Patterico's Pontifications

1/8/2012

Pious Baloney

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 8:19 am

[Posted by Karl]

After last night’s debacle, I was not too keen to get out of bed early for another one, particulalrly one “moderated” by David Gregory.  But here’s the likely highlight (aside from not spending 45 minutes discussing contraception).

Post-Iowa, it seemed like Newt Gingrich was mostly going to stay in the race to attack front-runner Mitt Romney, which does not seem all that presidential, but does seem very Gingrichy.  At last night’s debate, Gingrich began with some half-hearted attacks on Romney’s record at Bain Capital, but then largely dropped the attacks.

This morning, Gingrich apparently was more aggressive [Update: although I’m reading more people suggesting the attacks again dropped off over time].  I would advise him to stay away from the frequent citation of the New York Times and WaPo as his sources, Newt got this one in after Romney again touted his private sector experience at length (along with a backhanded swipe at Rick Santorum’s lobbying):

I realize the red light doesn’t mean anything to you because you are the front-runner [Audience laughter] but could we drop a little bit of the pious baloney?

The fact is you ran in ’94 and lost, and that’s why you were not serving with Rick Santorum. The fact is you had a bad re-election rating. You dropped office. You had been out of state for something like 200 days and preparing to run for president. You didn’t have this interlude of citizenship while you thought about what to do. You were running for president while you were governor. You were going all over the country, and you were out of state consistently. You then promptly re-entered politics and you happened to lose to McCain as you lost to Kennedy. Now, you’re back running. You have been running consistently for years and years and years, and the idea that then suddenly citizenship showed up in your mind, and just level with the American people. You have been running since the 1990s.

The video is at the Daily Caller.  I will note Newt’s hypocrisy here.  After all, he’s the guy who wanted all the candidates to play nice in the early debates and settled for bashing the debate moderators (as he reverted to doing last night).  However, the point of these debates should be to get an idea of how each might perform under the full weight of attack the eventual nominee will get from Team Obama and its public relations branch (the establishment media).  If Mitt Romney really wants the nomination, we ought to get a look at how he replies to the obvious attacks that will be made on his standard campaign rhetoric.

Update: Romney supporters may forgive me for labeling Hugh “You Know Who This Benefits?” Hewitt a shameless Romney flack when I note that he correctly points out that Romney’s later counter-attack on Gingrich shows Mitt can dish it out, too.

Update 2: Philip A. Klein makes a related point about Romney’s prevent defense. 

–Karl

417 Responses to “Pious Baloney”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (5a613f)

  2. There will be blood. Angry Newt, Petulant Newt is Losing Newt.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  3. Team Gingrich buys anti-capitalist film and continues to quote the NYT and the WP.

    Go Angry Newt, go!

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  4. allahpundit How soon before Newt starts talking about “the 99 percent”? http://t.co/hVrRjMBA

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  5. Interesting take from Michael Barone: http://t.co/1LRpdf9X

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  6. The smartest guy in the loom is all tangled up in the threads of political tactics and gamesmanship. Nowhere in the above quote does he talk about what he would do as president. And the undecided/casual interest voter sits back and says “Why the hell would I want to pull the lever for this whiney b**ch?”

    Icy (90d2a0)

  7. JRubinBlogger “Gingrich delight in attack on Bain is identical to what WH spin is- Gingrich pt is anti-creative destruction, out of OWS playbook”

    JRubinBlogger @allahpundit would love to know if they got soros money

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  8. JRubinBlogger: “What does Gingrich know about superpac ad?” http://t.co/OKlwaleE

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  9. __________________________________________

    Interesting take from Michael Barone:

    I think the following description is worth considering, certainly among all those people (ie, a large percentage of Americans) who vote with their wallets and purses, and believe that somehow a strictly economics-only, purely unemployment-rate-only approach to issues is the answer to what ails us at the moment. Or all those folks who believe that President “Goddamn America” would be fine and dandy — and who in their mind would seriously consider re-electing — if the economy were in better shape, regardless of whether in the process we had sold our soul to hard-core liberalism (if not the proverbial “devil”).

    washingtonexaminer.com: Santorum also very effectively and efficiently made a point he’s been making at much greater length out on the stump, that a president can reasonably advocate for behaviors — graduating from high school, working at a job, marrying — that taken together result in just about everyone rising above the poverty line.

    Mark (411533)

  10. Karl,

    Post-Iowa, it seemed like Newt Gingrich was mostly going to stay in the race to attack front-runner Mitt Romney, which does not seem all that presidential, but does seem very Gingrichy.

    Wow! Gingrich fails to behave according to your skewed perception of him. In this comment you get to slam him both for the jerky thing you hoped he do, but didn’t, and for his doing it so poorly. Now that’s fair and balanced.

    And since when is it bad form for a Republican to slam a competitor for being a perpetual candidate? Thanks to Bill and Barack, we’ve seen just how pernicious the perpetual campaign can be. Romney’s perpetual campaigning takes away yet another line of attack that should be available to differentiate the conservative product.

    Where in the world do you get the idea that Obama-light is electable, let alone desirable? As a muddler, I think it would be worth your while to re-read Kim Stassel’s “The GOP’s Working Class Muddle,” from yesterday’s WSJ.

    ThOR

    ThOR (94646f)

  11. EdMorrissey: “At Don Quijote’s restaurant, waiting for Newt Gingrich’s Hispanic town hall event at 2 ET. Lots of press already here.”

    meanwhile, across town at Don Coyote’s (the coyote-infused salsa and chips is to-kill-for), Rick Perry holds a lonely vigil.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  12. ThOR, the problem is that this kind of attack simply opens up Gingrich’s own record. Yes, by 1994, Gingrich did some remarkable things.

    But then we have 84 ethics violation charges, 300,000 dollars in sanctions by the house…via a 395–28 House vote. I believe it was the first time in history a Speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. And then he resigned. I won’t even get into his Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nonsense.

    So, his attacks on Romney’s past merely open him up to a careful media examination.

    Gingrich strikes me as a nasty man. Sure, he is a good debater. But we need to win. Gingrich is not exactly burnishing his “presidentialness” at present.

    Simon Jester (6b1c6c)

  13. Simon – but there is no one else

    SarahW (b0e533)

  14. Good points, Simon. Gingrich attacking someone for overweening political ambition is like Heidi Fleiss criticizing promiscuity.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (07bcb9)

  15. newt newt what a beaut
    half a mil at Tiffany’s
    he’s not destitute

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  16. You have to ask yourself, is he in this to win?

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  17. Like Newt, the colonel likes to say, “you have to ask yourself”.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  18. I prefer Roly-poly Newt to Petulant Newt.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  19. SarahW, I don’t think you are correct. But if you are, and Gingrich becomes the nominee, I will fight like heck for him, because we cannot afford (figuratively and literally) Four More Years. But it will be an uphill battle, because of his past (by which I mean the issues I brought up regarding his censure, santions, resignation, and work for FM/FM), but most of all because his mouth writes checks he can’t cash.

    He started off well. But he cannot help himself, apparently.

    Simon Jester (6b1c6c)

  20. Tony Blankley, RIP.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  21. SJ, those “84 Ethics violations” were a “pasta offense” by the minority to smear a Speaker who was handing their heads to them:
    They threw every conceivable charge against the wall to see what would stick.
    Please remind me of which charges Newt was found to be in violation of House Rules?
    I seem to recall that the settlement was a re-imbursement to the House for the expense of the investigation, but that there was no specific finding of guilt.
    I can imagine that after this year’s election victory by the GOP in retaining control of the House, that Mr. Boehner will be the recipient of a like offensive;
    or Mr. Cantor, or Mr. Ryan.

    AD-RtR/OS! (25ec72)

  22. I can imagine that after this year’s election victory by the GOP in retaining control of the House, that Mr. Boehner will be the recipient of a like offensive;
    or Mr. Cantor, or Mr. Ryan.

    Well, if they decide to do that, we should do the same to them.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  23. I will note Newt’s hypocrisy here. After all, he’s the guy who wanted all the candidates to play nice in the early debates and settled for bashing the debate moderators (as he reverted to doing last night).

    Nonsense. This is no different from a politician who advocates that earmarks should be done away with, but as long as they are permitted under the rules, he engages in it himself.

    Newt tried to get the other candidates to agree to some rules of battle. Kind of a Geneva Convention for the primaries. Some of the other candidates did not want to play by those rues. Does that mean that Gingrich alone should be bound by the rules he proposed? Of course not. His proposal was rejected, so there is another set of battle rules in play, and he has adjusted his strategy accordingly.

    Anon Y. Mous (7616b0)

  24. ME, how are those complaints against Charlie Rangel, and Maxine Waters going?

    Will the results be different since they’re members of the Party of Government?

    AD-RtR/OS! (25ec72)

  25. Simon, you have to ask yourself “is Gingrich for real?” Is he the man that his fellow Republicans in the House tired of… his ego, tactics, style of leadership, etc.? His promiscuous (please excuse the attendant image) lifestyle… his subsequent embrace of Cap n’ Trade, Nancy Pelosi, Fannie & Freddie, getting paid for access to movers and shakers in the halls of Congress?

    A whole lotta baggage.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  26. Please remind me of which charges Newt was found to be in violation of House Rules?

    the House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented “intentional or … reckless” disregard of House rules.

    Icy (d0c253)

  27. Icy, I seem to recall a bit of controversy over whether or not Newt had vetted that info that was submitted by his attorney’s.
    Yes, I realize that he is ultimately responsible for the info submitted in his name, but if there were inaccuracies, I would think that in a matter of fairness and that this was not a judicial matter, that he would have been allowed to “revise and extend his remarks”.
    It was obvious that Newt, in his rise to Speaker, and in his tenure in that office, that he stepped on a lot of toes (deservedly so, in most cases), and that this was an opportunity for “payback”.

    AD-RtR/OS! (25ec72)

  28. Podhoertz, Barone, Allah, et al., are calling the Nomination, no need to count.

    Throw in the towel GOP, sue for peace and bring out your dead to toss on the pyre.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  29. You’ll always have ace pundit Ben Shapiro, Bemidji.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  30. Four dollar gas this summer. Russia and Iran have dropped the dollar in their trade.

    Proposed EU Iran embargo Brent $125-150, Hormuz blockade $150 – 200. Ah, 2011, the good ol’ days.

    You know who this helps.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  31. Credit card debt now above 25% for those late on their payments. Deposits earn 0.5%. Hell they don’t even want your money, the Fed is paying 0.25% on the reserves Banks are forced to hold for the MBS they got to sell.

    You know who this helps.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  32. The BLS says business created 200,000 jobs last week of the year. Morgan Stanley says 42,000 of those jobs are gone already.

    Unemployment rate given constant labor participation at 2006 levels 11.4%. Business margins up.

    You know who this helps.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  33. Has the sky fallen yet?

    Icy (90d2a0)

  34. Maybe so, AD. More than anything I just think that, when it comes to Newt, people are fooling themselves into believing that this self-admitted Roosevelt progressive is a conservative.

    Icy (90d2a0)

  35. 31, 32, 33… gaseous windbag alert!

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  36. I support neither, yet expect to vote for the GOp candidate as the lesser of 2 evils between a socialisit and a statist. But let’s assume Romney takes the GOP nod and Paul, out of deference to Rand Paul ’16, doesn’t run as a 3rd party. Romney would be well-advised to take Gingrich’s advice. We already have a president who is too slick by half. The slick, “Up With People!” act is not going to beat Obama. In fact it’s going to wear thn quickly. He is going to have to fling some serious and radioactive muck at Obama to win. And it all of it will be we-deserved for The One, who has been a disaster and is a socialsit CHicago hack. And if Romney doesn’t have the stomach to do that, like McCain, he should go home today.

    Bugg (ea1809)

  37. I’m just looking forward to President Romney giving us at least one more Souter on the court.

    because that will be f*cking awesome.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  38. #37 — given that a full 40% of the comments on this thread are from you, you’re in no position to call anyone else a windbag.

    Chuck Bartowski (490c6f)

  39. Mr. Klein’s argument that Romney’s several touchdowns ahead late in the game is absolutely, completely wrong. “A lot would have to happen at this point for Romney’s path to the nomination to become thornier,” he write. Hooey. All that has to happen is for more voters to vote for other candidates. It’s not complicated or improbable, much less impossible.

    I do agree that Gov. Romney remains the favorite as of today. And I agree that he’s likely to do well in New Hampshire — where his most serious risk may be underperforming expectations, not losing outright. What Mr. Klein characterizes as a “prevent defense” is, I think, much more aptly described as a continuing disciplined execution of a conservative game plan that’s (a) determined not to lose sight of the general election and (b) determined to avoid unforced errors.

    Given that Mr. Romney’s competitors have both distant and recent histories of committing unforced and sometimes self-immolatory errors, it’s very hard to fault Gov. Romney for “playing defense.”

    Obama’s the best proof, and certainly entirely sufficient proof, for the proposition that good campaigners don’t always become effective chief executives. Nevertheless, Romney may gradually add to his popularity among GOP primary voters by simply continuing to demonstrate competency in campaigning.

    If I had to pick the most probable situation in which Romney doesn’t become the nominee, it would involve a nominee who’s not even running now and the proverbial, possibly impossible brokered convention.

    Beldar (bd62f3)

  40. Calls ’em as I sees ’em, Chunk.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  41. Col. H (#36 — 1/8/2012 @ 4:48 pm): The Barnes essay you linked above prompted me to write a post on my own blog entitled “Can Romney’s commitment to expediency by a substitute for reliable conservative instincts?” (Apologies to our host for the link-whoring.)

    Beldar (bd62f3)

  42. Blearg — “be a substitute,” not “by a substitute.”

    Beldar (bd62f3)

  43. Chuck, I meant.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  44. Interesting post, Beldar. I wonder who the sidebar guy you’d like to draft would feel is best suited?

    I wonder who the sidebar guy feels has expressed the strongest support for the proposals sidebar guy has made? And which of the candidates has been less than helpful in that respect?

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  45. Comment by gary gulrud — 1/8/2012 @ 4:02 pm

    Four dollar gas this summer. Russia and Iran have dropped the dollar in their trade.

    I believe in favor or barter.

    What are they going to use instead? The Euro?

    I think is actually because of the upcoming sanctions on Iran’s central bank.

    Come to think of it, the EU will also impose sanctions. China would like countries to use the yuan but only Japan will do that – a little.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  46. And gasoline will be approaching – if not over – $5 a gallon by July 4th… election year or not.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  47. Oh don’t worry… I’m sure the President will consider $5 a national emergency and drain the Strategic Oil Reserve…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  48. Comment by Beldar — 1/8/2012 @ 5:43 pm

    If I had to pick the most probable situation in which Romney doesn’t become the nominee, it would involve a nominee who’s not even running now and the proverbial, possibly impossible brokered convention.

    For there to be a brokered convention, Romney has to first not win.

    For that to happen, the other candidates have to get a large number of delegates as there won’t be too many uncommited.

    Now what could happen is instead of the second and third candidates endorsing Romney, they could get together.

    Ron Paul’s delegates will go to Romney of course, especially any he gets in Virginia. The vast majority will either be picked by organization people or be loyal to Ron Paul, so don’t count on them when released, to vote for Gingrich or Santorum.

    A deadlocked and multiple ballots could lead to somebody else.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  49. Col. H, I dunno if Jen Rubin’s sources inside Chairman Ryan’s office are actually as good as she makes them out to be, but on December 6th she wrote:

    Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will not endorse, his staff repeatedly has told me, in large part because he has a fundraising role as head of the National Republican Trust.

    Ryan and Gingrich have supposedly mended fences, and I’m willing to believe Ryan has forgiven Gingrich. But no one else has forgotten the “right-wing social engineering” crack, and I doubt Ryan has either.

    Beldar (bd62f3)

  50. (Heck, I was watching Gingrich when he made that crack, and nearly threw the closest heavy object at hand through my flat-screen in disgust.)

    Beldar (bd62f3)

  51. H/t, Beldar-

    “Put another way: I fear that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have more in common with each other than either has in common with Calvin Coolidge. And we need the discipline of Calvin Coolidge.”

    Bugg (ea1809)

  52. 52) facepalm with an octopus, Beldar, why does he do these things,

    narciso (87e966)

  53. Gingrich strikes me as a nasty man. Sure, he is a good debater. But we need to win. Gingrich is not exactly burnishing his “presidentialness” at present.

    Comment by Simon Jester

    Nasty man? Maybe. But the more I think about it, the more I think it’s going to take a brilliant and aggressive strategy of mudslinging to beat Obama.

    One of the two credentials Romney has.

    Unfortunately for him, I won’t vote for a self described progressive even if he’s the only candidate. I’d rather not vote at all, but if I have a chance, it’s either Newt or Perry for me.

    Since Beldar started mentioning it, I’d begun getting really ticked off at Newt. I recently read his comments about the GOP not deeming african americans worth a dialogue with… but this buys into the notion we have to break our country up into competing interest groups. And the social engineering comment was also a serious lapse.

    Dont’ get me wrong… if it’s Newt then I’m settling for something I don’t really want.

    I did read about Romney’s support for liberal democrats, even with donations and endorsements, thanks to Newt. Puts the Romney fan’s bashing of Perry (for the Al Gore issue) into proper context (sheer hypocrisy).

    Dustin (cb3719)

  54. Comment by Icy — 1/8/2012 @ 1:15 pm

    the House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented “intentional or … reckless” disregard of House rules.

    This was a really farfetched charge, and Newt was something of a fool for not fighting it. Is he really responsible for everything his lawyer did? It would be just another example of not doing enough due diligence.

    Do you have any more details?

    Anyway he agreed to pay $300,000 which I think had to be from his own money and that must have been a factor in him leaving Congress two years later. And possibly a factor in him doing something for Freddie Mac the first time (1999-2002) when he helped devise a lending program that would make a number of different interests happy. (It could be pointed out that was way before the housing bubble)

    Later on, he also needed money for jewelry but he says he had so many ways of making money, he didn’t need anything in particular – he got money for speeches.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  55. Newt took down Jim Wright, ‘defoleyated’ his successor, in some ways, similar to what Sarah did up in Alaska, he has ‘feet of clay’ as we’ve come to know, but like Leonidas, he did hold the line for a time. By contrast, his successor, brought mediocrity and mendacity upon the GOP label.

    narciso (87e966)

  56. Also, the IRS found that he’d actually NOT done anything wrong in the first place…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  57. Yeah, it would be pretty sweet if Newt could just be Speaker of the House again, Narciso.

