Mitt Sixpack
[Posted by Karl]
That doesn’t sound quite right, does it? As Erick Erickson noted:
In South Carolina exit polls, Romney wins only the “moderate or liberal”, those with incomes in excess of $200,000.00, those with postgraduate education, those who oppose the tea party movement, and those who think religion does not matter at all.
A number of those have been consistent through Iowa and New Hampshire too.
Fairly or not, Romney seems to have have a wealth problem, exploitable by his rivals now and Team Obama if Mitt gets the nomination. Oddly, I find myself in agreement with both Erickson and John Heilemann that Romney needs to: (a) “refine his message, not sharpen his knives”; and (b) get comfortable, and quick, in talking about his money issues. In particular, I would advise Romney to go beyond defending the free market in response to the Bain Capital issue. That approach appeals to the right, but the abstract principle may not move the casual voter, particularly the blue-collar casual voter. Romney’s plan to compare Bain’s work to the GM bailout if he becomes the nominee still puts him in the role of “bailout guy,” which is probably not the best frame this year.
Perhaps Romney should compare his role at Bain to being a doctor. Sometimes, doctors get to deliver babies or cure sick children who go on to live full and productive lives. In those cases, the doctor gets to feel great. So it is with some companies, like Staples or Domino’s Pizza. In other cases, the patient is so injured or so sick that they have to lose or limb, or even die. The doctors try as hard as they can, but sometimes all the lifesaving measures known to mankind are not enough and the doctors feel terrible about it. So it is when companies get rightsized or go bankrupt.
Some may think doctors are overpaid, but no one would want to live in a society without them. Mitt Romney is never going to seem like Mitt Sixpack, but he may be able to come across as caring more about more blue-collar families.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (f07e38) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:44 amRomney wins with those who oppose the Tea Party movement?
But Romney said he would repeal Obamacare!!!!
I don’t get it. It’s like they don’t trust him.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:47 amThat was almost sensible coming from Heileman, to paraphrase a line from ‘Clear and Present Danger ‘the course of action, I’d suggest is one I can’t
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:54 amsuggest’
Karl – Significant change in demographics from Iowa and New Hampshire if I recall correctly. What explains the swings?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:05 am“Fairly or not, Romney seems to have have a wealth problem”
Karl – I would seriously love to have Mitt’s wealth “problems”, as I am sure would most Americans. This stuff is funny.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:17 am“This is a fight for Amerikkka’s soul.”
Nieman Marcus sells those don’t they? Pick one up for the candidate, 44 Long.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:18 amdaleyrocks,
Erickson’s summation of those common demos is basically correct. There are demos Romney won earlier but not in SC, but they are, for lack of a better term, sketchy. For example, Mitt did better with conservatives in NH, but a good argument can be made that what counts as conservative in NH is noth the same as what counts in SC. Mitt previously did better with people worried about the economy, but the economy is better in IA and NH than in SC. Gingrich did really well in the ecomomically distressed areas of SC.
That said, SC was on paper a better state for Newt in terms of it being Southern and more socially conserviative/populist in the first place.
Another prob for Mitt is that the exit polling suggests Mitt is the candidate of early deciders (not unlike Ron Paul in that respect). He seems to have a hard time closing the sale late… and there were even more late deciders in SC than in NH.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:19 am#2
I don’t particularly care whether Romney won among people who oppose the Tea Party movement. Actually it’s not possible for the Republican nominee, whoever it turns out to be, to win without getting some votes from people who don’t like the Tea Party. It’s incorrect to say that people who oppose the Tea Party automatically want Obamacare continued.
Gerald A (b4fe48) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:20 amI love the millionaires Obama and Gingrich salivating over painting Romney as having a “wealth problem”.
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:21 amI did say, almost sensible didn’t I.
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:21 amdaley,
Yes, most everyone would love to have Mitt’s wealth. But it’s a problem if you’re running for POTUS on the GOP side. That’s unfair, but so is life. At least if Mitt loses, he can cry into a big pile of money, which is more than most can say.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:21 amnarciso,
I thought all 5 points Heilemann raised were remarkably sensible, considering the source.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:22 amMayBee,
Be sure to read the “wealth problem” link. It addresses the double-standard, but it is what it is. And what it translates to for Romney is the perception that he doesn’t care about the average person. The silver lining is that effect isn’t as strong with Indies as I would have thought.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:24 amNo, the fundamental problem is Romney is not bold enough, the attacks on Bain, are only a symptom, he is not unlike Cameron, the McKinsey man, across the oceans in this respect.
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:31 amI understand there is a double standard, but it bothers me to see Republicans treating it as reasonable rather than at least trying to argue against it. If Newt cared to, he could use his gfy schtick to tell the media that all candidates are wealthy and America provides amazing opportunity to be successful in many ways- writing books, being a historian for a psedo government agency, or turning companies around.
But he doesn’t do that, because the wealth glare isn’t on him.
“Caring” about the average person is completely overrated. The policies based on “caring” are strangling us. Indies often know that. Obama cares. That’s why he cancelled Keystone, because he cares about protecting the average Joe from water-polluting big Oil. That’s why he’s making sure the average Joe can get insurance. That’s why he wants longer unemployment benefits. Because of all the caring and relating to working people.
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:33 amThe problem is voters are getting addicted to the Newt gfy crack pipe.
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:34 amI find it very interesting that people who are willing to actually say “I oppose the Tea Party” support Romney more than any other GOP candidate.
Also seems like people who describe themselves as “liberals” support Romney. That makes sense.
It makes perfect sense that people who are not super concerned about the progressive direction of our current government will prefer Romney.
It also makes perfect sense that conservatives will consider Mitt Romney very unreliable on ideology and worry if they will be thrown under the bus if he’s elected.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:35 am“For example, Mitt did better with conservatives in NH, but a good argument can be made that what counts as conservative in NH is noth the same as what counts in SC.”
Karl – That’s exactly the kind of stuff I’m talking about that Erickson glosses over. Religious folks in Iowa did not seem to have a problem with Romney. They do in S.C. If we are talking about apples and oranges, Erickson should say so. He has been a complete hack this whole cycle, as bad a Rubin, but for different candidates.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:35 amSantorum still tied or won, the religious thing is a signifier, but not the main issue,
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:37 am“I love the millionaires Obama and Gingrich salivating over painting Romney as having a “wealth problem”.”
Maybee – Man whore lobbyist/speech giver/ news contributor Gingrich raking in $3 mil. a year does not have a wealth problem. His money is clean.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:38 amhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/23/newts-jacksonian-revolution/#ixzz1kIpsgL2F
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:43 amI thought the SC problem was less a wealth thing than the cowardly obama-like way he handled the tax return thing.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:44 amWhy would he do that?
Do you understand the bad blood in the party right now? Perry had to deal with fliers in areas full of retirees claiming he was going to “kill social security”. Romney’s superpac is being incredibly harsh in Florida as we speak.
It happened in 2008 as well. Romney and Huck’s bad blood cost Romney a nomination. He would have won had mathematically eliminated Huck dropped out.
I’m not saying this in Newt’s defense. The man’s outrage is highly selective and you’re right to have concerns about him. I’m saying that, as a leader of the GOP, Mitt has really been relentless in the negative attacks.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:45 amhappyfeet- that’s a good point. Just because a voter fits within a certain income or religious group, it does not follow that they voted for a candidate for reasons that have anything to do with that group.
Mitt did a terrible job explaining himself about the taxes. I’m sure he just didn’t expect it, considering the other guys had not yet released their taxes. In 2008, neither Obama nor Hillary had released their taxes by this point. That doesn’t excuse his lameness, of course.
Then there was the media-retaliation Newt bombast, which I’m sure won a lot of hearts that week from anyone in any group who really thought CNN had it coming.
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:48 amWhy would he do that?
Because he believes it.
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:49 amAs I said, he won’t do that. Because he’s not the one at the debates being accused of being rich.
Of course, why did Nixon win out over Rockefeller,in ’68, because the latter was considered a lessaggresive opponent to whoever the Democrats put forth. Unfortunately he ended up relying on too many of his braintrust, from Moynihan to Kissinger,
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:51 amReally, Dustin, I have little idea what happened between Romney and Perry. I really liked Perry. Personally, I was embarrassing by his gays in the military vs prayer in school campaign. I don’t understand why he did that, and it hurt him in my eyes if not in the eyes of others.
In general, I don’t mind negative ads or “attacks”. What bugs is when candidates attack on something they really don’t disagree with. Especially when it steps on their own message for the general.
Do they all do it? I don’t doubt it. Right now I’m just noticing Patterico and Karl being pretty strongly anti-Romney, and so that’s why I’m pushing back on his behalf.
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:54 amNeither one of them have yet to articulate anything a la 999 for people to get behind in a positive way. Meaning, neither of them seems all too concerned about winning a for reals mandate to do anything.
They need to say what they want to accomplish aside from the sine qua nons of repealing obamacare and cutting the spendings and what have you.
The one that does that first could distinguish himself and put this away quickly.
I thought contract boy would know this, but mostly he seems to just like the sound of his own faux-outraged voice.
This is so disappointing, this whole primary thing.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:55 amTrue, but even two weeks ago, it was generally accepted that SC was all Mitten’s, and comfortably so.
In a couple of weeks Newt turned that into a double-digit win.
And then the Romney campaign compounded their problems with that f*cking stupid cake stunt that included a call for Newt to release “the records”.
I saw that and thought “what f*cking records does he need to release? The Ethics committee report that you can find in under a minute using Google? Is Mitt actually payingthese people???”
Maybe they meant the results of the IRS investigation (an IRS run my Clinton’s own people) that showed that no, actually, he HADN’T broken any laws?
Frankly, Romney has bigger things to worry about than his “wealth problems”. Demands that Newt give back the money he got consulting Freddie and Fannie make him look like a tool, and using the ethics charges opens him up to “Oh, I see, so using Democrat talking points is only bad when *I* do it, huh?”.
The more I look at Romney’s campaign, the more I wonder if it isn’t run by a pair of drunken rhesus monkeys. Did they REALLY not expect tax returns and Bain to be issues? The bumbling responses Romney gave us makes you wonder if they thought it would never come up.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:00 amAgreed, happyfeet.
I feel like we are allowing ourselves to get pulled into one side show after another, chasing ways to appeal to polling groups, fighting about who is an establishment and who is tea-party enough, fighting about who is too rich and who “cares”.
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:02 amIs America the baby that dies?
sarahw (b0e533) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:03 amIn addition, you have the optics of Mitt standing besides Newt in a debate, and while Newt rattles off specifics after specifics, all Mitt can do is give general answers.
Either he’s trying to make his answers consumable by the dumbest of voters, or he has no idea what the specifics are.
Either one bothers me.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:04 amYou’re right, Maybee. I don’t even know why I replied negatively to that. Just because Romney’s been negative doesn’t mean Newt shouldn’t say what he believes even if it benefits Mitt.
But he won’t. I think Mitt has been much more negative than he should have been, but hey, so has Newt. Neither should expect any favors from their opponent.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:06 amThat’s cool. Makes the discussion more interesting.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:07 amThe problem is Newt, merely suggested in some cases
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:10 amwhat Romney actually implemented, ie; individual mandate, carbon capture, et al.
Gingrich is a hypocrite.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:10 amMayBee,
I agreed with you on another thread that Romney is well-qualified to run for President but I have a different view of Romney’s caring/wealth problem. The liberal approach of “caring just to show you care” is vastly over-rated, but caring that helps candidates identify with voters’ concerns is vital.
I think Romney’s problem stems from the way he has chosen to (and has to) market himself. After Bush and Obama, it’s hard for candidates to market themselves as the best managers and also as leaders who feel voters’ pain. Bush tried with “compassionate conservatism” but his Presidency proved he couldn’t do both at the same time. Obama also marketed himself as smart and caring, but his Presidency has shown his management abilities to be sorely lacking. Romney is great as a smarter version of Obama and someone who can manage the government better. But thanks to Obama’s horrible economy, this seems to be shaping up as a year when conservative voters especially want someone who can feel their economic pain and respond with dramatic solutions, not tinker around the edges.
I think that’s why Gingrich is popular in South Carolina. It’s an area that has been hard-hit economically and Gingrich has a history of implementing budget solutions in Congress, coupled with his ability to respond emotionally against the Beltway insiders and the media. Sometimes he responds with anger – something the media likes to focus on — but he also responds with humor and sarcasm. For some, his grandfatherly look may also be reassuring and help to counteract the “angry man” theme the media is floating about Gingrich. (As even Joe Biden knows, looks matter in politics and unfortunately for Romney he looks the part of the wealthy, slick, cold-hearted businessman.)
I don’t know how long voters will like Gingrich or if voters in areas that aren’t as economically hard hit as S.C. will like him, but it seems to me that some voters are clearly connecting with Gingrich in an emotional way that Romney voters aren’t.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:11 amShorter DRJ: Gingrich may be the right man at the right time. If that’s true, it’s not Romney’s fault his obvious skills aren’t the skills people want.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:13 amOH do tell.
How so?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:15 amThat’s a big problem for folks who wanted someone like Perry, who lacks Mitt Romney’s record of explosive tax hikes, environmentalist hysterics, or intrusive individual mandate.
If you are a single person household earning $32,676 in MA today, the penalty for not obeying Mitt Romney’s directions on health insurance is $101 a month. That adds up. It’s almost $10,000 in fines if you go back to when Mitt Romney’s signature made this the law. And that’s for a single person. It only gets worse.
That crosses the line. That’s why a lot of people who are irritated with Obamacare aren’t giving Romney much more of a chance than he already had as Governor.
Of course, it’s with quite a smirk that I then look to Newt, but he is less bad.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:19 am“Needs to refine his message…”???
great unknown (bd8c42) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:19 amWhat exactly is his message?
Other than “hope and change” in a different
guise.
Thanks, Dustin.
DRJ- I agree that Mitt is not emotionally connecting and Newt is. Mitt is just not the warm fuzzy guy. Whether he’s rich or middle-class, he isn’t the guy who looks like someone who wants to hear about all your troubles.
Newt isn’t either, but you are right that he uses his anger, humor, and sarcasm and that connects with people who are eager to hear that message.
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:20 amMy problem is, if that is what is drawing voters to him, how does that translate to people who are not eager to hear the anti-media, anti-Obama message? I suspect it does not. So where does he go from there?
You know, I don’t think that’s his problem. I think Gordon Gekko would kill right now, but the problem is, Romney’s not that.
