses a few percent of the hardest core conservatives because of his record on gun control, taxation, and big government in Mass.
He loses a few percent of the moderates because he doesn't look all that different from Obama.
He loses a few percent of the moderates because he looks like one of Obama's evil fat-cats.
All that he has on his side are: good looks. apparently clean and moral background. a business background (with easily criticized elements surrounding it).
Simply stated, he doesn't drive passion on the right or the middle. He only carries those who want the current administration defeated.
I don't think that's good enough.
Sorry, but there isn't one
Submitted by goldwater89 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 9:06pm.
Sorry, but there isn't one poll that says Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, Perry, etc. can beat Obama. Now Romney on the other hand, has plenty of polls that show he CAN beat Obama.
Umm...
Submitted by retrocon on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:32pm.
every pollster clearly explains how any poll pitting anyone against Obama right now is meaningless.
We had a great candidate running against Janet Nepolireno in AZ. Before long, "Mormon" stickers showed up on his signs, no one thought he could lose in AZ, guess what... That wasn't measured in polls, but when the "enemy" starts to make cases for it, you watch.
You will have NBC specials on the "Cult of the LDS church" during campaign season, complete with "Secret Ceremonies" and "Mystical Garments."
Then you'll have the full press analysis of how Romney "bought and dismantled" companies. Right or wrong, they will skew it to make him look like the king of all wall street suits.
Then they'll show how he is Mr. RomneyCare.
Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, Perry, they've been through the laundry already. The expose's will be rehashes of the past. But at least, they will get the conservative vote, and the conservative leaning moderates. That will be enough to win.
No, Romney is the perfect opponent for Obama, from Obama's perspective.
BTW: i have no personal issue with the LDS church, and i think it's sad that that could affect the race. But i have personal experience with mormons (wonderful people, IMHO), and fundamentalist christians who believe that mormons are "cultish" (confused, but otherwise good people themselves).
In the scenario of Romney as
Submitted by tombaker on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 4:48am.
In the scenario of Romney as you outline, you assume that evangelicals and hard core conservatives, are going to vote for Obama either by actually voting for him, or by not voting at all.
I don't think its fair to think that evangelicals and conservatives would be so hardcore STUPID, to not vote for Romney, if he were the Republican ticket.
If the spin doctors can convince conservatives to sit at home Obama is in. Last I checked the only people anti-Mormon was the Media, and the pollsters they pay to craft the questions to get desired outcome poll results.
You sound like the main
Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:07pm.
You sound like the main stream media.
Mitt Romney is a moderate and only moderates win elections not conservatives. (see John McCain)
For the record, I don't like any attack from the left by our own candidates.
But I dont think Romney would win because of the same reasons John McCain didnt win, no ability to articulate conservative principles, but let's say Romney is elected and when faced with ten times the pressure to cave to democrats from the left, the media, and crazy protesters and folds every time (which is exactly what Mitt will do, but hey he is "electable"), what exactly have we won?
I sure HOPE Romney's not the only guy who can win...
Submitted by Rover on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:14pm.
A Romney administration will likely be a return to the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration-less than Obama's fiscal irresponsibility, but still not enough to turn this country around.
We need a real conservative in the White House who can reverse not only 4 years of Obama neo-socialism but make massive inroads into nearly 50 years of the Great Society entitlement mentality. He will have a LOT of resistence from all quarters. In short, with Obama out, in 2013 Washington politics is going to become a knife fight. Loose cannon that he might be, Gingrich looks to me like the only candidate running who can win that fight.
With the national debt passing $15T, the fate of the nation is at stake. If Obama wins, I don't think there will BE another opportunity before the whole debt-and-spend house of cards comes down on our heads. But I don't think Romney would be able to stop it, it just might take a little longer with him.
