Virginia Ballot Likely to Include Gingrich, Perry, Huntsman, and Santorum
News that was broken yesterday — the same day that we learned it likely doesn’t matter.
A federal judge yesterday ordered a halt to the printing of Virginia ballots. You can view the order here. Essentially, the judge says it is likely he is going to strike down the residency requirement for petition circulators, as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.
This argument makes sense to me.
However, yesterday’s results in New Hampshire reinforce that it doesn’t really matter. Virginia’s rule, in practice, meant that a candidate cannot get on the ballot in Virginia unless the candidate is well funded and well organized. Perhaps Virginia can’t constitutionally mandate the rule, but candidates still need to be well funded and well organized to win.
So maybe the likely losers are going to be an option in Virginia. But as a practical matter, they are still the likely losers.
P.S. It is appalling that we can’t do better than a guy who gave birth to Romneycare. Appalling.
He’s better than the guy who gave birth to ObamaCare. At least he would appoint better judges. But still. The fact that the Tea Party is stuck with Romney is a good indication that nobody, from either side, is going to fix the structural debt problems facing the country.
There. Now that I have said something to upset everyone, I guess I can hit “publish.”
CAN I GET AN AMEN?!
Yeah, with a “damn everybody” post like this, I guess not.
Patterico (d508e7) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:29 amAmen
thomas (3c18b8) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:34 amAMEN!
You didn’t upset me with the post, Pat. I agree: I wish we could do better than Romney. I wish we could do better than any of the GOP candidates: it’s a sorry lot. But you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:35 amAMEN!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (40ba5a) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:45 amI’m so happy with Romney, I feel like skipping down the street.
The minute the financial crisis hit us in 2008, I knew we had the wrong two guys running. Romney is the guy who has the best experience for what we are going through right now. He’s utterly competent, even if sometimes wrong. I just want this nation in the capable hands of a financially literate president.
MayBee (081489) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:46 amI’m still holding out hope that Perry will get his act together. Or that Palin will jump in. Or someone. Because your explanation of why Romney is better than Obama misses one important point: if Obama is reelected, we’re rid of him in 2017; if Romney is elected the next opportunity to get a decent president won’t be till 2021.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:47 amYes, unlike the incumbent, Romney is financially literate. He has the capability to lead the country in a more fiscally sound direction. But such steps would hurt his popularity, as it did Reagan’s at first.
Does Romney have the courage and desire to place the good of the country over his political ambition? I’m far from sure.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (40ba5a) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:51 amThis is a clear case of the “Evil” party vs the “Stupid” party. The democrats blew the election of 2008 by electing the worst president in a century. Now the stupid party is in the process of nominating another candidate who might win if enough of us hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two weevels. (old joke)
BarSinister (5a3146) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:51 amI want Romney as president, Rubio as VP (he is amazing for his ability to state the conservative cause), and Paul Ryan in the House.
Perry is the greatest disappointment to me this season. Almost every choice he’s made has been bad. Why?
MayBee (081489) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:53 amYay! That is welcome news that Virginia decided to emulate America instead of a banana republic.
Perry’s hurting himself afresh every week I can’t watch I can’t watch.
Poor man.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:04 amComment by MayBee — 1/11/2012 @ 7:53 am
Why do you insist upon a Veep candidate that has said, in all but Shermanesque terms, that he isn’t interested in the office at this time?
AD-RtR/OS! (09194a) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:20 amAnd, AMEN (with reservations)!
AD-RtR/OS! (09194a) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:21 amAD- he only has said “no” because he has not yet heard me insisting. He has foolishly been thinking it’s optional.
MayBee (081489) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:25 amBTW, while we’re talking about Federal Court decisions,
AD-RtR/OS! (09194a) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:26 amwhat about the decision yesterday by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver affirming the decision of a District Court in blocking OK’s ballot measure
(passed with a 70% Yea!) that OK judges may not consider International, or religious (Sharia) law, in their decisions?
Of course, this case was brought by CAIR.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/court-oklahoma-ban-on-islamic-law-unconstitutional/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29
From CrownHeights.info:
We have received the following correction from David Yerushalmi:
Your caption under my picture is wrong. The Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that has been preliminarily enjoined by a federal district court and affirmed on appeal just the other day has nothing to do with me or the draft legislation called the American Laws for American Courts I drafted. ALAC has passed in 3 states and has been on the books at least since 2010 and has NEVER been challenged. It is pending in 20 states.
The Oklahoma effort was ill-conceived and poorly worded and the result was expected. Indeed, I warned the sponsors that it was wrong-headed. They chose not to take my advice. ALAC, on the other hand, is absolutely constitutional and it prevents the application or enforcement of any foreign law or judgment, including one predicated upon sharia, that would deprive a litigant of a constitutional liberty.
I would suggest a modification and clarification.
Thank you.
P.S. Here is a good article to explain why Oklahoma was not ALAC.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:29 amAh, MayBee, your powers of persuasion must be prodigious.
AD-RtR/OS! (09194a) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:32 amPerhaps BHO should replace Hillary with yourself?
I would think we as a country would be better off with an Iran that didn’t want to kill us, than shanghai-ing a reluctant Veep candidate.
But using the Talmud or the Bible to follow your laws is theocratic.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:40 amAnd I love how the left accuse the right of being handmaidens of the rich when Obama had no problem extending the bush tax cuts in December 2010.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:49 amLessee, shall I vote for the guy who golfs or the one who campaigns Sundays?
gary gulrud (1de2db) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:51 amWhat you said doesn’t upset me, Patterico. What you describe does, because your description is basically accurate. I hope your prediction isn’t, but it’s not an irrational one.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:13 amAmen! as well.
As I’ve pointed out before, Romney is an existential choice for the GOP, because if he loses the Tea Party will be done with the Republicans and that will lead to a singularity.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:23 am“…nobody, from either side, is going to fix the structural debt problems facing the country…”
The critical defect of politicians is that their focus is always short-term.
AD-RtR/OS! (09194a) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:23 amFixing this problem will require very drastic measures that will impact immediately the standard of living of virtually all Americans,
an impact that the pols fear will result in the voters turning them out.
However, advancing “solutions” that are but band-aids, but do not correct the problem, will put off the day of reckoning past the political life of today’s pols –
even though the future pain will then be even more dire than what would be encountered in solving the problem now.
Our political class is composed of some of the world’s most accomplished can-kickers, and they are all moral cowards.
The difference between politicians, and leaders.
Romney’s victory speech last night was a slight improvement. His promise to “cut, cap & balance” was, I think, a newly implied endorsement of something like what’s been coming out of the House.
But then again, the problem with Romney isn’t, for the most part, the positions he’s taking now. It’s the positions he’s taken in the past that are inconsistent with the positions he’s taking now, and the resulting doubts about his steadfastness — even if you credit him with absolute Reaganesque good faith in changing those positions.
The manifest unrepresentativeness of New Hampshire, plus the related strong (and bizarre) showings by Paul and Huntsman, will keep Romney’s victory yesterday from turning the race into a coronation. For even a brokered convention scenario to make sense, however, someone else would have to beat him outright in South Carolina. Objectively, he was the favorite before yesterday and he improved his position slightly. But it ain’t over. His main risk is a major stumble, so I suspect they’re battening down the hatches and reinforcing message discipline at Romney HQ today.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:25 amRomney needs to take a page out of the Keynes hymnal:
AD-RtR/OS! (09194a) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:29 amWhen the facts change, one changes his position (sic).
The question is: Can he sell it?
@ AD-RtR/OS! (#22 — 1/11/2012 @ 9:23 am): You write, “Our political class is composed of some of the world’s most accomplished can-kickers, and they are all moral cowards. The difference between politicians, and leaders.”
That’s true, and truly sad — and it’s particularly sad and true about the Senate. Suppose we keep a solid majority in the House, Romney wins the WH, and we take a 51-seat majority in the Senate. Could last year’s House budget get through the resulting American government I’m hypothesizing? I don’t think so, and I think the stumbling block would be the Senate.
Most of the time, and in most circumstances, and for most purposes, I’m fine with that. I’m fine with the existing filibuster rules (as long as they’re not being used on appointments), and I’m fine with the practical requirement that all legislation has to get a 60-vote super-majority in the Senate. That institutional structure generally benefits conservatives.
But yeah, it sure does encourage can-kicking. And we’re plumb out of road.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:32 amI had thought that Gingrich or Perry would be the candidate to step up and offer the solutions to the grossly overfed federal bureaucracy. Perry disappointed immediately and now Gingrich seems to have failed and gone a bit AWOL in his attempts to recover. I can see some of his attacks on Bain (I have an issue with dumping loyal workers for convenience without mitigating severance), but not the intensity or depth of the attack.
Perhaps Gingrich can pull it back, and perhaps he can get Perry and Santorum out of the race and then have a chance in the long haul. I think this is slightly better than Santorum’s chances and significantly better than Perry’s. Huntsman doesn’t figure; as I read yesterday, Hunt’s strategy is pretty much “Underpants Gnome.”
So, if it’s Romney or Paul, being sane, I choose Romney, but I (and the Tea Party, and some of Paul’s people, too) would be a LOT more convinced if Romney would talk about the need to significantly downsize the federal behemoth. And not by an across the board cut, but by amputation.
Someone should ask him if he’ll close the Department of Education. That’s a Tea Party litmus test.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:36 amComment by MayBee — 1/11/2012 @ 7:46 am
Romney…has the best experience. I just want this nation in the capable hands of a financially literate president.
I haven’t seen anything to show that Romney is financially literate – or really informed about anything.
The most you can say is that at least he did not attack Ben Bernanke. That’s a form of financial literacy.
Does the following sound like somebody who has very much financial literacy?
All Romney does is try to finesse the issue, and say as little as possible.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/full-transcript-bloomberg-washington-post-gop-debate-in-n-h–20111011
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
Governor Romney, it’s 2013, and the European debt crisis has worsened. Countries are defaulting. Europe’s largest banks are on the verge of bankruptcy. Contagion has spread to the U.S. And the global financial system is on the brink.
What would you do differently than what President Bush, Henry Paulson, and Ben Bernanke did in 2008?
ROMNEY: Well, you’re talking about a scenario that’s obviously very difficult to imagine. And —
GOLDMAN: But it’s not a hypothetical, because more than half —
ROMNEY: It is. I’m afraid it is a hypothetical.
GOLDMAN: Governor, it’s not —
ROMNEY: Do you want to explain why it’s not a hypothetical?
GOLDMAN: Yes.
ROMNEY: OK.
GOLDMAN: Because more than half the country believes that a financial meltdown is likely in the next several years, and the U.S. banks have at least $700 billion in exposure to Europe. So it’s a very real threat, and voters want to know what you would do differently.