I mean, this actually came out of Romney’s mouth:
Someone was given MONEY for that.
It sounded like something Biden would be handed to say.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:22 amI can live with Romney or Gingrich. I think they are both robustly flawed men but they can both defeat Obama.
This is key.
Santorum serves as a nice illustration of the electorate’s rejection of his extreme social con agenda, so he’s welcome to stay a bit longer but not forever and ever.
Ron Paul needs to go away next cause he’s stupid and weird.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:25 amTo actual policy suggestions, which he’s really good at.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:26 amMayBee,
I think Gingrich’s appeal will translate to independent voters if they view the economy as a big problem, because he feels their pain and has a background that can respond to it. It isn’t about being emotional, it’s about feeling their pain and being willing to respond to it with sweeping reforms instead of multi-point plans.
Palin had this connection in 2008 but people weren’t in as much pain then — as opposed to 2010, for example, when the GOP took the House. We’ll find out in 2012 whether voters are more worried now than they were in 2008. My guess is they are, but if you think they aren’t then Romney probably is a better candidate than Gingrich.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:30 amScott,
If Gordon Gekko were popular now, I submit it wouldn’t be because of his looks but because people perceive him as someone willing to take bold action to get something done. I think many voters want a dramatic response to our nation’s serious problems, and Romney doesn’t come across as being that bold.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:39 amMethinks he doesn’t know his audience, this might work in the general, but in a primary;
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/people-who-destroy-hard-drives-shouldnt-demand-records-from-others/#comments
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:40 amYeah, I don’t see Mitt Romney, arms extended, grin on his face, saying “greed is good!” to a crowd of shocked listeners.
Maybe Maybee is right. If he dialed up the GFY factor, I’d like him a lot more. I would love to see Romney show me he’s not this finger in the air politician by saying things people need to hear, but they don’t want to hear.
Things like ‘Social security is a ponzi scheme’ and ‘Bernanke better be careful before he jacks up this country some more’.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:42 amThat’s exactly my point – it isn’t that Mitt “looks the part of the wealthy, slick, cold-hearted businessman.”
It’s that he isn’t that.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:43 amDRJ, my apologies, but ISTM that in #46 you’re saying that Governor Palin had a connection with independent voters. That seems unlikely to me.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:50 amObama repeats simple lies over and over.You say dumb,but it works. Newt can’t stay focused If his life depended on it.Romney’s always gonna be Romney.My money is on the big O–even FDR couldn’t borrow like O is.Remember the fed,Fed, and local debt in 2012 will be upwards of 4 trillion-the biggest campaign fund ever.
Unattorney (ab7da1) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:53 amSantorum serves as a nice illustration of the electorate’s rejection of his extreme social con agenda, so he’s welcome to stay a bit longer but not forever and ever.
— What specific items on that agenda do you think the electorate is rejecting, Mr feets?
Icy (e68f57) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:54 amSo we have to choose between RINO Dee and RINO Dum.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:55 am16. The problem is voters are getting addicted to the Newt gfy crack pipe.
Begging you pardon Madam Be, the intellectual lightweights are all on Willard’s team until they prove otherwise.
“I love mandates”, “Mandates are conservative”, “I don’t want to release my tax returns until they’re done in April because I don’t want to give Obama ammunition, “I’m prevented by law from talking to my PACs”, “The economy is improving but Obama cannot take credit for that fact”, “We can fix SS with CPI adjustments, raising the retirement age, increasing revenues,…”, “I’m open to the idea of a VAT”,..
Jump in any time.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:56 amTrue.
but it isn’t as easy as it sounds. Obama used a tremendous financial advantage, and he ran on promises. He now has little record he wants to run on, so he’s going to run on more promises. But that won’t work very well, so he’s going to run on attacks.
Which of these candidates can take that?
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:57 amaphrael:
Thank you for pointing that out because I don’t want to leave that impression. She had a connection with worried voters and most of them were conservatives. There weren’t many worried independent voters in 2008 but I think there are now.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:59 amBut that won’t work very well, so he’s going to run on attacks.
Which of these candidates can take that?
True, Dustin.
And he isn’t going to run on just any attacks. He’s going to run on the specific attack that Republicans are cruel and heartless and will leave you all on your own.
(with some “look at my wife and daughters!” “racism!” and “you are so rich” stuff thrown in)
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:01 amDRJ, I think it’s fair to say that by the time the election happened in 2008, there were a fair number of independent worried voters. They had not, however, connected with Gov. Palin.
My memory is that the abortive suspension of Sen. McCain’s campaign, combined with press coverage of Gov. Palin, worried independent voters substantially.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:09 amWhat are you talking about?
Gerald A (b4fe48) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:09 amFor each of these three candidates, I can think of an odious path of attack. For Perry and Cain there was also such a path. Racism, adulterer, freak, etc. But the cruel and heartless killers of those programs You Need So Much Or You’re Gonna Die will be pretty central this year.
At least by roughing eachother up, whichever candidate survives will be more ready.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:10 amScott,
I view the stereotype of “wealthy, slick, cold-hearted businessmen” as people reluctant to take bold action because they have their wealth to protect. They will act decisively at times but typically they prefer multi-point plans to sweeping reforms. Gordon Gekko may have broken that mold by showing us Hollywood’s version of what happens behind-the-scenes, but his character hasn’t changed my perception of the stereotype.
I hasten to add this is a stereotype. I don’t view real businessmen or Romney this way, but the Occupy Movement convinces me that some people do.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:12 amTeh Won: “Bad things happen to the rich & powerful. Why, just look at what happened to the guy that sold me my house . . . or the guy that was in-charge of appointing my successor in the Senate . . . or what will eventually happen to my former chief of staff and current mayor of Chicago . . . or . . . “
Icy (e68f57) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:13 amI bet you didn’t know, aphrael, that she vetoed an anti domestic partnership bill, that would have made
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:15 ama different impression on those who ‘hung her effigy’ for her mere opinion on Prop, 8, and subsequently set fire to her church,
We see on the nets over the last few months Dear Leader referred to as SCOAMF, the first letter in the acronym standing for “Stuttering”.
I listened to Laura’s interview of Romney of last week, his first appearance on her show in months. She simply questioned the wisdom of the “The economy is improving…” narrative.
He dissolved into a blubbering mess, finally stumbling onto the drop in labor pool size as a telling contraindication to rosiness.
It doesn’t matter what changes you tell him to make, the problem is by the time he’s drilled to comfort conditions on the ground will have changed again and he will remain a bumbling dope speaking extemporaneously on events in progress.
You are backing a stiff who will seldom have Ogabe on the defensive.
I know your team thinks you’re smarter than the voter, you just need to educate them. Well its true, you are way smarter.
You’re just not smart is all. GLWT
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:29 amaphrael:
I think McCain’s handling of the economic crisis in September 2008 and Obama successfully blaming the crisis on Bush impacted McCain’s campaign more than Palin did. Independents liked McCain and Palin after the Republican Convention and it wasn’t until late September (after McCain suspended his campaign) that polls showed Obama clearly in the lead, but independent voters may well have become concerned about McCain for both reasons.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:36 amVia William Jacobson:
and
Wow. That’s harsh. Basically, it’s saying Romney is not electable because of the issues.
Of course, some Romney fans will exclaim that this kind of talk only comes from those who are biased against Romney and won’t give him a fair chance, but this was Jennifer Rubin. She knew all along this was going to happen, and she knows it’s because of the issues.
Or what about this from Ann Coulter: “If you don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we will lose [to Obama]”
I have such a hard time with this electability mantra. I think candidates who need that, such as Hillary in 2008, are losing. Electability takes care of itself. Stop voting for Bob Dole and John Mccain already. It’s a trick.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:42 am67: Then why is Gingrich running around saying he is the most electable! Didn’t Ann Coulter recently endorse Romney?
bio mom (a1e126) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:52 amYeah, it’s so strange that Ann would explain that Romney will lose if we nominate him, and then explain that those who don’t support Romney are messing up because he’s electable and no one else is.
It’s almost as though Ann Coulter just says ‘the guy I like the best is the only one who can win’, no matter who that is. Even if she directly contradicts herself repeatedly by changing her mind, whoever she likes… that’s the only one who can win!
Personally, I think Ann Coulter really believes what she’s saying. She also means what she said about the Tea Partiers in SC, which is unfortunate.
There’s an elitist streak in a lot of pundits, and I wish they’d get over it.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:56 am66. My memory, yeah TTWAGOS, between Romany dropping, Huckster going dormant and the convention McVain dropped to 14 off the pace.
The day after the convention he was within the margin of error, a few, down. Thereafter the team regressed to 7 or more down, closing a tad at the tape.
Palin’s contribution, maybe a ten spot, was eroded primarily because women took an intense disliking to her, for whatever reason. Can’t say why, I don’t know the gender at all, never have.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:00 pmMark Kirk has suffered a stroke.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:05 pmdaleyrocks (18, I think),
Actually, in IA, born agains/evangelicals preferred Santorum over Romney by a 32-14 margin. They preferred Romney in NH by a 31-23 margin, but were a much smaller demo there than in IA or SC. Again, this speaks to regionalism, and it seems like religion doesn’t help Romney in states where it’s more politically salient.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:07 pmaphrael, DRJ,
My recollection is that the McCain Palin ticket started tanking after Lehman Bros collapsed.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:08 pmThe largest Solar storm in 7 years hits our communications tomorrow.
Whew, Romany plays dodgeball again, almost pitable.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:10 pmKarl,
Remind me, once again, why an overly cautious, emotionally disconnected Brahmin who, as you point out, fails to appeal to both Joe Sixpack moderates and the Republican Party’s base is a desirable, much less an electable, nominee?
Your “refine message”/”get comfortable” analysis misses the point. The problem with Romney isn’t with his behavior; it is with his core being. To anyone living outside the Beltway or thinking outside the Beltway mindset, Romney’s deficiencies are abundantly clear. Try having another look at the South Carolina exit polling data.
Yours truly,
ThOR
ThOR (94646f) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:14 pm‘Kerry broke his nose playing ice hockey recently.’
Two black eyes, broken nose will do that. Ice Hockey Teresa kicked his azz, been there.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:19 pmStay classy, Mitt.
What happened at the end of your term as governor?
Oh, that’s right, you had flip flopped on so many issues by then, since you wanted to be president so badly, that your state kinda didn’t like you anymore and you didn’t even run for reelection, a disapproved governor with a record of massive tax increases and spending.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:19 pmAnd Mitt isn’t stuttering there. He means that. They weren’t Mitt’s republicans too. Mitt was an independent progressive, explaining how he didn’t want a return to Reagan Bush, not too far from that time.
They are still his Republicans Newt.
I think we all know that the witch hunt against Newt was actually no disgrace on his part. It is really ghastly to see someone try to repeat all of Nancy Pelosi’s worst.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:21 pmRomney is special so says DaleyKos.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:25 pmand
Not persuasive. Reminds me so much of those comments that Obama would be crushed by Mccain, so democrats obviously should nominate Hillary because “really, I mean really?”
I can understand T Paw’s emotions. Before he was purchased by Romney, he showed a lot of signs of being a really strong candidate. I know he ran out of money before Romney bought him, but if he had stuck in there, I think Pawlenty would be leading today, and he’d be a pretty good candidate. But just because Romney crushed Pawlenty doesn’t mean he would crush anybody, even if it probably looks that way to Pawlenty.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:30 pmif Wall Street Romney can’t even win the Team R nomination then there’s a lot of reason to doubt his prospects in the general election, whereas if he does win the nomination I think he’ll be in much better shape against Obama
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:32 pmheh
It’s like some of these elites just want to skip that part where the GOP’s nominee has to win the GOP’s support too. I mean, hey, we all really want Obama gone, so it’s the perfect chance to really test how unreliable a candidate can be before we balk!
Anyhow, if Romney doesn’t really believe Newt did anything wrong in that witchhunt, leading to that “disgrace”, then shame on him. If he does, then shame on him for not specifying what specifically he’s talking about.
I think Mitt Romney is showing us that core character.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:39 pmVia SDA, Michael Walsh at..NRO.. wait check that .. yes, NRO, wow:
“In an ideal world, Romney would be a strong candidate. But it’s not an ideal world. In fact, it’s a downright mean, nasty, grubby world of imperfect men struggling to confront serious historical and philosophical forces while battling each other for power and prestige.”
Mitt, sit down, the wizkids in the skunkworks have some bad news..
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:39 pm81. Feets, you Ok?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:42 pmWhat are you talking about?
Gerald A (b4fe48) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:44 pm81. Oh, now that really is understated. Never used anything smaller than an 8 pound sledge is my prob.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:46 pmWalsh is one of the holdouts besides McCarthy, for real conservatism.
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:49 pmI disagree, I think Romney needs a new issue to seize, one that would lead conservatives to rally behind him.
My nominee: Obama’s bailout of the homeowners who took on too much debt, stopped making payments, etc. What a slap in the face of those who played by the rules.
Note that while I think a $20 billion or so penalty is ludicrous for what the banks actually did, I’m not harping on that… what I object to is doling out the money to those who don’t deserve it.
I think any of the GOP candidates can make hay with this. It goes to the heart of the argument that Obama is screwing those who play fair and rewarding those who have screwed up.
steve (369bc6) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:53 pm69. I used to think Annie was razor sharp, perhaps the quickest mind on the Right.
Guess boob jobs are a bigger risk than the CDC lets on.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:54 pmI think that many believe that they can rely on our anger at Obama to force conservative to agree to nominate someone who is ideologically very much NOT conservative by insisting Electability Electability Electability.
The fact is, many of the people who now say Romney is the only guy who is electable actually thought he wasn’t electable earlier. That was the point of my quoting Ann Coulter saying she predicted if we nominated Romney we would lose the general election.
These people believe that they can push the right into submitting to a much worse candidate than normal, entirely because of fear of Obama being reelected.
I don’t think it’s so complicated.
I also think Newt is much more electable than Mitt. And voters who said that was important voted Newt over Mitt in the most recent primary.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:54 pmNo, she was for Romney before, but I though it was because she hated McCain so much.
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 12:56 pm90. The late William Safire said of the Clintons “they are congenital liars” BJ “lies when their is no advantage to him”.
But Slick obviously had some talent. Ogabe lies without fail, but he doesn’t give a rip about deceiving anyone, just spouts words in diametric oppostition to plain fact. Someone’s going to believe the load.
It is extremely disheartening to see some on the Right now take to this manner of discourse as nominal.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 1:04 pmNice blog, btw.