The country's still center-right, and this year, unlike 2008, independents are mostly wise to both the inaccuracies of media reporting on politics in general, and to the difference between how Obama's portrayed, by himself and by the media,, and who he actually is. And I think they're truely apprehensive about the debt. I think a true conservative has a chance, and since it's the only chance we have to save this country, I'm going to support anyone BUT Romney and Huntsman (and I'm fine with Paul domestically and fiscally but his foreign policy views are dangerous).
I understand your concerns
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 8:20pm.
but unfortunately, the answer is no. If he gets elected he will certainly not take us down the big government path that Obama has. But is up to the conservative grass root groups to persuade him to really shrink the federal monster to its proper level.
I couldn't disagree more...
Submitted by stage9 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:22pm.
If the man has solutions, let's hear him out. I'm not looking for someone who whines and complains about the Constitution but then has absolutely NO SOLUTION to replace the current mess.
"We need to get back to Constitutional principles..."
OK, well, what does that look like? A total overhaul? And how will that fit the global world we live in today?
"We're going to close the EPA, the Department of Education and Homeland Security."
OK, well, what will you replace them with?
When you seek to take something away, you have to replace it with something of equal or greater value that works. Simply saying that we need an overhaul of the federal government, though it may make for great debating, doesn't solve the problem.
Bring your arguments to the table and let the American people decide on the merits of your arguments.
Gingrich has some very cutting edge ideas and I, for one am interested in what he has to say. Santorum also interests me. Both men are quick on their feet and would be formidable opponents for Obama. Neither would take it lying down. They know how to throw a punch.
What we DON'T need is a candidate who is a phoney politician OR an unstable zealot who only focuses on the problem but presents no real substantive solutions (or worse yet, solutions that strengthen our enemies).
We all know what's wrong. I want you to convince me that you are competent enough to fix the problems. I'm not sending you to Washington to improve your golf game, I'm sending you there to work.
Everything else is politics.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
it's called debate prep...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:15pm.
If(?) Romney is nominated (at 19% behind 31% of tbd) this will only serve him as preparation of what is to come. Come on the dems aren't stupid. They know all this stuff. They don't want it out now as to make it old news and not so sensational when they deliver it.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Romney can't beat obama
Submitted by nonncom on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:23pm.
Gingrich is the only one with the cajones, but Romney already stuck a fork in him with his attack in Iowa....nobody goes from 45%approval to less than 20% in two states, and ever wins again....
Never say never :-P
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 5:25pm.
Never say never :-P
Ronald Reagan
Not a Romney fan but
Submitted by Bodini on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:03pm.
Not a Romney fan but the obvious answer to an attack on his past performance at Bain is that a good pruning is sometimes necessary to save the tree and spur new growth, which is exactly what needs to happen to the Federal Government in order to save the nation and free the economy.
Were I Mitt my response would
Submitted by buddyc on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:09pm.
Were I Mitt my response would be "who cares" or "is that your best shot".
Romney has already had to deal with this claims on numerous occasions.
Newt probably thought he would raised some spending money to pretend to campaign for an office he is not fit for. He is using his purported anger to raise even more spending money.
Perry, Romney, Paul, Santorum are legitimate candidates. Newt and Huntsman are not.
I am
Submitted by grammajane on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 6:38pm.
really getting sick of these candidates bashing each other and appearing on these liberal shows where all they blab about is how bad the "other guy" is. The media is running the campaign and none of the candiates are getting any positive points and are obviously not aware of the damage being done to the Republican Party by radicals on tv. The weekend debates barely mentioned the needs of Americans but, spent most of the time on gays, abortion and the use of rubbers.These three issues will really help get folks back to work. Enough of the BS ..................please
Negative bashing is ALWAYS a negative
Submitted by RaggedyAnne on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 2:14am.
I'd much rather hear what our choices have to offer than have them throw mud at each other. We really don't learn anything that way, as most often it's only half truths, or "out of context" blather.
I want to hear how they'll get America back to work. I want to hear how they'll bring industries back to the USA; and build up the middle class in this country.