In another black eye for Newt Gingrich, the flagship of what's known in Washington as "Newt Inc." has filed for bankruptcy.

In a Chapter 7 filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Georgia, The Gingrich Group LLC, doing business as the Center for Health Transformation, filed for bankruptcy Wednesday. (Chapter 7 is "the chapter of the Bankruptcy Code providing for 'liquidation,' that is, the sale of a debtor's nonexempt property and the distribution of the proceeds to creditors," as defined by the federal courts.)

The vast majority of Gingrich's net worth is tied up in the Gingrich Group. Gingrich is worth overall between $7.1 million and $31 million, according to his financial disclosure. He lists a promissory note from Gingrich Group as being worth between $5 million and $25 million.

Rogelio Solis / AP

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich speaks at the Gulf Coast Energy Summit in Biloxi, Miss.

Gingrich was chairman of the group until May of last year, when he announced he was running for president. Since the candidate turned focus toward his presidential run, the Gingrich Group has struggled to raise money, leading to its eventual collapse.

The bankruptcy comes at a time when Gingrich's campaign is struggling to regain any momentum. He has won only two states during his run for president -- South Carolina and Georgia, his home state -- and he lags far behind front-runner Mitt Romney in the delegate count, in third place with just 137 out of the 1,144 needed to become the nominee.

Though he continues to pledge that he's "going to Tampa," the site of the Republican National Convention this summer, Gingrich is sounding increasingly like a candidate fighting for relevance rather than the presidency.

(Here are the bankruptcy filings - Part 1, Part 2.)

The news of the bankruptcy was first reported by the Atlanta Business Chronicle and confirmed by NBC News with the court in Atlanta and a federal court database search.

Gingrich pulled in $2.5 million -- the bulk of his income -- from January 2010 to August 2011 from sister organizations Gingrich Productions and Gingrich Communications.

On the campaign trail, Gingrich has touted ideas coming from his health think tank. And it has been a source of controversy, as questions were raised -- and other campaigns questioned - whether Gingrich acted as a lobbyist on behalf of the group in Georgia.

The Washington Post wrote: “[H]is time there exemplifies the former Georgia congressman’s post-legislative career as a well-paid consultant and policy guru, a role that earned him and his companies tens of millions of dollars over the past decade.”

NBC's Kathy Johnson and Marcie Rickun contributed to this report.

Newt Gingrich said Saturday night that he's staying in the Republican presidential nominating contest.

In a news conference in Las Vegas as results of the Nevada GOP caucus showed Mitt Romney the projected winner, Gingrich said he was still a candidate and would remain one through to the party's nominating convention in Florida this summer.

"I am a candidate for president of the United States. I will be a candidate for president of the United States," Gingrich said. "We will go to Tampa." 

NBC: Romney the projected winner in Nevada

He accused the Romney campaign of sowing rumors that he would drop out, and accused his rival of being dishonest at the most recent GOP debate.

About reports that one of his chief financial backers, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, had met with Romney, Gingrich said that he understood that Adelson had said previously that he would support Romney if Gingrich dropped out. If the choice was between Obama and Romney, Gingrich said, then Romney was the obvious choice.

He described Romney as a Massachusetts moderate, and cast himself as a conservative, and said the differences between the two will become "wider and wider and clearer and clearer" over the next few weeks.

The former House speaker is struggling to forge a comeback after big back-to-back losses to Romney in Nevada and Florida's primary four days earlier.

Gingrich waged a limited campaign in Nevada, with just a handful of events and no TV ads.

He needs to forge a breakthrough as the race turns to a string of states friendly to Romney, including Colorado and Minnesota on Tuesday and Michigan, where Romney grew up, on Feb. 28.

The Gingrich strategy hinges on Super Tuesday on March 6, when the campaign will sweep South again through states that look good for him. Gingrich — who is own chief strategist — and aides have been hunkered down mapping out strategy. Ohio will figure prominently in the mix. He'll head to the Super Tuesday state on Tuesday, bypassing other states that have contests sooner.