I think that could work well for Romney, but he needs this added ingredient of authenticity. How do we know Romney really means it, and isn’t just gunning for votes? Well, Perry and T Paw campaigned in Iowa while opposing ethanol subsidies. This drew a lot of fire, particularly for Perry, because people could tell he meant it.
That’s why folks like me liked Perry. He wasn’t just saying whatever he needed for votes.
Romney needs to go the extra mile when taking on issues, by telling people what they need to hear, even when it’s not what they want to hear.
If he finds a way to jump on bandwagons, as the polls tell him to, that won’t help him appeal to people who don’t trust him right now.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 1:20 pmYes, when he savaged Perry for the ‘Ponzi scheme’ yet he had similar language in his own book. we see how they are willing to take Primack’s misrepresentations of the likes of Forstmann, who
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 1:21 pmcannot defend himself, how pressure wa exerted,
‘Luigi Vercotti’ style to try to dissuade Adelson,
Newt’s benefactor.
Another angle for Romney, this one with an added bonus: go after Obama for his failure to allow Catholic organizations a waiver from Obamacare’s abortion and birth control requirements. According to what I read of the exit polls in SC, Romney did poorly with those who deemed religion very important. The bonus for Romney: it puts him on the same side of this issue as non-Mormons and helps to defuse any fear that Mormons are too different to be trusted. And if he wants to double down by taking on Obama’s crony capitalism, Romney can blast all the waivers they’ve issued to unions, etc…. and no waiver for religious groups?
steve (369bc6) — 1/23/2012 @ 1:26 pmmitt can change his message and hope for more $200,000.00 voters, in all 57 states.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 1/23/2012 @ 1:28 pmHis staff also spent nearly $100,000 to hide records from his time in office…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/23/2012 @ 1:29 pmI like that, and think it would work very well for Mitt. It would be very brave and I think risky enough.
Romneycare’s own abortion issues may weigh heavily right now with some voters, so I guess it would be worth trying to correct the impression (or at least change it).
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 1:31 pm96. Indeed, former Rep. to POTUS was last done by Lincoln, 150 years elapsed, so Gingrich is a really, really long shot.
Three days dead and putrefying to walking among the quick, a couple times two milennia ago.
Think I like Neut’s chances better.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 1:37 pm“Actually, in IA, born agains/evangelicals preferred Santorum over Romney by a 32-14 margin.”
Karl – But in Iowa, Romney equaled or exceeded Gingrich for Tea Party support and evangelical support, which is why Erickson is misleading. Check NH for the same trend. He does not compare apples to apples.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2012 @ 1:58 pmI’m happy with apples or oranges I don’t care just please not santorum
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/23/2012 @ 2:08 pmHow long before Chris Christie throws Romney under the bus.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 2:20 pmTax cuts do not cost money you stupid idiot leftys.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 2:20 pmWould it be possible to throw the ‘throw under the bus’ metaphor under the bus? Please?
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/23/2012 @ 2:22 pmNo.
I know it pisses you off so I will continue to use it.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 2:27 pm‘Pisses me off’ isn’t quite correct. It just consistently reminds me of my friend who was killed when someone’s car door knocked his bicycle under a passing bus.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/23/2012 @ 2:29 pmMitt has a heck of a posse set up across this nation. Will they go on the unemployment line or on the taxpayers dime?
sickofrinos (44de53) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:00 pmThe Huntress is being very understanding, before she
draws the knife;
“I do care to take him to task — poor Chris. This was a rookie mistake. He played right into the media’s hands. Here’s a host that asked Chris, ‘Does Newt embarrass the party.’ I think he asked him twice, and there Chris played right into it and spewed that about Newt embarrassing the party. Sometimes if your candidate loses in just one step along this path, as was the case when Romney lost to Newt the other night and of course, Romney is Chris Christie’s guy, you kind of get your panties in a wad and you may say things that you regret later. And I think that that’s what Chris Christie did. His response to what the media was asking him was reflective of a lack of self-discipline. I’ve learned my lessons all along the way, too, and not responding, not playing into the media’s hands when they’re trying to get you to say something like is this candidate an embarrassment to your party?”
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:11 pmAllah announces chaos:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/23/new-romney-florida-ad-you-dont-really-want-to-nominate-a-disgraced-freddie-mac-shill-do-you/
When your last, best hope is a deep hook not rearing its head in more than a century with no machinery in place and the wild man of Tejas in the mix things not looking good for the fixers.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:16 pmhttp://www.therightscoop.com/video-palin-christie-made-a-rookie-mistake-by-getting-his-panties-in-a-wad/
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:24 pmRomney is Chris Christie’s guy, you kind of get your panties in a wad
What an unfortunate choice of words. Embarassing.
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:25 pmThat add won’t play because, unlike Romney who won’t, in hindsight, disavow the fail that is Romneycare and the resort to mandates, Newt is quite ready to point out he caught on to the looming disaster of fmac and would never go there again.
sarahw (b0e533) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:27 pmGod Bless Tim Thomas
sickofrinos (44de53) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:29 pmaphrael,
I think Karl is right about the timing of McCain-Palin’s drop in the polls and Lehman Brothers.
It occurs to me that you and I are both falling into the habit of thinking most independents lean left so politicians like Palin don’t appeal to them, and maybe that’s true. But that may be a fallacy, and they may be just as willing to lean right. If so, I wonder how many right- or libertarian-leaning “independents” were turned off by McCain and attracted to Palin.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:29 pmNewt is quite ready to point out he caught on to the looming disaster of fmac and would never go there again.
Newt is quite good at deflecting attention away and never addressing the substance of what he has actually done. We’ll see how much longer he can fool some of the people all of the time.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:49 pmoh sorry then aphrael.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:50 pmProjection colonel.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:51 pmWhat are you talking about?
Comment by Gerald A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keep fighting the good fight, Gerald. Patience is a virtue.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 3:53 pmIf so, I wonder how many right- or libertarian-leaning “independents” were turned off by McCain and attracted to Palin.
I was.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:02 pmGingrich used the same histrionics in Iowa and Hew Hampshire that he did in South Carolina.
In SC, he cut a fat hog.
In both Iowa and New Hampshire, he was left suckling at the hairy hind teat. What was different?
He may have found the same audience in SC that the snake oil salesmen and the holy-roller hat-passers of yesteryear had so much success with. He was somehow successful in convincing the folks that he, the very definition of a Washington, D.C. insider and player, was “one of them”. That may play in some parts of the country, but I don’t think it will in most of America. But time will tell.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:03 pmIf so, I wonder how many right- or libertarian-leaning “independents” were turned off by McCain and attracted to Palin.
I was.
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you feel the same intensity you did back then, or have things changed, Mr. Fikes?
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:04 pmvis-a-vis Mrs. Palin?
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:05 pmColonel Haiku,
I still feel the same way.
I held my nose and voted for McCain, and would have been delighted had the nominees switched places on the ballot.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:07 pmBrother Bradley,
I’m interested in your answer Colonel Haiku’s question, too. I don’t feel the same intensity for Palin as I did, probably because she isn’t running, but I still like her.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:08 pmOh, I misunderstood Haiku’s question. I thought he was wondering if you still feel the same way about Palin as you did then. If the question is whether you still feel the same way about your support for Palin in 2008, I certainly do.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:09 pmDRJ,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:10 pmI think Palin has a lot to offer the country, and that she’d be a far finer president than the incumbent. Better than Romney, better than Newt.
I think we agree, Brother Bradley. I voted for Palin, too.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:12 pmColonel Haiku:
This is what you really think of people who disagree with you? It’s even more disdainful than Obama’s “bitter, clingers” comments.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:19 pmI really liked Palin back then. Still do, especially in light of the ruthless attacks she and her family have been subjected to. But at one time, I was also able to say that the sort of people who recoiled at the mere mention of her name also made me cheer for her.
I’m no longer able to say that, as I know a lot of rock-ribbed conservatives – the sort of folks who don’t “vote Right and live Left” that we seem to be increasingly inflicted with – that can’t stand her. I think she may have really over exposed herself. Absence often makes the heart grow fonder.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:20 pmNo, DRJ, you are wrong about that. It’s just that I can spot a Grade “AAA” bullsh*tter better than the average bear.
I believe morals and ethics are important indicators of character. It may not bother some folks that Newt is the way he is and lived the way he did, but it does me.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:24 pmAnd I also hope that I am perceived as a plain-speaker. I don’t want to be one of these, “some people say that so-and-so is a baby raping, priest-humper, but I don’t think that’s fair” sort of transparent twits that doesn’t seem to bother you or some others here.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:32 pmDRJ, great minds and all that . . .
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:36 pmI agree. My standard is pretty straightforward: if someone’s behavior is such that I wouldn’t want to be friends with them or sit next to them at dinner or have them date a family member or work for them or have them work for me, then I certainly don’t want them as President. I want to be proud of my President, I want them to share my values. It doesn’t mean I need to agree with them on every issue, but when it comes to the basics of moral standards, I want the choirboy.
steve (254463) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:41 pmI appreciate that, Steve, and you’ve said it with far more eloquence than I can summon these days.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:51 pmI agree.
Though I notice Palin and Newt have a lot in common. I won’t pretend Newt is everything Palin is, because he just isn’t, but they share some appeal.
I think this is particularly amusing in light of all those who said people like Palin because she’s a pretty woman. Newt is about as far from that as you can get, but I like the underdog who stands up to the media and overcomes a coordinated witchhunt. I wish Newt was purer, but right now beggars can’t be choosey.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 4:53 pmDRJ – granted as always that the plural of anecdote is not data, I know a number of people who are not Democrats, who did not like then-Senator Obama, and who decided to vote for him because they thought that then-Gov. Palin was so unqualified that even then-Senator Obama was preferable to the risk that she would inherit the Presidency.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:02 pmI believe what you say, aphrael, and in a way that sentiment is what prompted my comment.
I tend to view the world through the media’s lens and what the media tells us is that most independents lean left. But it occurred to me that most of the people I know who describe themselves as independents lean right, sometimes much farther right than I am. Of course, I live in a conservative place and you live in liberal places, but there are a lot of conservative places in American and most Americans describe themselves as conservative. Thus, it occurred to me we don’t know what independents think, except what the media tells us they think.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:09 pmThere is a frankness, tempered with humor and heart, which Newt really doesn’t exhibit,
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:10 pmI know this is a true opinion a lot of people hold. Why, though? I mean, why Sen. Obama over the Governor of Alaska?
Is it because he is well educated?
I think it’s simply the way she was introduced to America. It means so much these days, and I think that is a big part of the problem.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:11 pmDustin, certainly a lot of it had to do with how she was introduced, combined with her poor performance in the limited number of interviews she granted, and her debate performance.
Also, I think most of them felt that a Senator is per se more involved in *national* issues – defense, among others – than a Governor. That is, they valued familiarity with nationally important topics over executive experience.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:13 pmWell there is the factor, that Reagan noted about liberals, but also from the earlier linked thread,
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:13 pm‘what they they think they know, isn’t so’ this applies to Applebaum, Noonan, Parker et al;
Keep on kissing romney’s butt. Buttkissing is a virtue.
FIFY haiku.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:14 pmExcept you didn’t bother to notice, he almost never
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:15 pmspent time in the Senate, had few legislative achievements to his name,often choosing to vote
‘present’ on major issues,
Since Gingrich claimed he acted as an historian for Freddie Mac, let’s see if the words “historian” or “history” can be found In Newt’s Freddie Mac contract.
If not, there another line of sh*t that many have gobbled up.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:16 pmThat’s true, I suppose… but quantity is it’s own quality and I wonder how much involvement a Senator has, day to day? A governor is dealing with a constantly humming government. They can’t skip a vote or just vote present… their administration has to do. Even a Mayor if a large city seems more qualified for the presidency than a US Senator.
If the Senator had a leadership role and build some great victories, then that would help mitigate it some, but really, there’s no replacement for executive leadership.
I say this realizing this is a powerful argument for Mitt over Newt. If only Mitt were more conservative on the short list of issues I care most about, I’d be his biggest fan right now.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:17 pmWhy does Colonel pimp for Romney here?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:17 pmdaley summed you up quite well, biden.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:17 pmAphrael is speaking for a third party.
And, sadly, the GOP nominated John Mccain to run against him. John Mccain was not an absentee Senator, but his executive experience was pretty thin. As is Newt’s, but the Speakership is much more than John Mccain had, aside from a naval squadron (which is awesome, I might add).
Honestly, I think John Mccain is probably a greater man than 99% of legislators, but I disagree with him on some core issues, so it’s props that doesn’t apply to much.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:20 pm“Perhaps Romney should compare his role at Bain to being a doctor. Sometimes, doctors get to deliver babies or cure sick children who go on to live full and productive lives. In those cases, the doctor gets to feel great. So it is with some companies, like Staples or Domino’s Pizza. In other cases, the patient is so injured or so sick that they have to lose or limb, or even die. The doctors try as hard as they can, but sometimes all the lifesaving measures known to mankind are not enough and the doctors feel terrible about it. So it is when companies get rightsized or go bankrupt. Some may think doctors are overpaid, but no one would want to live in a society without them. Mitt Romney is never going to seem like Mitt Sixpack, but he may be able to come across as caring more about more blue-collar families.”
The problem I have with that analogy is that a doctor always has as his one duty service to the patient…to save his life and limbs, his health generally, and to ease his pain when there is nothing else he can do. But Mitt Romney’s duty was not to the “blue collar workers” or even the companies his firm took over, rather his duty was to his investors. A “bad outcome” for the company and its workers might well be a good outcome for the investors. Indeed, Romney probably had a fiduciary duty to strip sale and bankrupt a company that might possibly have survived, if the former course of conduct was more likely to make money for his investors. It is NOT as if Romney had some sort of duty to “try as hard as he could” to save the company, or to exhaust “all the lifesaving measures known to mankind” to keep it going and preserve those blue collar jobs. Rather, again, his duty, if he had any at all, was to do what was best for his investors, and if that meant taking a company into bankruptcy, that is what he was “supposed” to do, even if had not yet done everything “he could” or employed “all the lifesaving measures known to mankind.” As for Romney “caring” about the “blue collar families,” I think that misses the issue. The question isn’t whether, as an abstract matter, and all things being equal, Romney would have rathered a blue collar family kept its jobs or not, I assume that he would have. He’s not a monster, after all. But the real issue is just how much concern for blue collar families factored into the decisions he made about the future of the companies he took over. And, to repeat, if he took his duty to his investors seriously (not to mention his own self interest), those concerns could not have been paramount.
freemansfarm (5cab61) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:20 pmI was speaking of Obama, for all the policy objections, McCain was very involved, some might
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:24 pmsay too involved in the work of the Senate,
Narciso – as Dustin said, I’m speaking about friends of mine who are not Democrats who were scared into Senator Obama’s arms by Governor Palin.
aphrael (1fc48e) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:25 pmWell you’ve seriously entertained voting for Obama, if the right candidate, doesn’t turn out, are you just a glutton for punishment, apparently his record
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:28 pmdoesn’t matter to you.