    Congress is where the action is. I have little hope that the next president will do more than Romney promised (preserve entitlements). It makes perfect short term political sense. The nation needs something more than that, but fiscal conservatives are in a bad way right now.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  58. Well it turns out Bonior has been less than impressive, no drama but not much performance either.

    narciso (87e966)

  59. you’re going to make him cry if you keep up like that

    Dustin (cb3719)

  60. We need new leadership in the House and the Senate. Both Boehner and McConnell are weak sisters.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  61. If Romney can’t stand to have his Cain Capital history vetted, he should “get out of the kitchen.”

    Why is it whinging when Newt attacks Romney, but “just politics” when it goes the other way? IF Romney is going to be the nominee, I want to know EVERYTHING about Bain Capital beforehand. He lost the contest with Kennedy because this stuff came out at the last minute and sunk him. Is there more?

    He should at least be willing to talk about it, rather than go on about Staples again,

    In particular, if there is an instance where Bain gutted a going concern because they made a little bit more money off the land or somesuch and f*cked the employees over big time, I want to know it now. It may be perfectly justifiable in a capitalist sense, but the electorate may not look at it the same way during a recession. And you can be sure that Obama’s folks will trot it out in October.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  62. the House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented “intentional or … reckless” disregard of House rules.

    In other words, there was no charge that stuck, but in defending himself Newt said something that the investigators thought was inaccurate, and Newt paid a fine (probably much less than his legal bill) to close the case.

    In a loser-pays system, the money would have been going the other way.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  63. Simon, Newt was never censured by the House and saying so is libel.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  64. Why is it whinging when Newt attacks Romney, but “just politics” when it goes the other way?

    Because one of these guys has no principles, everyone realizes that, so he can be on both sides of any issue.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  65. robertcostaNRO “Woman to Newt, during Q&A: “I could listen to you all night.” Newt smiles a thin grin, grips lectern, a tad worried abt what she’ll say…”

    That is funny.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  66. Anderson! Anderson! Anderson! Someone is being mean to Mitt Romney again!

    Dustin (cb3719)

  67. Seriously, he has such thin skin. Don’t forget the Bret Baier fiasco.

    Electable, my ass.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  68. Newt left office in 1998, after the midterms the Republicans hoped to win during the Clinton impeachment run-up went slight towards the Dems (I think they picked up 5 seats in the House).

    There were two reasons for this: 1) Gingrich miscalculated the public reaction to impeaching Clinton over perjury (especially since the news media kept spinning it as “about sex”); and 2) Clinton started a war in Kosovo in late September, causing a temporary boost in his polling. See “Wag the Dog

    Kevin M (563f77)

  69. Kevin M., fair enough: my use of language was imprecise. But you have to admit—and you should admit—that House vote of 395 to 28 to sanction Gingrich to the tune of 300K says something about management style and ability to lead. You can say that he should have fought it. But in an era of extreme partisanship, there was bipartisan agreement that Gingrich, um, was not doing a great job.

    For good or ill, Gingrich mishandled the Speakership, leading to the worst midterm showing by a party out of power in over sixty years.

    I continue to think he is nasty and arrogant. I have also been very, very clear that if he is the nominee, I will fight for him. But I notice that other people don’t feel that way about candidates they don’t like. In fact, several people say that they will “sit out the election,” and that means, friends, four more years of Obama. Sorry, but that is truth. Own it.

    So be it. And I think that will be the result: four worse years. But I also think that, if that happens—and I find it likely, given the way people are acting—the folks who are all sniffy about “purity” (because the truth, whether one wants to admit it or not, is that we usually vote for the “least bad” of the candidates) should not complain about the horrible things that WILL occur as a result, from spending to the Supreme Court.

    I just don’t understand that mentality. I have always been ABO. I would think that would be the rallying cry, instead of “who is most conservative.”

    I want that gang out the White House. That is Job #1, so far as I am concerned.

    Simon Jester (6b1c6c)

  70. Yeah, it would be pretty sweet if Newt could just be Speaker of the House again, Narciso.

    I’d rather have Paul Ryan as Speaker with Gingrich as President and 62 seats in the Senate. Unlike Ron Paul, Gingrich & Ryan could get a government downsizing passed.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  71. For good or ill, Gingrich mishandled the Speakership, leading to the worst midterm showing by a party out of power in over sixty years.

    Sure, if you ignore the whole “Got the majority in the House” thing…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  72. No that was the following spring, after he received
    the first PDB about Bin Laden, ‘determined to strike’ which had more info, than the more well known PDB, you may be referring to the missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan, in August and
    the ones against Iraq, right around the time of his trial hearing,

    narciso (87e966)

  73. Gingrich overplayed his hand, Kevin. You mix that with his ego, tactics, style of leadership, p*ssyhounding, etc., and the pack smelled blood and culled his ample ass from the alpha spot.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  74. Post #73, well said, as per usual, Simon.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  75. BTW, did anyone notice today that Ron Paul, in his 20+ years in Congress, mostly in the majority, has gotten exactly ONE bill passed. And only 4 have even gotten to the floor. And this is a guy who has this grand plan for a trillion dollar first year cut! Hell, I’ve got a plan, too and have about as good a chance of getting it passed. What wank.

    As was pointed out by Santorum (giving the devil his due):

    The problem with Congressman Paul is all the things that Republicans like about him he can’t accomplish and all the things they’re worried about he’ll do day one.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  76. But you have to admit—and you should admit

    I have to admit nothing of the sort: it was a plea bargain to end the bleeding. He admitted to a bogus charge of misleading the committee, which found nothing after a year of fishing, and they let him stop paying lawyers $600/hour.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  77. Kevin M., I agree wholeheartedly about Paul Ryan. 200%.

    There were all kinds of great people who could have run for President and did not. Part of it is the awful culture of attack from the MSM, which people on the Right and Left both have picked up—who would want to expose their families to those kinds of nasty, low attacks (paging Mitch Daniels)? So we are left with people who poll-check everything, or who are human honeybadgers.

    It’s a sad state of affairs.

    All that being said, let’s all agree: we need to get this current crop of people out on the lecture and book circuit.

    Simon Jester (6b1c6c)

  78. Gingrich overplayed his hand, Kevin.

    IMHO, he underplayed it. The Kosovo War was conducted without congressional approval (and in fact despite congressional disapproval). That should have been added to the charges.

    In any event, it is all very easy to say that Gingrich overstepped with the impeachment, but truth be told the Republican House membership was adamant about it, the rank-and-file was rather insistent upon it and the Republican losses would have been far worse had the House leadership settled on Censure before the election.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  79. Cogressmen do not get elected President; not, that is, unless they take a path that goes through the vice presidency first.

    Icy (90d2a0)

  80. And yes, Gingrich is arrogant. And pompous. And sometimes talks when he should STFU. But I don’t see how anyone could run for the effing Presidency without having a high regard for themselves.

    Perry is worse, with less to base it on, Paul is frightfully full of himself (conflating himself with “the American People” at times) with nothing to base it on, and let’s not even talk about Huntsman. At least Newt isn’t dull.

    And Romney just hides it all.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  81. Cogressmen do not get elected President; not, that is, unless they take a path that goes through the vice presidency first.

    Yes, but Speakers of the House aren’t just “congressmen.” Believe it or don’t, that job is a tad more important than “Vice President.”

    Kevin M (563f77)

  82. And yes, Gingrich is arrogant

    At least he didn’t cuss out a police officer with “do you know who the f*** I am?” like Mitt did.

    Cogressmen do not get elected President

    Barack Obama.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  83. I think actually they probably convinced Gingrich back in 1997 that he was guilty.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  84. Did Romney do that?

    Romney will do and say anything to get elected? No way next thing you’ll tell me the OWS are a bunch of douschebags.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  85. Example of the kind of things Bain did that will NOT play well:

    Soon after, in October 1993, Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, became majority shareholder in a steel mill that had been operating since 1888. It was a gamble. The old mill, renamed GS Technologies, needed expensive updating, and demand for its products was susceptible to cycles in the mining industry and commodities markets. Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month. What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees. … ”I worked hard all my life and played by the rules, and they allowed this to happen,” [one worker said].

    In particular, firing employees without severance, and reneging on other promises while pocketing a tidy profit are going to be hard to defend.

    But maybe Obama’s folks won’t bring them up.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  86. Gingrich did much good. But then he allowed himself to be corrupted by power. We can ill afford to nominate a man who has shown that he can be tainted in this manner, nor elect him to the highest office in the land.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  87. swell Occupy America/crooks and liars linkage.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  88. Also, the 100K jobs created does not appear to be “net” as Romney keeps saying, but just the sum total of the current employee count at Staples, Domino’s and Sports Authority.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  89. Easy to remember TINYURL link for NBC News/Facebook Meet the Press debate Sun Jan 8, 2012 9 AM -10 AM EST

    http://tinyurl.com/7h4992k [7h – 499 – 2k]

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  90. Sorry for the O/T but why does the L.A. arsonist want to f*ck all americans?

    Is he that desperate for sex?

    Oh wait he didn’t mean it that way?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  91. Also, the 100K jobs created does not appear to be “net” as Romney keeps saying

    When a known dishonest politician repeats a talking point like that, you know he’s trying to create a fact that isn’t true. Repeat it enough, and it doesn’t matter if it’s true. I am pretty sure Romney has long since given up hope for informed conservative voters anyway.

    One problem is he would need them in November.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  92. 89) If you believe that, I have a tunnel to Miami Beach, I’d like to sell you, Colonel, you’ve used Taibbi, who’s been vicious to every current and prospective candidate, is their any actual rebuttal you want to give about GS.

    narciso (87e966)

  93. there’s no small number of angsty conservative types on the internet engaging in the peculiar mental exercise of imagining a Santorum presidency as if such a thing were at all possible

    they say things like… “all of our economic problems in America have a pronounced moral component and Senator Santorum is the only one speaking to that!”

    and mostly I just back away slowly and try not to make eye contact

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  94. He can’t seem to face up to the facts
    he’s tense and nervous and he can’t relax
    he can’t sleep cuz his bed’s on fire
    don’t touch him he’s a real live wire
    Coyote Killer, qu’est que c’est

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  95. Kevin M (#89 — 1/8/2012 @ 8:13 pm): Bain didn’t bat 1.000 or anywhere close; nobody who is in the turn-around business does. People got laid off from businesses in which Bain failed; and yes, oftentimes what made the transactions profitable for Bain was its managers’ skill in performing an orderly liquidation of businesses that needed to be closed.

    Reuters and other MSM outlets, when reporting on these things, will inevitably slant the stories in an anti-business, anti-capitalist fashion — meaning, here, anti-Romney as well. What exactly were the promises that were broken, and by whom were they made? Because as a company is being closed down, if its employees don’t have a legal right to some particular severance pay, it’s stealing from someone else who’s entitled to the money if a company pays them severance pay. Likewise, it’s rare for a company going out of business to have healthy, fully-funded pension plans. Depending on what kinds of pension plans may have been involved, the employees may have ended up suffering serious, tragic losses; but that is not necessarily, or even likely, Bain’s fault.

    Attacks like these can be made on anyone who’s ever run a business. The higher profile, more daring, and more successful the CEO/owner, the more likely that his or her history including firing people, closing uneconomical operations, and sometimes closing whole plants, divisions, or companies. It’s only in the fantasy world of Barack Obama — a world where the U.S. government finds it prudent to invest our tax dollars in green companies whose products can’t be sold for more than a third of their cost to produce — that there are no circumstances which can be spun to make a CEO look evil.

    As far as I’m aware, Romney’s summary of his record at Bain — which claims that the business was, on balance, successful; that it made money for its owners; that in the process, it created wealth for the economy and a net increase in employment — is factually accurate. The one-sided anecdotes from the Reuters piece you linked are indeed typical of how Dems will portray Romney; indeed, it was a meme they used, with at least mixed results, against him in Massachusetts.

    I think it’s mostly horse bollocks, though.

    Beldar (bd62f3)

  96. To condense that long post into one line:

    Anyone who claims Romney’s business background is a flaw instead of a credential is full of crap and/or lying; In fact it is his single best credential.

    Beldar (bd62f3)

  97. Romney will bring back jobs? Surrrrrrrre Christie.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  98. Romneys positions changing is a flaw his time at bain isn’t.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  99. 64. A whopping 78% of Republicans pledge to support the Nominee no matter what.

    TEAs outnumber Repugnant Brown Shirts. And then there’s the so-libs scattered hither and yon.

    Looooser.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  100. plus Wall Street Romney’s not nowhere near as weird as Santorum Mr. Beldar

    that’s no small credential right there

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  101. Idiot.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  102. The one-sided anecdotes from the Reuters piece you linked are indeed typical of how Dems will portray Romney; indeed, it was a meme they used, with at least mixed results, against him in Massachusetts.

    I think it’s mostly horse bollocks, though.

    It depends on what game we’re playing.

    If the game is ‘was Bain successful’ or ‘are we believers in an efficient and free market over bleeding heart inefficiency’ then Bain did extremely well financially and cutting fat, while sad, is basically necessary.

    If the game is ‘electability’, which is the only game Romney is playing, then indeed some of these issues remain very relevant.

    Making money sometimes means playing hardball and not caring about the collateral damage. That is how the democrats will spin it, anyway. Does that make Romney less electable? I think so.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  103. 50. “Ron Paul’s delegates will go to Romney of course, especially any he gets in Virginia.”

    Not saying you’re wrong, but without a deal with Paul?

    What is your reasoning? So-lib trumps fiscal conservatism?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  104. Anyone who claims Romney’s business background is a flaw instead of a credential is full of crap and/or lying;

    I guess another way to express how I see this is that the press isn’t going to discuss how Bain was amazingly successful. They aren’t going to discuss all the companies that ran smoothly. They sure as hell aren’t going to discuss how laying off workers to make a company successful is a model for what needs to be done with the federal government.

    They will instead seek out everything that can be spun bad, or is actually bad (and there is some of both).

    So, in fact, that there will be lying and arguments that are full of crap is in fact a problem. “Flaw” is probably not a fair description so much as “electability flaw”.

    I think there’s more than that. I think businessmen should bite the bullet when it comes to not outsourcing to China, for example, breaching their short term fiduciary duty because, long term, I think that would be better. Just a matter of personal opinion, thoughy.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  105. Thanks for the breath of fresh air, Beldar. Folks are more than free to take their best shots at whichever candidate, but at least be honest about it.

    Don’t be counted as one more in a sea of crackheads.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  106. Yes, the press lies, as a matter of course, ‘like the scorpion, it’s in their nature’ I don’t actually
    see where the lie is,

    narciso (87e966)

  107. If the game is ‘was Bain successful’ or ‘are we believers in an efficient and free market over bleeding heart inefficiency’ then Bain did extremely well financially and cutting fat, while sad, is basically necessary.

    Efficiency and free markets are the way capitalism sustains itself, what makes it viable and makes it the best economic system. It is not a game.

    Colonel Haiku (8e3ab6)

  108. 100. But for POTUS it’s barely relevant with the hull of state breaking up near terminal velocity-which it will be by inauguration.

    A manager will be useful in a number of cabinet positions and CoS but we need a decision maker not a triangulator as Executive. A individual of vision.

    Agree or no, the decision is out of the GOPs hands. Government has failed the world over and a Santorum or Romney who intends Progressive optimization will not gain the Right’s allegiance.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  109. @ happyfeet, re Sen. Santorum and the argument (attributed to his hypothetical supporters) that “all of our economic problems in America have a pronounced moral component and Senator Santorum is the only one speaking to that!”

    Santorum actually both understates and over-assumes.

    Not just economic problems, but almost all problems, of every sort, have moral components. I applaud him as a man, a husband, and a father, and as a man of faith who witnesses for it, even though sometimes he and I differ in our analysis of what is or isn’t moral.

    However:

    If private behavior isn’t criminal, government needs to stay out of it. That’s true of economic behavior, educational behavior, religious behavior, procreative behavior, etc.

    Sen. Santorum has emphasized recently — especially during his arguments with and about Lor Naup — that he (Sen. Santorum) is “not a libertarian.” Since he’s running for the GOP nomination and has been in the GOP his entire political life, we know he’s not a capital-L Libertarian. But Sen. Santorum is definitely not a small-L libertarian either.

    That puts him pretty far to my own political right. It makes me worry about his electability, in particular his vulnerability to the Obama campaign’s desperate desire to change the subject off of the economy or Obama’s basic competency. And I also fear that he’s subject to persuasion and influence of friends he wants to maintain, even when it contradicts nominal conservative principles. His theory that “manufacturing” businesses, for example, should be exempted entirely from federal income taxation is just looney tunes if you believe in free markets and capitalism. I think Sen. Santorum is a bright guy and he understands this inconsistency; and he still chooses, with eloquent rationalizations and pandering, to insist that the federal government should continue to pick winners and losers.

    Beldar (bd62f3)

  110. 73. ‘the folks who are all sniffy about “purity”’

    More mendacity from the folks who gave us Obama with ‘compassionate conservatism’, comity in the Senate, fatass Rove, etc.

    Its your party, if you can’t do better than a moderate Democrat as nominee, you’re the queer.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  111. I do not recall the GOP being this torn apart in 2008 or even 1992. Hopefully it’s just the internet.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  112. Dustin, remember that in 2008, both parties had contested races. And by many measures — potential first woman nominee, potential first former first lady nominee (with Bubba still around); potential first black nominee; and a pretty-boy Southern populist fighting it out much farther into the spring — the Democratic race was more interesting, and it certainly got more attention overall (and for longer).

    This year the Dems aren’t squabbling much among themselves, and the media is completely invested in baiting and smearing all of the GOP candidates.

    Most of the GOP is going to come together against Obama, whoever the GOP nominee is. If Nor Laup doesn’t pull a Ross Perot, I’m not worried about the intensity of this fight right now jeopardizing our chances in November.