This article includes reporting by NBC News' Alex Moe, msnbc.com staff and The Associated Press.

By Michael Isikoff, NBC News, and Bill Dedman, msnbc.com
with reporting by NBC's Azriel Relph and Lisa Riordan Seville

The report shows receipts of $2.1 million. The PAC's spending reports, which by contrast cover the month of January, already show the same PAC spending nearly $9 million so far. 

Even before the Adelsons contributed $10 million, three of his family members had already plunked down $1 million in seed
money for the group.

The PAC reported a $500,000 contribution from one of Adelson's step-daughters, Sivian Ochshorn,  and another $250,000 from another step-daughter, Yasmin Lukatz. Another family member, Oren Lukatz, gave an additional $250,000. All  three listed themselves as "self employed" at 3355 Las Vegas Blvd. in Las Vegas, the address of Adelson's Las Vegas Sands Hotel, and gave the money the same day, Dec. 22.

Also giving a big check to the Gingrich Super PAC was Harold Simmons, the chairman of Contran Corporation, a Texas firm that owns a controversial radioactive waste dump. He had already given two checks totalling $1 million to the Rick Perry Super PAC.

The Associated Press described Adelson's interest in Gingrich in this way: "Adelson is an extreme conservative and staunch backer of right-wing Israeli politicians. Gingrich has held policy positions that would match Adelson's regarding U.S.-Israeli relations, including a pledge to issue a directive on his first day as president to relocate U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That would enrage Palestinians who demand that part of Jerusalem be their capital in any future two-state solution."

The full list of donors to the Winning Our Future PAC is here.

Read more about the reports filed Tuesday:

After TV cameras leave, Romney PAC discloses $18 million

Spielberg, labor union are big backers of Obama Super PAC

Perry PAC's $1 million donor got help with nuclear waste dump

Major GOP Super PAC raised $51 million in 2011

Not 'Desperate' for cash: Obama lists his big fundraisers

Sugar Daddy: Huntsman's father gave $1.9 million to Super PAC

Colbert Super PAC raises $1 million; non-satirical PACs to follow

Super PACS are known to the Federal Election Commission as independent committees, because they are forbidden to coordinate their activities with campaigns. Outside the limits of campaign finance laws, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals. They can use that money to advocate for or against political candidates.

Update: The full list of donors to the Super PAC is here, but that filing does not list the greater amount donated to the nonprofit.

WASHINGTON (AP) — American Crossroads, the Republican "super" political committee that plans to play a major role in this year's presidential campaign, raised more than $51 million along with its nonprofit arm last year, The Associated Press has learned.

The figures from Crossroads — the group backed by former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove — were among the first financial reports being made public Tuesday, the deadline for super PACs and presidential candidates to file financial reports with federal election officials.

While most recent public attention has focused on groups spending major sums for negative TV ads assailing GOP presidential primary rivals Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Tuesday's figures are a sign of even greater spending to come in the general election battle between the Republican nominee and Democratic President Barack Obama.

Other big Super PACs required to disclose their donors Tuesday include Restore Our Future, the Romney-leaning PAC that has contributed to a deluge of ads hammering Gingrich, and Winning Our Future, the Gingrich-supportive group that has been critical of Romney's time at a venture capital firm. Both super PACs are run in part by former advisers to the candidates.

The American Crossroads PAC has about $15.6 million cash on hand, representing only part of the money it has in the bank to spend on defeating Obama. Financial details from Crossroads GPS — the nonprofit arm — are unclear because it doesn't have to disclose its donors under IRS rules, althoughCrossroads GPS was responsible for most of the groups' fundraising haul.

The Crossroads war chests underscore the extraordinary impact Super PACs could have on this year's race for the White House. In GOP primaries so far, groups working for or against presidential candidates have spent roughly $25 million on TV ads — about half the nearly $53 million spent on advertising so far to influence voters in the early weeks of the race.