Colonel Haiku,
Most people think they have good intuition and judgment. Sometimes we’re wrong about people and sometimes we’re right, although we tend to remember the times we’re right more than the times we’re wrong.
There was a time I voted for President based on family values because (as no one you know and I discussed last night) family values’ candidates also believed in a bundle of values that included personal and fiscal responsibility. But that’s not true anymore and I don’t think it’s been true for awhile. Maybe that’s because today’s politicians tend to focus on tactics instead of themes. Maybe government is so complex that they have to, I don’t know.
I think we live in a world where flawed people can be good leaders, and good people can be flawed leaders. George H. W. Bush was a strong, principled, good man but he was a weak leader. His son was a weak, average man who became a good war-time leader. At this point in my life, I’ve decided the key is finding the right person for the times.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:29 pmI was not scared into voting for Obama, because I saw much earlier than Palin’s selection that he was a fraud. I also liked her quite a bit during the campaign and thought she was smeared unforgivably.
But I have fallen out of love with her and now find myself alternately agreeing with her and rolling my eyes at her.
I’m interested, though. How many of Newt’s ardent supporters now were very strongly Palin people, who feel the “elite” and “establishment” didn’t support her or her chosen candidates enough?
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:30 pmAnybody who hasn’t yet been disabused of the notion that Newt Gingrich has a good chance to beat Obama… do yourself a favor: watch Ann Coulter on O’Reilly tonight (catch or record the replay). She was absolutely on fire.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:34 pmMayBee,
I like Newt and Palin but I don’t feel populists have been dissed by Republican elites. It’s just the age-old struggle between mainstream Republicans and populist, evangelical, and/or family values’ Republicans.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:36 pmThanks, DRJ. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you talk about the establishment republicans.
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:37 pmI guess I identify more with “establishment” Republicans because I’m more of a fiscal than a social conservative, but this election I feel a populist would be a better choice. I’m just glad Huckabee backed out. He probably would have won and that would be tough for me.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:41 pmCoulter is history. She has sold her soul to the romney posse.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:43 pmGood riddance, you establishment hack.
Huckabee makes me nauseous, for his Mormon bashing, nanny state coddling, pork barreling, soft on crime,
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:44 pmattitudes.
I remember Palin gosh it’s been almost four years
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:46 pmAnn Coulter is a stupid two-faced bimbo.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:46 pmDRJ’s 5:29 is a fascinating comment regarding so cons and fiscal discipline. I think folks my age aren’t very aware of this political evolution.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 5:47 pmAnn Coulter is not a stupid two-faced bimbo she just likes Romney better than Newt for purposes of defeating the Obama.
It is a noble cause what she serves.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:01 pmA question for Gingrich supporters: When it becomes clear upon review of Gingrich’s Freddie Mac contract that the fact that Newt claimed he worked as a paid “historian” in the employ of Freddie Mac was an outright lie, will that bother you at all?
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:04 pm==At this point in my life, I’ve decided the key is finding the right person for the times.==
You are obviously referring to the current political context, DRJ, and I agree with you. Interestingly, I’ve found that this is also true in business leaders/managers. The “right” person who has the flaming passion and courage to start a company or to fix what’s wrong in a broken organization, may be exactly the “wrong” person temperamentally to safely steer or prosper a company through calmer waters, or to be able to reach needed consensus in dealing with an external crisis situation. Trying to figure out where the current crop of candidates all fit in this regard is a challenge.
elissa (e3d8ab) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:05 pmDRJ- I too am more of a fiscal con than a social con. Isn’t Obama running as a populist?
MayBee (081489) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:08 pmI think she’s completely sincere about it. But it is very amusing that she said, if we didn’t nominate the guy she wanted before Romney, that would mean we’re doing to nominate Romney and he’s going to lose to Obama. Now she says basically the same argument, but switched a few characters, and I think she’s wrong. But not in bad faith.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:08 pmIsn’t Obama running as a populist?
Heh. Depends on the day of the week.
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:10 pmMayBee,
I think Obama has left the door open to run as a populist if he thinks it will work. I don’t think he’s committed to it, though.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:10 pmTheFix Romney is like a dog on a bone. He is out to kneecap Newt tonight. #fldebate
RichLowry romney is exactly right abt newt’s leadership team–they couldnt stand him
JRubinBlogger members of his own team moved to replace him- 88 percent of GOP’s voted to sanction him.. he’s rubbing it in, daring Newt to respond
JonahNRO Apparently if the camera swings around, you’ll see the entire audience is bound and gagged.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:17 pmGood point, elissa. As I recall, you’ve had significant experience identifying or working with managers and executives. I agree that different circumstances call for different skills and strengths.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:17 pmif Newt’s the nominee our Ann Coulter friend will think of oodles of good reasons why he would be a better choice than that stupid Obama and then we can all go out for butternut squash enchiladas and if it’s cold I know a place what has this pumpkin lobster soup what makes you look forward to cold days.
Yes the theme tonight is gourds.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:18 pmJust watch Coulter on O’reilly tonight. She makes her point and leaves Bill looking fairly clueless in the process.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:18 pmNot that that is any major feat these days.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:18 pm#90
You said
in response to happy feet’s opinion that “if he [that is Romney] does win the nomination I think he’ll be in much better shape”.
Your statement has no logical connection with what happy feet said. As I expected, your “explanation” doesn’t explain anything. Many of your statements are of the non sequitur variety.
Gerald A (b4fe48) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:19 pmactually Mr. A I was the one being silly Mr. Dustin got my drift though
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:20 pmI also think Newt is much more electable than Mitt.
This verges on the hallucinatory. There is absolutely nothing objectively to support that. Voters who view him negatively outnumber those who have a positive opinion, unheard of for a successful candidate.
Gerald A (b4fe48) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:22 pmLarrySabato Newt snuggling up to Paul. Yes, that’s a disturbing image.
BuzzFeedBen Ron Paul rapid response, always nastier: “Newt: Lobbyist? Sure looks like it. Liar? Yes.”
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:22 pm#177
Okay I missed that.
Gerald A (b4fe48) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:23 pmIt has gotta be the peyote, Gerald.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:23 pmIn as much as his SOTU speech goes tomorrow night,it would appear to be the platform he intends to build upon. Four pillars in his speech tomorrow will be energy, manufacturing, skills for American workers and American values.
President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night will build on the populist economic messages he’s been hammering home in speeches across the country in the past few months in an effort to lay the foundation for his re-election campaign.
We can go in two directions,” Obama says in a preview of the speech. “One is toward less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.”
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:23 pmTime for Ann to dance with the stars.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:24 pmCoulter is a two faced Palin hater.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:24 pmSo will it be labeled fiction, although NCIS LA comes off more truthful, in that same timeslot.
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:25 pm“Ron Paul says Gingrich didn’t resign out of principle but because he didn’t have the votes to be re-elected speaker. He should know. He was there.”
– Jonathan Tobin
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:27 pmWhen will Ann make a cameo on NCIS LA accusing the NCIS of being against Romney because he is a mormon?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:27 pm“Romney comes out swinging saying Gingrich left Congress in disgrace and has spent his time since as an influence peddler, backing Nancy Pelosi on cap and trade and attacking Paul Ryan. Gingrich replies that it’s all false but won’t answer now. Unfortunately, it’s all true.”
“Gingrich takes credit for the achievement of Congress under his speakership and says he took responsibility for his party’s defeats. Good answer if slightly misleading.”
– J. Tobin
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:29 pmStranger things have happened Doh;
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:29 pm“Gingrich asked about Freddie Mac lobbying. Compares his consulting with Romney’s consulting. Romney laughs.”
– J. Tobin
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:30 pmYeah Dana, I can’t wait for the Prez to preach to me about “American values” tomorrow evening. LOL
elissa (e3d8ab) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:31 pm“Gingrich asked about Freddie Mac lobbying. Compares his consulting with Romney’s consulting. Romney laughs. Gingrich spins and says its sad that he’s forced about this. Romney reminds him that he said he was paid as a historian. Says historians don’t get paid that kind of money.”
– J. Tobin
Ed. note: At least Tobin get this point… seems to be lost on y’all.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:32 pmphilipaklein “Newt’s defense of his Medicare Part D lobbying is that he really supported the largest expansion of entitlements since LBJ”
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:34 pmjmartpolitico “I’ll say this in FL” – Newt, reading stage directions
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:34 pmMr. Newt resigned from the same congress filled with the same cowardly republican whores what dutifully turned on Tom Delay and Ted Stevens and pretty much anyone what the media told them to turn on
which is not to say that Delay and Stevens and etc weren’t execrable whores themselves
But Romney is too cowardly to just come out and say that the United States Congress is a filthy whorehouse, isn’t he? Or does he really no know?
Both possibilities are disturbing.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:36 pm*not* know I mean
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:36 pmJRubinBlogger Newt is now whining.. says he publicly favored medicare part d– conservatives are ya happy with your guy?
jimgeraghty The issue is not that Newt is lying to us about why Freddie hired him. The issue is that he’s lying to himself.
BreakingNews Romney criticizes Gingrich for Freddie Mac deal. ‘They don’t pay people $25,000 a month for 6 years as historians’ http://t.co/rL8s1Yf1
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:36 pmelissa, no doubt it will be a teachable moment.
Dana (4eca6e) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:37 pmI think my explanation was really simple and easy to follow. You say it doesn’t explain anything, but it’s quite clear what it explains. Some think the more moderate a candidate, the more electable. And the more desperate the party is for electability (such as when the loathe the democrat president), the more easily they can be pushed into nominating someone who is very, very moderate. And by moderate, I mean in tune with a lot of the crap we have in the beltway already. to be honest, moderate doesn’t capture this very accurately.
Happyfeet’s joke was that Romney has to be nominated first. Electability proves itself, of course. A truly electable candidate doesn’t need a constant refrain of how it’s so obvious they are electable was my response.
I don’t understand why you don’t understand my point. I don’t mind if you disagree, but how hard could it be to follow my argument?
Yeah, I get it. Everyone who prefers Romney thinks it is just plain insane that anyone would have an opinion that Newt is more electable. Might as well just copy and paste what Hillary said about Obama in 2008 and what Mccain said about his competitors too. I disagree. And most of the surveyed voters in the most recent primary who said electability is a top concern voted for Newt. So I guess you think a very common opinion is impossible to understand. Which explains your needlessly hostile tone towards someone who has repeatedly answered your hostility with polite explanations of my view.
I don’t mind at all that you have a different opinion, Gerald.
That’s a colonel haiku level slur. I back up what I think when asked by people who aren’t being ignored because they have proven themselves ghastly.
What specifically are you talking about? You say “many”, so I want to hear “many”.
I’ve posted links discussing the disaster Romneycare is as spending. I’ve posted links explaining how Romney raised a ton of taxes under names like “closing the loophole”. I’ve posted links to flip flops. I’ve posted links to attacks I think are poor politics.
These aren’t non sequiturs.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:39 pmjimgeraghty Newt, who enjoys pointing out how other people are “stupid,” laments that this campaign has gotten “nasty and personal.”
JonahNRO C’Mon Newt. Freddie Mac bought your name for a reason. It’s just that simple.
philipaklein RT @jimantle: Newt looks like he’s ready to scarf down a bowl of Freddie Mac.
JRubinBlogger Romney is drilling down on Freddie.. Gingrich saying his share was less?! this is pretty dumb defense
Gingrich: “I offered strategic advice, largely based on my knowledge of history, including the history of Washington.”
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:39 pmTo be fair, as Maybee noted, Newt knows a lot of ways to defend Mitt from some of the attacks he’s taken, too.
But yes, it doesn’t speak well for Romney if he buys into the witchhunt that caught Newt, and is even worse if he knows it was BS.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:42 pmRe: 199… Gerald… you already said you’d missed that happy feet joke when he’d corrected you and that you didn’t get it, but expect at least a dozen more instances of this posing as a victim coupled with lashing out type posting in response.
I kid you not.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:43 pmNewt might have lobbied, but it was Hastert and that guy from Louisiana, that enacted it, Medicare Part D, and the likes of John Kerry, and Pete Stark
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:43 pmprofited from it,
What about Romneys mediscaring Perry?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:44 pmHe’s the Mullah of Mutts.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:44 pm#203… Valiant effort, narciso… weak, but valiant.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:45 pm#206….nice not answering my question you punk.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:47 pmTheFix Ron Paul’s suit coat. I just DO NOT GET IT. Buy one size smaller. #fldebate
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:49 pmDRJ (137)
re Indies and conservatives
Keep in mind that Indies don’t have a fixed leaning. As you note, some really conservative people ID as Indie (likely because they find the GOP too squishy). You’d find the same dynamic on the Left. And you’ll find leaners who switch in and out of Indie ID, e.g., as Bush became less popular, weak R’s start saying they’re Indies, same w/ Obama and weak D’s. True Indies w/o leanings make up only 7-10% of the voting pool.
Polls of those who self-ID as “conservative” are also misleading. Moderates and even “liberal” R’s may be more conservative in practice than self-IDing “conservative” D’s. Or, as I pointed out upthread, “conservative” in NH may not be the same as “conservative” in SC.
Karl (8cdbad) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:49 pmThat was the advice of Rove and Morris, and Gerson, of course the Dems thought it wasn’t enough.
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:50 pmCol. (208)
TheFix clearly has no idea how much it costs to ship a suit from Middle Earth.
Karl (8cdbad) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:51 pmYeah, it’s almost like I was offering an opinion about a politician’s electability many months before the election, which is not an objective statement, and your criticism is holding me to a very high standard.
But Bob Dole and John Mccain are not my idea of electable.
Anyway, I think you’re mistaken about how important popularity is. Bill Clinton, in 1991, had a 15% favorability rating nationally.
In 1979, Ronald Reagan’s favorability rating nationally was lower than his unfavorability rating.
Why in the world am I citing those two, Gerald?