    Beldar (bd62f3)

  113. 47. “China would like countries to use the yuan but only Japan will do that”

    ASEAN is going to, at least all IndoChina. Agreed to in December, will be implemented this quarter.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  114. Most of the GOP is going to come together against Obama, whoever the GOP nominee is. If Nor Laup doesn’t pull a Ross Perot, I’m not worried about the intensity of this fight right now jeopardizing our chances in November.

    I hope you’re right. I doubt many Republicans have as much of a problem with Romney as I do, yet I know I’ll vote against Obama if we nominate him. So there’s one data point in your favor.

    Pretty big if with Dr Nutball, btw. This is his last hurrah.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  115. oftentimes what made the transactions profitable for Bain was its managers’ skill in performing an orderly liquidation of businesses that needed to be closed.

    Laying people off without severance from a business that has the ability to pay severance is of course legal. But it is widely viewed by as unethical, and it certainly will not play very well with voters, almost all of whom would expect severance in that circumstance.

    Remember, these are hard times and many people have lost jobs. Even though most have gotten other jobs, the experience is unnerving, and for a non-bankrupt company to not pay severance will him them personally in a way that the Democrats will pound on.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  116. The one-sided anecdotes from the Reuters piece you linked are indeed typical of how Dems will portray Romney; indeed, it was a meme they used, with at least mixed results, against him in Massachusetts.

    Actually, I reached that link via Instapundit and the American Enterprise Institute.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  117. um, #120, “But it is widely viewed by *workers* as unethical…”

    Kevin M (563f77)

  118. Most of the GOP is going to come together against Obama, whoever the GOP nominee is.

    Certainly. I don’t trust Romney to stick to downsizing this government much — I figure he’ll do it so glacially, if at all, that the spending trend will continue upward. Maybe reaching 22% of GDP in 4 years, and that only be the booming economy that deregulation will achieve.

    But it will be a damn sight better than Obama, and the judges he replaces Ginsberg and maybe Breyer with won’t be crazy.

    Sure Gingrich would have us at 20% GDP by 2014, but that might not be one of my choices. Nor, it seems will be electing a Republican congressman, given the way the Democrats buggered the fools on the California redistricting commission. I give my donations out of state these days.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  119. By the way, I’m not the least bit worried about Ronnie boy going LP. Near as I can tell his supporters either don’t usually vote, or don’t usually vote Republican.

    Peaceniks, anti-globos, Libertarians, druggies, hermits, space cadets and other disaffecteds, plus bored Democrats. Might even pull from Obama on an anti-war protest vote.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  120. The rino circus continues.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  121. Cogressmen do not get elected President

    Barack Obama.
    Comment by Dustin — 1/8/2012 @ 7:59 pm

    — Oh, Good Allah! What are you on about, now? The last congressman that became president without also having been a senator or governor was James Garfield in 1880; and he had even been elected senator, taking the presidency instead. Before him it was Lincoln in 1860. Newt is trying to accomplish something that has not been done in 132 years.

    Icy (160e9c)

  122. Senator, governor OR vice president

    Icy (160e9c)

  123. As long as it’s not romney\sununu\brown.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  124. The last Speaker of the House to win the presidency was James K. Polk in 1844. And he had also been a governor.

    Icy (160e9c)

  125. Polk was also the only House Speaker ever elected to the presidency; and again, he had also been a governor.

    Icy (160e9c)

  126. 123. We have a two party system that represents 40-50 percent of the population.

    Making believe this election is only about the antiChrist is just sheeple bleat.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  127. nicely said Mr. Beldar… the tax thing bugs me too, though I think it’s mostly just an insight into his winner-picking was more than anything ever likely to pass

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  128. Romney: I’ve been a successful executive half my life!

    Commonwealth MA: How come we got THIS half?

    In just four short years, boom years of record tax revenue, MA’s gov spending went from $23,011,620.00 to $31,649,416.00. They had one of the worst debt situations in the country and it actually got worse. That’s how Romney solved the problem of ‘we have a ton of debt but through sheer luck (the Bush economy) we are also making a lot of money… what shall we do?’ his answer was spend spend spend and ignore the debt issue completely.

    If I only cared about his pronouncements today, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with him besides the vagueness and pandering to preserve the entitlements. That’s lame, but it’s a lot better than his record.

    I agree with Kevin that denying promised severances when you can afford them is not an ethical way to treat Americans you’re laying off. Nor do I agree with Bain pioneering outsourcing Americans to freedom hating China in dozens of industries. But is that an argument rooted in Gorden Gekko free market conservatism? No. Just leadership and electability and my personal measure of people. I also don’t think GE’s approach to making money (via access to the government) is ethical.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  129. Late to this discussion, but whether Bain was a net creator of jobs is not the discussion we should be having.

    I don’t want a President who ‘creates’ jobs, this only plays into the myth that government creates jobs, a position no self-respecting conservative should have.

    Rather, the discussion should focus on Romney being the only candidate (and that includes Obama) who understands the debilitating effects government regulations and taxes and a President who wants to stomp on the necks of those he dislikes have on job creation. He needs to point out there’s a reason businesses are sitting on record amounts of cash (hint: it’s Obama’s anti-business agenda). He needs to stress that he is the only one who understands what it will take for businessmen to regain their natural confidence.

    Gingrich and Santorum can’t do this, their entire lives have revolved around living off government (first as employees, then as leeches). And of course, neither can Obama.

    For anyone interested, more here

    steve (369bc6)

  130. And I put the pious baloney on the pious bread and then spread the pious mayonnaise about.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  131. As long as we’re being “pious”, wouldn’t “Miracle Whip” be more appropriate?

    AD-RtR/OS! (bd4dc3)

  132. I don’t want a President who ‘creates’ jobs, this only plays into the myth that government creates jobs, a position no self-respecting conservative should have.

    Well said. Indeed, Romney’s active hand in running the lives of MA created merely 16k jobs if I’m informed correctly. Essentially zero. 47th out of 50th. Rick Perry hasn’t been creating jobs. He’s been staying out of the way. Organically, Texas has been 1st. There’s a lesson to be learned here by what failed in MA and what succeeded in TX, even if Perry is a complete non factor at this point.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  133. Before him it was Lincoln in 1860. Newt is trying to accomplish something that has not been done in 132 years.

    More congressmen who have not been elected Senator have been elected President than sitting senators have been. Kennedy was the first of two.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  134. Rick Perry, the double-dipping trough piggy who has sucked at the government teat all his life is acting desperate and stupid today and you’d think he’d have better things to do with his time

    he’s become a buffoon a la Palin, and he followed very much the same arc

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  135. Rick Perry, the double-dipping trough piggy who has sucked at the government teat all his life is acting desperate and stupid today and you’d think he’d have better things to do with his time

    nobody’s perfect! eeeeh. Sigh.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  136. btw, big difference between working for the gov and sucking at the ‘teat’. And TX legislators are paid in the four figures annually. I think it’s $7,000 per year today, and was less in the 1990s.

    So let’s be fair here. Perry was paid in the six figures and provided a residence when he was governor, and yeah, that’s been how he earned a living for a dozen years, but it’s a fair wage for the responsibilities he has.

    The double dipping is stupid politics on Perry’s part… it really feeds into the notion he was drafted and didn’t plan to run for President, but it is compensation he’s earned and a better policy than people just leaving the labor force.

    It’s not like Newt hasn’t also earned a living working in government. And that’s practically the Romney family’s dynasty tradition.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  137. Dustin: While I’d prefer a President who would actually improve the climate, right now I’m so depressed I’d settle for the President, like Perry, to just stay out of the way and not make anything worse. No new job killing and bottom line draining regulations. No tax hikes. No more demonizing businesses and those who are successful.

    steve (369bc6)

  138. “In just four short years, boom years of record tax revenue,”

    Wrong again Distortomatic. State revenues did not climb back above 2001 levels until 2005. Unemployment peaked in Massachusetts in June 2003.

    http://www.massbudget.org/reports/pdf/FiscalCrisisReport.pdf

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  139. Yes, that all sounds great, steve.

    The era of politicians screaming that businesses are killing people needs to come to an end if this country is going to get back on its feet.

    But I need more than, say, GE being a corporation therefore it’s republicany (not to suggest you’ve said anything like that). No, there are plenty of liberals running huge firms who will instinctively demonize business. And I think real prosperity will come from small business owners and a more organic level of freedom. Basically the opposite of the impact Romneycare had on entrepreneurs.

    I’m so depressed I’d settle for the President, like Perry, to just stay out of the way and not make anything worse.

    Perry is very difficult to have confidence in at this point. His record is great and all, but as a politician I can’t get over what a let down he’s been. I guess I should be a wind in his sails if I support his views, but I think it’s Newt vs Romney now. I hope I’m proven wrong.

    That said, Perry’s ‘DC needs to be inconsequential’ view seems like the only viable way for DC to encourage more success in this country. They don’t need to cheerlead billionaires (Who are mostly democrat statists fearing competition from the little guy, anyway).

    Dustin (cb3719)

  140. 139,141-143. Laura highlighted the politician’s being open to VAT taxes to cover reduced business revenues as trial balloon.

    All we can agree on is the GOP has nuthin’.

    First avatar of Abaddon to scent 40% wins.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  141. Palin is smarter than you Crappehfeet.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  142. oftentimes what made the transactions profitable for Bain was its managers’ skill in performing an orderly liquidation of businesses that needed to be closed.

    Laying people off without severance from a business that has the ability to pay severance is of course legal. But it is widely viewed by as unethical, and it certainly will not play very well with voters, almost all of whom would expect severance in that circumstance.

    Remember, these are hard times and many people have lost jobs. Even though most have gotten other jobs, the experience is unnerving, and for a non-bankrupt company to not pay severance will him them personally in a way that the Democrats will pound on.

    Comment by Kevin M — 1/9/2012 @ 12:21 am”

    Kevin M – I’ve got no idea the point you are trying to get across here. On the one hand you are talking about liquidation of businesses, but claiming they have the ability to pay severance, then you mix in the concept of bankruptcy.

    Payouts to workers and other creditors in a bankruptcy situation are governed by a court.

    If you are talking about a liquidation outside of bankruptcy in which the owners walked away with cash after paying off creditors but stiffing workers, do you have examples?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  143. 146. Feets hates everyone equally, blatant anarchist.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  144. What’s interesting is that Romney is the most gaffe prone of the GOP candidates.

    Even when he says something I agree with I can picture the democrat ads because Romney said it so poorly. Mr Asia is a Country only seems less gaffe prone when he enjoys the media bias advantage Mccain got before he was nominated.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  145. 147. The salient point about Romany’s experience in stripping redundancies, selling off non-core assets, firing unproductive workers, improving the balance sheet and making investors rich is that:

    He has not and will not propose to do any of this while POTUS.

    Layoff 200,000 useless Postal workers, pink slip 5000 Dept. of Education workers and eliminate a $100 Billion per year budget, sunset all Bureaucratic regulation transforming the EPA into a data-mining operation sub-contracted to the NSA with 5% of its current workforce, fire 200 lawyers at SEC and replace them with CPAs, …

    The GOP isn’t just corrupt, its foot soldiers are a bag of bricks.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  146. yep, gary. there’s a candidate who seriously proposes raiding the government and shutting down some of it. He’s not the same guy who raided companies, stripped them down, and then sold them off for profits. I wish that were the case, as it would be pretty compelling.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  147. 151. But the illegals’ apologist thinks he sounds like a hick, even dumber than the slutty TLC populist, so he’s got no chance.

    Well guess what GOP, you were warned, pay the piper lemmings(cute rodents).

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  148. Thomas Sowell has endorsed Newt.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  149. “…transforming the EPA into a data-mining operation sub-contracted to the NSA…”

    They couldn’t pass the background investigation, and comply with the security requirements.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bd4dc3)

  150. 146. Feets hates everyone equally, blatant anarchist.
    Comment by gary gulrud — 1/9/2012 @ 9:21 am

    — Your recommended daily amount of irony, in an easy to digest sentence.

    Icy (160e9c)

  151. Thomas Sowell has endorsed Newt.

    Not a surprise; you could see it between the lines in his various columns over the last month.

    It’s those damn Racist codewords that people on the Right use.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bd4dc3)

  152. The only slutty TLC populist here is you Anarchistfeet.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  153. I mean, you got the first mainstream Aggie who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  154. A few years ago, he’d have been getting us coffee. And he has no Texas dialect unless he wants one.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  155. This was interesting. Romney almost got hoist on his own petard:

    MITT ROMNEY….I think it’s….perhaps– understandable, that people who spend their life in politics imagine that if you get in politics that that’s all you wanna do. That if you’ve been elected to something, well, you get– wanna get reelected and reelected.

    I– I went to Massachusetts to make it different. I didn’t go there to begin a political career, running time and time again. I– I made a difference….Run again? That would be about me. I was tryin’ to help get the state in best shape as I possibly could. Left the– the world of politics, went back into business. Now I have the opportunity, I believe, to use the experience I have– you– you got– a surprised look on your face.

    RICK SANTORUM: I thought–

    (OVERTALK)

    MITT ROMNEY: Hold– hold– wait. It’s still my–

    (OVERTALK)

    MITT ROMNEY: –it’s still my time.

    RICK SANTORUM: –are you gonna– are you gonna– are you gonna tell people–

    MITT ROMNEY: Rick.

    RICK SANTORUM: –you’re not gonna run for reelection–

    MITT ROMNEY: Rick.

    RICK SANTORUM: –for president–

    MITT ROMNEY: Rick.

    RICK SANTORUM: –if you win?

    MITT ROMNEY: Rick. It’s still my time.

    RICK SANTORUM: I– I’m just askin’.

    MITT ROMNEY: Okay. Well– (LAUGHTER)

    DAVID GREGORY: Go ahead.

    (OVERTALK)

    DAVID GREGORY: Governor Romney.

    MITT ROMNEY: I had–

    DAVID GREGORY: Governor Romney, take 30 seconds there.

    MITT ROMNEY: Yeah, what I’m gonna tell you is I– this– this for me, politics, is not a career. For me my career was being in business and starting a business and making it success. My– my life’s passion has been my family, my faith and my country. I believe by virtue of the experiences I’ve had that I’m in a good position to make a contribution to Washington.

    I long for a day where instead of having people to go to Washington for 20 and 30 years who get elected and then when they lose office they stay there and make money as lobbyists or connecting to businesses, I think it stinks. I think we oughta have people go to Washington and serve Washington. And– and go– serve as– as their– the people of their– of their nation and go home. I’d like to see term limits in Washington.

    MALE VOICE: So one– so one term.

    MITT ROMNEY: And so– no–

    DAVID GREGORY: Let me inter– speak–

    MITT ROMNEY: –as the president of the United States–

    (OVERTALK)

    MITT ROMNEY: –as the president of the United States, if I’m elected, of course I’ll fight for a second term.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  156. That is very amusing, Sammy.

    Anyhow, Todd Palin just endorsed Newt.

    WTF? Who is Cindy Mccain going to endorse? What about Michelle Obama?

    Dustin (cb3719)

  157. Jon Huntsman wants to means test Social Security. It’s not bankrupt.

    BTW, is that an income (retirement) test or a wealth (savings) test?

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  158. I don’t even disagree with Todd’s choice. It’s one of the least bad options we’re left with.

    I get the impression the Palin camp has some serious problem with Perry, I suspect for his running at all.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  159. More congressmen who have not been elected Senator have been elected President than sitting senators have been. Kennedy was the first of two.
    Comment by Kevin M — 1/9/2012 @ 8:34 am

    — And your point is? Phrasing it your way adds exactly ONE name to the list (since Garfield in 1880) of congressmen later elected president: George H W Bush. And he had been a two-term VP.

    Icy (160e9c)

  160. According to Ron Paul, U.S foreign policy and monetarty policy took a wrong turn about 100 years ago, with the Administration of Woodrow Wilson.

    According to him, expansionist military powers or maybe just military powers with hige standing armies, just collapse by themselvbes anyway in the end.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  161. According tio Wikipedia, Garfield had been elected by the Ohio legislature to the Senate in 1880. He never took office since he was elected President instead.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  162. Warning to Amerikkka, we need to expel a couple of deadbeats before they drag us under.

    Via Monty, IL lottery checks are bouncing and there’s this-

    http://thisiscommonsense.com/2012/01/05/illinois/

    Via Kate:

    http://news.investors.com/Article/596620/201201031854/california-business-leaving-child-booster-law-arson.htm

    We’ve got tumors and they’re metastasizing, pretty soon we’ll all be living in NE and shooting anyone driving up to the house.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  163. Well, Narciso, it’s a free country.

    I guess if folks want to push the right to unify behind one not-Romney I shouldn’t complain.

    Next, Bristol endorses Santorum and Sarah endorses Mitt.

    It’s like a TV show!

    Dustin (cb3719)

  164. Canada stabbed the 2nd amendment in the back after some idiot went on a shooting spree.

    Look for Obama to ban the 2nd amendment when he calls off the elections.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  165. If Sarah endorses Flopney she deserves the derisive scorn heaped upon her.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  166. The accepted standard for ” a “x” elected to President” is the most recent previous elected office.
    A Congressman who becomes a Senator is a Senator being elected President.
    Same for a Congressman who becomes a Governor, or Veep.

    The dearth of historical occurance of Congressmen being elected as either President or Veep, is one of the criticism’s of Barry’s choice of Bill Miller in ’64.

    And, the election of sitting Senators to the Presidency has not been all that frequent (JFK and BHO), nor have their Presidency’s been all that successful – only his assassination saved the reputation/image of JFK as a tranformative figure. Most of his legislative initiatives were highly resisted by a Congress controlled by his own Party, and his signature tax-reform was passed after his death after being tied up in the Ways & Means Cmte for months and being wrenched free by a little of LBJ’s signature arm-twisting.
    Also, don’t forget that it was JFK who introduced military personnel into Indo-China (first Laos, and then Vietnam).

    AD-RtR/OS! (bd4dc3)

  167. I point this out, because she did not pick Angle, but rallied for her at Searchlight against Reid anyways,

    narciso (87e966)

  168. What happens if the energy-saving CFL bulbs break?

    And all the mercury spills forth?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  169. 174- Carefully collect the debris, and ship it back to the manufacturer.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bd4dc3)

  170. And no Gorebull Warming is not man-made and there are no greenhouse gases spewing forth into our bodies.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  171. Comment by Dohbiden — 1/9/2012 @ 10:51 am

    What happens if the energy-saving CFL bulbs break?