Crossroads' financial reports, which the AP obtained ahead of the Federal Election Commission, identify wealthy donors who had given contributions reaching as high as seven figures by the end of 2011. Among the largest contributors is Dallas businessman Harold Simmons, who gave the group $5 million last November and whose holding company, Contran Corp., donated an additional $2 million.

Simmons is a major donor to GOP and conservative causes who pumped as much as $4 million into the "swift boat" campaign that helped sink Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry in 2004. Simmons, an early supporter of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's presidential run, also was a fundraising "bundler" putting donations together for Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Other Super PACs have already had a major effect this primary season. One group, for instance, effectively saved Newt Gingrich's candidacy, while another tore into him in Florida and elsewhere. At the minimum, the groups' spending is a precursor to the general election — when super PACs aligned with both Republicans and Obama plan to dole out even larger sums.

These groups are the products of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that removed restrictions on corporate and union spending in federal elections. The groups can't directly coordinate with the candidates they support, but many are staffed with former campaign workers who have an intimate knowledge of a favored candidate's strategy.

Since this summer, the groups have spent tens of millions on ads in key GOP primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. The PACs have also unleashed millions on expenses typically reserved for campaigns, including direct mailings, phone calls and get-out-the-vote efforts.

Few groups are likely to be as influential as American Crossroads, which plans to raise hundreds of millions of dollars this election cycle and enlists support from high-profile GOP figures such as former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

Crossroads' financial reports show other large donors such as Joseph W. Craft III, a Tulsa businessman whose Alliance Holdings, a major coal producer, gave $425,000. Other contributions include: $500,000 from Dallas-based Crow Holdings; $250,000 from Chicago philanthropist and GOP supporter Janet Duchossois, and $100,000 from Sam Zell, a Chicago real estate billionaire whose Tribune media company is now in bankruptcy.

Outside spending by individuals isn't new. Liberal-leaning billionaire George Soros gave more than $20 million to help groups supportive of Kerry — these groups were known as "527" organizations — and his 2004 White House bid. But the high court's Citizens United ruling essentially gave a green light to individuals who want to pump unlimited sums into outside groups that would in turn support candidates.

The Obama campaign on Tuesday disclosed a list of 61 people who raised at least half a million dollars for the president's re-election efforts. Among them are movie producers Jeffrey Katzenberg and Harvey Weinstein and embattled former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, whose $70,000 in contributions from himself and his wife were refunded by the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

A handful of other financial filings began trickling in to the Federal Election Commission Tuesday afternoon, including those from the Gingrich campaign. It said the former House speaker raised $10 million during the fourth quarter, in addition to $5 million this month. Those totals are separate from super PAC money being spent on his behalf by outside groups.

Perry, the Texas governor who was an early star in the Republican primaries, raised an anemic $2.9 million this past quarter, compared with $17.2 million within the first two months of his entering the race last summer. The Jon Huntsman-leaning Our Destiny super PAC raised about $2.8 million — with more than $1.8 million coming from his father, Jon Huntsman Sr.

Endorse Liberty, a group supportive of libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, said it raised $3.9 million for online advertising in key primary states.

___

Associated Press writers Stephen Braun and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and his wife Callista greet supporters and pose for photographs outside a polling place on primary day in Celebration, Fla.

Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

Jean Richard-Houck sits on her mobility scooter as she watches Newt Gingrich greet voters at the Celebration Heritage Hall polling precinct in Celebration, Fla.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney works the phones for votes at his campaign headquarters on Jan. 31, 2012 in Tampa, Fla. Romney has a double-digit lead going into the primary.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich visits with people at Fred's Southern Kitchen on Jan. 31, 2012 in Plant City, Fla.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

A voter arrives at a polling station on primary day on Jan. 31, in Tampa, Florida. Republican voters head to the polls as their party continues the process of deciding who will be their general election candidate against President Barack Obama.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Security guards for Republican presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich push Ron Paul supporter Eddie Dillard of Orlando away from Gingrich as he campaigns on primary day outside a polling place at First Baptist Church of Windermere on Jan. 31 in Orlando, Florida. Dillard had been at the polling place all morning when Gingrich stood in front of him to pose for photographs. Gingrich supporters then began shoving Dillard and stepping on his feet when security came over and pushed him back. Polls show Gingrich's fellow candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with a double digit lead going into the Florida primary.

Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

Activists from PETA dressed as pigs walk outside a polling precinct in Orlando, Florida on Jan. 31.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Ray Roy sets up a polling station as he prepares for voters on primary day on Jan. 31 in Tampa, Florida. Republican voters head to the polls as their party continues the process of deciding who will be their general election candidate against President Barack Obama.

• It's decision day in Florida and the latest poll shows Romney leading.
• Is Florida the beginning of the end of the GOP nominating season?
• Is the long primary fight hurting Mitt Romney's image with voters?
• Gingrich is confident despite Florida polls. Can he last?

Why doesn't the fact-checking come first?

After a presidential debate, even before the debate has ended, we're able now to read fact-checks from Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact and many news organizations.

But shouldn't the candidates get their facts straight and tell the truth in the first place?

"American politics has become a battle of talking points," said Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact and Washington bureau chief for The Tampa Bay Times. "Once candidates find a talking point they like, they often stick with it — even when fact-checkers say it's wrong."

Perhaps the first questions in the next presidential debate should be something along these lines...

For Newt Gingrich:

Former Speaker Gingrich, in debate after debate, you've taken credit for balancing four federal budgets when you were the speaker of the House. As has been pointed out repeatedly by fact-checking organizations, the four years of balanced budgets were fiscal 1998 through 2001, but you were in office for only the first two of those budgets. You left the House in January 1999 and had no role in crafting the budgets for the subsequent two years. In addition, you opposed the two tax-raising deals that were largely responsible for balancing the budget. (Fact-checks here from The New York Times and here from The Washington Post.)

Similarly, you said that people can use food stamps "to go to Hawaii," claimed that the ethics charges against you were conducted by "a very partisan political committee," and said that "no federal official at any level is allowed to say 'Merry Christmas.'" 

All these statements were false, according to PolitiFact.

PolitiFact scorecard on Gingrich

Equal-time: Questions for the other candidates are below 

It's been nearly five years since PolitiFact and a host of similar services started debunking the most outrageous statements. In that time, have the candidates become more honest?

"Not overall, but we've seen glimpses that they will alter their wording after we've called out a falsehood," Adair said. "For example, the way Newt said the balanced budget line in the last debate was more accurate, because he didn't say the four consecutive years were when he was speaker. So maybe he responded to the fact-checking."

Here are specific follow-up questions for each of the current Republican candidates, as well as President Barack Obama, based on fact-checking by PolitiFact and the major newspapers:

For Mitt Romney:
Former Governor Romney, in every debate so far, you've said something like, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a big part of why we have the housing crisis." But studies have shown that Fannie and Freddie were late to invest in subprime mortgages, following the lead of Wall Street firms that you never mention. (Fact-check from The New York Times here and here.) The unspoken narrative in your comments, and those of the other candidates, panders inaccurately to those who want to believe that loans to unworthy minorities, driven by the Community Reinvestment Act, caused the financial crisis. In fact, most subprime loans were made by lenders who were not covered by the CRA, but who were driven by the need for profits to satisfy their Wall Street investors. Are you trying to deflect blame from Wall Street?

Similarly, you have said repeatedly that President Obama "went around the world and apologized for America," said "I don't have lobbyists running my campaign," and claimed that President Obama's health care law "represents a government takeover of health care."

All false, according to PolitiFact.

PolitiFact scorecard for Romney.

For Rick Santorum:
Former Senator Santorum, you have repeatedly criticized Gov. Romney's health insurance program in Massachusetts for the so-called individual mandate, for requiring individuals to buy health insurance. Why not mention that in 1994, when you were running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, you supported an individual mandate.