Because I think they are very good examples that apply to 2012 because Reagan and Clinton defeated unpopular incumbents. That’s what 2012 is about. Newt can beat Obama if Obama’s favorability ratings are low enough.
Yeah, that’s a big if. Please don’t respond with how this isn’t objective, because it isn’t meant to be.
If Obama’s favorability is in the low 40s or high 30s in November, Newt will not just beat him, he will crush him.
What I think is important is that the GOP candidate is able to overcome a media BS campaign like Newt has so far, and also make an effective case against Obamacare among many other issues.
I think (this isn’t objective either) Newt can do what Reagan did, and Romney would me a lot more like Bob Dole and John Mccain.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:51 pmTheFix 47 minutes in. Total Newt “elite media” references: 0. I am STUNNED. #fldebate
“Gingrich says he was paid for strategic advice based on his historical knowledge. Romney won’t let go of his advocacy for Freddie Mac. Newt keeps trying to compare it to Bain. Gingrich seems momentarily flummoxed. Then says stop acting tough on me as you did with with McCain and Romney. Then says he was proud of his advocacy of Medicare advocacy. Says he did the same thing as any citizen. Romney points out he was paid by drug companies.” – J. Tobin
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:54 pm211… funny stuff, Karl!
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:55 pmI doubt Won Pawl hunts wabbits.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:55 pmfreemansfarm (149)
I freely admit the doctor analogy is not perfect. The issue I was addressing is “What can Romney say that might help him with this issue politically?” And even given the imperfection of the analogy, it would be a way for him to at least express the idea that the bad outcomes for employees bothered him (whether they did or not only Mitt knows).
Karl (8cdbad) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:55 pmDustin: you’re right, electability is only determined in hindsight. Having said that, I think much of the rest of your post is off.
Obama overcame questions as to his electability because McCain was such a godawful candidate. Had the GOP nominated someone who wasn’t so incompetent (or had McCain not been trying to succeed the godawful incompetent Bush), Hillary would have been proven right.
All it means when a group of voters say they considered a candidate’s electability is that they used their definition of what is electability. The problem is that most people view the world from the prism of their own perspective (proof in point are the commenters here); what appeals to one group is often anathema to another. I submit that SC GOP voters are representative of nothing more than SC GOP voters… and who they consider more electable may not be that at all.
The test of whether Romney or Gingrich is more electable is not which one is more moderate (as you suggest), but rather which one is less frightening to the moderates whose votes are needed to win (not the same thing). I think (and polls seem to back me up) that not only does Gingrich scare people in this bloc, he reinforces some of the (wrong) stereotypes of the GOP. On the other hand, I don’t think Romney scares as many people. I think, like Reagan did, he’ll be better able to parry Obama’s demonizing tactics (Romney just doesn’t look like the guy who’s going to kick grandma to the curb, Gingrich does).
Finally, Romney did a lot of things I don’t like. But keep in mind that neither him nor Gingrich are going to ram through any huge transformation of government in a conservative way. They won’t have the votes… so whichever candidate wins, we’re going to have to settle for bite size changes… so picking Gingrich because he is a ‘true’ conservative (which I don’t believe is the case) isn’t really going to get us much.
steve (254463) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:56 pmhehehehehe Karl.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:56 pm“Ron Paul says Gingrich didn’t resign out of principle but because he didn’t have the votes to be re-elected speaker. He should know. He was there.”
Spin.
Newt said he resigned to take the blame for the disappointing midterm. Paul said Newt quit because he didn’t have the votes to get re-elected. Both are right, since the two events were cause and effect.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:58 pmJonahNRO Brian Williams talks in the sort of tone I want my doctor to speak in when he finds something really unexpectedly bad in my x-ray.
jimgeraghty “It was your job, not your hobby, don’t deny they paid you to lobby…”
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 6:59 pmI note that Romney is taking 3 and 4 minutes to lash out at Newt, and then Newt gets 30 seconds to respond and the next question goes back to Mitt.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:00 pmJimPethokoukis “Gentlemen, those Chinese immigrants I mentioned earlier, turns out they are Chinese special forces, now what do you do?”
JRubinBlogger so far newt thinks lobbying, ethics, congress career wont hurt him- doesnt need to respond.. kinda like romney did last wk w/neg attacks
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:02 pmSantorum is looking and sounding Presidential tonight.
elissa (e3d8ab) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:02 pmYes, this ‘beating will not improve the morale’
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:02 pmI wish I was getting this live, Kev. I have to wait until 9PM Pac for the replay.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:03 pmRomney also makes quite a case that Newt quit (in Nov 1998) “in disgrace” over the ethics case (that ended in Jan 1997). Really doesn’t pass the laugh test. Romney’s outright lying here, and ought to get called on it.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:05 pmThanks, and fair enough.
It would be a mistake to overlook that.
really? It’s interesting that I would say the same with Romney, but don’t see Newt as the left’s stereotype about the GOP.
I hope you’re wrong. We don’t have a choice here. We either really get cracking on reform, or the federal government is going to collapse under its own weight.
Anyway, I definitely understand your argument. Mitt is, at least conceptually, easy going and smooth and not stepping out of line in any scary ways… basically just saying whatever is least resistance because that’s the safest way.
That’s why I presented my completely contrary take. I realize this is not conventional opinion.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:06 pmhttp://video.msnbc.msn.com/rock-center/46058377
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:06 pmMcCain’s campaign manager, Dr. Evil, I mean Schmidt, though Obama represented ‘the idealism
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:09 pmof RFK’ that in itself deserves a gibs level stooge
slap.
Oh and maybe there’s something to that.
But I am making a calculated guess that folks are really hurting out there and finally open to the argument that the government’s constant reaching out to keep grandma off the curb is actually suffocating us. 2012 should be pivotal, but if Mitt is the nominee, his argument (not the election) will be about the competence of the manager of the government (it should go without saying Romney wins hands down on that argument).
Anyway, you have made your case very easy to understand.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:09 pmOh, and steve, understand I am conceding that a ton of Newt’s plausibility, and sadly and conservative’s, is resting largely on running against an unpopular incumbent.
Reagan would have been crushed by a Jimmy Carter with better favorability, much as Newt would be by Obama with high favorability.
To me, the path is: Explain how Obama represents the wrong direction, then provide an actual choice to honestly go in the other direction.
btw, steve, your point about congress is well taken and we definitely need to focus on primary candidates in congressional races. I wish there was more discussion about that, but it would be a monumental effort for anyone to cover it.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:12 pmANY
Got damm’t
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:13 pm“Cane sugar hides behind beet sugar.” — Newt.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:16 pmToo bad Santorum has no use for the constitution.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:20 pmDidn’t Cane sugar sexually harass those white women?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:21 pmI just wanted to note it’s been exactly 999 days since the federal legislature actually passed a budget.
Would have been cool to see Cain riff on that.
The Federal goverment explains that step one in getting out of debt is making a budget.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:27 pmjimgeraghty When you ask Newt, “why didn’t the Bush tax cuts work,” it’s a sign of a masochistic desire for an angry Newt verbal beat-down.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:28 pmthe winsome Brian Williams sidekicks are annoying plus also they’re unabashed obamawhores both of them
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:28 pmJonahNRO Forget Schiavo. I want to know if these guys think the Rosenbergs were guilty.
JimPethokoukis RT @jpodhoretz: Where’s the Elian Gonzalez question?
RichLowry newt going to run over and knock dwn romney so he gets to answer space question first
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:29 pmEdMorrissey Oh, this is a “conversation.” That explains 5 mins on Schiavo, none on Keystone XL, #FastandFurious #fldebate
Excellent point!
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:31 pmsteve:
I’m curious why you think McCain was so awful. Was it his debating, his campaign style, his policies, did you just not like him, or was it something else?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:31 pmreihansalam Prizes: a rare good idea from Gingrich.
JonahNRO What about the satellites lighting our highways?
“romantic and exciting futures”… careful, Newt!
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:33 pmTheFix Entire Newt candidacy premised on his ability to beat Obama in debates. #fldebate
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:35 pmit’s creepy how when Santorum talks about conservatism it sounds like he’s talking about religion
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:36 pmNot to speak for steve (it would be great to hear his answer too), but I thought Mccain should have done a much better job criticizing Obama’s background. He was also a squish on some core principles, which doesn’t look like leadership.
That can work for democrats, for some reason, but Republicans who don’t look like leaders, because they are squishy… I think they make poor presidential candidates.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:39 pmIt’s creepy how when Crappyfeet talks about conservatism he has to serenade me……just kidding.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:41 pm“Newt got hammered. The lobbying/influence peddling line of attacks from Romney cues new and old media for the next three days. What did he do, when did he do it, for whom, and for how much? $25,000 a month to be a historian isn’t going to fly, and the push-back to Romney was weak. Newt would like John King to send in a question via Twitter.”
– Hugh Hewitt
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:41 pmMcCain also stuck to his cravenly pandering ANWR stance while gas prices were soaring and real people were hurting – he just couldn’t face the withering criticism he’d get from his media friends.
Coward.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:43 pmBut Bob Dole and John Mccain are not my idea of electable.
Another non sequitur!
Anyway, I think you’re mistaken about how important popularity is. Bill Clinton, in 1991, had a 15% favorability rating nationally.
I’m talking about negative vs. positive opinion not how many have a positive opinion.
Another non sequitur!
In 1979, Ronald Reagan’s favorability rating nationally was lower than his unfavorability rating.
BS. His ratings were even between the two.
Gingrich has a minus 32% unfavorable!
The Chart Democrats Don’t Want GOP Voters To See
Since that probably won’t be the case, there’s no point in discussing that scenario, but I think Obama would still beat someone with a minus 32% unfavorable. It’s also incredibly lame that that’s what you’re admitting to depending on. Romney would surely beat Obama under those circumstances.
What a joke.
Gerald A (b4fe48) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:44 pmWhat a joke.
Wow at least your willing to admit your a joke.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/23/2012 @ 7:56 pmwhat I feel is that lots of Ds stay home, and very few Rs do
the reason you keep hearing the obamawhore media drilling the candidates ad nauseum about immigration is cause they know hispanics see right through Obama anymore, and they’re trying to get them engaged
they think he’s a snotty white boy what looks down on them, and they think this cause of how he acts
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:02 pmPPP analysis of their FL poll conducted yesterday having Neuter up 5:
“Newt is drawing out new voters. With the 11% of the electorate that didn’t vote in the 2008 primary, he leads 40-30. Meanwhile Romney is having trouble holding onto the folks who voted for him in 2008. 37% are supporting someone else this time, with 19% of them moving toward Gingrich.”
The first closed contest.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:03 pmDRJ 241: Let me count the ways. His incredibly dumb move to suspend his campaign to deal with the financial crisis (not only did it not require suspending his campaign, he had nothing to offer the process other than his being there… he made Obama look more capable). His having no real conservative philosophy or principles other than opposing Bush (opposing Bush is okay if done for principled reason, McCain did it just for spite). His acting as if getting shot down and a POW somehow entitled him not only to office but to never be questioned on anything he deemed a ‘matter of honor’. His general unlikeliness. His picking Palin (excited conservatives, alienated the mushy middle who (unfortunately bought the ‘I can see Russia’ stereotype). For not being able (or willing) to articulate what he would do as President (see above point regarding lack of principle/philosophy). For, as Dustin points out, not being willing to take on Obama (Senatorial courtesy? I think stubbornness). And his coming across not as a seasoned and experienced guy but rather as the somewhat dotty grandpa you visit once a week with the rest of the out to pasture folks.
That’s about it.
steve (254463) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:03 pmThe Private Equity narrative from now until Greaseball Princess bows out:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/30/120130ta_talk_surowiecki?currentPage=all
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:05 pmA first attempt at tying Newt to Freddie Mac lobbying, the office of public policy hired him, what say he provided advice on lobbying?
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gingrich-worked-freddie-macs-lobby-shop/332461
Obviously, details on both of these ‘enterprises’, Bain Capital’s and Gingrich’s work are yet to be produced.
Look for leaks from the goverment on Neut and Wikileaks on Bain, former virtually certain if Neut sticks around.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:12 pm“His picking Palin”
I think this was one of Mccain’s few clever decisions. I was really shocked by it. It really helped him in the polls.
Palin wasn’t perfect, but compared to Biden, Hillary, Obama, Mitt, Huckabee… she really was a breath of fresh air from my perspective.
You’re right much of the problem here is that some folks seemed to buy into a caricature of her (and I wish Palin had done a better job avoiding that), but I think a lot of people also rallied around her because of those attacks. I don’t think Mccain would have done nearly as well as he did without her to rally conservatives.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I really think Palin was an inspired choice that did Mccain a lot of good. Just not enough good to overcome the other factors.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:13 pmThanks, steve. I was just curious. Of course, every candidate has their strengths and weaknesses. McCain had some strengths but he was also politically inconsistent, didn’t seem to have a strong message, and came across more as an elder statesman or patrician rather than someone who identified with the concerns of conservatives (let alone average Americans).
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:14 pmPalin was fine til she blew off the governorship for the bright lights of Hollywood
and Fancy wuzza her name
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:15 pm249. “a minus 32% unfavorable”
Is there anything, in your use of this terminology, missing in saying ‘a favorability [with the electorate] underwater 32%’?
If not, may I suggest something of the sort is more readable than the double negative, and more commonly encountered.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:19 pm256. “I think this was one of Mccain’s few clever decisions”
Miraculous even, in a good way.
Don’t mess with me Feets, male menopause and all.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:23 pmYes gary sorry for the double negative.
Gerald A (b4fe48) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:23 pmYou know frankly too many of you, deserve Obama, aphrael still hasn’t gotten a clue in three years,
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:23 pmlooking at the wasteland that is California, not ot mention the nation. Obama has been wrong on every single way, in an almost criminal way,
I didn’t think it made sense for Palin to run.
Then I saw this cluster and realized, hey, we needed about sixty more candidates to find one that wasn’t pretty poor.
It’s unfair to compare Palin to those who entered the gauntlet and were found lacking… who knows how she would have handled it (I suspect you think poorly), but she’s pretty conservative and has executive experience.
Anyway, I can hardly blame the several candidates I’d place over these remaining three for staying out of this disaster.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:24 pm262. “in an almost criminal way”
Blatant play for Sainthood on the part of Ecclesiatically Ambitious commenter.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:31 pmYou know it’s funny, if Mitt wanted a model of how to get elected, he could do worse than follow the Rick Scott model, everybody thought it couldn’t happen, but as the Fortune story shows, yes he used his money, but he targeted his opponent, Alex Sink, and those less likely to vote, and those who didn’t dislike him so much, Just like Romney disdained the contract with America in ’94, and then Ted Kennedy, in gratitude, gutted him like a pig, over his Bain dealings,
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:32 pm*ecclesiastically
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:34 pmWell it’s not explicitly illegal, but seeing Summer’s comments on the stimulus, it’s close enough.