ROMNEY: It’s still a hypothetical as to what’s going to precisely happen in the future. I’m not very good at being omniscient, but I can tell you this, that I am not going to have to call up Timothy Geithner and say, how does the economy work? Because I spent my life in the economy.
I spent my entire career working in the private sector, starting businesses, helping turn around businesses, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. And I know how to make tough decisions and to gather the input from around the country to help make the important decisions that have to be made.
[These are non-comments seriously? He’s just confusing people with words. A financial crisis has something to do with money and business has something to do with money. Can anybody take this seriously?]
Clearly, if you think the entire financial system is going to collapse, you take action to keep that from happening. In the case of Europe right now, they are looking at what’s happening with Greece. Are they going to default on their debt, are they not? That’s a decision which I would I would like to have input on if I were president of the United States and try and prevent the kind of contagion that would affect the U.S. banking system and put as at risk.
But I can tell you this — I’m not interested in bailing out individual institutions that have wealthy people that want to make sure that their shares are worth something. I am interested in making sure that we preserve our financial system, our currency, the banks across the entire country. And I will always put the interest of the American people ahead of the interest of any institution.
GOLDMAN: So would you or would you not be open to another Wall Street bailout?
ROMNEY: No one likes the idea of a Wall Street bailout. I certainly don’t.
GOLDMAN: But you said in 2008 that it prevented the collapse of the financial —
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: There is no question but that the action of President Bush and that Secretary Paulson took was designed to keep not just a collapse of individual banking institutions, but to keep the entire currency of the country worth something and to keep all the banks from closing, and to make sure we didn’t all lose our jobs. My experience tells me that we were on the precipice, and we could have had a complete meltdown of our entire financial system, wiping out all the savings of the American people. So action had to be taken.
Was it perfect? No. Was it well implemented? No, not particularly.
Were there some institutions that should not have been bailed out? Absolutely.
Should they have used the funds to bail out General Motors and Chrysler? No, that was the wrong source for that funding. But this approach of saying, look, we’re going to have to preserve our currency and maintain America — and our financial system is essential.
ROSE: So do you agree with Speaker Gingrich about Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed?
ROMNEY: I wouldn’t keep Ben Bernanke in office. I would choose someone of my own —
ROSE: And who might that be?
ROMNEY: Well, I haven’t chosen that person. I haven’t even chosen a vice president. I’m not sure I’m the nominee yet.
(LAUGHTER)
ROSE: Well, we would like to have — nor has anyone else, but we would like to have an idea of the kind of people that you would have confidence in, in playing this very important role, although Congressman Paul may differ about how important it is.
ROMNEY: Well, I wish we could find Milton Friedman again, although what Milton said to us was — he said, you know, “If you took all the economists in America, and you laid them end to end, it would be a good thing.” And I have more respect for economists than that.
The people who help guide my economic policy are Greg Mankiw at Harvard —
ROSE: Right.
ROMNEY: — and Glenn Hutchins (ph) at Columbia. They were both former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers. And I didn’t always agree with them.
I also talk to a number of business leaders. I talked to people who are currently in the economy, in the financial sector, and in the manufacturing sector. And on the basis of these various viewpoints, I make my decisions. And I believe that drawing on the best minds of this country, including economists, is something that’s essential to make sure that we preserve our financial system.
Right now, America is in crisis. We don’t need to think about a hypothetical of what happens if Europe explodes and pulls us under, although if that does happen, you want to have someone who is smart, who has experience, who knows how the financial services sector works, who knows how to protect American jobs, and I do. I have done it.
ROSE: And as far as you’re concerned, there is no institution, no financial institution, that is too big to fail?
ROMNEY: Well, no. You don’t want to bail out anybody.
The idea of trying to bail out an institution to protect the shareholders or to protect a certain interest group, that’s a terrible idea. And that shouldn’t happen.
You do want to make sure that we don’t lose the country and we don’t lose our financial system and we don’t lose American jobs, and that all the banks don’t go under. So, you have to take action very carefully to make sure that you preserve our currency and preserve our financial system. But bailouts of individual institutions? No one has interest in that, I don’t think.
Rush Limbaugh says the attack by Gingrich and Perry on Romney’s business career are indefensible and now he is complaining about Romney’s defense to the Bain attacks – that that’s only what Obama did with General Motors. Romney said that already before in a debate.
Limbaugh says that Obama didn’t take them over to save the companies – he took them over to save the UAW’s pension fund and hue hurt people in the kind of position Romney was in (bondholders)
Sammy Finkelman (a99f25) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:43 amMaybe there’s something wrong with me, but I find Romney’s answers entirely reasonable.
MayBee (081489) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:51 amI’m not sure you can tell from the order itself how he would rule. All that this is is an order not to print ballots (and particularly, not to mail out absentee ballots) until at least the January 13 hearing.
Sammy Finkelman (a99f25) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:58 amBeldar, in your scenario, the leadership (if it can be called that) of the Senate Dem Caucus must now be having serious second thoughts on the positions they have recently taken on the filibuster, and on recess-appointments.
In a classic “good for the goose, good for the gander” moment, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have to be wondering if a President Romney will just ignore the Senate and “rule by executive order” as has The Lightworker.
(of course I realize that most Republicans have a much more serious view of the Constitution than do Progressives,
AD-RtR/OS! (09194a) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:00 ambut payback would certainly be warranted, and would still be a bitch!)
Re: comment #9… MayBee… Rubio may not want his hat in the ring, but, IMO, your support of him for VP certainly makes more sense than support for potential Prez nominees who demagogue capitalism and free enterprise.
Just sayin’…
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:05 amRegarding Bain Capital and what the DNC will undoubtedly do with all of the ammunition that has been provided to them… Hugh Hewitt made some good points in his pre-2008 election Romney book. The DNC has already done what Hewitt called the “Big Dig” oppositional research on Romney and his experiences/record in the private sector and they will be trotting out every disgruntled CEO, line employee they can find.
If Team Romney is smart, they will pre-emptively make available the details around each one of the companies Bain had dealings with… the success stories and the failures. Makes sense to me.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:13 amProjection again.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:17 amRe: post #21… I beg to differ, Kevin M… whoever the R candidate ends up being, if we lose this election due to Tea Party intransigence/ shenanigans, it will send the TP into a death spiral because it will piss the majority of Republicans off.
I support most of what they espouse, but we need to nominate the most conservative candidate who has the best chance of defeating Obama and his fellow democrats. Purity Of Essence be damned.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:22 amPerry should have been the one. (At least, “the one” in THIS field. I’d take Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Allen West maybe, Haley Barbour, et al.)
And Perry’s ads largely were excellent (except a couple of them that made religiosity a big issue, thud).
But Perry stumbled badly out of the gate — remember “haven’t got a heart” and “Oops”? — and, although he improved somewhat, he never really excelled thereafter.
Mitch (341ca0) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:23 amTry some Kaopectate in oral suppository form, doh. That may cure what ails ya.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:23 amYay? The closed and ridiculous ballot at least allowed for an unmistakeable humiliation of Romney via a spoiler vote.
In context a strong Dr KooKoobananas showing would mean nothing else.
At least I might be able to vote for a plausible alternative but I’m not sure it will be as clear a message sent.
Newt is all that’s left; that’s bad enough. But I won’t vote for Romney in a primary no matter how inevitable he is.
SarahW (b0e533) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:24 ami don’t understand why stupids Perry and Gingrich don’t focus on pinning Wall Street Romney down on things like climate change and ANWR and other issues where he’s apt to be squishy and cowardly
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:25 amSpeaking of Haley Barbour, did my ears deceive me or did I hear correctly that Barbour has just pardoned something close to 200 convicted murderers before his successor was sworn in?
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:26 amOh, and since I just mentioned Perry, my early favorite:
Perry probably lost me for good with his recent, desperate Bain-bashing. Gosh sakes, governor, I’m lookin’ to elect a REPUBLICAN. Maybe you’d not heard.
Mitch (341ca0) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:26 amGotta love the intolerant romney bastards……not.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:28 amBut Perry stumbled badly out of the gate — remember “haven’t got a heart” and “Oops”? — and, although he improved somewhat, he never really excelled thereafter.
Seriously, has anyone ever launched a candidacy with more fanfare, only to swagger/limp, tongue-tied, to a defective July 4th sparkler of a fizzle?
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:29 amPerry gummed that up badly, Mitch, but it’s obvious by now he’s a gummer-upper.
Newt’s attack, on the other hand, was widely misrepresented. When I saw the headlines it was an “OH, Newt!” of disappointment from me thinking that once again he couldn’t resist selling his soul for a bandwagon. But he didn’t, he didn’t at all.
He was all for reorgs and takeovers and appropriate bankrupcy swoops. He was all for killing the village to save it and for making a buck by doing it. The accusation was really that Mitt acted in bad faith by looting a government subsidy and remaining assest of a company and destroying the company on purpose. Mr Turnaround being more like a spider sucking on prey and leaving the husk to dangle in the trails of his silken decoy parachute. He said that might be wrong.
SarahW (b0e533) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:32 amDid anyone ever get told they need an enema because they disagreed with Romney?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:33 amNone of these candidates are good enough. The man with the stellar record is dissed for it being a 95% conservative record instead of 100%, but if he doesn’t have the chops to defeat an admitted progressive and absurd flip flopper, can he really beat Obama?
Anyway, Mitt Romney’s campaign said it was “unfair to Mitt” if the voters had a chance to pick the other candidates. Obviously legitimate candidates. Instead of adults handling stupid rules with wisdom, we saw strivers twist the rules into much more difficult ones, intended, at the very least, to make it more difficult and costly for reformers to campaign against establishment insiders.
Never did Mitt’s campaign discuss what is fair to the voters. He is an unworthy man and we should not trust him with power, but Obama, like Putin, has benefited from this kind of ‘it’s just the rules, guys, so I guess the voters don’t get to choose this time… sorry!’ BS. Romney is damn lucky Obama is that bad of a dirtbag, or I actually would vote Obama (should we nominate Romney).
I care deeply about the consent of the governed. I would fight for this. America deserves a president who would fight for this… someone with at least a drop of selflessness in his heart. Ruthless politicians might win more, but they lead less.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:34 amSammy @27 – In what way was that scenario not a hypothetical? The people believe something is going to happen in the future, what would you do differently?
Seriously?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:37 amI think I’m with SarahW in her analysis of Perry and Newt.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:38 amWhat a self-serving load of crap. The voters are making their choice and, unfortunately, some folks willfully refuse to deal with the voters’ rejection of their “favorite son” candidate.
