“The blind trust is an age-old ruse,” Romney told the Boston Globe in October of that year. “You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.”

Romney’s personal financial filing showed that Romney’s trust owned some potentially controversial stocks, including China Petroleum & Chemical, which has links to Sudan, and several gambling companies(including MGM and Harrah’s, which were sold).

Hat tip again to Dan Riehl who says Romney’s lack of character is what will keep him out of the White House.

Furthermore, Romney didn’t tell the complete truth about his investments of Fannie and Freddie.

The verdict, part two (were all of Romney’s Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae investments in a blind trust?): False. Some of Romney’s investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were outside of his trust, which means he could have known about them.

It’s as if the conservative media over the past 24 hours decided Gingrich is for real, and they need to come clean about the man they really know before it’s too late. This is just a sampling of what’s hitting Newt:

• The overnight Drudge Report banner: “Insider: Gingrich repeatedly Insulted Reagan.” The headline linked to a devastating takedown by Elliott Abrams in the National Review, who wrote, among other things, that Gingrich had a long record of criticizing and undermining Reagan’s most transformative policies.

• Drudge also linked prominently to the American Spectator’s R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s similarly harsh takedown of Gingrich over character: “William Jefferson Gingrich.” In it, Tyrrell writes: “Newt and Bill are 1960s generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl hopping… His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out.”

Drudge runs hundreds of links to stories of all stripes about candidates, but has been seen by Republicans as favorable to Romney in the past.

• Bob Dole issued a scathing statement Thursday that the Romney campaign provided to the National Review in which he said “it is now time” to rally to stop Gingrich, blamed the former Speaker for losing House Republican seats in 1996, and warned that it could happen again, at all levels of government.

NRO joins in trying to make Newt, the candidate endorsed by Reagan’s son, seem anti-Reagan. Anne Coulter has an article linked at Drudge saying “Re-elect Obama! Vote Newt!

He’s also losing his edge to Mitt in quite a few polls. He is already fighting back though and Rush Limbaugh noticed the attacks and disagrees with them too. It will be interesting to see if he gains his momentum back through tonight’s debate.

Others that noticed: Legal Insurrection

Against the anti-Newt crusade stands a wealth of counter-viewpoints of people who were in a position to know and who share very differenct recollections of Newt and Reagan, via Josh Painter in the comments:

Reagan Nat’l Security Advisor Bud McFarlane: http://bit.ly/zd9eAF

Reagan Economist Art Laffer: http://bit.ly/xEDETi

Reagan WH political director Jeffrey Lord: http://bit.ly/zw2ZMb

Reagan Policy Analyst Peter Ferrara http://bit.ly/zq1QxI

Reagan media consultant Richard Quinn: http://on.msnbc.com/y2sPM2

Reagan’s Speechwriting Dir. Bently Elliott: http://thedc.com/xOkDvA

Reagan’s older son Michael Reagan: http://bit.ly/yYVy7L

Reagan’s beloved wife Nancy: http://bit.ly/zrWvAw

Wake Up America!

Republican voters can be influenced if the party establishment declares all out war against a candidate as they are doing against Gingrich, but voters should also be allowed and encouraged to see both sides of the issue, all the information available and not be forced toward one candidate or another by those with the loudest voices.

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.
They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.
That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
- Rick Santorum

Radical individualism? What would that be? Freedom? I don’t want someone to legislate morality and push their social beliefs from the federal level on me. The Constitution only gives the federal government power over what it lists and the rest is reserved for the states. It seems like all the other candidates understand this. Where in the world did people get this idea that we don’t want the Federal government in our bedrooms or want low taxes? Radical individualists!

I don’t want to smear this guy. Before I saw this I thought he was a good conservative option. Is this video out of context? Just wondering…

Meanwhile Santorum talks about how much more consistent his history is than his rivals.

Hat tip: The Green Room

(CBS News) It wasn’t an endorsement, but Sarah Palin gave Newt Gingrich the next best thing on Tuesday, saying she would vote for the former speaker — if she lived in South Carolina.

Speaking to Sean Hannity on Fox News, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee declared Gingrich the winner of Monday night’s Republican debate, comparing his performance to boxing legend Joe Frazier.

“He came out there swingin’, talking about work,” Palin said. “Talkin’ about jobs and work ethic and how government needs to get out of the way in order for Americans to have a sense of opportunity to work, and I think that’s what a lot of voters have been craving to hear.”

I’m not a big Newt fan, mostly due to his support of anthropogenic global warming legislation and regulations, but, I could vote for him, unlike Ron Paul. That said, he did have a fantastic debate, and gave the best answers.

Asked if she was any closer to giving an endorsement, Palin told the Fox News host that she could only tell him what she’d do if she were a South Carolinian. “If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I’d vote for Newt, and I would want this to continue.” Such a position indicated her desire for the political vetting to keep unfolding.

So, kind of a back-handed endorsement. We’ll see if this helps or hurts Gingrich in the upcoming Primary. In reality, though, the next few debates will probably make the most difference. Palin lost quite a bit of support after she finally decided (late) to not run for president after all that time hemming and hawing.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

◼ South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate – brevardtimes.com

The first live South Carolina GOP Presidential Primary Debate with all five remaining candidates: Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich, will air on Fox News tonight at 9 p.m. E.S.T. (6 p.m. P.S.T.) ◼ Live Stream
Location: Myrtle Beach Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Sponsor: Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party

1) For the most part, the attacks on Mitt Romney didn’t stick

Romney was under much more forceful attack in Sunday morning’s debate than he was in the Saturday night faceoff. He handled it with mixed levels of success.

However, Romney is still a superior debater compared to the field, most of whom seemed either unable or unwilling to maintain attacks against him. Once again, Ron Paul came to Romney’s rescue by changing the subject instead of answering a question about whether his rival is electable.

I’m sure Ron Paul talked about UFO’s taking over the CIA which then ran 9/11 through those Evil Jews or something.

2) Newt coined a memorable phrase

And he did it with a clever phrase — telling Romney to cut the “pious baloney” — that will almost certainly find its way into Democratic ads if the former Massachusetts governor is the nominee.

Thanks, Newt

3) Romney will need more practice for the general election debates

That was apparently over the exchange on SuperPAC ads.

4) This was Jon Huntsman’s best day since he got in

The former Utah governor got the most air time he’s had in any of the debates so far. That is partly a product, it seemed, of the fact that the debate was in New Hampshire, where he has anchored his campaign.

If MSNBC broadcasts a show that no one watched (well, like every show they broadcast), is that actual “air time” for Huntsman? Who would still, in my mind, be the best candidate if he would explain working for Obama and drop his position on regulating/legislating greenhouse gases.

5) The Rick Perry debating in New Hampshire is the best version yet

Apparently, he was very good, according to the one viewer, Maggie Haberman. Alas, we won’t actually know.

6 ) Santorum wasn’t playing the culture warrior at the debate

Santorum had a markedly better debate than he did Saturday night, when he mostly failed to engage with Romney. This time, he came looking for a confrontation — and it had an impact.

If Santorum wants to be the guy to beat Romney, he will have to switch to more of an economic message, rather than the social warrior message. That’s what this election will primarily be about.

Now, seriously, can we stop with the silly amount of debates? Unless they are to be in one moderated by bloggers, who will ask them the really tough questions.

And now it is on to the New Hampshire primaries!