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:34 pmother candidates include the Brewster’s Millions method.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:40 pmOf course, what do the facts matter if they get in the way of Dem meme;
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/03/gingrich/?pid=2761&cob=home
narciso (87e966) — 1/23/2012 @ 8:57 pmNarciso, it is risable how far Mitt has gone down that path.
And given how Florida has reacted to Alan Grayson’s heading down that same path recently, I think it’s quite stupid.
We’ll see soon just how electable Romney really is. If he’s blown his advantage because the not Romney’s dropped out and he couldn’t handle a closer to one on one match without flailing, then it’s good to know now.
Oddly enough, some of those objective folks who said they would gladly defend any Republican as they spun hard for Mitt are not explaining how unfounded this attack is, or reflecting on what that might say about where it’s coming from these days.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:01 pmKarl,
The more I think about it, the more I like your suggestion that Romney should compare his role at Bain to being a doctor. Even the fact that some doctors make more money than the average American could help Romney explain his earnings. My only concern would be that it could also remind people of RomneyCare.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:07 pmDRJ,
Yes, Romneycare is a downside of the analogy. Then again, when isn’t it a downside? 😉
Karl (8cdbad) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:30 pm“Newt can get beat”, alright.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:35 pmEARLY GINGRICH ‘FREDDIE MAC’ CONTRACTS GO MISSING…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/gingrich-firm-releases-2006-freddie-mac-contract-as-rivals-raise-pressure.html
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:41 pmThere he goes again:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/romney-flip-flops-abandons-capitalism-on-florida-housing-issue.html
We have a government moratorium on foreclosures, a disincentive for banks to write down their losses on commercial properties preferring to wait out the depression(see Japan, 2 decades of deflation and counting), and a pending exposure of banks in the imminent Greek default(today the Germans have refused IMF, ECB and Italian entreaties to double the kitty).
The last is mostly because of CDS sold to protect holders of junk foreign bonds in case they are not honored.
The Fed owns something like $1.8 Trillion in MBS and just a week ago tried for the second time to sell like $8 Billion(Maiden Lane) and crashed the financial stocks supporting adjustable rate loans.
Now Willard, in FL bludgeoning Neut with Freddie Mac, makes noises about something needing to be done for our poor, put upon banks, again.
Ogabe has nothing on Willard in the veracity-challenged regime.
Another bailout is politically impossible and economically infeasible. Within 60 days Lehman will look like a patrician garden party.
I will not vote for this lying bag of mostly water.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:42 pmCONFUSION:
GINGRICH NOW: I SUPPORTED GOLDWATER…
GINGRICH FLASHBACK: I SUPPORTED ROCKEFELLER OVER GOLDWATER…
When you lie, it’s hard to keep your story straight.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:42 pmVisit Newt’s website! He says he can ‘splain it all.
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:45 pm“As others have mentioned, I thought Gingrich had two very bad answers. He suggested that he left Congress to start businesses or some such. That’s nonsense and everyone knows it. He left the speakership and Congress on bad terms and he should be comfortable simply acknowledging that as painlessly as possible while touting his many real accomplishments.
Second, his stuff about not being a lobbyist of any sort is just silly. Why else bring in a lawyer to explain to him how to avoid the label? You could see it on his face that he regretted bringing that up the moment he said it. Look Freddie Mac hired Newt Gingrich for a reason. It wasn’t as an historian. They wanted his name on the shingle for a reason.”
– Jonah Goldberg
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:49 pmphilipaklein So Romney gave $13.2 million to taxes & charity over the past two years, and this is supposed to hurt him?
JRubinBlogger @philipaklein over 17% in charity vs, newt’s 2.6 %
Newt Gingrich… tightwad bullsh*tter extraordinaire
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/23/2012 @ 9:52 pmRomney invests in Fannie and Freddie:
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-invested-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-232530472.html
Romney tithes to his ‘church’.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:02 pmGary, that’s pretty hilarious. Mitt demonizes Fannie, but Mitt also invested in Fannie.
I guess that I can’t criticize that or I hate capitalism? Or perhaps Fannie is one really good example of how we do not have a free market because of all the mess our elites have done. Maybe criticizing some of this stuff is actually a defense of the free market?
Of course, a pox on both their houses, Mitt and Newt, for their Fannie connections. I just cannot believe that the next president is going to be either Obama, Newt, Romney, or Santorum. Blows my mind.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:08 pm281. Can’t really speak to Santorum’s lies, I don’t listen, but it seems Neut’s have less expensive consequences than the more accomplished liar.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:14 pm278. Re: Quiting to start a business. Gingrich did not have to resign. In the Esquire interview of Marianne postures that she argued that he owed it to his constituents to serve his term. His reply was “He would not serve with cannibals”.
Goldberg has a point but Newt’s perspective is valid as well.
Re: Lobbying, see the Carney link above. Lobbying is peddling influence with Congress, Bureaucrats, and the use of suasion such as palm grease(see Abramoff). Neut wasn’t licensed.
Carney suggests that advice on lobbying would constitute lobbying. But there is a great deal that a bright boy like Neut could do for Franklin Raines including sitting on his hands for 200K a year.
While not typical of Goldberg, this sort of vapid, precipitate thinking is why Steven King called him the Jimmy Kimmel of political analysis.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 10:45 pm276. Yeah Newt was 21 in 64, he might have voted, maybe even twice.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:01 pmHaiku, what makes you think that your boo-leading adds to the discussion? It feels more like the spam on Usenet.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:39 pmAnyone who understands the history of Newt’s speakership knows that he didn’t leave in Nov 1998 because of an investigation that ENDED in January 1997. Mitt was an utter boob for suggesting theat he did.
He quit right after the disappointing 1998 midterm because he probably would not be re-elected as Speaker. Of course his rival Bob Livingston resigned right thereafter as the Dems dumped a heap of scandal on him. Which gave us Speaker Hastert and the beginning of the end to balanced budgets.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:46 pmMitt also said something quite stupid and falsifiable. Mitt said that Newt was the “first speaker to ever resign due to a scandal” in 1998. In fact Jim Wright was, less than a decade earlier (and Gingrich resigned for other reasons anyway).
From Wikipedia:
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:54 pmAnd, obtw, Jim Wright didn’t fall, Newt Gingrich pushed. One of the reasons the Dems had it in for him when he became speaker.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:55 pmMitt also made a big error when he allowed Newt to
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/23/2012 @ 11:59 pmpanderballyhoo his support for Medicare Part D (prescriptions) in Florida. He also got to claim that Part D is a Medicare efficiency rather than an expensive entitlement since drugs treat many conditions cheaper early on than surgery or therapy on the back end.“Gary, that’s pretty hilarious. Mitt demonizes Fannie, but Mitt also invested in Fannie.”
Real Funny. Through a mutual fund he doesn’t control. Yet another SMEAR FAIL.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:01 amSort of like the Politico, Mitt gets FDIC bailout SMEAR FAIL a bunch of conservative bit on.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:03 am“Now Willard, in FL bludgeoning Neut with Freddie Mac, makes noises about something needing to be done for our poor, put upon banks, again.”
gary – Breaking News – Mitt says something, let Think Progress distort it, then let conservative blogs pick it up and run with it!
Winning!
Gingrich, the ultimate Washington insider, trying to sell himself to voters as an outsider or non-establishment candidate, deserves to be questioned on his lobbying or consulting contracts obtained due to his insider qualifications. He’s selling himself as Mister Outside, but earns his money as Mister Inside. The cognitive dissonance raises legitimate questions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:20 amSo, Mitt giving (allegedly) money to Fannie is somehow worse than Newt admittedly taking money from Freddie?
Icy (e68f57) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:23 amGov. Romney was in the joint JD/MBA program at Harvard. He’s not yet a very good cross-examiner. How tonight’s exchange should have gone:
None of these are leading questions. You can re-write any of the answers I’ve provided for Newt in my hypothetical above, because the answers don’t matter — only the questions do, because each is based on an indisputable premise that Gingrich has to concede.
Some Americans will doubtless reject Romney because he’s rich, but I’m worried that more will reject Gingrich because he’s phony. Him standing up there pretending to be an anti-Washington crusader is a very, very bad joke. I will support Newt if he is the nominee, but I very much hope he is not.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:46 am(That last comment doesn’t mean I’ve joined the Romney camp either. But while I’m disappointed in him, I’m disgusted with Gingrich.)
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:48 amaphrael #151 – Fascinating !
“Narciso – as Dustin said, I’m speaking about friends of mine who are not Democrats who were scared into Senator Obama’s arms by Governor Palin.”
It seems to me that most folk were scared into Senator Obama’s arms by Tina Fey and SNL and the major media …
And the fact that you seem ready to vote for Obama *again* after seeing what a mess he is making of this country and our economy seems to confirm that you, too, actually and proudly believe that Governor Palin uttered the words which were actually uttered by Tina Fey … sorta sad, really …
Alasdair (1b11af) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:51 amIt seems to me that most folk were scared into Senator Obama’s arms by Tina Fey and SNL and the major media …
You can probably make next month’s rent betting that Palin never said “I can see Russia from my house.”
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:14 amMitt looks as if he is auditioning for a bobble-head doll deal. The head bobbing is annoying.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:48 am292. daley spitting on Riehl from down the block, out of earshot, must be a Crystal Lake street thuggee.
Crowd there a little rough, dogs don’t heel?
We will not have, with the tax returns, much info at all on Mitt’s investments. By comparison Neuter is a model of transparency.
“Gingrich, the ultimate Washington insider”
Funny, the insiders ran him out on a rail and burn crosses on lawns lest they see him back.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:13 amMr. Surber on Money in 2012 and the value of the debates to the little guys:
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/50260#more-50260
Also SC turnout up 33%, and whereas modest increases in IA and NH carried by Dimmis and Indies, SC is a Republican stronghold.
Dyer called them the 2012 abolitionists.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:18 am300. Mitt love abounds but discouraging sounds are heard:
DeMint wouldn’t endorse, Rubio won’t endorse, T. Scott didn’t, West hasn’t–the ticks near the hind legs are skeered of itching.
Jeb is definitely available, maybe Jindal.
Mitt’s recent victories do not exite–Chrissie PermaThong and Timmy IHaveMorePersonalityThanMitt jump into the job pool.
Silver had Willard a 96% certainty in FL a week ago, now Neut 82%?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:39 amNo lickspittle he, Philip Klein on sealing the deal with Mr/Mrs/Ms I’ll.Believe.The.Eyes.In.My.Head.ThankU:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/what-has-romney-done-conservatism/331506
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:49 amImagine the collectivist that will fill mitt’s cabinet.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:04 amCrying out loud.
Interesting, we all need to know his accountant;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/romney-paid-13-9-percent-tax-rate-on-21-6-million-2010-income.html
narciso (87e966) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:28 amhttp://articles.mcall.com/1994-04-07/news/2983594_1_wofford-s-campaign-manager-league-of-women-voters-health-care
narciso (87e966) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:48 amhttp://blog.american.com/2012/01/11-stunning-revelations-from-larry-summers-secret-economics-memo-to-barack-obama/
narciso (87e966) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:57 amSo … Democrats voted for Mitt?
Explains why the Country Club Conservatives are solidly, en masse, in his corner and trying to discredit every other candidate with “electability lies.”
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
ODB (dcf97e) — 1/24/2012 @ 5:10 amI can assure you of one thing, whoever the Democratic Pollsters say is the “Best Republican” Candidate is by far the one most likely to lose versus Obama.
Cocktailers like Hewitt, Podohoretz, Noonan, Bennett don’t get it. They eat the dog food.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
ODB (dcf97e) — 1/24/2012 @ 5:16 amref, #307 …. The sharper the contrast to Obama, the more likely to win, so long as he can show he is smart.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
ODB (dcf97e) — 1/24/2012 @ 5:27 am305. Item 11. Some accountant guy, they’re all faceless, went ot the SEC 8 times complaining that Madoff was gaming the system, that the numbers did not, could not add up.
These lawyers, I’m to understand, average over $200K, one was found to have spent up to eight hours a day surfing the nets for heteronormal porn. None of your damn business.
SEC asked for another $Billion$ or two ’cause of increased oversight tasking under Dodd-Frank.
Your government, making the best of an opportunity.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 6:28 am303. After deductions and writeoffs, effective rate 6.9%, whereas that of philanderer and mistress, 31.5% on one tenth the income.
QED, Neut is stupid and corrupt.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 6:33 amIt has less to do with the accountants, and more to do with the nature of the income.
JD (804644) — 1/24/2012 @ 6:40 amOff day in the Markets today as we learned the coercive default being negotiated by Greece and her lenders to be spun as solving Europe’s chief ill, that fell thru yesterday, wouldn’t even work on paper for Portugal.
Bummer that.
Also yesterday, the IMF, ECB and Italy(entering depression) were all rebuffed by Germany despite their perfectly understandable request that the latter pay for dessert, the rent, the kid’s X-box,…
S&P responded by commencing another round of downgrades to, notably French, banks across the continent(‘Cry for me’-Morgan Stanley).
What Amerikkka needs, as Executive, is someone who knows how to make himself and other worthies rich out of the flames that engulf us.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 6:49 am““Gingrich, the ultimate Washington insider”
Funny, the insiders ran him out on a rail and burn crosses on lawns lest they see him back.”
gary – Gingrich make a lot more and honorable coin as a Washington lobbyist/consultant/leach, no? What part is unclear?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 7:11 amnarciso @305 – Summers confirms what most of us already thought. Nice.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 7:12 am(1) is frustrating to those of us who think that an economic stimulus package focused on projects with a large multiplier effect was a good idea.
I thought the existence of (4) was well understood.
(8) somewhat implies that the majority of economists in 2008-2009 thought that an economic stimulus along the lines of (1) was appropriate.