Man up and deal with it.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:38 amall I heard was that part where Newt kept telling everyone to read a New York Times article and I thought no I don’t want to do that
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:39 am“It’s the positions he’s taken in the past that are inconsistent with the positions he’s taking now, and the resulting doubts about his steadfastness”
Beldar – What has Romney been inconsistent on since 2008? I’m under the impression that the complaints about his inconsistency stem from earlier positions. Am I correct?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:39 amAnd it’s just lovely that these few Romney fans continue to think they can regain their credibility by removing the clown nose.
No, when you participate in a whisper campaign of lies and nastiness, then admit you were ‘joking’, you lose 100% of your credibility and it’s not going to come back.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:39 amWhen the majority of the Republican Party seem to be rejecting rogue wannabe candidates use of OWS/Marxist invective with no thought given to impact on the GOP, I’d say chances are pretty good that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have made serious blunders.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:42 amJust pull your head out of your ass, Dustin.
Deal with it.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:44 amBREAKING NEWS – JUDGE DECLARES ROMNEY CONSPIRACY TO LIMIT VIRGINIA BALLOT ACCESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
(Speaking of clown noses)
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:44 amHaving “credibility” in your eyes may not have the cachet or draw you think it does.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:46 amThis is fun.
JD (318f81) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:55 amComment by Colonel Haiku — 1/11/2012 @ 10:22 am
Without the TEA Party, the GOP is just a bunch of Whigs.
AD-RtR/OS! (09194a) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:56 amAmen, certainly.
21. “Romney is an existential choice for the GOP”
Indeed, but we are already parting company. Turnout in IA and NH already indicates the fight for the GOP isn’t materializing.
Scott Brown, a stolid Romany supporter, is the canary in this methane infused shaft.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:03 am39. 200 felons, a dozen murderers. Way to enter assisted living, as a scumbag.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:09 am48, 53. “Deal with it”
That was the Buffalo Bills’ motto.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:12 amI support most of what they espouse, but we need to nominate the most conservative candidate who has the best chance of defeating Obama and his fellow democrats. Purity Of Essence be damned.
This is the second election that this argument has been made. Last time Romney would have been more electable, given that the issues turned economic rather fiercely and McCain proved himself clueless. It wasn’t lack of Republican turnout that hurt, but the UNUSUAL youth and minority turnout.
This time we go with last time’s guy, as per usual. Most electable, they repeat. OK, fine. We’ll go along again. But this had better work, that’s all I’m saying.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:15 amSadly, you go to an election with the candidates you’ve got, not the candidates you’d like to have.
I don’t like Romney. Unfortunately, I like him better than the other candidates, even the ones that I “like”. For example, I like Gingrich as an idea guy, but he’s demonstrating that he’s a loose cannon and he’s probably not electable.
If he’d stop firing broadsides at Romney, he could be a heckuva VP…
Bill Roper (ab6a8d) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:19 amI’m so happy we nominated the most electable Republican (pre general election campaign) in 2008. That worked super well by telling America both candidates were essentially centrists, so we could focus on the petty crap.
I mean, it’s not like candidates that have such boldness and courage as to demagogue on social security tend to be thin skinned about personal attacks and harsh criticism of their crappy record or anything, right? Right?
The GOP is not called the ‘smart party’. Because it’s not very smart.
I wonder if some folks aren’t paying attention to how poorly Romney presents himself. He could have handled Perry’s social security reform without every honest pundit noting he’s a demagogue. He could have shown bravery and foresight by distancing himself from Romneycare in 2009, let alone 2012. He could have handled his Bain record without actually cultivating the notion he is basically a liberal’s fantasy version of a ruthless selfish out of touch vulture.
So the real question is: does liberal bias really matter? Why is that, of all things, the real question? Because if you really are aware of it, you are aware of why Romney has survived so many screw ups, and why this survival is actually a temporary thing.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:19 amNaw, as soon as Romney’s campaign chair claimed it was unfair for the voters to have a say in VA, the idea of a brokered convention became a lot more plausible. The ‘voters don’t inherently deserve a say, and the rules and the game are all that matter’ campaign may just wind up eating those words.
So perhaps it is time to reconsider what candidates we want to go with, and support the candidates who are most conservative so they can negotiate on our behalf.
Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, even T Paw would all be considerably better than what we currently have, and in these times, we shouldn’t rule anything out.
Any of them would command more respect and party unity than … well… any of these current candidates, including my guy.
What do you expect? We all know what Romney is. Even his fans know he is a small man. So instead of some kind of magnanimous argument, we get something more like a show of bravado and a demand.
It is amazing yet pathetic at the same time.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:25 amBill, given that GHWB trashed Reagan’s “Voodoo economics”, I think that Romney could see past the Bain stuff if he thought he needed Tea Party support, either with Gingrich or Perry. Given the media’s propensity for only vetting Republicans (see Biden, Joe) he needs to pick someone who could clearly be President, and either of those gentlemen has the credentials. I think Gingrich is more useful, though.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:28 amRomney and his mindless sheep are no better than Palin and her cultist followers.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:33 amNewt would be an outstanding VP in any administration that intended to fight the democrats in congress. If you want reform, Newt could help.
So some ideologies (namely one that wants to collaborate with Ted Kennedy on health care reform) are much less suited to agents of reform.
Perhaps they should just look for the VP candidate that represents a racial or gender based pander?
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:35 amI’m so glad to see these primaries are bringing out the best in all of us.
I’ve got an idea: let’s sit around arguing over which candidate is the most Republican. The we can be just like the Libertarians, who garner less than 1% of the popular vote.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:01 pmChuck, would that be like pontificating on how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?
AD-RtR/OS! (09194a) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:07 pmPerhaps they should just look for the VP candidate that represents a racial or gender based pander?
Exactly no. It would be seen as just such a pander, given the current President. Some other time, with someone who has made a credible case for being President.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:16 pmAll due respect,
Or we can just nominate a centrist and be just like the Republicans who garner less than 50% of the popular vote. At least with Mccain, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, and Bush 41 post the Sununu effect.
This isn’t about purity. All of these guys have deviated at some point. In fact, the predominant Romney defense lately is that it’s not conservative to hit him on what his business record says about Romney. That these attacks are occurring now is very healthy, and actually MORE healthy if we actually do nominate Romney, who hopefully will have worked out a better response than he’s offered so far (to complain about envy).
This is about, rather, the strategy of making sure Americans have a choice other than ‘centrist’ in November.
sure, the left will hit our guy no matter how centrist he is. That candidate can respond with ‘look how great I am’ or ‘look at the reform I offer’. I think one of these has the potential to eclipse the personal attacks, and the other only makes the personal attacks more relevant.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:20 pmChuck, I don’t care about a lot of issues other than the deficit and the gargantuan size and power of the national government. I want a nominee who is very clear about downsizing the monster and restoring a federal model, before the courts are packed with people who won’t allow it.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:22 pmMe too, and it’s a crying shame that is considered (not necessarily by Chuck) some kind of deranged purist attitude to have.
Some of these candidates will not fix what must be fixed. They use the word ‘preserve’ to describe the word ‘entitlements’.
Either spending gets fixed or we are in deep trouble.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:27 pmI should point out that I care *enough* about some other issues that I cannot support Paul, who is crazy, and couldn’t get Congress to pass anything anyway.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:40 pmWhat does Debbie Schlussel think?
Has the Bytch embraced her inner lefty?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:42 pmWhen some speak of “preserving” entitlements, they go on to say “preserve” for those currently on Medicare and Social Security, which some (very disingenuously) fail to note.
No surprise there.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:48 pmI would argue that none of them lost because they were centrists, but rather because of economic conditions or other factors.
McCain lost because the economy took a huge hit in September, 2008, and Obama was successful in tying McCain to the very unpopular Bush.
Bob Dole lost because the economy was in very good shape in 1996, and no one would have been able to beat a President with the economy going so well.
Gerald Ford lost because the economy wasn’t going so well at the time, and he was tied to the Nixon administration. A whole lot of people in 1976 had not forgiven him for pardoning Nixon.
Bush 41 lost in 1992 because the economy had turned bad under his watch. It was actually recovering at the the time of the election, but Clinton and Gore kept up with the mantra of “worst economy since the Great Depression” and Bush never effectively addressed that.
None of those reasons have anything to do with the nominees being centrist.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:51 pmDebbie Schlussel thinks the GOP is mean.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:52 pmYeah, and I want a nominee who will pack the courts with strict constructionist Constitutional scholars. We can’t always get what we want.
We can either sit here and be really nasty toward each other over who’s winning or losing the primaries, or we can get behind the nominee, whoever he is, and resolve to beat the Democrats in November.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 1/11/2012 @ 12:55 pmThere is a lot of truth to this response, I grant.
It’s more than one factor.
However, there seems to be more than one factor for all candidates, and the more moderate GOP candidates definitely seem to have a much harder time being elected. It depends on where you draw the line on who is conservative (for example, it’s hard to objectively say Bush 43 wasn’t a moderate too, though I think he is on the right side of the borderline in 2000 and 2004, he is damn close to it).
My point is simple: A ‘conservative’ who isn’t really conservative doesn’t seem like a leader. He seems like a crafty little politician triangulating, which I think is a problem for Republicans but not nearly as much of an issue for a democrat.
Also, these candidates cannot rely on ‘he’s a smart guy’ or ‘he’s a nice guy’. That is no foundation for beating Obama’s billion dollar hate machine. The only foundation that has a chance is to offer a clear choice on the direction of the country (rather than promising to ‘preserve’ the issues with expert management.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 1:04 pmThat’s sheer partisanship. It’s motivated by fear. I am also afraid of Obama’s second term, so I can’t cast stones (And will vote for the GOP nominee), but I urge folks not to bother falling for the notion that it’s over already and it’s time to rally behind the guy we’re told has already won.
Romney is burning through his money. He has no strategy other than enormous volumes of negative attack ads / complaining about the few that come his way every now and then / whining about keeping people off the ballot.
Let’s just stand on principle in our primary vote, and then unify as a party after the primary. It is possible that we will have a brokered convention, so that should come into play when selecting who controls which delegates.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 1:08 pm“The ‘voters don’t inherently deserve a say, and the rules and the game are all that matter’ campaign may just wind up eating those words.”
Sadly people wearing clown noses fail to recognize the Perry campaign’s inability to meet ballot qualification requirements is a feature rather than a bug and try to blame others as usual. See the campaign’s failure to qualify a full slate of delegates in Ohio, Tennessee and Illinois.
Hey, maybe it’s another Romney conspiracy or something. The possibility for excuses looms large.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 1:28 pmCan you give an example of Romney doing that?
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 1/11/2012 @ 1:34 pmVia politico (the rest of the article is very poor).