    And all the mercury spills forth?

    Nothing much. There’s no mercury to speak of. I believe much less than in an old fashioned mercury thermometer.

    If somebody is really really worried, they can take a selenium tablet.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  172. I think it’s actually a substantial concern, Sammy, when it all leaks into our landfills. I also think lightbulbs are more prone to shatter than thermometers.

    Snopes, which is ridiculously biased to the left sometimes, has spun this by making thermometers some kind of baseline for mercury toxicity. That’s not reasonable. A merc thermometer has far more mercury than is safe to a person, so the fact a CFL has a percent or the amount doesn’t mean CFLs are safe.

    In fact, if a CFL breaks, you should turn off the air conditioner/heater, open a window, and leave the area for a while, then return to carefully clean the area.

    In fact, CFL’s mercury is more dangerous than that in a thermometer. You are unlikely to inhale liquid mercury, but the kind in a CFL is very easily inhaled my accident. Once that happens, it can destroy your kidneys and liver and also cause birth defects such as cerebral palsy and blindness.

    It is not known precisely how much can be inhaled safely, but probably less than 5mgs in many cases.
    If a CFL breaks, take it seriously. Do not assume there’s no mercury to speak of and do not rely on snopes (not sure if you did, or if snopes just relied on the same stuff you did).

    It is unacceptable that the government would propose replacing safe and pleasant lighting with unsafe and crappy lighting, let alone force it.

    There are 5 mgs of mercury in each CFL.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  173. But then we have 84 ethics violation charges,

    Ah yes, the prototype of Palinisation. As if the number of charges is some sort of measure of wrongdoing, as if by the mere act of filing so many charges one can cause another to be tarnished. What difference does it make whether there were 8 charges, 84, or 840? False and frivolous charges have a weight not of 0.0001 but of zero, so no matter how many there are they still add up to zero. If you want to make us think less of him you should list actual wrongdoing, not charges filed. The mere act of citing the 84 charges speaks ill of your own character and purpose, and indicates dishonesty on your part.

    300,000 dollars in sanctions by the house…via a 395–28 House vote.

    So out of 84 charges, the Dems managed to come up with one that he couldn’t refute outright. What did it amount to? He signed a form that someone else prepared for him, and that was inaccurate. How many of us have done that? But he couldn’t refute it, and they were determined to get him, so he agreed not to contest it. Paying even such a grotesquely exaggerated penalty was cheaper than fighting. And having agreed not to oppose the charge, the more squishy Republicans jumped at the chance to be seen as “ethical” by disciplining their own leader. May I remind you that Palin was also found “guilty” on one charge: that of forming a legal fund to pay her bills!

    I believe it was the first time in history a Speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.

    Only because the actually corrupt Jim Wright had his corrupt Democrats behind him. This was their revenge. By making Gingrich out to be also corrupt they hoped to create the impression that Wright’s wrongdoing was no big deal.

    And then he resigned.

    Um, no. He resigned much later, when his caucus was upset at their electoral failure. Nothing to do with the ethics thing.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  174. The mere act of citing the 84 charges speaks ill of your own character and purpose, and indicates dishonesty on your part.

    More likely, he simply had a hard time sifting through the accounts, mainly because the GOP indeed ate one of their own, making it seem awful for Newt.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  175. 180. Meanwhile in the days before Obamacare passed, John Effin Kerry’s financial managers did not miss a solitary trick selling HMOs and buying big Pharma.

    Entirely legal and, by Congressional rules, ethical.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  176. They say also that many members of the caucus didn’t like the way he ran the Speakership. But this was almost two years later.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  177. According tio Wikipedia, Garfield had been elected by the Ohio legislature to the Senate in 1880. He never took office since he was elected President instead.
    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 1/9/2012 @ 10:33 am

    — And considering what happened to him as POTUS . . .

    Anyway, my point stands: Garfield remains the last man elected president whose only prior government experience was as a congressman.

    Icy (160e9c)

  178. If you are talking about a liquidation outside of bankruptcy in which the owners walked away with cash after paying off creditors but stiffing workers, do you have examples?

    The one in the quote (#89) implies this. They walked off with more than they invested, not counting the other money they got from management fees. Now capital gains aren’t exactly profits, nor exactly money in the till, but the company had net value, exceeding investment even (although I don’t see that as meaningful as regards worker pay) and yet they did not pay severance.

    Remember, we are not talking about what is legal, right or wrong in a capitalist society, we are talking about what the electorate will think during bad times. If they can paint Romney as an a$$hole suit who stiffs the working man, say goodbye to the Reagan Democrats and anyone who has lost/nearly lost a job in the last 4 years.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  179. You seem pretty certain about everything, Milhouse, but I wish you wouldn’t accuse me of “Palinizing” anyone. Gingrich made that bed, and was so fractious with his own freaking colleagues that he earned that vote number.

    Unless you think all the Republicans on this list are “squishy” (which is a lovely term for people who don’t meet your standards):

    http://www.votesmart.org/bill/votes/8125

    Mind you, there is some delicious irony on that list (like Mark Sanford carrying on about being a good role model for his children, so he voted in favor of the sanction).

    Like I said, politics is about the “less bad” of the choices.

    Look: you seem determined to ignore all the negatives about Gingrich, both theoretical and actual. Fair enough.

    My point is that he is not quite the leader you argue for, and his current actions have not showered him with glory.

    To repeat myself for the umpeenth time: if he is the nominee, I will support him. You need to take the same attitude about people you don’t like, unless you want four more years of this current gang.

    Simon Jester (bc884f)

  180. Comment by Icy — 1/9/2012 @ 12:17 pm

    Anyway, my point stands: Garfield remains the last man elected president whose only prior government experience was as a congressman.

    The last person to be elected dierctkly from the House. But James G. Blaine “the Continental Liar from the state of Maine” as he was called by the Democrats of the time, came close in 1884.

    But he was also Major General in the Union Army. He had been a member of Congress since 1863. (first elected in 1862)

    Who is running for President right now?

    1. A former Governor of a medium sized state, who has vbeen running for President for 5 years, going on 6.

    2. A former Senator from a big, although shrinking, state who lost big in his last election (although you might wonder how he ever won any elections in the first place!)

    3. A former Speaker of the House of Represenatives, a dozen years ago.

    4. A long-term sitting Governor of a big, big, state.

    5. A member of Congress who is well known because he is considered a crank, at best.

    6. Another former Governor from a small state who served a short time as Ambassador to a big country with an evil government.

    Dropped out: 7. A member of Congress who led a caucus of members.

    Never mentioned: A former Governor of a atte. (Roemer)

    Also quit (Anotehr former Governor)

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  181. Phrasing it your way #164

    Actually I was phrasing it your way. The point is that everyone said Kennedy could not be elected because no sitting Senator had ever done it (although they all try). And yet he was. Then they said it again regarding Obama and Clinton.

    The whole line of argument is stooopid. To be elected President only two things need to happen: 1) you need to be nominated, and 2) you need to win the election. There was a point in 1992 when people thought Ross Perot would do it without even satisfying point number 1.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  182. Kevin M @184 – Read further into the article. As I suspected, the steel mill went bankrupt. Bain took cash out over the eight years prior to its bankruptcy. The PBGC will not let owners strip a company of cash that has a pension shortfall.

    “Overall, Bain made at least $12 million on the steel company it created by merging the Kansas City mill with another in South Carolina before the new entity declared bankruptcy in 2001. Bain also collected an additional $900,000 a year through 1999 for management consulting services, public filings show.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  183. “Remember, we are not talking about what is legal, right or wrong in a capitalist society, we are talking about what the electorate will think during bad times.”

    Kevin M – Right, we want to remind the voters they should prefer the benevolent authoritarian progressivism of Obama that will not directly outsource jobs to China, that will pick winners and losers in the economy, that will subsidize losing green technology.

    That approach is obviously preferable than capitalism.

    I read you loud and clear.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  184. Jon Huntsman wants to means test Social Security.

    That’s a huge tax on the savings of responsible people. It makes every dime I put in my 401(k) or IRA work against me in some respect. If Social Security becomes a welfare program it is doomed.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  185. BTW, did anyone notice today that Ron Paul, in his 20+ years in Congress, mostly in the majority, has gotten exactly ONE bill passed. And only 4 have even gotten to the floor.

    Why is that relevant? Since when is it a congressman’s job to come up with more and more bills? Aren’t there too many already?

    And this is a guy who has this grand plan for a trillion dollar first year cut!

    A president’s proposals are a different matter entirely. Congress has to deal with them, one way or another.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  186. In any event, it is all very easy to say that Gingrich overstepped with the impeachment, but truth be told the Republican House membership was adamant about it, the rank-and-file was rather insistent upon it and the Republican losses would have been far worse had the House leadership settled on Censure before the election.

    Even if it was bad politics, it was their duty, just as it’s the House’s duty today to impeach Holder over Gunwalker, and to at least consider impeaching Obama over his fake recess appointments. They don’t really have an ethical choice; they took an oath to uphold the constitution, and letting these high crimes go by is not in keeping with that oath.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  187. That approach is obviously preferable than capitalism.
    1) Bite me. I didn’t say that. You present a false choice then put it in my mouth. F that.
    2) If you want to ignore the severe problems Romney will have, running as Wall Street Incarnate during a near depression, with a mine-able history as a corporate raider and job out-sourcer, fine. But don’t prattle on about electability then.
    3) Better it all come out now, than during the general, like it did in ’94 when he ran against Kennedy.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  188. Why is that relevant?

    Because it shows that he is so far out on the fringe no one took him seriously. A President needs to be able to politick and get people behind his proposals. Haven’t we had enough of the current mad monk president? Why elect another?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  189. Cogressmen do not get elected President; not, that is, unless they take a path that goes through the vice presidency first.

    And vice presidents don’t get elected president — oops, until 1988, I mean. And senators don’t get elected president — oops, until 2008. And only Protestants get elected president, except JFK, so we should forget about both Romney and Gingrich. And known adulterers don’t get elected president.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  190. Why is that relevant?

    Because it shows that he is so far out on the fringe no one took him seriously. A President needs to be able to politick and get people behind his proposals. Haven’t we had enough of the current mad monk president? Why elect another?

    Again, it is not a congressman’s job to propose bills or to get them passed. This congress, which has passed fewer bills than any of its recent predecessors, is not therefore “less productive”, as the lefties would have it. On the contrary.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  191. But you have to admit—and you should admit—that House vote of 395 to 28 to sanction Gingrich to the tune of 300K says something about management style and ability to lead. You can say that he should have fought it. But in an era of extreme partisanship, there was bipartisan agreement that Gingrich, um, was not doing a great job.

    It says nothing of the sort. All it shows is that he made enemies, primarily of the Dems by bringing down their corrupt leader Wright, and also of some Republicans who thought they deserved something or other and jumped at a chance to harm him. Since he had already agreed to pay the money there was no harm to them in voting for it; only the principled Republicans voted against it.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  192. Maybe under Kasich or Armey, then again the Hastert
    regime was bland,

    narciso (87e966)

  193. Gingrich did much good. But then he allowed himself to be corrupted by power.

    “Corrupted”? What do you mean by that? Did he steal anything? Did he take bribes? Did he do anything improper to benefit himself or anyone else?

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  194. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.

    In particular, firing employees without severance, and reneging on other promises while pocketing a tidy profit are going to be hard to defend.

    Um, that’s bullshit. It should be obvious that when the firm went under without enough to pay its obligations, its shareholders did not get a penny. Bain did not get $12M from the closing; that $12M is composed of a dividend it received nearly 10 years earlier, when it looked as if the plant would be doing well, minus what it plowed back into the company, all of which it lost. And these employees who are reported complaining about what they lost are very very far from blameless. They engaged in a violent strike, criminal sabotage, for which they deserved to go to prison and lose everything they had; instead they negotiated high pensions and benefits that were more than the company could afford, and which ultimately is what killed it. All in all, I don’t see that Romney has anything to be ashamed of.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  195. Also, the 100K jobs created does not appear to be “net” as Romney keeps saying, but just the sum total of the current employee count at Staples, Domino’s and Sports Authority.

    Which would be zero if they’d gone under.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  196. Some of this carping seems like those who criticised the bonuses that AIG staff got in 2009, for their hard work in turning the $2T hole the company had been in into a $1T hole. You’re damn right that deserved a bonus.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  197. Comment by Kevin M — 1/9/2012 @ 12:33 pm
    Actually I was phrasing it your way. The point is that everyone said Kennedy could not be elected because no sitting Senator had ever done it (although they all try). And yet he was. Then they said it again regarding Obama and Clinton.
    — Number of US Presidents whose only previous US Government experience had been as congressmen: 2
    — Number of presidents that had been US Senators: 16
    — Number of presidents that had been state governors: 18

    Icy (160e9c)

  198. Anyone who claims Romney’s business background is a flaw instead of a credential is full of crap and/or lying; In fact it is his single best credential.

    Exactly. I don’t think it’s a particularly good credential, since government is very different from business, but it’s certainly not a flaw. He has actually been productive in the world, the world is a better place for his having been in it, and McCain’s sneering at it showed his unfitness for office.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  199. Exactly Romney is wrong on some things but his work at Bain is nothing wrong.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  200. Exactly Romney is wrong on some things but his work at Bain is nothing wrong.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  201. Making money sometimes means playing hardball and not caring about the collateral damage.

    And you know what? So does being president. I want a president who knows how to play hardball and not care about the collateral damage. I don’t want a president who sics lawyers onto the military, vetting every bomb and missile strike to ensure that it doesn’t violate some clause in some convention somewhere.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  202. And known adulterers don’t get elected president.

    Well, Grover Cleveland had admitted to a child born out of wedlock — for whom he paid child support. Later, he married his 21-year-old ward while in the White House. That was pretty risque in the 1880’s.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  203. Laying people off without severance from a business that has the ability to pay severance is of course legal.

    Is it? I assume you’re talking about severance pay that is in the contract, not some sort of ex gratia bonus which they have no right to expect. But in the case of GS Technologies, how did it have the ability to pay?

    for a non-bankrupt company to not pay severance will him them personally in a way that the Democrats will pound on.

    What non-bankrupt company?

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  204. I want a president who knows how to play hardball and not care about the collateral damage

    Actually I want a president who does care about the collateral damage, human, political and so on. You’d have to be a sociopath not to. OTOH, I also want him able to weigh costs and benefits and choose the outcome without false emotion.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  205. Late to this discussion, but whether Bain was a net creator of jobs is not the discussion we should be having.

    I don’t want a President who ‘creates’ jobs, this only plays into the myth that government creates jobs, a position no self-respecting conservative should have.

    You misunderstand. The argument is not that he created jobs in business and therefore he will create jobs as president. It’s that he created jobs in business, so he knows how it is done, and what it takes to do it, and therefore as president he will understand how to create the sort of environment in which businessmen can best do what he did when he was one of them.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  206. And I put the pious baloney on the pious bread and then spread the pious mayonnaise about.

    Mayonnaise with bologna?!

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  207. I assume you’re talking about severance pay that is in the contract, not some sort of ex gratia bonus which they have no right to expect. But in the case of GS Technologies, how did it have the ability to pay?

    DO you say that unless one has a union contract, management should feel free to do whatever they want to employees, that industry custom, company policy and such do not matter? For example, in the high-tech world, the minimum severance I’ve ever heard of in a normal layoff is 2 weeks + 1 week/year served. It isn’t law, and it isn’t always in the policy manual, but that’s what it is. I’ve seen people get more than that, but never less, unless the company is closing (and even then they usually get severance).

    But if it is only contractual, then I see great opportunity for unions to grow again, as they do when capital gets stupid.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  208. Kevin M wrote (# 184 — 1/9/2012 @ 12:26 pm):

    Remember, we are not talking about what is legal, right or wrong in a capitalist society, we are talking about what the electorate will think during bad times. If they can paint Romney as an a$$hole suit who stiffs the working man, say goodbye to the Reagan Democrats and anyone who has lost/nearly lost a job in the last 4 years.

    Sez you. I do indeed talk about what is legal, right, and wrong in a capitalist society. Yes, the Democrats always tell lies about what’s legal, right, and wrong — deceiving the foolish and stupid is their stock in trade — but I refuse to do likewise. I also will support those in my party who refuse to do likewise.

    Folks, there are lots of legitimate reasons for conservatives to be uncomfortable about Gov. Romney. But I absolutely reject and, indeed, despise the idea that Republicans should buy into this anti-business, anti-capitalism crap. That’s not beating the Dems at their own game, it’s throwing in the towel and giving up to their worldview.

    It’s our job not to let them paint businessmen as a$$holes in suits who stiff the working man. It’s our job to explain why that’s a load of communist crap that can be traced right back to Marx and Engels, and that it’s central to an ideology that has failed massively and catastrophically. Yes, we’re in a recession, but we’re not Russia, not yet anyway.

    And the fact that our economy is stagnant instead of growing makes this, in fact, the perfect time to have this discussion. The Dems are relying on populist sentiment as wanting to find someone to demonize and punish. But a guy who doesn’t have a job doesn’t want to watch someone else be shunned or even go to prison, he wants a job.

    Yes, there are some people who are too stupid to ever understand that you can’t have jobs without successful, profitable businesses. They’re called “the Democratic Party base,” and we’re never going to persuade them. But we don’t need to get a unanimous vote in November 2012, we just need 270 electoral votes, control of the House, and a working (60 or near-60) super-majority in the Senate.

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  209. Bravo, Mr. Beldar. Well stated. Something we ALL need to keep in mind.

    Simon Jester (bc884f)

  210. “2) If you want to ignore the severe problems Romney will have, running as Wall Street Incarnate during a near depression, with a mine-able history as a corporate raider and job out-sourcer, fine. But don’t prattle on about electability then.
    3) Better it all come out now, than during the general, like it did in ’94 when he ran against Kennedy.”

    Kevin M – I’m with Beldar. You and Distortomatic apparently believe it is better for the left to set the campaign narrative for Republicans. It usually works out so much better that way. Good luck with that.