The problem everyone on the center-left has with (11) is, even if that’s true, it seems unlikely that either a Romney or Gingrich administration will exercise the authority the regulators already have more vigorously than the Bush administration did.
aphrael (5d993c) — 1/24/2012 @ 7:24 amSeeing as one of those in charge was Geithner, I find that hard to believe, of course we know the
narciso (6884e7) — 1/24/2012 @ 7:37 amstory of Armando Falcon, and run in with Barney
Frank
aphrael–
For those of us who did not vote for Obama but were willing to give him a chance and were genuinely hopeful that he could be a good president, the day the quickie and ill-conceived “stimulus” was announced and it became obvious that most of the deficit spending was going to fund nebulous leftist wet dreams (and was not remotely shovel ready jobs to goose the economy) was the day we knew Obama was just another run of the mill pol– and an extremely cynical one to boot.
It has gone downhill from there.
elissa (e3d8ab) — 1/24/2012 @ 7:51 amnarciso – Armando Falcon was frustrated and ultimately powerless in his mandate to oversee the GSE’s even though he had much support. The GSE lobbying machine (see Gingrich) and Democrats prevented meaningful reform and reining in of Fannie and Freddie to their original charter purposes.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 8:06 am“For those of us who did not vote for Obama but were willing to give him a chance”
elissa – One problem was that the country did not know the true nature of Obama, but it was available for those willing to do some work. His campaign scrubbed his background and was abetted by the media in preventing negative stories growing nationally.
The harassment of authors and researchers such as David Freddoso and Stanley Kurtz, who both had Obama nailed, was intense. Obama tacked left for the primaries and right for the general. Examining his time in Illinois showed his primary personality was closer to his true character and his campaign and the media desperately tried to hide it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 8:15 amAnd Covington’s role in the foreclosure process, added to their part in the Gitmo bar, makes it exceeding unlikely that any real reform will occur
narciso (6884e7) — 1/24/2012 @ 8:42 amI agree with everything you said above, daley. What I am incredulous about still today, though, is that after going to such great lengths (so much effort and expense) to hide his true nature from the electorate prior to the election, that he was willing to expose himself so blatantly mere weeks into his presidency. The arrogance of “I won” does not even begin to cover the political stupidity of revealing himself as a campaign liar so early in the game. No sublety or finesse there!
elissa (e3d8ab) — 1/24/2012 @ 8:43 amelissa – I remember conversations with some squishier friends and their reactions that “he can’t be that bad.” We lost a lot of voters like that last time who need to get to the polls this time whoever the nominee is, because they are now convinced that Obama has been that bad. The attacks on free enterprise and Mitt’s wealth are self-defeating and just help Democrats this fall and are stupid roads for the party to go down, IMHO.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 9:06 amBeldar, #294
The $25K/month employed several people, not just Newt. Lawyers don’t pocket $400/hour either, they have staff who do a lot of the grunt work and expect to be paid. Nor, as Newt tried to point out, did Mitt get all the gross income that Bain received. So, your cross-examination results in a giant so what?
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 10:48 amAlso, there is a wide variety of things one can be paid for, other than as an “historian” that are not “lobbyist.”
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 10:49 amI wonder if one of the Romney folks would care to comment on Romney’s one sentence triple lie, that Gingrich was the first Speaker of the House to resign in disgrace due to scandal.
1. Newt did not resign due to scandal, as there wasn’t one, and in any event the ethics panel thing had ended 2 years earlier, so it was not the cause.
2. Newt did not resign in disgrace.
3. Jim Wright DID resign as Speaker, due to scandal, and in such disgrace that
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 10:55 amhis bagmana close associate resigned with him. That was in 1989, which being earlier would be “first.” (And they guy that brought the charges? Newt Gingrich.)Yeah, that talking point really does a great deal to change attitudes about which party is corrupt, and was unfortunate. Almost as aggravating as “Rick Perry is going to Kill Social Security”, which was a lie Romney’s campaign had on fliers.
This stuff costs the GOP down ticket. Down ticket is supposedly our real hope for the future. Mitt Romney is willing to compromise that, and is not a leader I can rely on.
Newt, on the other hand, is more like a bastard fighting on my team.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/24/2012 @ 11:06 amThe $25K/month employed several people, not just Newt.
— Citation, please; and feel free to include a description of what “work” was done in exchange for that payment.
Icy (b81cd2) — 1/24/2012 @ 11:37 am314. “What part is unclear?”
The part where I can hear what you’re saying having removed what passes for a cranium removed from your nether regions.
Look at Neuter’s contract, it’s stock, no activities, deliverables, nada. He’s paid to sit on his fat ass.
He said on Laura today, copies of his contracts with Franklin Raines produced by Freddie Mac will be precisely the same.
I was under the impression you were a lawyer, have you no experience with retainer’s, lard butt succubus?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 11:40 amI wonder where those first several years of Newt’s Freddie Mac contracts have disappeared to?
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/24/2012 @ 11:43 amFriend, you’re giving him what he wants. It’s making a great conversation more difficult.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/24/2012 @ 11:45 amDidn’t Obama continue Bush’s tax cuts?
Didn’t Obama block palestine at the UN?
Doesn’t Obama have two foreign wars on his hands?
Isn’t GITMO still open?
But hey Israel is retaliating against Hamas because it’s a religion thing…………..right leftys?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/24/2012 @ 11:47 amSteyn, filling in for Rush, and no fan of either candidate advised each to drop pretense and just met their detractors head on:
Neut was tarred and feathered, resigning from Speaker before a vote, resigning from the House because he couldn’t stomach remaining.
He’s not a nice guy, but serious times require a man who is the measure of the time. No one but empty-headed trolls, unserious people care to “relitigate the circumstances” of his departure. Sapient Amerikkkans know we are in deep trouble.
And the “sopoforic Romney” is not such a man.
OTOH Romney should not run from his Corporate Raider experience, if indeed he has same, but direct the argument to the need at hand. Our government is replete with redundancies, waste and sloth.
No doubt he could then make the case for a steady hand, if he really meant business.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 11:52 amAnd for you delectation, is the road ahead without a Black Swan:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/char-day-imfs-downside-case-europe-and-world
This is the reality of EU recession already underway. With the collapse of the euro on FX markets the US GDP will magically meet projections but real output will decline.
Now, if Greece does get the 130 Billion they need at the end of March the Black Swan will be delayed, but it is coming. Italy’s GDP is expected to contract 6% in 2012, Spain’s unemployment rate is already 24%.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:01 pm331. If I’ve tripped others up, I apologize.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:04 pmI wonder where those first several years of Newt’s Freddie Mac contracts have disappeared to?
I wonder where the last several years of Col Haiku’s paycheck stubs have disappeared to? Can he PROVE he isn’t a Romney lobbyist?
In short, stop with the paranoia-mongering. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:39 pm“The $25K/month employed several people, not just Newt.”
Kevin M. – The contract allows for the employment of various qualified staff on Freddie Mac projects at Gingrich’s discretion. The deliverables are to be specified by Freddie Mac and not detailed in the contract. Since Newt has not be very forthcoming on who did what or what work product was actually produced, all we can do is speculate on what the lobbying arm of Freddie Mac hired Gingrich’s firm for, almost certainly not to lobby for it’s reduced power IMHO. An annual retainer of $300,000 is certainly also a pretty hefty book advance for a historian.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:53 pm“Not everything is a conspiracy.”
Heh!
Romney paid other campaigns not to criticize him in debates.
Romney rigged Virginia ballot access rules.
Romney campaign is behind the Marianne Gingrich interview with ABC news.
How soon they forget.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 12:56 pmJim Geraghty’s source says Gingrich was almost certainly hired to provide legislative background on GOP legislators that would help influence them to continue funding for and/or reduce oversight of Freddie Mac. It would be nice if GOP consultants only worked for GOP causes, just as it would be nice if we all worked for businesses that support conservative beliefs. But many of us work for or with companies that primarily contribute to Democrats, and I don’t think that makes us bad people.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:01 pmKevin M, are you still looking it up?
Icy (b81cd2) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:07 pmI don’t know DaleyKos do you think Romney is your messiah?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:10 pmYou’re not a bad person, DRJ.
The former Sneaker Out Of The House, however . . .
Icy (b81cd2) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:11 pmIcy,
Seriously, you think he’s bad because he’s had marital problems? Forty years ago I would have agreed with you, but feminism and no-fault divorce have made it too easy for people to justify divorces. As I said a few days ago, I’m just glad Republicans still want to get married. In addition, I worry more about fiscal irregularities, so his Tiffany’s account bothers me a lot more than his marriages.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:16 pmThank you DRJ I agree with you by the way Icy is an unsurprisingly irrational moron.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:46 pmIt’s just a nickname, DRJ. What concerns me is that Newt is a faux conservative. He believes in a strong (read: progressive) executive branch enacting policies that lead the country to a better place. I don’t believe any lip service he gives to government getting out of the way. He believes more in controlling the government than he does in shrinking it. He called FDR the greatest president of the 20th century. Newt is not my guy. Santorum is the candidate whose policy positons I like the most, but unfortunately he isn’t getting enough traction.
Icy (b81cd2) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:48 pm339. I’d believe that for the first year or two before the info got old. It would tie with Neut’s rationalization of the work as ‘history’.
I think Neut’s experience decidedly harder to hire than Romney’s and combined with cojones there is no contest regarding the upside.
Can/will Neut deliver or, as Steyn puts it, will a department store mannequin do, i.e., Romney.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:51 pm“Forty years ago I would have agreed with you, but feminism and no-fault divorce have made it too easy for people to justify divorces.”
DRJ – The divorces don’t bother me as much as the six year affair with a subordinate.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:58 pmWow a Romneybot accusing others of faux conservatism?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/24/2012 @ 1:59 pm“What concerns me is that Newt is a faux conservative. He believes in a strong (read: progressive) executive branch enacting policies that lead the country to a better place.”
Icy – Heck, back in May on Meet the Press he was defending the equivalent of the Individual Mandate on a national basis to David Gregory. Even Romney doesn’t support that. Ace has the clip up.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:03 pm337. “An annual retainer of $300,000 is certainly also a pretty hefty book advance for a historian”
Irrelevant, Neut had the potential to do great harm. Park him and keep him neutralized(unintentional pun).
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:05 pmRomney does support it remember Romneycare?
Oh I forgot he is your messiah.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:06 pmMaobama wants to raise taxes on the rich?
But yet Charlie Rangel won’t be affected.
Maobama doesn’t give a damn about the middle class.
If he did he would not have forced us to have insurance or face a fine.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:08 pmKevin M (#324 Kevin M — 1/24/2012 @ 10:48 am), the “several people per month” employed for Freddie Mac’s (and ultimately the U.S. taxpayers’) money were all Newt’s people. It was a big feeding trough.
You think that makes it better? It does not, sir; quite the contrary.
No, sir, this is one of Newt’s largest warts. That’s objective reality. Trying to treat it as a beauty mark is an insult to our intelligence.
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:11 pmThe focus of interest given Neut now up 7 nationally(Rasmussen) is what are the genuine dangers of Neut’s potentialities for failure?
Not that I can be persuaded to vote Romany, for those who might, that would be the analysis to pursue.
Given Boehner has abiding respect for Newt the problems with the House holdovers wouldn’t, prima facie, be insurmountable.
Sabotage in the State Dept., CIA, like Bush experienced would be the next consideration.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:12 pm353. “Trying to treat it as a beauty mark is an insult to our intelligence.”
As Steyn puts it, no different than Bain Capital taking advantage of Tax Law, borrowing the cash to pay itself, the consulting arm and then leaving handing the debt off to the new owners.
Neut is no angel, but consultancy at the trough is less bad than Paxon and Molinari who were among those hanging him and have been lobbyists ever since, and now leading the charge on Romany’s team to torpedo Neut.
They are politicians, among the least honorable of citizens. On Hannity Abramoff said as far as he knew Gingrich was clean, sort of a catch-22, tho, Abramoff didn’t know him really.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:22 pmI agree Beldar but Romney is no better.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:27 pmArmey, DeLay, Paxon, Boehner and Gingrich were all involved in the coup of Gingrich that failed.
Only Boehner continued in power. DeLay is serving time but even he is thought by some to have been torpedoed.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:28 pmBeldar’s cross examination comment is really effective. Too bad it went into moderation… hope everyone scrolls up and reads it.
I’m glad we tend to agree on candidates in most other cases.
It’s true: Newt is not a beltway outsider, but he stayed at a holiday in express last night.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:28 pmIf Obama wanted to work to make the world better he’d use his own money to prop up failing schools.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:28 pmAs for whether Newt “resigned in disgrace”:
This is a subjective formulation. He can pretend, and has pretended, that he left the speakership in good odor. Not many other people who were paying attention then remember it that way.
I give Newt credit for many accomplishments in Congress, including as Speaker, but I was glad for him to go. I thought he had disgraced himself. YMMV, but no one is arguing that Newt went out at the top of his game, are they? So what, between then and now, has returned him to the top of his game and made him the GOP’s best hope to beat Obama?
Rhetoric. Debate performances.
And to credit those, we have to ignore everything else he’s done since leaving the House, like sitting on the couch with Nancy or being Freddie Mac’s highly paid whatever-he-was.
Does it really help Newt’s case to point out that Jim Wright also was effectively driven from office in disgrace? I don’t see that it does. Does it at all impeach Mitt Romney’s point about Gingrich to insist that Jim Wright was disgraced first or even worse? No, only to those who think illogically.
Is this the kind of self-pitying whining that Barack Obama would use to turn Gingrich into a caricature in order to eek out a second term? I very much fear that. The people like Dustin who are quite appropriately roused by Gingrich’s “bastard fighting for my team” mode, alas, are but a fraction of the GOP, and a tiny, tiny slice of the entire voting public.
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:29 pmWow a Romneybot accusing others of faux conservatism?
Comment by DohBiden — 1/24/2012 @ 1:59 pm
— Thank you for paying attention. I said that Santorum is the one whose policies I like the most.
Icy (b81cd2) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:36 pm360. Without meaning to put Neut in Reagan’s heaven, Reagan had an enormous contribution to conservatism and the country in his ability to distill the philosophy of conservatism and communicate same.
I submit this talent is essential to leadership.
Romany is obviously devoid of this quality.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:38 pmRespectfully, on this one I think you’re off base. Newt was exonerated. It is quite unfair to character him as a disgrace when the true disgrace was what happened to him. Yeah, strictly speaking, the attitude at the end of the witchhunt was that Newt lost. (my opinion: The resentment over his attitude on spending led to a lot of GOP votes against him, and the same has happened afterwards… Republicans eat their own up on the hill). The fact is that Newt was exonerated, and the episode speaks well of him, and even his opponents know this. Romney knows this.
It is also just plain dishonest how Mitt is describing “he had to pay $300,000 as a result”. It’s an implicit suggestion it’s a fine, dancing around rhetorically. It’s sophistry.