That is a classy and honest point by Newt. he continues to be the most presidential guy running. He’s not pretending to be perfect.
It seems too many people are not understanding what Newt is saying, leaping from his point to something much more abstract. Newt made a mistake, again, of taking the intelligence of the GOP voter for granted.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 1:38 pm“It seems too many people are not understanding what Newt is saying, leaping from his point to something much more abstract.”
Looking at the overall commentary it seems many people understood exactly what Newt was saying and its implications. Newt once again made the mistake of opening his big yap before considering the ramifications of his words and is now in the embarrassing position of walking them back.
It’s just that simple.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 1:57 pmWe really want to identify capitalism exclusively with finance, we really want to pick that hill.
narciso (87e966) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:00 pmwell good luck with that.
Bush 41 had a huge popular and electoral vote victory in 1988, kinda blowing a hole in your theory.
California used to be fairly reliably Republican in Presidential elections. It hasn’t gone Republican since 1988. That’s not due to Republican nominees being too centrist.
No, it’s pragmatism. No matter what I want as an individual, I realize that if a Democrat gets elected I have a much lower chance of achieving it than if a Republican wins — to the point of the chances being almost zero.
Yeah, Romney’s not perfect. Neither are Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, or any of the others running. I’d still rather have any one of them than a Democrat in the White House.
But whoever wins, I’m not going to sit here and spit out insults toward people who back a different candidate. I’ve seen that behavior from both Romney supporters and others, and it sickens me.
I see a Republican party so fractured that it is close to not getting anything accomplished at all. And I am reminded of this fable.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:02 pm“We really want to identify capitalism exclusively with finance, we really want to pick that hill.”
narciso – I did not know anyone was doing that.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:02 pmUm, no. That reinforces my theory. Bush in 1988 was riding the coattails of a heavily conservative administration. After the Sununu disaster, the same candidate lost as the GOP split.
That’s why I specifically noted “post sununu”. I was explaining this very thing you are citing.
In nearly every respect, you are correct.
So don’t take this as disagreement: in 1994, the GOP began accomplishing reforms through the 1990s that are not matched by the Republican party since. One major reason was that the 1992 disaster scared them straight.
Which you explain as, essentially, your fear of the much worse results of democrats.
It is pragmatic to be afraid of the results of a second Obama term and support a centrist Republican who would be more ethical and competent, and possibly a bit more conservative. Good choice.
However, I worry it is self defeating in two ways. Obviously for one, ideologically we never will achieve much by playing defense to this absurd degree. Also, the democrats are better at pandering and centrist BSing than the republicans are, and one reason is that the MSM is heavily biased in a way that ensures effective personal attacks. The alternative of offering a clear reform direction exudes leadership as well as a reason to overlook the inevitable personal crap.
Good point.
I know a lot of good people who support Romney. I know a lot of good people who support Barack Obama. Folks are entitled to be wrong about something like this without being judged.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:12 pmBush Sr, was willing to reach out, in good faith with the Democrats, as was Romney, on MassCare,
narciso (87e966) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:22 pmor W, and even Palin, but you see there is no reciprocity, they will jam their prorogatives
90-100% against objections we have, and then when
the plans fail like NCLB, or Medicare Part D, or
Masscare, the fault is always on the GOP, and the media, and even the party establishment will echo
the sentiment,
Don’t make this personal, and don’t characterize anything I’ve written as fear. It’s not about fear, it’s about recognizing the need for compromise.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:27 pmYou’re misunderstanding what I’ve said if you’re reading any kind of personal insult in there.
It’s simply the case that candidates like Mccain and Romney are justified, at least to conservatives, as an alternative to all the awful things the democrat counterpart (Obama in this case) will do and represent.
That is a fear based argument. This same argument is a problem for both political parties, in my opinion.
I think if you reread my argument you can see I’m trying to meet you halfway, so I hope you can cut me a little more slack.
Anyone arguing that we should support Romney, Perry, Newt, etc primarily because Obama will be terrible is making an argument that is inherently negative and apprehensive of Obama’s tendencies as a leader. And it’s also accurate. But that’s fear. Just calling a spade a spade.
Dustiи (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:32 pmAnd no, I didn’t get this out of your comment.
What am I getting from Romney? Where is the compromise? The two way street. What will he accomplish? Perhaps such an argument can be made, but not with reference to the explosion in MA’s spending or Romney’s record on nominations, nor on his consistency on any ideological matter.
What I interpret you as saying is that this is the alternative we have available to a democrat in the White House. Just sheer partisanship, based not on what Republicans are, but on how much worse Democrats are.
Dustiи (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:36 pm@ daleyrocks (#50 — 1/11/2012 @ 10:39 am): You ask, “What has Romney been inconsistent on since 2008?” I don’t know of any material inconsistencies between then and now. As far as I now, in general, he’s been very self-consistent since roughly 2006, actually. I give him credit for that, and indeed, I’d have much preferred him to John McCain in 2008.
But I think it’s fair to observe — and Romney supporters like my friend Hugh Hewitt concede without apology (but usually while pointing to Reagan’s evolution from New Deal Democrat to conservative icon) — that Romney was indeed, as self-described then, a “Massachusetts moderate” who’s become much more conservative since he left the governorship there. It’s the perceived lurch rightward just before he sought national office that’s at issue.
And rhetorically, he’s been at his weakest in my opinion on occasions when he might have profited from saying, “Yes, I’ve moved to the right because I’ve gotten smarter with experience.” He’s given several horrible answers trying to justify his support for the 2008 TARP legislation, for example. Some of that awkwardness may have come from a hypersensitivity to being labeled or perceived as a “flip-flopper.”
I do think, though, that he’s continued to improve, at a slow but fairly steady rate, as a campaigner. If he becomes the nominee, he won’t have to worry about attacks from his right anymore, and ironically, that may free him up to cut loose and actually communicate some wonky passion in making the case against Obama.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:37 pmI don’t understand why Romney gets credit for not flip flopping to the left after doing so would no longer be politically expedient.
The flip flop argument is that Romney will take the politically expedient path and is insincere. It is a red herring to cherry pick a period of time of consistency after the most egregious flip flopping.
And let’s get real: Romney is going to move left once he’s nominated if he holds true to a pattern of taking the most politically expedient path. If the test is that Romney hasn’t done so yet, then we are merely setting ourselves up for disappointment.
Dustiи (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:40 pm27, 46. Hypothetical, but certain, Romney has nothing to gain and plenty to lose answering the question.
The Economist pointed to the certainty of Greece’s collapse when the Maastricht Treaty was undertaken, in the early 90s.
Only 16 Million people, but Greece has been on the dole since day 1 and the EU cannot afford them any longer.
The ECB is printing money faster than the Fed, it is coming apart as we speak and the next POTUS will absolutely have to deal with the consequences.
Six months ago the euro was worth $1.45, today $1.27, by the end of March $1.20, and six months after Greek default and expulsion(Portugal, Hungary, others?) it will be back up where it started.
That is a hell of a lot of dislocation to FX markets, foreign trade, food and oil prices the world over.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:46 pmListening to Romney’s speech last night, I was really sort of feeling sorry for him, and I started feeling a little bit choked up, maybe the beginning of a tear of sympathy in the corner of my eye for poor Mitt, being criticized unfairly about business stuff by Newt and Rick ….
And then suddenly it struck me how much, in his very restrained reaction to that criticism (which I thought was appropriately understated), Romney sounded like Dana Carvey impersonating George H.W. Bush — “Nope, nope, not gonna go there. Wouldn’t be prudent. Nope.” So that pretty much ruined the moment.
But it was the best and most succinct speech I’ve heard Romney give in some time, and he pitched it just right. That’s an example of what I mean when I say that I think he’s becoming a better politician.
If he could only learn to fake sincerity, he’d have it made.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:51 pmFurthermore, my guy is toast. I have to settle for one of the other candidates. I have rejected Santorum simply for lacking executive experience, so I am left with Romney and Newt.
I know some have closed their minds to this, but I’ve repeatedly said I prefer Romney to some of the other candidates.
Romney could, I guess, make a brave statement that isn’t politically expedient, to show me he has a spine. Something like rejecting the corn subsidy while campaigning in Iowa or callling social security a ponzi scheme while campaigning in Florida.
If I’m not being clear: I am asking for more than electability alone. I am asking for more than ‘he can beat Obama and he’s better than Obama’. I was not in a coma in 2008 and recall that such claims then were at least half wrong.
If a progressive preserver of entitlements is the GOP nominee, the stakes go down quite a bit on the most urgent issue. My ideology will have been rejected fair and square.
And that’s not too surprising. Folks like their entitlements.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 2:58 pmDustin, if the GOP holds the House and gets a working super-majority in the Senate, then the House will again lead the way in addressing entitlement reforms. It’s already done that, it’s just that it’s been blocked in the Senate and, of course, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
It would be better, of course, for entitlement reforms to be lead jointly by the Administration and the House and Senate GOP. They need to speak with one voice to educate and overcome the demagoguery. But I’m not worried that a hypothetical Pres. Romney would impede the Young Guns in the House. (I’m much more worried about the faint-of-conservative-heart GOP members of the Senate.)
Rather, as I’ve said elsewhere, my own concerns about Gov. Romney have more to do with his faith in clever Ivy Leaguers (like himself and, alas, Barack Obama) to manage things (like who buys insurance and how). And I’m concerned that, especially if we have split government (with the Dems controlling at least one chamber of Congress), he’ll be too pliable in negotiations with the Dems and they’ll steal the ranch out from under him. The precedent which I’m concerned he might follow is that of George H.W. “Read My Lips” Bush, who with the best of intentions nevertheless blundered mightily in agreeing to tax increases.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:14 pmHow could he be accused of that? On what facts? What subsidy? If this is based on the Reuter’s story about GS Tech, and that is how Gingrich portrayed it, then that seems like deliberate dishonesty on his part.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:15 pmRomney is and always will be massacheusetts moderate.
Get over it.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:21 pmwill be a*
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:21 pmThat sounds very realistic. Why would Mitt get in the way at all? No, he will sign whatever reforms he gets.
He also probably isn’t going to boldly demand reforms from the bully pulpit, and I do worry he will negotiate somewhat as he did in MA.
There’s the bottom line. It’s important that conservatives really start focusing right now on primary candidates in congressional races.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:23 pmSo your case is that since he’s stuck with this set of positions for four years, we can trust that he’ll stick with them for at least eight more, and not revert to his previous ones or switch to some completely new set if he thinks these have gone out of fashion?