Similarly, you said that an Obama administration policy prohibits people who work with at-risk youth from promoting marriage as a way to avoid poverty, claimed that "a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion," and said, "Any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed." 

All false, according to PolitiFact.

PolitiFact scorecard for Santorum.

For Ron Paul:
Representative Paul, you've said that the United States "is bankrupt." The country isn't unable to pay its debts, nor is it impoverished. The credit rating of the United States is AA+ at Standard & Poor's (one step below the top of a 20-step scale), and AAA at the other rating agencies.

Similarly, you claimed that only a few sentences in your racist and conspiratorial newsletters were inflammatory, that the majority of the American people believe we should go back on the gold standard and that you never vote for legislation unless it's specifically authorized in the Constitution.

All false, according to PolitiFact.

PolitiFact scorecard for Paul.

And in the general election, maybe the first question to the incumbent could start something like this:

For Barack Obama:
President Obama, you've said that most of the money for your campaign came from small donors, that you've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs, that you haven't raised taxes once.

All false, according to PolitiFact.

You've claimed that your opponents plan to cut funding for Israel to zero. PolitiFact rated that claim "Pants on Fire," its lowest rating.

"One theme we've seen in Obama's statements," says PolitiFact's Bill Adair, "is that he is exaggerating how he has fulfilled promises. We know this, of course, because we keep track of all 500+ promises on our Obameter."

PolitiFact scorecard for Obama and Obameter keeping track of his campaign policies

Should the candidates be asked: As you prepare for a debate, is part of your preparation to remind yourself, whatever I say, I should play it straight with the American people? Aren't you embarrassed to repeat statements that any 8th-grader could look up in 20 seconds and discover have been proven untrue? Or do you calculate that it's acceptable to twist the facts to win an election?

Readers, what do you think? What would make the candidates stick to the facts? Add your comments below. 

Phil Skinner / AP

Jackie Gingrich Cushman, daughter of Newt Gingrich, speaks at a news conference at the Georgia state capitol last month. Gingrich said in a debate this week that his daughter worked as a church janitor when she was 13.

During the Republican presidential debate this week, Newt Gingrich shared a story about how his daughter worked as a church janitor when she was only 13.

“I was actually proud of my clean bathrooms,” Jackie Gingrich Cushman said in an telephone interview Tuesday, referring to the janitorial job she held at the First Baptist Church in Carrollton, Ga., in the early 1980s. “I learned work has value.”

But that work may have been a violation of federal child labor laws that her father has denounced as “stupid.”

Cushman was 13 when she took the part-time, minimum-wage janitorial job, scrubbing bathrooms two days a week using cleaning supplies and a bucket. She said working as a janitor was a "great experience."

Asked if she was working legally as a janitor for the church, Cushman said, "I certainly hope so." 

But based on child labor laws in effect now and in the 1980s, 13-year-olds are not allowed to hold janitorial jobs, said Michael Hancock, assistant administrator for policy in the wage and hour division of the U.S. Department of Labor. There are no exemptions for religious organizations and their employees when it comes to child labor laws, according to the agency.

"I definitely see it as a child labor violation," said Reid Maki, coordinator of The Child Labor Coalition, when asked about a 13-year-old working as a janitor. "When you put a kid in a situation that’s designed for adults you're asking for trouble."

Gingrich’s reference to his daughter’s youthful employment is part of an ongoing narrative for the former House speaker: Poor kids should start toiling as early as 9 years old so they can learn what it means to make a living. “I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn someday to own the job,” Gingrich said in the debate Monday.

Research has shown that teens who have jobs early in life are more likely to build a strong work ethic. But handing over adult jobs to kids might not be the right way to do that, particularly because there are tasks younger kids are not allowed to perform under U.S. law, including janitorial services.

Under the law 13-year-olds can:

• Deliver newspapers.
• Work as a baby sitter.
• Work as an actor or performer in motion pictures, television, theater or radio.
• Work in a business solely owned or operated by their parents.