    BTW, suck on my joint.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  211. And while it is correct that sitting Senators have not often become POTUS, 16 men with “US Senator” on their resumè have. Only 2 that just have “congressman” on their resumè were elected POTUS.
    The VP thing is silly as well, considering how many VPs succeeded to the office due to the death of the POTUS. And let’s not forget that Truman and LBJ subsequently won election in their own right, while Nixon was “former VP” instead of “sitting VP” when he won the presidency.

    Icy (160e9c)

  212. Anyway, my point stands: Garfield remains the last man elected president whose only prior government experience was as a congressman.

    And that’s why GHWB was a sure loser in 1988. Oh, wait…

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  213. The one in the quote (#89) implies this. They walked off with more than they invested, not counting the other money they got from management fees. Now capital gains aren’t exactly profits, nor exactly money in the till, but the company had net value, exceeding investment even (although I don’t see that as meaningful as regards worker pay) and yet they did not pay severance.

    None of this is true. The company had no net value, or it would have gone to the pensions.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  214. You seem pretty certain about everything, Milhouse, but I wish you wouldn’t accuse me of “Palinizing” anyone. Gingrich made that bed, and was so fractious with his own freaking colleagues that he earned that vote number.

    You cited the 84 charges, as if it had some meaning. That is Palinisation. Gingrich did not make that bed; he did nothing to earn 84 ethics charges, any more than Palin did something to earn however many charges were made against her.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  215. Jon Huntsman wants to means test Social Security.

    And so it should be.

    If Social Security becomes a welfare program it is doomed.

    Social Security is a welfare program. It has always been a welfare program. What did you think it was? You know that you have no legal entitlement to it, don’t you? What do you call something to which you are not entitled, but is given to you by Congress’s good will (because its members don’t want to lose their seats)? I call it welfare.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  216. Talk about pious baloney!

    Just a week ago, those who criticized Romney for his job destroying policies like Romneycare were criticized for rigid purity tests. Now, those who criticize the way Romney presents himself as a guy who likes to fire people are excommunicated from the movement as not conservative anymore?

    Just a week ago, electability was all, now, the fact that Romney has a massive hurdle on this issue, particularly in this economy and because Romney is quite gaffe prone on this topic are misguided, and should simply ignore the issue entirely because democrats will bring it up too?

    That’s irrational.

    Romney has never found a low brow leftist attack he’s too good for. He pretended his competition was going to abolish social security. He screamed that he won’t create jobs that kill people, when shutting down a power plant. He has been on both sides, and emotionally so, of the amnesty and abortion issues.

    Why now, all of the sudden, are attacks from a populist perspective off limits?

    No, the might be wrong, but they aren’t off limits. This is exactly how Romney lost most of the elections he’s attempts, and we shouldn’t nominate someone who can’t win (nor should be nominate someone who isn’t conservative).

    Are Newt and Perry hitting below the belt on this? Perhaps. Yet this is normal vetting. Can Romney overcome this issue against Obama? I don’t really know.

    And it’s a mistake to oversimplify the argument here to ‘oh no, Romney made money firing people’. It’s a little more involved than that.

    Capitalism is, basically, freedom. And different ways to exercise freedom have different levels of value. Criticizing someone’s choices in business is no different than criticizing someone’s choices in free speech, and sometimes the criticism is valid.

    The President of the United States should give a crap about this country. I don’t think such a person should be outsourcing jobs to China, even if doing so is a surefire way to make more profits. Most folks would provide a severance if they promised it to those they laid off. No, it’s not illegal that Romney made more profits by leaving these guys high and dry, it’s just distasteful.

    I support the freedom for someone to start a company selling kits for burning flags or make a profit selling hate literature or making a profit as a DUI attorney. I do not, however, think such folks are great leaders we should entrust to take the hard and selfish course when the times demand it.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  217. And known adulterers don’t get elected president.

    Well, Grover Cleveland had admitted to a child born out of wedlock — for whom he paid child support.

    And this is relevant how? Fornication is not adultery. (It’s also not clear whether the child was actually his; he may have taken responsibility because nobody else was willing to step forward. But that’s not directly relevant. What is relevant is that neither he nor the mother were married at the time.)

    Later, he married his 21-year-old ward while in the White House. That was pretty risque in the 1880′s.

    I don’t think it was. As I understand the mores of the time, it was pretty normal.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  218. Crap. Lots of typos. I meant selfless rather than selfish of course.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  219. What if someone criticized the way George Soros has made his money. That’s capitalism too. But a lot of it is just too selfish and destructive. A statesman of any land, George Soros is not.

    Capitalism is not a rule that one must follow 100% of the time. It is simply freedom.

    Great people manage to be good to others without the government stepping in because they exercise choice with their freedom.

    Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are not criticizing the concept of freedom or capitalism. They are criticizing Romney’s discretion as both a major political liability (seriously, if you don’t think that’s what this is, you are mistaken) and yet another display of poor character.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  220. Dustin, what part of what Gov. Romney said in that (short, contextless) video clip do you disagree with?

    I suspect you actually agree that it’s good to be able to fire people who aren’t doing their jobs. I certainly agree.

    I agree that the Dems will portray whoever the GOP nominates as a tool of big business and wicked capitalists, and that precisely because he’s been a successful businessman, they will try especially hard to do that with Gov. Romney.

    The reason they will try especially hard, though, is precisely because they are especially vulnerable right now, in this lousy economy, to political competition from someone who’s shown executive management skill and an understanding of the economy.

    I don’t share your concern that this is a major electability problem. If it is, we’ve already lost with any candidate: The same voters who might vote against Romney because he was a successful capitalist are NOT likely to vote for Gingrich or Perry or any other Republican nominee.

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  221. Suck on my joint.

    Daleyrocks the child can’t fall down the flight of stairs quick enough.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  222. Moreover:

    The average quality of the Democrats’ attack on capitalism and business is exactly reflected by whoever edited and posted that Romney clip on YouTube.

    They had to start by lying in the title. Romney doesn’t say he likes firing people in general, he said he likes having the right to fire people when they’re not performing.

    Any reasonably mature fourth-grader can understand that distinction. The person who posted that clip with that headline was aiming for a less intelligent and less mature audience.

    They’re going to lie about whoever we nominate. Picking a nominee they can’t lie about is impossible.

    And telling this kind of lie, unfortunately for the Dems, keeps the nation focused on the economy, precisely where Obama doesn’t want it to be focused.

    I would very much like to see 2012 fought out on the basis of which party’s nominee will create a climate in which business can thrive, and I will willingly undertake to combat the weak, unpersuasive lies that the Dems will tell about Gov. Romney’s history at Bain and in running the Olympics. They’re attacking things that are genuine credentials, and indeed, credentials of the sort that most vividly contrast with the career history of the pathetic slacker who now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania (when he’s not on the golf courses of Hawaii).

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  223. Ummm, unlike Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum promise to preserve the unproductive jobs of Americans in uncompetitive industries through massive government subsidies and bailouts and prevent layoffs as if they were government workers, JUST LIKE OBAMA.

    Is that the message?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  224. Dustin, even liberal talking-head A.B. Stoddard just admitted (on Fox News’ evening show) that the video clip you posted is “definitely being taken out of context.”

    Seriously, whether it’s with Romney as the nominee or not, this is ground we ought to be choosing to fight on, not wringing our hands and panicking.

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  225. “Now, those who criticize the way Romney presents himself as a guy who likes to fire people are excommunicated from the movement as not conservative anymore?”

    Firing people for subpar performance is obviously not acceptable in today’s society because measuring performance is an artificial construct.

    There is not such thing as objectively good or bad performance. The whole notion is ridiculous and we have better things on which to spend our time.

    Everybody has a right to the high paying American job of their choice.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  226. “What if someone criticized the way George Soros has made his money.”

    I am not a fan of insider trading.

    There, I said it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  227. Perry Gingrich and Santorum have flaws.

    And no I will not suck on your joint.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  228. Perry, Gingrich and Santorum – Pander like banshees to your socialist overlords!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  229. Lolz at the irony.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  230. Lolz at the irony.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  231. “And no I will not suck on your joint.”

    Dohbiden – I know you’re too busy sucking on your own plus I’m not that mad at it that I would ask you to perform that service.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  232. Dustin, my friend, look at it this way:

    When Perry first entered the race, some of the other candidates — and a whole lot of MSM reporters who hate all Republicans but particularly hate Republicans like Rick Perry — tried very hard to argue that the Texas success story was over-blown, that the Texas economy really hadn’t been out-performing the rest of the country, etc.

    How well did that work? How much did any of that hurt Perry?

    I don’t think any of that stuck. Perry’s campaign crashed, to your surprise and mine and our joint disappointment, for reasons entirely unrelated to Perry’s performance as governor or the performance of the Texas economy during his tenure.

    All those arguments did was discredit the people making those arguments, because they were bullsh*t arguments and they couldn’t stand up to serious scrutiny. The Texas economy really has done lots better than the rest of the country, in no insignificant part because Gov. Perry has kept state government out of its way and hasn’t treated business as “the enemy.”

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  233. Uh I’m not sucking on anything except a lollipop.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  234. By the way Romneys time at Bain should be praised and for the good of it and lambasted for the bad of it.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  235. That’s a good point, Beldar.

    Let me make my point a little more clear, and perhaps a little more restrained.

    If, for example, dalyerocks is to disagree with my opinion, I could reply by saying he is criticizing my right to express an opinion. This wouldn’t be a very fair response.

    And if I were to criticize how Romney made money, someone could reply by saying I am criticizing capitalism itself, which also isn’t a very fair response.

    I do not think there should be anything illegal about competing in business the way Romney did. I also do not think capitalism is immunity from criticism for how someone makes a buck. Would I outsource jobs to China? No. Should folks be free to do that if they want? Yes. Would I fire good workers and not give them a severance? Probably not… I just don’t have it in me and I don’t think that level of ruthlessness is necessary (in fact, I think it is a short term strategy and not the best way to build a brand). But the freedom to do it? I would defend that.

    Now, does it bring discredit to conservatives to think Romney is vulnerable for how he sells himself as a guy who loves firing people? Does it bring discredit to conservatives to say Bain’s remarkable and amazing profitability is a mixed bag because of some of the ways that money was made?

    I think not. But this is a difficult fence to straddle, so I wonder if Newt can do it and know Perry can’t.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  236. Beldar: echoing your point, the role of government is to create a favorable environment for businesses and entrepreneurs to take the steps which grow the economy. Whether by intent or accident, Perry’s staying out of the way did help Texas.

    But, as I remember (and I’m not a huge anti-Perry guy), Perry didn’t leave it at that, he tried to take claim, as most politicians do, for ‘creating’ the jobs in Texas. That claim needed to be blown up. As every self-respecting conservative should know, government doesn’t create private sector jobs. And in Obama’s case, he creates the environment which so scares people that we refuse to do much of anything but sit on our cash and wait (and pray) for someone better to come along.

    steve (254463)

  237. I invite you to go suck on Daleyrocks joint.

    😀 😉 😯

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  238. Would I fire good workers and not give them a severance? Probably not… I just don’t have it in me and I don’t think that level of ruthlessness is necessary (in fact, I think it is a short term strategy and not the best way to build a brand).

    When a company is being closed down there’s no brand to build.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  239. But, as I remember (and I’m not a huge anti-Perry guy), Perry didn’t leave it at that, he tried to take claim, as most politicians do, for ‘creating’ the jobs in Texas.

    He did — by staying out of the way and allowing them to be created. That’s the only way a politician can create meaningful jobs, outside his own office, so when one claims to have created jobs I think it has to be understood in this way.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  240. Who’s to say that didn’t stick, Beldar, is there actually any such indication of that. It apparently
    doesn’t matter to many here, about Texas’s fertile climate for employment.

    Obama is not ‘in over his head’ he is attacking this country on every front, tearing our military to shreds, effectively banning all uranium mining
    for the foreseable future, undermining our allies,
    (do we still have any) draining the social security
    account,

    narciso (87e966)

  241. Dustin, what part of what Gov. Romney said in that (short, contextless) video clip do you disagree with?

    The presentation alone is my problem with that.

    Picking a nominee they can’t lie about is impossible.

    You got me there. But indeed, Romney is no better than the other guys on the issue of gaffe worthiness. In fact, at least Perry said nothing when his brain wasn’t working. That’s better than John Kerry managed when explaining his evolution on the $87 billion war spending amendment.

    Romney is trying to say he supports the freedom to fire people, but the way he’s expressed it is arrogant and the entire issue is the one he should be most careful on. He’s not actually saying he enjoys making people suffer by firing them, yet he has created one of the ads we will, no doubt, have to defend against a million times.

    This was supposedly a big problem for Perry. Republicans were tired of defending Bush for the notion he couldn’t make his point properly.

    The average quality of the Democrats’ attack on capitalism and business is exactly reflected by whoever edited and posted that Romney clip on YouTube.

    Maybe not. It was a stupid way to make that point, and he could have been a lot more specific. Imagine if Jeffrey Immelt said that, or if Obama did. We’d be noting just how tone deaf it was.

    The ability to lead from the bully pulpit is its own issue.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  242. But, as I remember (and I’m not a huge anti-Perry guy), Perry didn’t leave it at that, he tried to take claim, as most politicians do, for ‘creating’ the jobs in Texas.

    He has served in nearly every role that could shape Texas policy, and has a message of making government as inconsequential as possible because that’s how prosperity happens organically.

    Indeed he’s been justified in taking credit for walking the walk. Unless we’re just going to create an incentive system by which no true conservative can be congratulated for walking the walk.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  243. That doses seem to be the template, Dustin, the left and the establishment right, shoot down any possible opponent, for real and imagined flaws,
    this is how we ended up McCain, who pulled off the interesting hattrick of ticking off every single
    group in the GOP coalition,

    narciso (87e966)

  244. Now, does it bring discredit to conservatives to think Romney is vulnerable for how he sells himself as a guy who loves firing people?

    And just to be clear, I didn’t mean to say this was deliberate on Romney’s part. But indeed it’s the notion he is contributing to in many ways. It is how he’s managed to present himself whether intended or not and it is an argument he has to defend himself against.

    If we want to go through that, then we should at least get a conservative out of the deal. One problem for Romney is he’s all over the map ideologically. Folks who defend him on everything wind up looking silly. A republican party that is defined by him looks unserious about any core consistent philosophy.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  245. Dustin: he may have walked the walk, but that isn’t what he tried to get credit for. As I remember, he didn’t limit himself to claiming he stood by, or even that he made things easier for business, he used language that claimed ‘he’ created jobs.

    Milhouse: we shouldn’t let politicians get away with any insinuation that they created jobs. A politician who makes that claim is a politician who is either trying to pull a fast one or one who truly doesn’t understand how the private sector works.

    steve (254463)

  246. Dustin: he may have walked the walk, but that isn’t what he tried to get credit for. As I remember, he didn’t limit himself to claiming he stood by, or even that he made things easier for business, he used language that claimed ‘he’ created jobs.

    Well, I stand corrected then, I suppose. Far be it from Perry to make his point in the most effective manner, right?

    But indeed, his fingerprints are all over Texas’s success. It wouldn’t be possible without a constant fight to keep spending under control and run the state effectively anyway. His entire career is punctuated with fiscal conservatism, which is the bedrock behind a government that doesn’t get in the way when times get tough.

    I’m not confident Perry can beat Obama anymore, so this is just an academic conversation. I have no faith in any of these guys, to be honest.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  247. No, we should talk up the one who had the worst record, even among his fellow governors in the same state, because the Dems kept applying leaches in
    order to heal the patient,

    narciso (87e966)

  248. Pretty sad state of affairs to see these “true conservatives” who talk of Obama’s “Socialist policies” denigrating capitalism and experience in the private sector. Usually, that’s left to the Democrats.

    Then we have Newt Gingrich citing the New York Times – that bastion of fair, objective reporting – more than once. Are you kidding me!

    So now it’s left up to one Republican – Mitt Romney – to offer a staunch defense of capitalism, while the “true conservatives” blast corporate profits.

    Truly moronic.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  249. He was responding to that fool, Stephanopoulos, that was probably his first mistake,

    narciso (87e966)

  250. No, Colonel. It’s what happens when folks get all “my way or the highway” about candidates. That only their preferred candidate is acceptable.

    If that’s not a “purity test,” I don’t know what is.

    Axelrod is laughing at the way that conservatives are chasing their own tails right now, and not looking at the real opponent. And we are doing it to ourselves.

    Remember Lenin’s famous line: we will buy the rope it will take to hang us. So it may well go for us in 2012, while people bicker about this.

    Notice you don’t see the Left carrying on about how Obama’s campaign promises are, um, not always followed.

    That is what we face in 2012.

    Simon Jester (bc884f)

  251. No, we should talk up the one who had the worst record, even among his fellow governors in the same state, because the Dems kept applying leaches in
    order to heal the patient,

    Comment by narciso

    heh.

    A good point.

    Also it’s interesting how a chorus of folks are very upset that Romney is taking that old ‘it’s an electability issue’ cheap shot now, but they weren’t raising such alarm when Romney was the dude offering such cheap shots.

    It is a huge shame that our primaries are fought this way, but indeed, that’s exactly the party we have now and we have a select few people to thank for that (And one candidate in particular to thank for that).

    That’s not to say there aren’t folks like Beldar calling out cheap shots consistently and in good faith. If the party were comprised primarily of that mentality, this would be a totally different election.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  252. Steve (#243 — 1/9/2012 @ 4:11 pm): When Perry started his campaign, he was in fact pretty consistent in arguing that government should “get out of the way,” and he was often explicitly modest in explaining that such was his own greatest contribution to Texas’ economic success. For example, the “jobs” section on Perry’s campaign website still reads:

    Rick Perry knows government doesn’t create jobs – the private sector does. Government’s role is to create an environment ripe for growth, then get out of the way.

    Under Perry’s leadership, Texas has gained more than one million jobs while the rest of the nation lost over two million jobs. Since June 2009, nearly 40% of all net new American jobs have been created in his home state.

    As president, Rick Perry will jolt our economy back to life with his Cut, Balance and Grow plan. It cuts taxes and spending, balances our budget by 2020 and grows millions of new jobs.