Considering that for the past four years he’s been in one role: candidate for the Republican nomination, it’s not surprising that he’s stuck with the costume that seems most suited for that purpose; once he gets it and turns into a candidate for the presidency, and then into a president, don’t you think he’s likely to change into positions more suited to those roles?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:23 pmUm, this country was founded by Whigs.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:24 pmI’m very vulnerable to being caricatured myself right now:
The skeptics will say this is my last feeble protest before giving in and, once again, investing my faith in a flawed vessel on grounds that he’s the least-worst still standing. But there we are. Even if the worst of my fears were proved true, he’d still be a dramatic improvement over what we have now.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:25 pmSpeaking of the US Senate, I encourage Texans to read Ted Cruz’s website and consider supporting him.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:26 pmRomney is a masachuseets moderate and always will be which means he is far-left.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:26 pmIndeed. Word ta yer mother.
I’d even go so far as to say “insane“.
I Got Bupkis, Fomenter of "small-l" libertarianism (8e2a3d) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:27 pmB-but Romneycare was corrupted by the left.-Romneybots.
B-but Palincare was corrupted by the left…………….stop defending Palin’s communism-Same romneyturds.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:29 pmDustin (#107): Agreed re Ted Cruz. Extremely substantive, with a deep record as an amazingly effective lawyer and appellate advocate for Texas, plus a good public speaker with deft instincts. And a fire-breathing constitutional conservative. It is going to be a joy watching his career progress, and there is no limit to his potential.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:36 pm“So your case is that since he’s stuck with this set of positions for four years…………………”
Milhouse – No, just another mind reading fail on your part.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:42 pmLeftys love Evita Peron because she and her husband ruled with an iron-fist.
Thank god she died.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:44 pm🙄
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 3:45 pmDoh, are you talking about Eva, or Evita?
Some say that Evita is in hiding with Elvis.
AD-RtR/OS! (09194a) — 1/11/2012 @ 4:00 pmI wish this was over with.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 1/11/2012 @ 4:06 pmIs Venice really underwater?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 4:06 pmEva Peron.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 4:06 pm“Some say that Evita is in hiding with Elvis.”
I thought she was with Jimmy Hoffa.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 4:08 pmWe’ve only just begunnnnnnn to liiiiiiiiiive
There are exactly 300 days until Nov 6, 2012 (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 4:21 pmWhite lace and promises
A kiss of luck and we’re on our way
If he could only learn to fake sincerity, he’d have it made.
Perhaps an affected swagger and tongue-tied deer-in-the-headlights frozen look would suffice, Beldar?
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 4:33 pmWell put, Beldar. All the sniping and carrying on will make it more difficult to support a candidate. And your comment reminds us all of the actual goal.
But, of course, people will carry on (like saying that Romney is “far-Left”—c’mon, that is just silly). I hope the histrionics at not getting a Perfect Conservative™ don’t lead to Four Worse Years of a second Obama Presidency.
Simon Jester (ec84b4) — 1/11/2012 @ 4:47 pmWell, that’s just it, though. That’s the kind of negativity Romney was invited when he plastered Iowa with all those ads. Same thing happened in 2008. He was so damn negative that one of the candidates stayed in after he was mathematically eliminated just to screw Romney over.
We need a class of leaders who inspire something other than bad blood. That’s why Newt was so appealing before he went negative, though it is very difficult to blame him for what amounts to returning fire (cheap shots or not).
As with any election, the ultimate blame for the candidates losing is indeed with the voters. But if one where to blame the voters for Perry’s failing, I doubt that would draw much sympathy. Similarly, if Romney’s electability is in question, that is something Romney needs to fix no matter how fair that may not seem.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 4:54 pmWhat is interesting, is that not only the players are on Mitt’s teams, but also the referees, from National Review to NewsCorp, to a lesser extent
narciso (87e966) — 1/11/2012 @ 5:15 pmeven CNN and MSNBC spare their attacks unless absolutely necessary, but Newt has to be crazy, Perry an idiot, some conbination for Cain, instead
of calmly acknowledging their flaws,
No, it’s not, and no matter how many times you say it is, it still won’t be.
It’s not a fear based argument to say “I can’t get everything that I want, but at least this way I’ll get some of what I want.” It’s not fear to say that 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. And it’s certainly not fear to say that the Republican Party had damned well better stop its internal bickering and get behind the nominee, or 2012 is going to be a very bad election.
Chuck Bartowski (490c6f) — 1/11/2012 @ 5:18 pmFor one thing, better court nominees. Patterico’s made that point about a dozen times.
For another, in the event that the Republicans take the Senate and hold the House and repeal Obamacare, the repeal won’t be vetoed.
Do you see any way that Obamacare can be repealed with a Democrat in the White House?
Those two things alone would be great reasons for voting Republican.
Look, Perry had his chance and blew it. Gingrich is fading like blue jeans in a tub of bleach. Santorum isn’t going to get elected on this planet at any time. A whole lot of people more conservative than Romney aren’t running. We gotta play the cards we were dealt. If Romney’s the nominee, I’ll support him, even though I don’t like him and he’s nowhere near my first choice.
But if it’s a choice between Romney naming SCOTUS justices and Obama naming them, I’ll take my chances with Romney.
Chuck Bartowski (490c6f) — 1/11/2012 @ 5:23 pmKeep trying, Simon. I admire your perseverance and your trust that one day some will experience that moment of clarity.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 5:35 pmDustin, with all due respect:
That sounds kind of familiar.
You know what someone needs to do? And you are so angry with him, you seem like just the man to do it: make a list of the “so damn negative” ads that Romney ran. Maybe Ace of Spades or Hot Air (or Patterico) would run them. I’m genuinely curious.
I wonder if any of them attack capitalism, like Gingrich and Perry pulled. I saw those. And so did the Left.
Again, to repeat my point endlessly: I will support whoever gets the nomination, because unlike Mr. Gary, I recognize that Four Worse Years is far, far more terrible than anyone in this primary.
Simon Jester (ec84b4) — 1/11/2012 @ 5:49 pmWhy should I list out something that’s not in controversy?
Also, complaining about these ads again would re-litigate, needlessly, some of the worst demagoguery I’ve seen. And of course people would complain that there’s no point. I mean, does it matter at this point that Romney trashed Perry with ads saying “Rick Perry: How can we trust anyone who wants to kill Social Security?” (this is a real comment from a Romney attack) Does it matter that Romney’s negativity was this bad, frankly at such an early stage in the primary that it seemed gratuitous?
Sadly, negativity is indeed now a universal aspect of any successful GOP candidate. Newt tried for a long time to avoid it, and Romney taught him the error of his ways.
I’ve probably said this as many times as you have. It goes without saying that Romney would be a lot better than Obama. I mean, Obama’s got a damn body count. I agree on that.
So now that that’s settled, we need to go about the business of selecting which of these candidates best reflects our views and standards and vote accordingly.
They never attacked capitalism in an ad. They attacked someone’s specific choices while supporting the freedom to do things they think demonstrates a certain character. Whether you agree with Perry and Newt or not, it is completely untrue that they attacked capitalism itself.
If your position is that anyone who criticizes how someone made money is thus attacking capitalism itself, I guess they shouldn’t then complain about over the top reactions.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 6:21 pmSimon… if you have a half hour to waste, read the transcript of that Bain movie Gingrich has bought and is running and then let us know whether it attacks capitalism or not.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 6:26 pmMaybe Patterico is wrong. I didn’t see the post where he said Romney would surely nominate better court nominees than he did as a governor, who had to pass these nominees through the governor’s counsel (not the MA legislature). Those appointees could have been conservatives, but they were liberals. In fact, even after Romney claimed he saw the light on abortion rights, he still appointed jurists who think Roe v Wade is good law.
In my opinion, Romney has the worst judicial appointment record of any of the GOP candidates who have appointed judges.
Yep. I’m not sure why people keep repeating the things I’m saying in comments that have a tone that seems like they are arguing against me, but yes, I still agree.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 6:27 pmI guess what I’m trying to say to Simon and Chuck, folks I respect, is that ideology matters and you can’t just flip a switch here and forget what’s happened up to this point.
Simon’s request that I hunt up Romney’s attacks has actually rekindled some frustration I have with him, because social security is a serious issue that needs to be discussed by adults without bastards demagogueing that the GOP is going to “kill” the program. Now there’s an attack that will come back and hurt the GOP in the general election, as it’s a common refrain from the left.
It is important to me that such a reform be at stake in this election. I want Americans to have the ability to choose between Romney/Obama’s fake-reform view on this, and Perry/Paul Ryan’s actual reform.
Beldar has a very intelligent way of handling the issue, which is not to tell conservatives to just deal with how crappy the field is (which is not exactly inspiring), but instead offers a positive direction to go (the Senate).
Don’t fight folks who are activists, donors, volunteers, and have standards for ideology that Romney has no hope of passing! Don’t tell them to give up, suggest their anger with the status quo is unreasonable, and draw false equivalence between their patriotic passion and the ugliest insults they take! That’s so misguided. Embrace these conservatives and direct them to the nearest congressional primary.
And Romney indeed will need to work out an overture to folks like me. I think I’m probably far more pragmatic and moderate than a large segment of the party, and we just plain have to do better than we did with Mccain. I’ve already explained what I’m looking for. It’s not some kind of justice for the negative attack ads. I want Romney to begin showing courage as a leader instead of taking the most politically expedient path.
If he is the nominee, he can prove me wrong by campaigning against Obama for social security reform, with Rick Perry at his side. He can urge an end to subsidies from ethanol to Romneycare. This would be awkward, but no worse than Perry and Newt are lately, that’s for sure.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 6:53 pmHere’s the latest installment of Desperate HouseFraus:
http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:06 pmInteresting.
I didn’t know Romney had claimed to have only created 10k jobs at Bain earlier in his long political career. This is just normal vetting, guys. I think Sarah Palin is justified in hoping Romney backs up his claims.
I wonder what the race will look like if Perry and Palin endorse Newt.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:22 pmPoliticalTicker John Bolton to endorse Romney – http://t.co/zH5YRBdh
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:23 pmBuzzFeedBen RT @NKingofDC: A large group of DeMint backers and veteran South Carolina GOPers, like Barry Wynn, are set to endorse Romney tomorrow.”
allahpundit Video: Rush Limbaugh rips Perry http://t.co/nvtsA40X
postpolitics Republican attacks on Mitt Romney’s Bain record blasted by Americans for Prosperity http://t.co/gU7Pjf0z
JimPethokoukis BREAKING: Capitalism means people sometimes lose money, jobs
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:27 pmallahpundit RT @trscoop: Mark Levin almost ready to say Gingrich and Perry should drop out http://t.co/tsLDOUYX
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/11/2012 @ 7:32 pm” And you are so angry with him, you seem like just the man to do it: make a list of the “so damn negative” ads that Romney ran.