Probably. But then, that’s what they do to every Republican who complains validly. Persecution complex.
Absolutely right. I am highly atypical in how I see the world, and my views basically never reflect popular views except by coincidence.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:41 pmYep. Sad. I’m not going to heart broken if this guy loses. I understand that he is full of it.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:42 pmDid we forget this already, not too mention, his meddling in foreign policy, on behalf of the other
side, the Sandinistas.
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-05-12/news/mn-3066_1_mack-s-brother-house-speaker-jim-wright-house-democrats
Romney carries the weight of his signature accomplishment, which is toxic no matter how many
narciso (87e966) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:45 pmtimes Coulter and Rubin say otherwise, Newt was
not perfect by any means, but he didn’t really implement any of those notions,
At RealClearPolitics a poll with data from Insider Advantage(?) was up on the 22nd.
The responses in the 18-29 group were especially telling. 31% Neut, 0% Romany, perhaps because the latter is committed to making government, and SS specifically, work with iterative tweaks at the margins.
We don’t know what Nor Laup will do to deal at convention. But in the general his constituency will make or break a GOP nominee, all other things being equal.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:48 pmDustin, my characterization of Gingrich leaving the House in disgrace doesn’t depend entirely, or even very much, on the formal ethics charges or investigation pertaining to those.
Suffice it to say, as an abbreviation for why I think he left the speakership in disgrace, that by the time he left, most of the progress he’d made had been undone. He takes credit for building a House GOP majority. Well, then, he owns blame for its loss, doesn’t he?
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:54 pmThat said, your characterization of the ethics charges as a triumph for Gingrich is silly. If he hadn’t been vulnerable, they wouldn’t have attacked him there; and if he hadn’t been vulnerable, he wouldn’t have negotiated the deal (a sort of Congressional plea bargain) that he made, he would have fought and won outright. I don’t think that episode is nearly as big a wart as having taken Freddie Mac’s money for influence peddling; but it’s no beauty mark either.
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:58 pm360. “And to credit those, we have to ignore everything else he’s done since leaving the House, like sitting on the couch with Nancy or being Freddie Mac’s highly paid whatever-he-was”
You perhaps, but as Steyn puts it Neut’s significant accomplisments of building the GOP in GA, of the Contract w/ America, balancing the budget, the 1994 election, etc., abide.
A stupid position or photo op does not undo those acheivements even in remembering, left in a vacuum he is a cocked pistol. That particular application, the President left to his own devices, is hard to conjure in actuality.
Take BHO cutting down OBL, no way that was his decision. He was brought in off the golf course, crouched in the corner like the pizza man who was block by the crush of bodies.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 2:59 pmtouche
Well, it’s along the lines of how Palinization proves something about Palin. Not everyone buys into that sort of sentiment.
Yes, he was very vulnerable to a completely unfounded witchhunt, and he failed to overcome it, and then he was exonerated, and now he’s a front runner for the hearts and minds of the party.
Anyway, I realize your comments are good faith and that you’re justified not to trust Newt. I disagree about the ethics investigation.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:00 pmGays want more than civil unions they are nothing but the glorified bullies that they despise.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:03 pm368. “taken Freddie Mac’s money for influence peddling”
Groundless innuendo tantamount to slander, if it were not for the target being generally reviled. As DRJ’s Geraghty link shows, Neut was not licensed and there is no chance whatever he was lobbying actively.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:04 pmAnd by “vulnerable,” I don’t mean “vulnerable to Democrats voting against him,” because of course Democrats would vote against him regardless of whether the complaints had any merit. I mean he was vulnerable with House Republicans. The reason he cut the deal he did and paid the money (which was enough to sting) was because enough Republicans were going to join Democrats so that he was going to lose. I’m even willing to go along with the notion that maybe the Republicans who dropped their support for Gingrich should have been braver or more steadfast; and but a few years earlier, they would have been. But Newt had lost his effectiveness among the very people who had participated in his greatest triumph. There’s no way to paint that as a good thing.
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:07 pmYes, the same Republicans that wanted to run Alberto
narciso (87e966) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:12 pmGonzalez on a rail,just because, we know the facts have no purchase, we found that out in the fall of 2008, but let’s not make that into a hard and fast
rule.
A last note to Dustin: When I pointed out that only a small fraction of the electorate appreciates Newt when in “bastard fighting for his team” mode, I ought also have said that I’m with you in that small slice.
Lots of what Newt says is correct, and powerfully stated, regardless of his flaws as a messenger. That he can indeed rouse the conservative faithful with it — and that’s clearly what just happened in North Carolina — is indeed among the strongest arguments in favor of Newt’s candidacy.
I generally hate Twitter, but someone (can’t recall who) wrote recently, “We never should have let Newt escape from Elba.” And yeah, that’s sort of the way I feel about him. But I’m not seriously suggesting that he be exiled or shunned. I just don’t want him as the GOP nominee, and I don’t believe he’s the best candidate available to us, nor (much more sadly) even the best among those running.
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:18 pmDoes it at all impeach Mitt Romney’s point about Gingrich to insist that Jim Wright was disgraced first or even worse? No, only to those who think illogically.
It does impeach Mitt’s credibility when he states, with verbal underlining, things that are untrue. And again, in political terms “disgrace” implies criminal wrongdoing or getting caught with their pants down. Like, say, Jim Wright or Dan Rostenkowski, or for that matter Speaker-elect Bob Livingston, NOT someone who took the fall for a poor midterm showing. If the Republicans had gotten the 20-30 seat pickup they were anticipating, Newt would not have been forced out.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:43 pmErp. Obviously meant South Carolina. I actually do know the difference, and they’re both lovely states, but not fungible.
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:46 pmWell, then, he owns blame for its loss, doesn’t he?
What, in 2006? You must be joking.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:47 pmKevin, “If the Republicans had gotten the 20-30 seat pickup they were anticipating, Newt would not have been forced out.”
But he didn’t, so he was. So Newt did not leave in triumph. Did he?
That’s not Romney’s fault. Nor do I fault Romney for pointing out that Newt exaggerates his achievements and ignores his failings. I don’t fault Newt for making that same argument about Newt.
To repeat what I’ve said before, here and elsewhere: I have many faults to find with Gov. Romney, which is why I’m not yet on his bandwagon. But the thing you’re criticizing, I don’t think he deserves to be criticized for, and I think it’s a distraction from the real issues.
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 3:52 pmBah. Obviously typing in too big a hurry.
I don’t fault either Gingrich or Romney (or Santorum or Paul) for pointing out occasions on which other candidates are exaggerating their own accomplishments or minimizing their own failures.
I therefore share none of Kevin M’s revulsion at Romney for using the word “disgrace” to describe Gingrich’s departure from Congress. Indeed, it’s the same word I’d use myself.
Even if I’m wrong and Kevin M. is right, and even if we presume it’s somehow unfair to use the word “disgrace” with respect to Gingrich’s departure, that is such incredibly small potatoes in the overall decision as to who ought to be president that I think it an argument that may be safely ignored.
By contrast, I am, and continue to be, thoroughly revolted at Gingrich for populist, anti-capitalist attacks on Romney’s business background that are substantively identical to those which Democrats make on all Republicans.
Legitimizing Obama and his pseudo/crony-capitalism is not small potatoes. It’s another example of a hugely stupid, unforced blunder in judgment by Gingrich, comparable to sitting with Nancy and right-wing social engineering, all from within a space of months. As much as they’d love to destroy Romney, Rick Santorum and even Nor Laup knew better than to go down that path, yet Gingrich cannot restrain himself from bounding down it.
Beldar (88eab4) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:05 pmOh good allah the Carney barker right now is on PBS– already spinning the president’s SOTU speech– and he hasn’t even given it yet. I have a feeling all our team R candidates are going to be looking better and better after we’ve subjected to an hour of Barry.
elissa (e3d8ab) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:12 pmSure, that’s definitely true.
BUT will Florida voters who are inundated with negative ads be turned off?
Soon we’ll know a pretty good answer to that, and I think that answer will also help us understand the electability issue.
Dustin (7362cd) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:15 pmBeldar–
I am not actually anti-Romney in the sense that I won’t support him. But if he wants enthusiastic support he has just GOT to stop with the safe predictable content-free crap that he was spouting as late as Monday night. Go listen to his answer about NASA, for example (no transcript up yet). I’d call it pablum but that would insult pablum.
Barack Obama still can inspire people. Mitt is as bland as bland can be. Granted he is better than McCain in that he won’t look like a lost Alzheimer’s patient wandering around the debate set, but I have a higher bar. I want some fire there. To this date I have no idea why he wants to be President.
I want to know which cabinet department(s) he would close or merge. I want to know if he will insist on a return to federalism or simply slow the slide to a unitary state. I want to know what parts of government need a complete upending. I want to know what he thinks the federal government ought to be doing MORE of.
In short I want to know the kinds of things that Newt has been fairly upfront about. But there isn’t enough coffee in the world to go though the committee-massaged content-sparse 59-point plan that will be abandoned the moment he’s elected.
I have one guy who is passionate about the things I am passionate about, and another guy who is probably more capable in many ways, but is unable to convince me he gives a s*it. In some sense I fear it’s just about succeeding where dad failed.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:16 pm“I’m convinced that if NASA were a Government Sponsored Enterprise, we probably would be on Mars today.”
– Newt Gingrich
“The housing GSEs [Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae] have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid an stable housing finance system than we would have without GSEs. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.”
– Newt Gingrich, in 2007, and he then went to to say his views were not shared by most conservatives:
“Well, it’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace. But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.”
Colonel Haiku (b486eb) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:20 pmIcy:
More’s the pity. There was a USA Today poll last month that matched voters to the GOP candidates’ positions, and my first choice came back as Santorum. I also like him as a person. It’s too bad he’s not getting more traction, but I don’t hold out much hope for his candidacy at this point.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:20 pmBeldar, you missed my other point. Even if “disgrace” is the right word (and ignoring Romney’s attempt to conflate Newt leaving with the ethics probe), he kept insisting it was the FIRST time it had ever happened which was not only factually wrong, but show gross inattention and ignores something that Newt really, actually did — getting rid of Jim Wright.
Yes, Newt can be insufferable when he goes on about how Ronald Reagan consulted him at every turn and the like. But Romney’s formulation was not only wrong, it was insulting. Maybe he was trying to get Newt to explode. If so he failed, which is a point for Newt.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:24 pmFrankly, Santorum has got about 10 times the traction I’d expect, but then I’m admittedly not a social con, so whaddaiknow. Being 53, he’s got to be on the short list for Veeps, especially if it is Mitt picking and he needs a strong social conservative, but the geography probably doesn’t work and Santorum scares a lot of centrists.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:28 pmBeldar:
And yet the attack stung Romney because he didn’t know how to respond. I’d much rather (a) give Romney the chance to develop a better response before the general election, when he won’t have a second chance; or (b) find out now that he doesn’t have an effective response. I hope Romney has responses to this and other attacks, but the fact that there are responses doesn’t mean Romney can make them.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:30 pm“I’m convinced that if NASA were a Government Sponsored Enterprise, we probably would be on Mars today.”
– Newt Gingrich
Link? And when did he say it? Probably the only thing Obama has done right is support private space development. I keep expecting another shoe to drop there, but I suspect this is because he only supports bureaucracies that don’t require actual thinking.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:32 pmThat’s why it was so surprising to me, Kevin M, because I don’t consider myself a strong social conservative.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:32 pmGingrich on GSEs in 2007:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2012 @ 4:34 pmOk, I admit it. Gingrich said something stupid, and probably something he got paid for. Otoh, it wasn’t “lobbying” it was PR bulls*it. There’s a difference.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/24/2012 @ 5:12 pmLobbyists and consultants are a lot like lawyers. They get paid to come up with good ways to present and achieve a client’s goals, and it’s hard not to blame them when the clients are distasteful.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2012 @ 5:18 pmRe: 1998
Icy (b81cd2) — 1/24/2012 @ 9:46 pmTo hear Newt tell it, he fell on his sword.
To hear those that were there tell it, he fell on his ass.
Last quarter of Last’s piece on Staples:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rich-really-are-different_617667.html?nopager=1
Bain did not purchase Staples and appears not to have consulted, but merely been a lesser venture capital source, $650K.
Why take credit for their 89,000 jobs?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 10:38 pm387. And Santorum doesn’t really interest fiscal conservatives IMHO.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/24/2012 @ 10:42 pmKevin M, did you find it yet?
Icy (b81cd2) — 1/25/2012 @ 12:34 am397. Google is you’re friend, and needs your commerce.
Do your own work, quit bothering a contributer with game.
gary gulrud (1de2db) — 1/25/2012 @ 8:40 amFeel free to not tell me what to do, or how to do it, gulrud.
Icy (5ec1bb) — 1/25/2012 @ 7:25 pmFollow your own advice
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/25/2012 @ 8:52 pmYou tell ‘im, Kev. Good one.
Colonel haiku (b486eb) — 1/25/2012 @ 9:14 pmIf you would actually like to engage, Kevin, I will repeat my questions to you.
Icy (5ec1bb) — 1/25/2012 @ 10:24 pmCitation that shows Newt using some of that $25k per month from Freddie Mac to pay a staff?
Citation of actual work that Gingrich did in exchange for that money?
Gingrich said that his company had several employees and that he received about $35K of that $300K personally. The company clearly had employees, and one presumes they got paid for their work. Just as Bain’s income did not all go to Romney, which I will accept without needing proof.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/26/2012 @ 10:25 amWho the hell ever said that all of Bain’s income went to Romney?
And what work did Newt’s employees do, again?
Icy (e70c45) — 1/26/2012 @ 1:10 pmIcy,
Jim Geraghty’s source (link in my comment 339) said that Gingrich was almost certainly hired to provide legislative background on GOP legislators that would help influence them to continue funding for and/or reduce oversight of Freddie Mac. If so, then Gingrich’s staff was probably researching the votes, positions and statements made by GOP and blue dog Democratic members of Congress regarding Freddie Mac. Gingrich probably used this information to advise Freddie Mac on the most likely methods to convince members of Congress to support or oppose Freddie Mac-related legislation.
My guess is the staff did the grunt work of researching and drafting policy responses and arguments, which Gingrich reviewed and provided to Freddie Mac along with his recommendations.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/26/2012 @ 1:21 pmGreat! Heckuva job, Leroy!!!
Icy (8ddb53) — 1/27/2012 @ 1:20 am