    Perry will give every American the option to throw out the current tax code and instead pay a simple 20% flat tax that can be filed on a postcard. He will cut taxes on employers and repeal job-killing regulations – such as ObamaCare – that are strangling growth.

    And he will open American energy fields to domestic exploration and development, which will lower energy prices, decrease our reliance on foreign oil and create more than one million new jobs.

    I agree with every bit of that. It’s a damned shame it got lost behind Perry’s verbal gaffes, and unfortunately, Perry’s become less modest about his role in Texas’ success as his campaign fortunes have suffered.

    I wish that all GOP candidates were as clear about this as Milhouse’s comment #212 above is.

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  253. Truly a moronic convergence, Simon, and I take no pleasure in pointing that out.

    Hats off to Beldar… who pushes back against the rising imbecilic tide.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  254. Projection much Colonel Asswipe?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  255. Actually: I wish Gov. Perry had stayed consistently modest about his role in job creating, giving credit instead of free markets and capitalism. And I wish Gov. Romney would be as clear in arguing the relevance of his own private job-creating experience as Milhouse’s comment above is. Both men have too often fallen into the trap of taking credit for jobs as if government were responsible for their creation. But in fact both of these are excellent and persuasive arguments when made properly.

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  256. The natural hubris of politicians gets in the way of their saying the right thing.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bd4dc3)

  257. Apparently, that isn’t limited to the pols, AD.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  258. “They apparently looted the companies.”

    – Rino Squishy

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  259. I missed Milhouse #212 – I agree with your point but that isn’t the argument Romney is making (at least as far as I can tell). Beldar 262: as is usually the case, I stand in agreement with you in wishing that both Romney and Perry were making the right argument.

    Think about it if they had and the focus was on the environment a President creates: they would pummel Obama for creating such a bad environment that not only are businesses quite pessimistic about the future and not hiring, but that pessimism has so permeated the country that hundreds of thousands of people have quit even trying to look for work. They could point to the pathetically low measures of business and consumer confidence as being the direct result of Obama’s kill the golden goose environment. Businesses who are so scared of anti-business regulations that they’re moving production offshore. The ordinary folks scared to death of having to pay more for health insurance in the aftermath of Obamacare. Heck, I might even throw in people saying that they’re terribly afraid Obama’s military cuts will leave us more vulnerable to terrorists and outlaw regimes. Aw, the TV ads I could make, they almost write themselves. Oh well.

    steve (254463)

  260. Right arguments would be a blessing, but let’s have some focus on this nonsense that is emanating from supposed conservatives.

    Attacking capitalism, shareholders and for-profit business? Really? From “Republicans”?

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  261. 264- Were you talking about anybody other than pols?

    AD-RtR/OS! (bd4dc3)

  262. Remember back to those quaint days of ’08 when anyone who mentioned the phrase “Going Galt” was called out as a kook?
    Well, it seems quite a few people in the last 3.5-yrs have “Gone Galt”!

    AD-RtR/OS! (bd4dc3)

  263. You cheer that “burning the village to save the village” mentality, but now who isn’t “getting it”.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  264. So Newt is poisoning the well. Lying liars get burnt by prevaricating dissemblers.

    Your cesspool runneth over.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  265. “Folks who defend him on everything wind up looking silly.”

    Dustin – I think it’s the folks who try to cheap shot him on everythig, take quotes and data out of context, that sort of thing, who look silly. Reflects poorly on their character if you ask me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  266. COVERING ALL THE BASES: Video at the Tatler: Newt Gingrich Slams ‘Saul Alinsky Radical’ President Obama: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/09/video-newt-gingrich-slams-saul-alinsky-radical-president-obama/

    But meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh comments, Newt using language of the left targeting Bain makes me uncomfortable: http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-newt-using-language-of-the-left-targeting-bain-makes-me-uncomfortable/

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  267. Bet Huckabee is privately orgasmic.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  268. Santorum, interviewed on Hannity, just said he agrees with Romney that Republicans shouldn’t be involved in attacking capitalism, as that’s the domain of liberal Democrats.

    Good for him.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  269. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

    Direct quote of Romney.

    He already came across as quite ruthless. Leaves nothing to chance. Surely staff have worked long and hard to tell Romney what kind of person to pretend to be for this election, just as they did for those elections in MA when he appeared to be a completely different person. Dedicates years of his life to winning the presidency. Only a certain kind of man can do that. I think it’s all fine and good to roll one’s eyes at populism, but it is not a criticism of capitalism itself to realize it truly is hard, morally, to do what needs to be done to perform the way Bain did.

    Some pure and absolute capitalists are the kinds of people who actually do live up to the left’s stereotype of heartless, small, and selfish. These aren’t the mom and pop entrepreneurs who really make America prosperous and build companies from nothing because they love some kind of product or field.

    It fits very well with the idea of a person who could support abortion rights and call Roe v Wade “good law” one day, and then insist it needs to be overturned and is wrong policy the next day.

    It’s not one thing… it’s everything together that will make Romney more difficult to elect than he may seem from polls at this point.

    I do feel that clipping the quote above as I did is unfair. Romney is actually trying to stand up for something that is correct. He simply doesn’t understand how to do it in a way that people can relate to, hence the enormous gaffe. That probably is because he doesn’t think the way most voters do.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  270. “The abysmal incompetence of the non-Romneys; Huntsman, Gingrich, Perry all go Occupier; Santorum declines.”

    – Michelle Malkin

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  271. And sure, if Bain hadn’t done so great at what it did, those companies would have failed, or more likely, someone else would have come in and done it anyway.

    Still… that doesn’t mean we should elect such people president.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  272. ‘Crybaby’ Gingrich might take GOP down with him

    – Joe Battenfeld

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1394405

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  273. “The video, at least judging by that appalling trailer Alana posted: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/09/gingrich-group-bain-capital-video/#more-780020 will be terrific fodder for Obama’s negative ads this summer and fall. Indeed, assuming Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, the Obama campaign should just buy the rights to it. Had the technology been available a century ago, it could have been produced by such anti-capitalist muckrakers as Ida Tarbell or Gustavus Myers. It is deeply tendentious and intellectually dishonest (as were Tarbell and Myers, of course) and utterly ignorant (one assumes willfully) of how capitalism actually works.

    Gingrich was apparently deeply angered by the barrage of negative ads that a Romney SuperPAC ran in Iowa and which caused Gingrich’s poll numbers to drop precipitously in that state. I don’t blame him for being angry. I do blame him for forgetting one of the fundamental rules of politics: “Don’t get angry, get even.” This video will not only harm the Republican campaign this fall, it will, I suspect, end any chance Gingrich might have had to win the nomination or even to take a high position in a Republican administration. It shows him to be completely lacking in the temperament needed by an American president in a dangerous world.”

    – John Steele Gordon

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  274. Here’s to hoping Gingrich reaps what he’s sowed.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  275. Interesting column, albeit consider the source

    What’s so interesting is that Romney and some of his ugliest supporters have cultivated bad blood. Those attacks on Perry and Newt have left the part in an uncharitable mood.

    This is because there is no argument for Romney, so naturally the only way to go was to be a vague nothing and tear the rest of the party down.

    so here we are now. This is what RINOs dominating a movement that should be conservative and relies heavily on conservatives must lead to.

    The way Romney destroyed Newt in Iowa was to pour an enormous number of attacks into a small time and space. You can buy a presidency that way, but so can Obama,and I think he can do that better than Romney.

    So Romney wanted to live by the sword, and naturally doesn’t appreciate having to die by it.

    But if you don’t return fire, what happens? The mudslingers prosper anyway.

    It’s a sad state of affairs where one either accepts the supposed inevitability or learns how to operate the way Romney and his supporters have.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  276. “Jay Nordlinger writes in defense of capitalism, profits and growing the economy” (Hugh Hewitt)

    “Go ahead, have your “bloodbath” in South Carolina. Make Romney the little guy in the top hat and tails, from the Monopoly game. Have your Santorum, your Perry, your Newt. They may carry something like four states in the fall, but at least they’ve never sullied their hands with — eek! — business.

    Perhaps after the election, while Obama is deepening the country’s poverty, Romney and others like him can find a party friendly to capitalism. We conservative Republicans turn out to be cradle-to-gravers, like everyone else.”

    http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/0a19aa88-03d7-4ba5-88ad-48cab1d3f3f5

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  277. And that’s why GHWB was a sure loser in 1988. Oh, wait…
    Comment by Milhouse — 1/9/2012 @ 3:04 pm

    — Are you pretending that GHWB did not also serve as Ambassador to the UN? Or CIA Director? Or Liaison to China? Or Vice President?

    Please re-read your own quote of what I wrote: “only prior government experience”

    Abe Lincoln and James Garfield are the only presidents whose pre-POTUS government service record reads “congressman” and nothing else. Every other man that served in the House and later became POTUS has something else on his resumè:
    US Senator, governor, vice president, or a cabinet position (example: James Madison went from the House to Sec of State to POTUS).

    What Newt is attempting to do is exceedingly rare in our history. Obama was criticized for his lack of executive experience, and it should be looked at with Newt as well — and with Santorum and Ron Paul, too. The reason why JFK and Obama were rare birds is because most senators became governors or vice president before becoming POTUS.

    Icy (160e9c)

  278. Yes, and he was still considered an exceedingly longshot, since only Van Buren, a 150 years earlier, had succeeded in that way. Garfield, for obvious reasons we don’t want to dwell on his particular circumstance.

    The thing is what does the party stand for, Mittens major domo, Murphy counsels acquiescence to liberalinitiaves, because of demographics, over principles,And let us not forget that ‘Poppy’ won the election, then betrayed the hopes of those who voted for him,

    narciso (87e966)

  279. Dustin: you’re making it too easy to disagree with you.

    … Those attacks on Perry and Newt have left the part in an uncharitable mood. Perry and Gingrich are in a bad mood because they’re behind, whatever the reason, they’d be no happier if Romney had played nicer. And don’t forget that Romney wasn’t the only one to go negative on Gingrich; as I recall, a whole bunch of GOPers jumped on the anti-Gingrich bandwagon. BTW, they’re attacking Romney on Bain not necessarily because Romney did anything wrong, but when you’re desperate (as Romney’s opponents are) you resort to anything to keep your candidacy alive

    This is because there is no argument for Romney… You may not think so, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons voters do. Why not at least acknowledge their feelings.

    … This is what RINOs dominating a movement that should be conservative and relies heavily on conservatives must lead to. Given that each and every candidate has gone off the conservative reservation in some not-insignificant way, just who is and who isn’t the RINO?

    You can buy a presidency that way, but so can Obama,and I think he can do that better than Romney. And, apropos of your point two down, Obama is going to go negative and no matter what Romney did or didn’t do in the primaries. So what is your point?

    So Romney wanted to live by the sword… What exactly is the ‘sword’? Romney’s PAC ran ads criticizing Gingrich and legitimately so. Other than Romney playing cute about the PAC, what exactly is wrong with one candidate pointing out what they consider to be their opponents’ shortcomings?

    But if you don’t return fire, what happens? The mudslingers prosper anyway. Let’s not get all haughty. EVERY candidate plays a mixture of positive and negative advertising. EVERY candidate engages in opposition research. In other words, EVERY candidate is a mudslinger. Is it only a problem when it’s your candidate getting muddy?

    steve (254463)

  280. “Those attacks on Perry and Newt have left the part in an uncharitable mood.”

    Dustin – Be specific if you can. Which ones were unfair and who aired them?

    Remember that Newt declared his own nomination inevitable. He was a little premature. It’s no surprise he’s PO’d.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  281. You know it’s funny that the Times and Fortune hit piece, is so shallow;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_J._Forstmann

    narciso (87e966)

  282. good comment, Steve.

    I don’t mind that you disagree with me.

    To be honest, I hope I’m wrong and the GOP is not this utter waste of time that it appears to be.

    But I think there is no conservative party here. It’s a populist party that stands up to Obama because the price of gas is too high and he’s a bad bad man… not because of fundamental conservative philosophy.

    If this is a populist party, then what can I expect from a President Romney?

    And, apropos of your point two down, Obama is going to go negative and no matter what Romney did or didn’t do in the primaries. So what is your point?

    For Romney, he’s screwed, as his game is centrism. He and Obama can fight for who is the best ubermensch.

    For Perry (lost cause) my hope was that he could be distinct enough in record and views that the personal attacks would be less relevant.

    If we’re just talking two guys vying for best technocrat manager, then the personal attacks are so much more persuasive.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  283. Given that each and every candidate has gone off the conservative reservation in some not-insignificant way, just who is and who isn’t the RINO?

    Don’t draw false equivalence or suggest I am being a purist if I say Romney is not conservative. I am willing to go pretty far to settle and compromise.

    He is drastically to the left of Newt, Perry and Huntsman in record. That should matter. Whether it does is what this election will decide.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  284. Ubermensch? None of them are. In fact, I think being a politician is almost a 100% certainty that one isn’t.

    And RINO, as the insult is usually applied, is for a politician who strays from the conservative ranch on an issue that is important to the one throwing out the insult. If, for example, I hate crony capitalism, I could certainly label Perry as a RINO. If I hated social engineering in the tax code, the label applies to Santorum. And if I hated those who blast capitalism, the winner is Gingrich.

    steve (254463)

  285. “I am willing to go pretty far to settle and compromise.”

    This is because there is no argument for Romney

    Obviously

    Heh

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  286. Ubermensch? None of them are. In fact, I think being a politician is almost a 100% certainty that one isn’t.

    What I mean is not that we should value supermen. What I mean is actually that we should disvalue the concept in favor of principles.

    But as things are today, people put their faith in the dreamiest smartest coolest bestest guy. They are falling for a trap.

    I could certainly label Perry as a RINO.

    You could label him a martian with just as much credibility. There are very few politicians who have as consistent a conservative record as Perry. The crony capitalist claims never seemed particularly well sourced.

    BTW, studies seem to show that the romney fanboy here who screeched that Perry’s gardasil was going to make girls more sexual active is completely inaccurate. Thought I’d mention that, not that the fanboy meant what he said.

    And if I hated those who blast capitalism, the winner is Gingrich.

    Again, this is like saying those who criticize an opinion hate free speech. Ruthless capitalism is part of a free market. But ruthlessness may or may not be presidential. What it reveals and whether it’s good are matters of opinion.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  287. I read a lot of comments from good faith posters, but must advise you can NOT reason with the willfully unreasonable.

    It’s gotten downright coyote ugly.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  288. Newt is shrinking and shrinking with his silly attacks on Bain. We already have a pompous professorial no-clue-having twat in our little white house we don’t need another one.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  289. Newt is shrinking and shrinking with his silly attacks on Bain. We already have a pompous professorial no-clue-having twat in our little white house we don’t need another one.

    Comment by happyfeet

    It’s evolution in progress. You can actually witness a professional conservative evolve from stupidily running on ideas into something that can survive a GOP primary!

    Very exciting.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  290. Who’s Conservative?

    In their desperation to remain relevant, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have resorted to aping liberal know-nothingism on the economy. Both have launched absurd attacks on Mitt Romney–really, attacks on investment firms in general. Here is Perry:

    Mitt Romney’s going to have a hard time coming into South Carolina and making the people here think that he’s anything other than just a rich Wall Streeter who took advantage of their businesses.

    People lost their jobs, they lost their pensions, they lost a lot.

    …. shutting down these businesses — with the only real reason that most people can see — was so that Bain Capital could profit and he could get richer.

    How stupid is Perry? Shutting down businesses makes you rich? Then we have Gingrich:

    Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money? Or is that somehow a flawed system?

    What the hell is Newt talking about? His excuse, apparently is that Democrats will say equally dumb things:

    Speaking earlier at a town hall, where journalists outnumbered actual employees by a wide margin, Gingrich said nominating him “leads to a very interesting campaign,” dismissing claims that by attacking the likely nominee now, he was hurting his party’s chances in November.

    “If someone’s going to crumble, they’d better do it before the nomination,” he said.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/whos-conservative.php

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  291. Perry has gone Full Palin with the opportunistic populist twaddle it’s just pitiful pitiful pitiful to see him reduced to that

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  292. “Newt Gingrich’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting,” Club for Growth president Chris Chocola said Monday. “There are a number of issues for Mitt Romney’s Republican opponents to attack him for, but attacking him for making investments in companies to create a profit for his investors is just wrong.”

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  293. I’ve lost all sense of what Newt’s message is supposed to be.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  294. I’ve lost all sense of what Newt’s message is supposed to be.

    Comment by happyfeet

    I never really knew what his message was. notromney.org resolves to his campaign site, though. As best as I can tell, he is now just treating Romney like Romney has treated everyone. I even think Newt described himself as a populist. He’s shifted gears from ideal to real.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  295. “Notwithstanding his recent self-presentation, and perhaps his self-image, Gingrich has been very comfortable inside the party establishment. The way he’s campaigning now makes it less and less likely he will be able to find a home there after this campaign is over. He’s making himself radioactive. And it’s less and less clear that he’s operating on any rational understanding of his own interests, as opposed to gratifying his emotions.”

    – Ramesh Ponnuru

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  296. Mr. Colonel it’s just wholly implausible that Mr. Gingrich could understand what this election is about and still natter on like Pete Seger like he’s been doing.

    I have to conclude he really has no idea whatsoever where our little country is here in 2012.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  297. As best as I can tell, he is now just treating Romney like Romney has treated everyone.

    yup but he’s making himself ridiculous in the process… whereas Mitt is just Mitt

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  298. Sure don’t see much support for the Gingrich/Perry “strategy”. Perhaps they’ve miscalculated.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  299. it’s the Gingrich/Perry/Huntsman strategy really, and I think we have to take them at their word

    they’re not comfortable with business… which is probably why they all became poncey government whores for a living

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  300. Dustin: I understand your argument, but ubermensch does not mean superman.

    steve (254463)

  301. Bet Huckabee is privately orgasmic.

    No, he’s kicking himself that he didn’t get in the race. He thought it was the Year of the TEA Party Movement, and that big government SoCons (who would be happier as Democrats if only they allowed SoCons in) should lie low. And yet here we are, and look whom we’re left with. Huckabee would fit right in with this crowd.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  302. Please choke on your words Foppish Haiku.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  303. Dustin: I understand your argument, but ubermensch does not mean superman.