Why should I list out something that’s not in controversy? ”
I think the part in controversy is who did what to whom.
The Obama Campaign began running negative ads on Romney in April.
Ron Paul began running negative ads on the competition as early as September, but I find no mention of his ads in your complaints.
Perry’s ads were negative on both Gingrich and Romney, but they go unmentioned.
By the twisted logic I see presented here today, the Paul, Perry and Romney campaign/PACs did Gingrich a favor by raising issues the Democrats would have later anyway, except they did not do it by questioning free market economics.
Revisionist history is always fun when you don’t apply it consistently. When you apply it consistently, some of the fun gets taken out.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:01 pmAnd yet, his would still be better than Obama’s appointments.
We’ve seen what Obama has done: Sotomayor and Kagan. You think he’s going to be any better in a second term? And let’s not forget that Obama’s nominees are two of the three youngest justices, and will be deciding cases for another 30 years or so.
Chuck Bartowski (490c6f) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:13 pmWTF, Romney?
He doesn’t believe in capitalism?
/that was a joke, but he’s harsher on the general concept of free markets than Newt or Perry have been lately.
I was kidding around when I said there’s nothing Romney fans can argue that Romney hasn’t contradicted. I guess I was right.
Barack Obama is a democrat, Chuck. He isn’t running for the GOP nomination. I readily concede that Romney beats that low bar that is ‘is he better than Obama?’. I am afraid of how bad Obama will be in his second term.
What I said was that of the GOP candidates who have any record on this issue of nominating conservatives to the bench, Romney’s record is the one I disagree with the most. I think that’s a reasonable view.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:38 pmIt’s interesting, if you watch the link in my prior comment, seeing Romney categorically reject the notion that more funding for education is how we can reach more prosperity, saying instead that it is by clearing the way for corporations and businesses to succeed, with less government, that will see America to succeed.
Oh wait, that’s backwards. Romney explains that this view of getting out of the way of business is merely “republican” and he “Doesn’t subscribe to that”. It’s more money for education he wants.
It sounds like the a sheer calculation to get votes, rather than leadership, to me.
While Romney is better than Obama, he isn’t a leader in a time where this country is in serious trouble and needs leadership.
Should we then hate Mitt Romney? No… I guess that isn’t such a good plan after all. He’s crushing the other candidates for a reason. The problem isn’t Mitt. It’s really, really important that conservatives continue explaining the principle of reforming spending, even if that’s not ideal for Mitt Romney. we have to change minds about this.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:46 pmComment by Dustin — 1/11/2012 @ 7:22 pm
I wonder what the race will look like if Perry and Palin endorse Newt.
They’re more likely to endorse Santorum.
In some states I think he isn’t on the ballot, so votes would have to be cast for Gingrich.
The way to see this race is:
Romney + Paul + 5 < 45 = Not Romney. The numbers are percentages of committed delegates.
(Ron Paul is playing the same role for Romney as Jesse Jackson did for Dukakis in the Democratic primaries in 1988, or George Wallace did for Jimmy Carter in 1976, except that nobody is voting for Romney to stop or rebuke Paul. But in the end, as in those two cases, you add the totals together. Nobody else adds to Romney unless he already has near 50.)
The New York Post this morning showed Gingrich one vote ahead of Santorum (22,220 to 22,219) with 94% of the vote counted….Google is now not only showing you results before you finish typing, which is all right, or asking you if you really meant something else, but changing what is in the b=ox before you hit enter. It just changed "New Hampshire" primary – and I was typing more – to Hampshire primary care.
But if you're a bit stubborn you can actually get Google to do the search you want. You usually can succeed on the second try. (Of course Google has made some services disappear or get much more obscure. It actually gets harder to find information.)
From the Guardian (BTW Google first tried to change "New Hampshire" into Netflix)
With 100% of precincts reporting, here's the final tally:
Mitt Romney 97,532, 39.3%
Ron Paul, 56,848 22.9%
Jon Huntsman 41,945, 16.9%
Newt Gingrich 23,411, 9.4%
Rick Santorum 23,362, 9.4%
Rick Perry 1,766, 0.7%
Buddy Roemer 945, 0.4%
Gingrich 49 votes ahead of Santorum. Polls show a nearly even split between them in South Carolina too with Santorum a bit ahead, 21 to 20, Perry at 5%
Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:50 pmChina doesn’t need to hack Google, Google is doing a good job of damaging itself all by itself. Unless this is itself maybe a hack – social engineering it is called. Maybe China has even got some moles there employed or associated with Google…it is very important to China to disable the Internet as a place where somebody can find out things they don’t already know. I think they sent a lot of spam in the last decade to force American companies to devise screening software which they could then apply for censorship purposes.
I have been using Google since 1998.
It was the first Internet search engine that didn’t you a lot of false drops – the first one that by default ANDed everything.
All the others were ORing searches just to make sure they came up with something.
Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:51 pmRick Perry won’t get any delegates – well maybe one or two or three.
Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:53 pmSammy, it is very annoying how Google is less useful than it used to be. They know their software is not providing the best results for, say, Santorum. It’s a punchline, I guess. Folks interested in their civic duty are exposed to that coarseness.
You do realize this means they are tracking what you’re typing as you type it, right? It blows my mind that the computing power to do this (how many times simultaneously?) exists.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:58 pmSenator Frothy looks like he might get out of this without anyone having aired a single negative ad about him
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/11/2012 @ 8:58 pmSam’s comment reminds me: which of these candidates has taken a firm stance on the SOPA?
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:23 pmDid Johnny Macs spawn just accuse someone else of acting like a typical politician?
Reagans 11th commandment is used to squelch legit criticism
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:23 pmDustin do you think Johnny Macs spawn accusing others of acting like a politician can rate on the irony scale?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:26 pm46. Comment by daleyrocks — 1/11/2012 @ 10:37 am
Sammy @27 – In what way was that scenario not a hypothetical? The people believe something is going to happen in the future, what would you do differently?
Seriously?
It is an obvious hypothetical. But it gets at what he thinks.
Romney tried to evade the question by noting it was a hypothetical, and at first said it was “obviously very difficult to imagine.”
Later, when Juliana Goldman, Bloomberg TV White House Correspondent argued:
more than half the country believes that a financial meltdown is likely in the next several years, and the U.S. banks have at least $700 billion in exposure to Europe. So it’s a very real threat, and voters want to know what you would do differently (than what Bush did in 2008)
Romney said: “It’s still a hypothetical as to what’s going to precisely happen in the future. I’m not very good at being omniscient…”
So now at least it’s not obviously difficult to imagine.
It could be unrealistic but he didn’t say that even.
He didn’t want to answer the question. But he said he wouldn’t call up Timothy Geithner and say, how does the economy work? Because I spent my life in the economy.
I spent my entire career working in the private sector, starting businesses, helping turn around businesses, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. And I know how to make tough decisions and to gather the input from around the country to help make the important decisions that have to be made.
So he knows things, but he couldn’t say any individual thing that he knows or any individual thing he would do or give any insight into things except to argue taht he has insights or knowledge.
He knows because of his biography…or maybe what it is that he knows is how to make tough decisions and gather…input
And who would he gather input from?
Well, let’s see:
Milton Friedman!! If you could find him again.
But he adds Milton Friedman said “If you took all the economists in America, and you laid them end to end, it would be a good thing.” But he said he has more respect for economists than that.
So he’d use Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hutchins [sic- he means Hubbard – Hutchins is a private equity investor] both former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers. But then he adds that he didn’t always agree with them!
And he’d also consult “business leaders” “people who are currently in the economy, in the financial sector, and in the manufacturing sector” “drawing on the best minds of this country, including economists”
I don’t know why hes so worried that everybody would think he’d have to use an economist. There’s no standard economist. An economist is just maybe someone who spent more time thinking on something or trying to make things work mathematically. they can be quite wrong. The consensus may be very wrong. But if you have an idea, chances are there’s somebody who’s spent some time working on it.
Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:35 pm6. I’m still holding out hope that Perry will get his act together.
— Better not be holding your breath.
Or that Palin will jump in.
— Not gonna happen.
Or someone.
— The Donald?
if Obama is reelected, we’re rid of him in 2017; if Romney is elected the next opportunity to get a decent president won’t be till 2021
Icy (d8098c) — 1/11/2012 @ 9:38 pm— If you think a 2nd Obama term will do less damage than 2 terms for Romney, then the president isn’t the one we have to worry about being ‘decent’.
I don’t get all this rancor, Icy. What will happen is that folks will get all crazy about, say, Romney, painting him as “far-Left” (as some people here have already, which is, um, inaccurate), and basically echo the framework of the Left, free of charge. Weird.
Then, when Romney gets the nomination, they won’t back down from their earlier snarlfests. Ego will prevent them for fighting Obama as hard as we will need to, to get this gang out of the White House and on a book tour.
It’s not about not disagreeing, or not being critical. It’s about being reasonable, and getting the spittle flecked opposition out of the equation. There. Are. No. Great. Candidates. Lots of people on the Right were very worried about Reagan. I was there; I remember. Ditto Nixon. But the alternatives were so very much worse. Just like now.
Still, you will see The True Conservative Narrative™ develop into a lack of commitment to getting Obama out of the White House, and even sitting out elections. You will start to hear that the Presidency doesn’t matter. That Romney would appoint far-Left Supreme Court justices, no different than Obama. And so on and so on.
It’s, um, counterproductive to conservative principles. And all oddly personal.
We know what the goal needs to be for 2012. Must be. I don’t get the weird ego thing going on.
Simon Jester (ec84b4) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:03 pmComment by Dustin — 1/11/2012 @ 8:58 pm
Sammy, it is very annoying how Google is less useful than it used to be. They know their software is not providing the best results for, say, Santorum. It’s a punchline, I guess. Folks interested in their civic duty are exposed to that coarseness.
I think Google’s position is that they don’t want to do interfere at a high level with the search results . But in that case, they should acknwledge thre’s a problem here. and they did correct things when a search for Jew (not Jewish or Judasm but Jew) kept on turning up anti-semitic sites and making that number one.
Now the first two are
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
and Demographics of New York City – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City
They left one off the wall anti-semitic site as number 3. But at least the argument prevailed that’snot what most peopleare loking for.
With Santorum it might be that maybe Google was getting pressure the other way. Because this was an obvious and very egregious case of Google bombing, which in most cases they do like and change the search algorithm to avoid it.
Maybe Santorum’s prominence, if it lasts for a while, will cause them to do something bout this, andof course, normal changes in web pages could be expected to alterthe results some.
Aa of today we get..New Hampshire primary Results? That’s really targeting. They give different results based on your search history and location now, which means you really can’t tell what;s going to turn up somewhere far away.