It's fine for 14- and 15-year-olds to work a janitorial job in many types of retail and service establishments. There are restrictions at these ages as well, however, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

“They can’t work as janitors in any manufacturing establishment or industries that are deemed too hazardous for the employment of such youth,” according to the Labor Department.

A spokesman for Gingrich seemed unconcerned when informed that 13-year-olds are not allowed to work as janitors.

"Can they work as a clerk in the library?" press secretary R.C. Hammond responded by email.

Gingrich has proposed getting rid of age limits as a way to help build work values and save money because kids can do similar work for less pay than higher-paid adults.

"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods in trapping children … in child laws which are truly stupid," Gingrich said in November talk at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, according to the Los Angeles Times. "OK, you say to someone, 'You shouldn't go to work before you're 14, 16 years of age.' Fine. You're totally poor. You're in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school."

Not everyone agrees.

“Substitution of child labor for adult labor is never an economic bargain,” said Hugh Hindman, professor of labor at Appalachian State University, and author of “Child Labor: An American History.”

“Not only are adults with full-time jobs earning living wages displaced by kids with part-time jobs earning minimum wages, but the competition between children and adults will also depress the wages of those adults who hold on to their jobs,” Hindman said.

Gingrich makes some important points about poor children, however, he said.

“Opportunities for the kind of freelance jobs that teach responsibility and provide pocket money, baby-sitting, mowing lawns, shoveling snow, etc., are disproportionately skewed toward middle- and upper-middle-class kids,” he said. “Poor kids do need this kind of opportunity, but I'm not sure janitorial service is the ticket.”

Jeylan Mortimer, a sociology professor at the University of Minnesota who has researched the impact of work on teens and found it helps them build confidence and interpersonal skills, supports any attempts to help adolescents get jobs.

“The employment market for high school students has collapsed, largely as a result of competition with adults for teen jobs, and teen employment is now at its lowest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling the data,” said Mortimer, author of “Working and Growing Up In America.” 

The December unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds was 20.3 percent, well above the 8.3 percent overall jobless rate. For blacks in that age group it's 42 percent.

Mortimer isn't big on proposals she’s hearing from the stump to fix the problem.

In addition to displacing adult workers, it would “likely expose teens to difficult, and possibly hazardous, work conditions, lots of bending and lifting, exposure to harsh cleaning agents, etc.," she said.

She suggests creating a program where students can assist teachers or tutor at schools depending on their achievement level, and that wouldn't displace adult workers but would relieve "overworked educators."

As for Gingrich's daughter, she sees value in all types of jobs when it comes to helping kids learn about work, but she maintained that unskilled labor may do the most character building.

“Cleaning bathrooms taught me a lot,” Cushman said, adding that she worked many menial jobs, including being a rollerblading waitress for the Sonic Drive-In chain in high school. Such experiences, she added, helped her value hard work and “appreciate and value the people that do the work as well.

Richard Ellis / Getty Images file

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich speaks to supporters on Friday in Columbia, South Carolina.

DES MOINES, Iowa – It appears Newt Gingrich isn’t playing nice anymore.

The Gingrich campaign is out with its first opposition email directly hitting none other than GOP rival Mitt Romney -- a move that signals a departure from the positive-only campaign Gingrich himself promised to run.

“Can we trust a Massachusetts Moderate to enact a conservative agenda?," Gingrich Communications Director Joe DeSantis writes in the email sent out Monday evening. "Our campaign might have plenty of things to say about that, but the best response certainly comes from Mitt Romney himself: 'I think people recognize that I am not a partisan Republican. That I'm someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.'"

The email, labeled “FACT SHEET: MITT THE MASSACHUSETTS MODERATE,” makes fun of Romney’s new television ad running in Iowa during which the former Massachusetts Governor portrays himself as a "conservative businessman.” It quotes what people have said about Romney and a few things Romney has said in the past.

Ironically, the former House Speaker is currently running a TV ad in Iowa himself, during which he says: “Others seem to be more focused on attacks, rather than moving the country forward. That's up to them.”