    Comment by steve

    There’s probably some debate about the meaning (I don’t speak German), but you get my drift. It was meant sarcastically at any rate.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  304. No, he’s kicking himself that he didn’t get in the race.

    Seriously.

    Not that I’d support Mike.

    But T Paw? Daniels? Ryan? Palin? Surely they all must wonder. Granted, some calculated it wasn’t worth the cost to their loved ones, but did they realize just how weak this field would be?

    Or is it not the field that is weak? Maybe it’s something a little more alarming that is the problem.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  305. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

    Dear God. How did anyone understand this to refer to employees? My employees don’t “provide services” to me, they work for me. Who provides services to me? The butcher, the baker, the hairdresser, the plumber, the dry cleaner, etc. All of whom I can fire. And the fireman, the school teacher, the garbologist, etc. I can’t fire them, or the “company” they work for. I prefer the first situation.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  306. Don’t forget lawncare, milhouse! There’s a service. For some reason, Mitt did not need his ability to fire his illegal lawn care service.

    Probably because they were the most cost efficient. Interestingly, he then promoted himself as a badass on immigration enforcement.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  307. Comment by Dustin — 1/9/2012 @ 8:35 pm

    notromney.org resolves to his [Newt Gingrich’s] campaign site, though.

    Not his home page, but http://www.newt.org/notromney

    It’s just a copy of a flier and a request to sign approval of what it says.

    Sammy Finkelman (a99f25)

  308. 313. Comment by Milhouse — 1/9/2012 @ 8:55 pm

    “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

    Dear God. How did anyone understand this to refer to employees?

    Because you don’t usually “fire” independent contractors. There is an expanded use of that word, even companies “firing” their customers,

    http://www.salesopedia.com/relationships-relationships/2669-go-ahead-and-fire-your-customer

    (He puts the word “fire” in quotes and recommends raising prices rather than confronting them – and does actually call for refusing to deal)

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-44341638/when-to-fire-your-customer/`

    Sammy Finkelman (a99f25)

  309. Newt is shrinking and shrinking with his silly attacks on Bain. We already have a pompous professorial no-clue-having twat in our little white house we don’t need another one.
    Comment by happyfeet — 1/9/2012 @ 8:23 pm

    — Thread winner! ^^^

    Icy (160e9c)

  310. It’s just a copy of a flier and a request to sign approval of what it says.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman

    Just trying to lighten the mood a little. Newt’s got a strategy in mind here.

    What’s worked so far this primary? Populism. Outrage. It reminds me of a south park episode where nobody would be friends with Damien until he started picking on another kid.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  311. For some reason, Mitt did not need his ability to fire his illegal lawn care service.

    — Perhaps they were actually doing a good job. Amazing, considering the slave like working conditions they had to endure!

    Icy (160e9c)

  312. And that’s why GHWB was a sure loser in 1988. Oh, wait…
    Comment by Milhouse — 1/9/2012 @ 3:04 pm

    – Are you pretending that GHWB did not also serve as Ambassador to the UN? Or CIA Director? Or Liaison to China? Or Vice President?

    Your entire case consists of “this has not happened for a long time, so it won’t happen now”. Well, as of 1988, no sitting VP had been elected president since 1836. Therefore GHWB was a sure loser. Except that he wasn’t. Because past results do not predict future performance. “Congressmen do not get elected president” is no more valid than “sitting VPs do not get elected president”.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  313. Mitt did not need his ability to fire his illegal lawn care service.

    Dustin, are you certain everyone you’ve interacted financially this week, directly or indirectly, is a legal immigrant?

    MayBee (081489)

  314. And let’s dispense with the idiotic notion Romney will put his firing skills to work as President. He won’t. We saw that when he was governor.

    MA’s spending skyrocketed in those four short years. So did revenue, thanks to the boom. They basically kept pace with that, with the predictable problems that leaves.

    Romney’s handled a lot of these issues indelicately. Dan Riehl is noting that Romney has gone so far right on immigration that he’s going to have a huge liability there as well, but will obviously also track left as soon as he’s nominated.

    Dustin, are you certain everyone you’ve interacted financially this week, directly or indirectly, is a legal immigrant?

    Comment by MayBee —

    No one has proven to me that I’ve had illegals working on my lawn for over a year. Via a buddy who repeatedly scoffed at the law in the newspaper, but Romney continued to rely on. for some reason, he didn’t exercise his power to fire this service even after it continued to supply him with illegal lawn care.

    Romney has presented himself as a badass on managing illegal immigration, and yet he couldn’t keep the problem from his own yard. He had over a year’s notice the problem existed.

    Either he is an idiot or he is insincere. And he’s not an idiot.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  315. And another thing: Romney’s comments on the immigration issue are going to be a problem for him with hispanics. It’s yet another electability problem.

    Unlike Perry, Romney has been quite indelicate about a difficult political issue. No wonder he’s lost so many elections.

    Yet for all the hurdle this presents, will Romney hold true, or will he move left as soon as he’s able?

    Interestingly, the candidate with the best record on border control also would do better with hispanics.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  316. Sorry, just realized how repetitive that last comment was.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  317. You know, I had this dream the other night. Obama was facing a primary challenge from HRC. There was a lot of inter-factional fighting. Each side came up with the very worst view of the other, egged on by the media and the blogosphere: HRC’s people accused Obama of following GWB’s policies, lying about campaign promises, and bungling bipartisanship; Obama’s people put HRC’s finances under a microscope, dissected Hillarycare, and trumpeted personal issues in her past.

    Things became very nasty, quickly. And the press ate it up, as did the blogosphere. People began to call one another “deranged” for supporting the other side, and incidents were taken out of context and exaggerated—Obama being called a “warmonger” by some, and HRC was tarred with being called “a closet conservative” by the other side. Silly exaggerations, really. But they stuck, courtesy of the MSM.

    After a bloody primary season, Obama was able to defeat HRC’s challenge and run for re-election. But the former followers of HRC were so angry over “their” defeat and how “unacceptable” the final candidate was…well, many of them sat out the election. In fact, some HRC supporters actually claimed that Obama would make the same kinds of Supreme Court nominations a moderate Republican.

    And there wasn’t a lot of enthusiasm from anyone as the election grew nearer and nearer. So the Republicans won handily.

    I wonder why I keep having that dream?

    Simon Jester (bc884f)

  318. Correction to 186. Blaine had been Speaker of the House, and he sought the Republican nomination in 1876 when that’s all he had been, but he was elected to the Senate in 1876 and serve 4 years before being named Secretary of State by President Garfield. He didn’t stay long after Arthur became President. He was Secretary of State again for little over 3 years under President Benjamin Harrison.

    Sammy Finkelman (a99f25)

  319. simon,

    Not to suggest you’re endorsing this, but apparently I’m supposed to be so consumed with fear of the other political party that I abandon all standards for my own (same trick on them too).

    success and failure is measured simply by ‘republicans win’.

    What if this country is in such bad shape that anything short of a serious reform of entitlements is going to lead to economic meltdown anyway? Then, is it reasonable to accept settling for someone who will never reform them just because he’s less scary than Obama?

    The truth is I do think Romney is sufficiently less scary than Obama. It’s working. Not that it matters. I don’t think Republicans really want entitlement reform. What we’re seeing is democracy. We are democratically robbing our own kids.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  320. Milhouse:
    Your entire case consists of “this has not happened for a long time, so it won’t happen now”.
    — My point is that it is highly unlikely to happen now because voters have shown that they prefer candidates with Senate, gubernatorial or vice-presidential experience.

    Well, as of 1988, no sitting VP had been elected president since 1836. Therefore GHWB was a sure loser. Except that he wasn’t.
    — Meaningless statistic. 14 vice presidents have acceded to the presidency, quite often due the death of the president in office. Therefore, in addition to those that chose not to run, many sitting veeps never even got the chance to run.

    Because past results do not predict future performance. “Congressmen do not get elected president” is no more valid than “sitting VPs do not get elected president”.
    — Well then, I guess it’s a good thing that I did not write either of those statements you put in quotes.

    Icy (160e9c)

  321. SF: 50. “Ron Paul’s delegates will go to Romney of course, especially any he gets in Virginia.”

    Comment by gary gulrud — 1/8/2012 @ 8:44 p

    Not saying you’re wrong, but without a deal with Paul?

    With a deal. Without it also in many cases since the actual delegates in some places, including Virginia, are being picked by Republican Party insiders.

    What is your reasoning? So-lib trumps fiscal conservatism?

    My reasoning is that Ron Paul is dishonest, and looking out for himself, or his son maybe, and he seems to have made that deal already.

    You could see it in the last two debates. He absolutely turned down invitations to criticize Romney, while strongly attacking Gingrich and Santorum. (It was a little harder to notice that Romney had nothing bad to say about Ron Paul)

    The closest he came to that was this:

    Mitt Romney defending the truth of an anti-Gingrich ad at the NBC debate:

    It said that you’d called the– the– Ron Paul– wrong Paul. Paul Ryan’s plan to– to provide– Medicare reform– a right-wing social engineering plan.

    when Ron Paul was invited to criticize Romney as not a conservative, it went like this:

    DAVID GREGORY: –let me bring Dr. Paul into this, because there is a question about who is the true conservative in the race. And Governor Romney– said, only nine years ago, during an interview with New England Cable News, he said the following. “I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican. That I’m someone who is moderate and my views are progressive.”

    Do you believe Governor Romney now when he says that he is a man of constancy and that he’ll stand up for conservative principles?

    RON PAUL: You know, I think this whole discussion so far has been very superficial. And I think the question in a way that you ask is superficial in that you’re talking about character, which is very important. But I think we should deal with the issues as well. And I don’t see how we can do well against Obama if we have any candidate– that– you know, endorsed– you know, single payer systems and TARP bailouts and don’t challenge the Federal Reserve. $15 trillion of injection bailing out their friends.

    I don’t see how we can have anybody really compete– with Obama who doesn’t challenge this huge empire we have overseas and the overseas spending. I mean this is now nations come down. Is they extend themselves too far overseas. That’s how the Soviets came down….

    And so on..

    Later on David Gregory gave Romney a chance to respond to his (David Gregory’s) mild attack.

    This was also noticeable during the ABC debate.

    So much so that Jake Tapper commented that that inside the Ron Paul robotron is a Mitt Romney son.

    Sammy Finkelman (a99f25)

  322. My reasoning is that Ron Paul is dishonest, and looking out for himself, or his son maybe, and he seems to have made that deal already.

    You could see it in the last two debates. He absolutely turned down invitations to criticize Romney, while strongly attacking Gingrich and Santorum. (It was a little harder to notice that Romney had nothing bad to say about Ron Paul)

    Interesting theory.

    It’s been strange seeing a lot of folks go easy on Mitt.

    I have given up trying to understand it.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  323. 171 Comment by Dohbiden — 1/9/2012 @ 10:43 am

    If Sarah endorses Flopney she deserves the derisive scorn heaped upon her.

    Like I said a few months ago, she’s probably going to endorse Santorum thinking she would do for him what Ted Kennedy did for Barack Obama.

    Like Ted Kennedy, she needs a co-endorser.

    She may have to settle for Jim DeMint.

    This should happen no later than Monday or Tuesday, unless she gives up the idea of endorsing anyone altogether.

    Sammy Finkelman (a99f25)

  324. I don’t think it was. As I understand the mores of the time, it was pretty normal.

    Milhouse, selective quotation and selective parsing is pretty lame.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  325. “What if someone criticized the way George Soros has made his money.”

    I am not a fan of insider trading.

    There, I said it.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 1/9/2012 @ 3:51 pm

    Actually he made his nest egg helping his dad sell off Jewish property for the Nazis. Look it up.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  326. I wonder why I keep having that dream?

    Comment by Simon Jester — 1/9/2012 @ 10:20 pm

    Too much chili probably.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  327. Back in the ancient days of two weeks ago in Iowa, Romney loosed all his winged monkeys to harry Newt and Perry. When called on his multi-million dollar negative campaign — at a time when others were trying to be positive — Romney claimed it was other people doing it, not him, and besides if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen, so stop whinging.

    Now he’s getting what he sowed and now all we hear is about how Newt and Perry are tearing the party down by attacking the probable nominee. Sounds like whinging to me.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  328. And let us not forget the other reason why “sitting” veeps don’t get elected POTUS:
    If you’re the veep for a POTUS that loses his bid for re-election, then — just as if the POTUS had died in office — you don’t even get the chance.
    We’ve also had 7 veeps that died in office.
    And then there was Spiro Agnew.
    Nixon almost won in 1960, and did win in ’68.
    Gore almost won in 2000
    LBJ, Truman, Coolidge, and Teddy Roosevelt were elected in their own right after assuming the presidency.
    And then there are those veeps (like Cheney) that choose not to run.
    You must keep these factors in mind when weighing the importance of a statement such as “Well, as of 1988, no sitting VP had been elected president since 1836.”
    Every four years there are candidates whose only government experience is “congressman”. And yet, it’s been 132 years since one of them

    Icy (160e9c)

  329. Because past results do not predict future performance. “Congressmen do not get elected president” is no more valid than “sitting VPs do not get elected president”.
    – Well then, I guess it’s a good thing that I did not write either of those statements you put in quotes.

    Um, you certainly did write “Cogressmen do not get elected President”. And your only basis for that is past performance. GHWB’s example shows that the past is not a valid predictor of the future.

    The main reason is that elections happen so seldom, and in the meantime the electorate changes beyond recognition, so most past elections are irrelevant to the current electorate. Very few people who will vote this year also voted in 1952. More voted in 1972, but most of them have changed very much since then; the majority of 2012 voters, though, didn’t vote in 1972. A large proportion of 2012 voters didn’t even vote in 1992. So what happened at those other elections is irrelevant to how they will vote. They will not use the same criteria in 2012 that the voters at those other elections did. Put Eisenhower and Stevenson before today’s voters and they’d both bomb. As would all of today’s candidates if they had to face the 1952 electorate.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  330. Later, he married his 21-year-old ward while in the White House. That was pretty risque in the 1880′s.

    I don’t think it was. As I understand the mores of the time, it was pretty normal.

    Milhouse, selective quotation and selective parsing is pretty lame.

    What the #$%^ are you talking about? I quoted your entire statement on the subject. There was nothing selective about it, and I resent your insinuation of dishonesty on my part.

    You think Cleveland’s marriage was scandalous at the time; I think you’re wrong. Where’s the selectivity?

    While you’re about it, how about acknowledging that Cleveland was not an adulterer, was not even suspected of adultery, and so it remains the case that known adulterers don’t get elected president, at least in the past. Whether that means they won’t in the future remains to be seen.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  331. Romney claimed it was other people doing it, not him,

    How do you know it wasn’t true?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  332. Um, you certainly did write “Cogressmen do not get elected President”
    — Really. Can you remind me of the post number where I wrote that?

    And your only basis for that is past performance. GHWB’s example shows that the past is not a valid predictor of the future.
    — Again, please re-read EXACTLY what I wrote. And I agree with the “not a valid predictor” comment, at least to the degree where I will not say (and have not said, BTW) that it is impossible for someone whose only experience is as a congressman to be elected.

    The main reason is that elections happen so seldom, and in the meantime the electorate changes beyond recognition, so most past elections are irrelevant to the current electorate
    — How much does the electorate really ‘change’? How many congressmen and senators have served for 20 years or more?

    So what happened at those other elections is irrelevant to how they will vote. They will not use the same criteria in 2012 that the voters at those other elections did.
    — Actually, the criteria of “more experience than just being a congressman” has been quite consistent. Like I said, every four years at least one congressman runs for president. But they don’t win (the nomination, let alone the presidency).

    Put Eisenhower and Stevenson before today’s voters and they’d both bomb. As would all of today’s candidates if they had to face the 1952 electorate.
    — How the hell do you know?

    Icy (160e9c)

  333. #83

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  334. How much does the electorate really ‘change’?

    Enormously. Beyond recognition.

    How many congressmen and senators have served for 20 years or more?

    Many. How is that relevant?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  335. Actually, the criteria of “more experience than just being a congressman” has been quite consistent.

    So was the “no sitting VP” criterion, until 1988.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  336. This is an informative first-hand description of Bain Capital’s leveraged buy-out business, which (as others have pointed out) is the same very challenging business model pursued by Forstman Little, on whose board Gingrich sat immediately after he left Congress.

    I’ve now watched clips of both Gingrich and Perry demagoguing this issue. They should know better, and both should be ashamed of themselves. Whether or not one thinks Romney has engaged in his own unfounded attacks, nothing excuses either Gingrich or Perry in collaborating with Democrats on these distortions and smears, because this will help Obama and hurt the GOP nominee whoever that turns out to be.

    I think the backlash against both Gringrich and Perry is going to be substantial, starting right away with NH undecideds.

    When you’re hurting the party and helping the opponent, it’s time to get out of the race. Both Perry and Gingrich have moved to and, now, well beyond that point.

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  337. “…When you’re hurting the party and helping the opponent..” Strong words, Beldar. And important ones.

    Simon Jester (bc884f)

  338. Let me add one more thing about companies like Bain that hasn’t been explained here, and that I doubt is widely appreciated:

    There is a whole lot of demand in the free market for someone who is skilled at closing companies.

    Now, Hollywood takes the most superficial gloss on that and produces a George Clooney movie about some guy whose job it is to manipulate fired employees’ reactions. That’s not at all what I’m talking about.

    Rather, when a business has become unprofitable, when its prospects no longer justify taking further risks, when it is approaching insolvency with no good path to avoid that result, then it makes a big difference how the business is wound down and liquidated. “Liquidation” may include, for example, selling off entire product lines or physical facilities that are still profitable, or that could become profitable for the right buyer; and sometimes that translates into some jobs being saved (but under new management).

    Even short of that, however, when a company like Bain invests in a troubled business, suddenly a lot of interesting options open up. Competitors who were thinking in terms of picking up assets at a “fire sale” price suddenly have to re-think, because the LBO firm has capital resources. Instead of a business collapsing all at once, it may be able to fulfill existing contracts, facilitate outplacement, and realize more economic value out of the liquidation.