Also then Santorum eponym controversy as number one and a Wikipedia article for Santorum as number 2 (after news) (Google for several years has had a terrible bias for Wikipedia when you’d really want to have a very long page or web site just about that subject. Google also likes blogs. but maybe that’s going to change. Their latest change is to give people results from Google Plus if they are on it or have friends on it..Usenet newsgroups has become much much more obscure.
But number 3 is “Santorum is an eponym coined by US columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage after then-U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania and current candidate for the ”
SF> Google is now not only showing you results before you finish typing, which is all right
You do realize this means they are tracking what you’re typing as you type it, right?
Unless your computer is very slow. Of course, There’s evena website orsomeplace at Google headquarters where you can see radndom searches.
The question is not whether they are tracking what somebody searches for. The question is, are they saving the information? And for what?
It could be for ads, which isn’t so bad. Worse is changing the results.
It blows my mind that the computing power to do this (how many times simultaneously?) exists.
It’s all lots of PCs linked together. They’ve got buildings full of them, I think. I kind of wonder if there maybe isn’t quite that much computing power, and Google is trying to save itself work, and not do many complicated actual searches or too many searches it hasn’t done before. Maybe the database they are searching through is really, really big now – except they try to avoid complicated searches done now and subtly and not so subtly try to discourage people from even asking for them.
If avoiding unique searches is not a goal why does Google try to shut down unused or less popular services? It’s still good for ads as much as anything else. Google must be trying to save on computer power – and it’s damaging Google.
Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:04 pmMind you, if Newt Gingrich quit echoing OWS and acted Presidential, and got the nomination…I would support him. Or if Rick Perry started reflecting what many people in Texas see in him, but on a national stage.
I have my differences with everyone in the field. But I would support any of them (I’m worried about Ron Paul) over the current occupant of the White House.
Simon Jester (ec84b4) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:04 pmI have rejected Santorum simply for lacking executive experience, so I am left with Romney and Newt
— That Newt enjoys “executive level shopping” at Tiffany’s does NOT give him executive experience!
Icy (d8098c) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:07 pmWhat will happen is that folks will get all crazy about, say, Romney, painting him as “far-Left” (as some people here have already, which is, um, inaccurate), and basically echo the framework of the Left, free of charge. Weird
Icy (d8098c) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:15 pm— Well, ya know . . . those “people” echoing inside the framework of Dohbiden’s head are basically fighting for control of his finger-paints.
* Google bombing, which in most cases they do NOT like and change the search algorithm to avoid it.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb
This is Google’s official position from some time ago:
We don’t condone the practice of googlebombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we’re also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up. Pranks like this may be distracting to some, but they don’t affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission.
The Wikipedia article also says:
By January 2007, Google changed their indexing structure[2] so that Google bombs such as “miserable failure” would “typically return commentary, discussions, and articles”[2] about the tactic itself. Google announced the changes on its official blog. In response to criticism for allowing the Google bombs, Matt Cutts, the head of Google’s Webspam team, said that Google bombs had not “been a very high priority for us.”[2][15]
Discussions about it? That does seem to have happened with Santorum. But here actually has to be a web page that discusses or complains about it first and it probably needs to have a somewhat high rank to begin with. Google also avoided having the exact definition of the invented obscene meaning for Santorum appear on the page of search results.
Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:16 pmYou really think Rick Perry has simply not presented Texas ideals on a national stage yet?
That’s what’s holding him back?
No, what happened was he made a few major gaffes and was also hit with a ton of negative attacks from four candidates. Bachmann, Cain, Santorum and Romney. He failed to overcome that. Fair or not, that’s the way it is.
He did, however, present a ton of awesome ideas that actually are exactly why he’s successful in Texas, and I hope those ideas don’t go away just because Perry failed to present his own candidacy effectively. It’s the ideas that matter.
He also then pandered and has fallen on his ass, etc etc etc. Not really worth defending him and hasn’t been for some time, but he presented some ideas you should consider.
I don’t get where you see a weird ego thing going on.
It’s not like conservatism just came out of nowhere. We are out of money as a country and need to reform entitlement and other spending urgently. Obamacare and Obama’s ‘every promise has an expiration date’ are critical issues the GOP should be situated to criticize sharply.
Ego is probably not a part of it for 99.999999999999% of Romney’s critics. It does appear to be a big deal for a few of his defenders who have run off a lot of great folks. I particularly find unhelpful the insults and generalizations.
Watch this and reconsider whether those who are rejecting Newt out of purity of essence should then support Romney. It makes no sense at all.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:24 pmJust to be clear, if Newt does not change his tune on his criticism of Bain, but does get the nomination, will you support him?
It sounds like you’re requiring both, but that seems unlikely to me because it’s totally insane.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:26 pmComment by MayBee — 1/11/2012 @ 9:51 am
Maybe there’s something wrong with me, but I find Romney’s answers entirely reasonable.
The=hey do sound reasonable. You may even infer that he’s informed. From what he does not say or maybe from the way he bobs and weaves. But he doesn’t show it. And I think all he has is the conventional wisdom.
Asked if he would fire Bernanke, he says well, he’d be replaced anyway. That means he does not like Rick Perry’s and Ron Paul’s and Newt Gingrich’s criticisms of Bernanke (because it would easy to join in and he’d see no reason not to if he didn’t know more or wasn’t told by somebody that what he’s doing in expanding the money supply is essential and that the European Central Bank is all wrong.)
Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:26 pm“more than half the country believes that a financial meltdown is likely in the next several years, and the U.S. banks have at least $700 billion in exposure to Europe. So it’s a very real threat, and voters want to know what you would do differently (than what Bush did in 2008)”
Sammy – It’s a ridiculous question that I don’t blame him for dodging. Some people believe something may happen overseas that may impact U.S. banks, what will you do, what will you do?
To start with describe the meltdown and how Europe responds before we can assess the likely impact on U.S. banks. The primary action and primary responders in this case are overseas as opposed to the U.S. in 2008.
It is a ridiculous open-ended undefined question relative to what faced the U.S. in 2008.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:35 pmIn that link above, Mitt Romney attacks the entire GOP, explaining that republicans just think we should “give corporations more money”.
How does that compare to what Newt has criticized about Bain?
In my opinion, the Bain criticism is a lot less offensive. It’s possible some investment firms have been short sighted, after all. A lot of companies can be shipped off and torn apart for short term gains, but were actually long term viable. At least that’s debateable.
I just don’t get those who are rejecting Newt as too impure, when Romney has a record of such anti republican/conservative rhetoric. At least on that specific basis.
And what exactly did Mitt Romney mean when he explained that Republicanism is to “give corporations more money”?
The only way I understand that is “tax cuts”, which means Romney is saying what we earn is by default not ours, and if we are allowed to keep more of it, that’s some kind of gift. Which is probably mainstream MA thinking (I assume that vid was from MA).
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:39 pm“That means he does not like Rick Perry’s and Ron Paul’s and Newt Gingrich’s criticisms of Bernanke (because it would easy to join in and he’d see no reason not to if he didn’t know more or wasn’t told by somebody that what he’s doing in expanding the money supply is essential and that the European Central Bank is all wrong.)”
Sammy – It just means he’s not tipping his hand. Why draw conclusions with no evidence?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:40 pmThere was no mind reading involved. I quoted your own words, and gave them the most straightforward possible construction. If you meant something else by them, be so good as to say what it was. Because I can’t think of another plausible construction. Which is really a fail on your part, not on mine.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/11/2012 @ 10:49 pmMilhouse, it’s just another personal attack.
It’s getting really old seeing these guys respond to obviously good faith arguments with what I am coming more and more to associate with The Romney Way.
I mean, in my video above Romney goes so far as to smear the “Classical Republican” point of view as “let’s give corporations more money”.
How is it he gets away with that, and some of his fans seem to think they get away with unbelievable ugliness, just by later expressing that it’s not personal. It’s very interesting.
I have to admit, it is impressive in a way that Romney can actually contend for the GOP nomination after that. There’s no way Newt or Perry could pull off a con like that.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:02 pmNo, a Republican.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:04 pmSomehow these people seem not to have any problem with me when I defend Romney on the Bain thing. But the moment I breathe a word of criticism against their hero I’ve committed a federal crime. Well, sorry guys, as Dustin’s video demonstrates your guy is every bit as bad as Gingrich. They’re both unacceptable. We need someone else.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:06 pmIt seems like even if I could magically make Perry the nominee, it would be a mistake as so many Republicans are ticked off at him. It wouldn’t lead to a strong unified party.
I don’t know about Newt… perhaps that’s true for him as well.
Obviously Romney has a similar problem.
Is a brokered convention the best result for this primary?
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:10 pm“There was no mind reading involved. I quoted your own words, and gave them the most straightforward possible construction.”
Milhouse – No, you gave my words the construction you dreamed up. I asked a straight forward question of Beldar and asked for a correction if I was wrong. If was was making an argument, I would have done so. It is a fail on your part, but typical of you to try to blame others for your assumptions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/11/2012 @ 11:59 pmBut what was the significance of the question? In what possible way could the answer be helpful, if you were not making the case I laid out?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:01 am“Milhouse, it’s just another personal attack.”
Dustin – Blow it out your butt. It was just Milhouse misreading another comment and now you trying to escalate something that isn’t there with your justified anger and victimhood. Just more childishness and tripe from you.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:02 am“In that link above, Mitt Romney attacks the entire GOP, explaining that republicans just think we should “give corporations more money”.”
Dustin – What’s the context of the clip. When is it from. What surrounds it in Romney’s words?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:04 amDustin, in the video you linked, Romney doesn’t say what you claim he says.
He’s trying to identify the “source of America’s greatness,” and he says the “classical Republican” view is that it has something to do with corporations. He claims that the Dems believe it’s something to do with government. But he thinks the source of America’s greatness is its investment in its people through education.
I believe that’s an accurate paraphrase of what’s in that clip; correct me with direct quotes if I’m wrong. Nothing more than that — no indictment of either the Republican Party (or “classical Republicanism”) or capitalism. Nothing remotely close to the kind of overtly, undeniably anti-business hysterics I’ve been hearing from Gov. Perry and Mr. Gingrich this week.
Moreover, that’s about 1-1/2 minutes out of how long a speech?
You have not persuaded me that Romney has made anti-business statements, my friend, much less that he’s actually anti-business. I return to my premise, in another comment here a couple of days ago:
Romney’s management experience at Bain and with the Olympics is not a bug, it’s a feature, and it’s his best feature.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:06 amIndeed it is. He has so many many faults for which he can and should be legitimately attacked; why are they pouring their fire on good things he’s done?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:08 amFWIW, I’m not applauding that clip either. I think it’s very muddled and unclear. How old is it? My guess is that this reflects Romney’s awkwardness at acknowledging his business background and a desire to avoid looking like that which the Dems caricature him as anyway. But no, it’s not remotely comparable in either tone or substance to what Perry and Gingrich have been spewing.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:10 amI dunno, Milhouse. There are indeed plenty of other and better reasons to fret about Gov. Romney, and I do, too.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:11 amApparently Dan Riehl dates that clip back to 1993. I don’t think it proves much of anything, but I suppose others can draw their own conclusions.
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:17 amIf I were answering a question about the source of America’s greatness, I wouldn’t put capitalism at the top of the list either, by the way. I would say it’s our commitment to individual liberty, as guaranteed by the Constitution and actually implemented in practice under the Rule of Law. (The USSR had a great constitution, too, but without the Rule of Law it was just empty promises.) That creates a playing field of individual liberties that is compatible with capitalism, which in turn is the least-worst economic system yet invented and one which, while imperfect and sometimes ugly and inefficient and painful, nevertheless creates and aggregates wealth for the whole human race. But we didn’t invent capitalism here, and I think it’s something important and worth defending, I don’t think it’s peculiarly American or the most direct source of American exceptionalism.
Do I wish Romney had said something closer to what I just said? Yeah, but …. Maybe he would if you asked him that same question again today.
Confusedly pointing to something other than capitalism as the source of America’s greatness, though, does not equal an attack on capitalism!
Beldar (20e7e9) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:26 amOK, let me try. First, let me concede that Romney is not demonizing corporations (in fact, he’s a CEO at the time).
I think he is rather criticizing Republicans and also describing the GOP in a rather ridiculous way.
“If we just clear the decks so that corporations can be more successful and give them more money and make it easier for them to succeed, why we’ll do even better on the world stage”.
I take particular exception to the “give them more money” comment. I don’t think Romney was seriously saying Republicans want the government to actually distribute wealth to corporations. I think Romney was saying that tax cuts represent the government giving earners money. The ‘tax cuts are a handout’ argument has been a mainstream one for a long time.
That is the only one that makes sense to me.
Romney explains he does not subscribe to this view, distancing himself from the GOP, which is very consistent with his campaign (this is the same campaign where he said he was an independent and wasn’t trying to return to reagan era policies, etc etc).
Is it true that Republicans wish to make America great by giving money to corporations? No. Alternatively, whatever way we mend this into something that does seem Republican, for example a system that allows corporations to invest more of their profits and succeed… well, indeed I disagree with Romney if he is saying (as he seems to) that this would improve our standing on the world stage. In fact, this country has lost ground on the world stage as it has increased regulation and taxation.
Later, Romney rejects a big government approach. Bully for that, of course.
And finally Romney explains his idea of how to seek greatness, which is “the decision to invest in people”. I have an interpretation of this that I didn’t offer because that one I actually am unsure about (it sounds a lot like a defense of the Great Society). But Romney also explains this in terms of investing in education.
Perhaps it is unfair for me to see this as a call for greater education spending (though Romney did eventually increase education spending when his state really couldn’t afford it). He is actually just saying he agrees with decades of doing so in the past, which isn’t unreasonable.
But that’s not the part that bothers me.
I think Romney was cultivating a sense that Republicans favor corporations and that this is wrong.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:27 amI think you are right that he was attempting to distance himself from the notion he’s a corporate leader.
And it seems that he will distance himself from his own best feature. Which I grant doesn’t seem as bad as demonizing capitalism.
He seemed to be pointing to ‘investments’ made in people and education as a better strategy than letting companies operate with less government in the way, but this is just my interpretation (And I’m clearly biased).
I haven’t interpreted Newt’s comments as an attack on capitalism itself, but assuming for argument’s sake that this is exactly what Newt did: shame on both of them, and we shouldn’t reject one in favor of the other on the basis of either of these signs of weakness (for they both know that capitalism is a great thing and would merely be pandering to those who do not).
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:36 amThis is a fair point.
However, Newt has tried to put his comments into a larger context where he supports the free market, too.
I hate to play this ‘turnabout’ game.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:39 amI wasn’t trying to restate Beldar’s point unfairly, btw. I think at the very least Romney was trying to distance himself from a democrat caricature of what a corporate leader is seen as in MA.
Am I really off base in interpreting this video as Romney saying ‘I am not one of those corporate lackey Republicans!’?
Just because he is talking about an abstract issue (greatness), isn’t he really distancing himself from this view of a business friendly GOP? And if so, isn’t he playing into some ideas that are anti-business (or at least anti being friendly to business) and also cost the GOP some reputation with the audience (Which I assume didn’t like the GOP to begin with)?
If not… if all Romney is saying is that what Republicans really think is most great about this country is corporations making profits, what kind of message is that? This is not that long after Reagan’s term ended. there’s a whole lot you can read into this.
And there’s a whole lot you can read into any politician’s commentary. Newt has made a ton of stupid comments over the years.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/12/2012 @ 12:52 am168. Would appear the Romany surge in SC and FL has suffered some backsliding into the undecided column.
The taste is being savored and…
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/12/2012 @ 2:09 amWe’re doing good, sigh;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/gop-gives-florida-second-class-access-to-convention-as-punishment-for-early/
narciso (87e966) — 1/12/2012 @ 4:36 amre: post #182… Just call it the new and improved Beldar, Sparky, and be done with it. No need to obfuscate.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/12/2012 @ 6:25 amDustin, in the video you linked, Romney doesn’t say what you claim he says.
How many times does this, or something close to it, need to be written for people to figure this fellow out?
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/12/2012 @ 6:29 amThe speech is from May 13, 2003 at M.I.T. Mitt comes in around 10 minutes into the clip below.
About the Lecture
Governor Mitt Romney delivered the keynote address at the Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation’s first IdeasStream Symposium. In his talk, he underscored the value of the Deshpande Center’s goal to accelerate the pace of taking research from the laboratory to the marketplace. He talked about his own business philosophies, and stressed the need for businesses to stay focused, and not make rash decisions in the face of economic challenge. He also shared a remarkable story of building the speed skating oval for the 2002 Olympics, a project with a $300 million price tag, and a $35 million budget.
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/125
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/12/2012 @ 8:13 amThe portion from the clip comes in shortly after 16:00. Romney’s point is that he does not subscribe to the steoreotypical description of a classical Republican or Democrat. He believes America’s success has come from the preservation of individual liberties and it people, particularly investment in its people through education. He immediately goes on to talk about his goals for governing, keeping the tax burden moderate and regulatory burden low, to attract business.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/12/2012 @ 8:45 amThe left ain’t intelligent.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/12/2012 @ 1:27 pmBloomberg wants to raise the minimum wage?
Why not raise NY’s minimum wage to $145,000,000,000,000,000?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/12/2012 @ 2:07 pmThen Bloomberg should give everyone that works personally for him in his private enterprise fat raises and stfu about what everyone else should do.
Living wages, or inflated minimum wages make employers extremely wary about hiring entry level employees.
SteveG (e27d71) — 1/12/2012 @ 3:08 pmEntry level employees waste more time and make more mistakes and at $8.50HR go through all too long periods where they are a net loss.
Yes poor old teachers unions if you don’t pay them $89,733 there will be crappy teachers…………not.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/12/2012 @ 3:09 pmThe only ones who call what the Military did to the Taliban are the useful idiots for communisms.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/12/2012 @ 3:51 pmcommunists*
The only one who calls what the military did to to the taliban barbaric*
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/12/2012 @ 5:54 pmAce has a great post criticizing the video Beldar and I disagreed about.
He considered Mitt’s comments to consistent a left-wing attack, and I agree.
I think it shows Mitt’s contempt for the GOP and actually his contempt for the very arguments currently used to defend Mitt from some specific criticisms.
I also think there is something quite tone deaf, after 2008, about what’s going on today.
But we’ll see if I’m right in November. I certainly don’t want to be right about that.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/12/2012 @ 6:10 pmBuzzFeedBen Also yes amazing Perry image http://t.co/iblTTK8E
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/12/2012 @ 6:23 pmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288022/mitt-bain-movie-disgrace-andrew-c-mccarthy
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/12/2012 @ 6:40 pmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288007/weird-gingrich-revisionism-ramesh-ponnuru
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/12/2012 @ 6:42 pmYou mittsters are jokes.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/12/2012 @ 7:08 pmBloomberg-The free market is not perfect……….so lets raise the minimum wage to $1 trillion
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/12/2012 @ 7:09 pmJohn Bolton shows his contempt for the lily-livered, as he endorses his choice for the Republican nomination:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/12/john-bolton-endorses-mitt-romney-saying-hes-conservative-enough/
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/12/2012 @ 7:36 pm202. John is looking for gainful employ.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/12/2012 @ 7:44 pmThe AP has an article about candidates not on the ballot:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j1piqcvFUAipX5U0G_xN3WEVebkg?docId=df1ab363409e4c3ea7ac3129d9075d92
There is Virginia, which we know about.
Santorum, also is not on the ballot in the District of Columbia for its April 3 primary. He
didn’t pay he filing fee ($10,000 or $5,000 plus
296 signatures from people registered to vote as Republicans in the District of Columbia.)
He also filed incomplete slates of delegates in Illinois and Ohio.
Huntsman is not on the ballot in Arizona or Illinois. In Arizona all he had to do is file a 2-page form. There will be 23 names on the Republican primary ballot in Arizona Feb 28, but not Huntsman.
Gingrich is not it on the ballot in Missouri, but he has said he passed it up because the Feb 7 primary is only a beauty contest and what counts is caucuses to be held March 17 – and
Rick Perry will be on the ballot in Illinois, but he will only be eligible to win one delegate out of 54 in the March 20 primary. The winner of the primary doesn’t necessarily get any delegates. People also vote for the actual delegates, who are listed separately on the ballot but are identified by the candidate they support. To appear on the ballot as a delegate, candidates had to collect signatures from at least 600 registered voters in the district where they are running. Only one Perry delegate filed signatures by the deadline. Gingrich, Paul and Romney filed full slates, but only 44 Santorum delegates filed signatures.
This is all besides Virgiinia in states that have already passed the deadline.
Sammy Finkelman (9a6ee5) — 1/13/2012 @ 1:20 amRomney better bring his a-game or he won’t win.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/17/2012 @ 8:50 amAs you know the judge eventually ruled taht the other campaigns had no case – this was one of the things discussed in some articles – ZPerry et al had to bring the case while the petitioninmg process was going on, he ruled.
So far I doin’;t know anytthing from the legislature.
If Gingrich (or Santorum?) wins Florida, this *will* be an issue.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/26/2012 @ 4:27 pm