    This is the notion of pragmatic bottom-feeding — creative deconstruction. Often it’s not pretty except in comparison to the inevitable alternatives. And it’s very high-risk, high-reward work.

    There is nothing intrinsically wrong or evil about being paid well for doing an excellent job in a liquidation. And the market will do a better job valuing those talents than any regulator can.

    Friends and neighbors, the best pitch Gov. Romney could make would involve embracing this history, including the parts of it that involved responsible liquidation of businesses that no longer made economic sense. I would very much like to see the next POTUS preside over the liquidation of quite a bit of the federal government, starting — but by no means ending! — with almost every program and spending increase that Obama/Reid/Pelosi have put into place. If Gov. Romney could persuade conservatives that his business background makes the the man for that job, and that he’s willing and eager to actually do that job, he’d improve his odds.

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  339. Bah. Last sentence was meant to read: “If Gov. Romney could persuade conservatives that his business background makes him the man for that job, and that he’s willing and eager to actually do that job, he’d improve his odds.”

    Beldar (20e7e9)

  340. #83
    Comment by Milhouse — 1/10/2012 @ 12:47 am
    — You conveniently left out the second half of my sentence:
    “not, that is, unless they take a path that goes through the vice presidency first.”

    Icy: How much does the electorate really ‘change’?
    Milhouse: Enormously. Beyond recognition.

    — Feel free to add some substance that argument.

    Icy: How many congressmen and senators have served for 20 years or more?
    Milhouse: Many. How is that relevant?

    — How “enormously” do the electorates that continually re-elect the same people change over time?

    Icy: Actually, the criteria of “more experience than just being a congressman” has been quite consistent.
    Milhouse: So was the “no sitting VP” criterion, until 1988.

    — If you are somehow under the impression that I suffer from the liberal disease of absolutism you can just go ahead and divest yourself of that thought right now. So how about responding to my detailed assessment of how “a sitting vice president” and “someone hat served in the House” is one of those apples to oranges things?

    Icy (ffd136)

  341. 346. “If Gov. Romney could persuade conservatives [that he intends to use his business experience to reduce the size and scope of government]…”

    But he won’t and intends nothing of the sort.

    His proposal for ‘fixing’ SS is to continue to fudge the CPI, raise the age of retirement, increase contributions,…

    He’s a Progressive, he is not an option. End of story.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  342. If only it was

    Icy (ffd136)

  343. The one thing Amerikkka hates most about Obama is his practice of telling us he is that the result and designed goal of what he is doing is in diametric opposition to the evident truth.

    Romney’s surrogates are already mimicking this tactic. Coulter, e.g., describes him as, along with Bachmann, the true conservative, pledged to repealing Obamacare, …

    Dittos for Rubin, Sununu, Hewitt, Rove, etc.

    This arm of the GOP is as corrupt and reprehensible as the antiAmerican traitors they hope to replace. True, Obama, Holder, Bernanke should be tried and shot and no way the GOP is that evil, but vote for the bastard?

    GTFO.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  344. 350. Don’t expect you to agree, just understand that of what 10s of millions of us are convinced and you are helpless to persuade otherwise.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  345. Of course the implosion of Newt Gingrich over the past 48 hours has a lot less to do with electoral history and a lot more to do with the candidate’s personal history.

    Icy (ffd136)

  346. “raise the age of retirement”

    — Is this not a good idea?

    Icy (ffd136)

  347. RIP-GOP
    rinos -your on your own with mitty.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  348. 353. Not quite, he’s taking a long shot gamble that voters in the South will return, but the main purpose is to get the Establishment that destroyed him.

    Romney is just a representative, he’s striking out at Bushies, Sununu, Paxton, etc., poisoning the well.

    Guys like Beldar, partisans, are constitutionally incapable of seeing any good in such a pyrrhic consolation, but to TEAs its all good.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  349. 354. In a different era, sure. But check Monty at Ace’s, we are in for a couple of decades of low growth. Today young people are reaching their thirties before gaining a job in their preferred career field.

    They have no resume, no experience, a sub-standard work ethic and where green card professionals are not available some retirement age boomer gets their job on a contract because bennies don’t matter.

    The unemployment rate for recent grads is over 25%. So raising contributions and the age of retirement is counterproductive, even immoral to a degree.

    Beldar’s beloved Ryan was on Hannity in the afternoon, he made no endorsements but he’s for a game changer.

    Between Ryan, Walker, Johnson, Duffy, and others, WI is the face of a different GOP. They could save it from the center, but we must kill the Alien within.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  350. In MN and WI college kids are despondent, trying to kill themselves at an alarming rate.

    They have lousy study habits working even full-time jobs with more distractions than we had.

    But they approach graduation, after 5 or 6 years, with no future, an oppressive debt burden and no prospects for a real job ever, as far as they can see.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  351. gary-I’m about ready to move back to my farm in Mn. Detassling corn and weeding beans gave me a great work ethic growing up. Too bad these kids have been brought up democrat with no work ethic.
    Bailing hay was another way to grow up fast!!

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  352. 360. Never detasseled but bailed plenty of hay and packed it into barns with hay fever to boot.

    I expect the next ‘generation’, those succeeding Milennials, to appear real soon. But we have to raise them to know the world they will see.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  353. Sounds like whinging to me

    What is this mysterious “whinging” you keep going on and on about, Kev?

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  354. CNN runs with the ball Fannie Mae whore Newt passed them

    Forget taxes, gun rights and gay marriage. The new hot-button campaign issue is private equity.

    Long a favorite line of attack for Democrats looking to paint Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch financier, Republicans are now criticizing the former Massachusetts governor’s tenure at Bain Capital.

    Specifically, Romney’s rivals allege that the specialized, rough-and-tumble brand of capitalism practiced at Bain resulted in an unacceptable number of lost jobs.

    Newt Gingrich — who once promised to run a relentlessly positive campaign — has in recent days repeatedly cited a Reuters story that describes Bain Capital’s investment in a Kansas City steel mill that eventually failed.

    “You would certainly have to say that Bain, at times, engaged in behavior where they looted a company, leaving behind 1,700 unemployed people,” Gingrich said Sunday during the most recent GOP debate.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  355. I’m trying to remember, how did that other Bain Capital allstar, Meg Whitman work out again.

    Now Newt was responding to a question, at one of these MSM sponsored ambushes, I mean debates.

    narciso (87e966)

  356. GALLUP: Conservatives Embrace Romney…

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/151961/Majority-Conservatives-Romney-Acceptable.aspx

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  357. “It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere… That’s the world! On which hope sits!”

    = Newt Gingama

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  358. 365. Romany has easily the best ‘not acceptable’ number’s of the stiffs remaining vertical.

    Only 31% of Republicans reject the offering, about 9% of the electorate.

    But he was after the Indies, so he’s right as rain.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  359. Squareheads bite.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  360. Why does Asswipe Haiku keep lying about Gingrich?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  361. There is a whole lot of demand in the free market for someone who is skilled at closing companies.

    Yes, I agree. There are a lot of companies that are dead and don’t know it, and need to have what little remaining value there is extracted and re-purposed to a productive use. Including the employees, who are going to get the axe one day or another. Blaming the liquidator for that is like blaming the sunset.

    However, “skill at closing companies” implies that companies are shut down in an orderly fashion. Anyone can come in and lay everyone off and hold a fire sale. That’s not skill, that’s blunt force. To most people, I think, this skill implies that people are laid off according to contract or industry norms, that pension funds are not emptied or unfunded beforehand, and that as many obligations of the company as possible are fulfilled.

    This may not be possible when taking over a failed company for the sole purpose of liquidation, but when Bain ran companies for a decade before closing them they assume responsibility for the manner of closing, just as any other management entity would be responsible.

    The questions I have about Bain have been painted by Romney supporters as “attacking capitalism” as if there is no wrong that a capitalist can do, and no criticism that is acceptable lest Obama’s trolls take heart. Nonsense.

    Romney’s tenure at Bain will be examined with a fine toothed comb by Obama and his research departments at the NY Times and WaPo. I also expect a crowd-sourced investigation at some point. If this is to be our nominee, he has to be able to defend this record or, like Bork, he will be Borked.

    This will be especially easy in the current climate where most voters — even normally secure middle-class Republican voters — have been rather closer to unemployment than they find comfortable.

    There is reason to believe that Romney may not be able to do this. He has responded to the attacks on Bain clumsily and were it not for the armies of supporters in his chorus drowning out the naysayers, he might have been badly wounded. The whole point of vetting is to see how candidates respond to the inevitable bad stuff. So far, Romney seems much better dishing it out than receiving. He’d better get his game on before he goes up against Obama’s hordes.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  362. “You would certainly have to say that Bain, at times, engaged in behavior where they looted a company, leaving behind 1,700 unemployed people,” Gingrich said Sunday during the most recent GOP debate.

    Gingrich returns to his psycho-left narrative that investing in a company that fails somehow makes money for the investor.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  363. We’re not in a major war?

    Stop with the pious baloney………..the war in Uganda is a major war.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  364. Gingrich cheated on his wife?

    So did Clinton and John Edward.

    And if you vote for Obama because of Gingrich your a useful idiot.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  365. 376. I’m thinking of writing in Bibi Netanhyahu.
    Oh, that’s right, he wasn’t born stateside.

    What, the hell, what’s a piece of yellowed paper anyhow?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  366. If you’re dissatisfied you should cast a write-in vote on a piece of yellowed paper

    Icy (ffd136)

  367. John Edward, the psychic guy, cheated on his wife?

    Ooh, he should know that won’t end well!

    Icy (ffd136)

  368. Clinton denied his adultery until after his second election, and many people believed him, or at least pretended to. The MSM certainly acted as if the allegations were without foundation.

    And Edwards never got elected.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  369. I’m thinking of writing in Bibi Netanhyahu.

    Shudder. If you’d followed his career you’d know that he ain’t all he’s cracked up to be. He talks a good game, but has the spine of a cheap paperback. I’m thinking of writing in the ghost of Barry Goldwater.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  370. What do ya mean?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  371. To most people, I think, this skill implies that people are laid off according to contract or industry norms, that pension funds are not emptied or unfunded beforehand, and that as many obligations of the company as possible are fulfilled.

    Bain tried to turn the company around, but in an environment of falling prices the workers engaged in a violent strike, and then extorted a pension and benefit package that was far higher than the company could afford. Sounds like what’s happened in the public sector.

    Bain lost a fortune in that bankruptcy.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  372. What do ya mean?

    I mean that if you compare Netanyahu’s lofty rhetoric to his abysmal performance you wouldn’t want him to be president. It’s easy to give good speeches; Olmert gave a great one on the first day of the recent Lebanon war, but then how did he perform? Netanyahu has now dishonestly advanced the election for party leader, in order to catch his opposition flat-footed.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  373. In other words he is too right-wing for you?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  374. Quite the opposite.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  375. He is like Mitt Romney?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  376. 383. “Netanyahu has now dishonestly advanced the election for party leader, in order to catch his opposition flat-footed”

    Evidence that, like SF Nan & Nor Laup, Milhouse sleeps inverted.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  377. Huh?

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  378. Why is Netanyahu a communist?

    Sounds bircher to me.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  379. 388. Its the top of the eigth, bottom of the order, up one, your starter is out of gas, you have a lefty and righty warm. The other manager sends in a pinch hitter. He fouls off the first ball, outside. Your man signals hes done.

    You, Milhouse, make him stay and finish with this batter rather than calling for relief because its the right thing to do.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  380. Why are you quoting me and talking to Millhouse?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  381. Comment by Milhouse — 1/10/2012 @ 11:41 am

    Clinton denied his adultery until after his second election,

    He’s still denying it – with maybe a half hearted exception for Monica Lewinsky. Even so, I don’t think anybody has ever cauht him exactly confirming it.

    By denying it, he never has to explain it,and people never ask him why,and they never bring it up,and it affects nothing else..ad never gets worked into any opinions or evaluations about him,. at least when he is participating or co-operating.

    Clinton got Anthony Pellicano to say that the Gennifer Flowerts tapes (she had Bill Clinton on tape) had been doctored. [I am saying this on the basis of logic]

    http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/56187522.html?dids=56187522:56187522&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+30%2C+1992&author=Judy+Keen%3BCarol+J.+Castaneda&pub=USA+TODAY+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Tabloid+%60love+tapes'+altered%2C+expert+says&pqatl=google

    (actually the supposed doctoring was a cut and splice or two but Clinton tried to lead people to believe it was made up words)

    Flowers filed a lawsuit over this claim of doctoring:

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    GENNIFER FLOWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES CARVILLE; HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON; LITTLE, BROWN & CO.; GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, Defendants-Appellees

    http://supnik.com/9th/Flowers.pdf

    ….The First Amendment imposes substantive requirements on the state of mind a public figure must prove in order to recover for defamation, but it doesn’t require him to prove that state of mind in the complaint……

    ….That she averred the required state of mind generally, without alleging corroborating evidence, does not defeat her complaint.

    Flowers has done more than simply allege that she was “libeled with malice.” Her complaint is sufficient…The district court threw out Flowers’s lawsuit before she had a chance to depose witnesses, request documents and
    otherwise pursue evidence necessary to her case through the discovery process. It may be improbable that Flowers will find evidence to support her claims, but improbable is not the same as impossible. For example, Flowers asserts that Anthony Pellicano, the expert appearing in one of the two news stories, was a shill for the Clintons. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 27. She alleged that the expert appearing in the other story was another Clinton cut-out. Tr. of Dist. Ct. Hr’g at 54-55.10 If Flowers can prove that defendants were involved in manufacturing the two news stories, she may be able to persuade a jury that they knew the stories were false or recklessly disregarded the truth. Because Flowers has had no chance to present evidence supporting her claims, we cannot hold that defendants acted without actual malice as a matter of law.

    Flowers no doubt faces an uphill battle on remand. To survive summary judgment, she will have to marshal clear and convincing evidence that defendants knew the news reports
    were probably false or disregarded obvious warning signs from other sources.11 The difficulty of her task ahead, however,
    is no reason to deny her the opportunity to make the attempt.

    There is also this which maybe somebody else can read:

    http://www.loislaw.com/ogpc/login.htp?WSRet=12&dockey=16809265@FDCR&OLDURL=/gpc/index.htp&OLDREFURL=http%3A//www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dpellicano%2Bflowers%2Bdoctored%2Btapes%26tbs%3Dnws%3A1%2Car%3A1%26source%3Dnewspapers

    In spite of claiming the tapes were doctored, Clinton also managed to apologize to Mario Cuomo for agreeing with Flowers that he was a “Mafioso”

    (She was actually really just trying to butter him up)

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  382. At least Netanyahu’s allies aren’t accusing the Israeli people of wanting to kick granny to the curb.

    And Obama is running unopposed in 2012.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  383. 391. Alright, SF Nan, Nor Laup, Milhouse and Doh.

    Feel better?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  384. Gary, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you?

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  385. “The questions I have about Bain have been painted by Romney supporters as “attacking capitalism” as if there is no wrong that a capitalist can do, and no criticism that is acceptable lest Obama’s trolls take heart. Nonsense.”

    Translation: There is nothing wrong with adopting and the false narratives of the left concerning capitalism to attack a Republican candidate other than your own. We need to do this more often.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  386. 395. Of course you don’t.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  387. Really, Gary, you’re incoherent.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  388. That latest exchange, that Bibi undertook shouldn’t have happened in light of the Jibril prescedent,

    narciso (87e966)

  389. Dude I called out Millhouse.

    Netanyahu is a good guy.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  390. Those who have NDS while forgiving the marxist president of Iran are idiots.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  391. 401. “391.Why are you quoting me”

    I quoted you? Perhaps you were addressing Milhouse or another, my bad.

    398. You’re the one saying calling early elections in a parlimentary system is dishonest.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  392. parliamentary*

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  393. I was addressing Millhouse.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  394. Thank God they are hitting Romney hard now, so we can see how he deals with it.

    I’ve yet to see him take advantage of some very obvious opportunities here. Instead it’s the relentlessly negative fake crying that he got picked on. And his fans calling for purity (criticizing capitalism itself! they are commies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

    Pathetic.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  395. 406. No kidding. “Newt was a winer and getting pissed at Super Pac dirt caused him to tank.”

    Sen. Tim Johnson was on the other day, forget the host, started a plastics packaging firm in WI Fox Valley with brother after growing up in MN because his customer was located there.

    80 percent of sales to US, remainder over seas. Capitalism that is defensible all day long.

    Talked up Ryan as another citizen Legislator.

    Won’t be hearing that kind of hoi polloi conservatism from Princess.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  396. whiner*

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  397. 409. Seems like the last word to me.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  398. Criticizing Crony Captialims is teh evil.

    /Romneybot

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  399. Tebow is a son of a bytch?

    But the right are sexist.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  400. “Pathetic” seems to be the descriptive used by nearly all to describe the strategic miscalculation by Gingrich and, to a lesser extent (simply because he’s barely on the radar), Rick Perry.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  401. Yes but they could have worded it better although you’d still be angry.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  402. 398. You’re the one saying calling early elections in a parlimentary system is dishonest.

    What’s a parliamentary system got to do with it? There are rules, and he has broken them. Torn them into little bits, and the courts do nothing. The rules say that the election for the central committee was supposed to happen last year; he unilaterally and illegally decided to delay them till next year, to give his supporters time to organise. The leadership election is supposed to happen next year; instead he suddenly and with no legal right announced that it will be held in three weeks, so that most of the people planning to challenge him were not ready. His only competition now is Feiglin, who will do very well but won’t win. And if by some chance Feiglin does win, watch Netanyahu abandon the party and start a new one. Yes, that’s dishonest.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  403. That latest exchange, that Bibi undertook shouldn’t have happened in light of the Jibril prescedent,

    Of course. And it’s very far from the first example of Bibi’s spinelessness. By the way, Shalit’s father is now entering politics, on the Labor ticket. So much for any gratitude he might feel to Netanyahu.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  404. 412.Tebow is a son of a bytch?
    But the right are sexist.

    Comment by Dohbiden — 1/10/2012 @ 3:26 pm

    — No, just you, because you called Michele Bachmann that nasty word.

    Icy (d8098c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 2.2099 secs.