When Romney went after Perry claiming he wanted to end Social Security, and hitting him generally for calling it unconstitutional (it arguably is) and a ponzi scheme (it likely is), people said, "Hey, these are general election liabilities; Perry should have to respond to these charges. The left will make them."

Well, same deal with Bain Capital. This is a general election liability; Romney should have to respond to these charges. The left will hit him on this (and in fact already is).

But instead it's this full-court press that you can't say that.

Why not? Why does Romney get a complete Hall Pass throughout the entire primary season?

It's as if Romney complied a 15-1 record in a season that never actually happened and earned a first round bye, a second round bye, a third round bye, a fourth round bye, a fifth round bye, a sixth round bye, and oh shut up he's going to win anyway so just zip it, punk.

Huntsman: Dao-wha-shieng-do-hyung-shii-mao-bao-dai, which is Mandarin for "Don't Even Think About Voting For Me: Winnin' hearts and minds.

In an interview Friday, the Utah governor turned China ambassador said bluntly that the GOP had lost its equilibrium in the Obama era but predicted it would eventually return to its bearings — and vindicate his own brand of pragmatism.

“I believe in the ideas put forward by Theodore White, the cycles of history,” Huntsman told POLITICO. “I believe we are in one such cycle. I think that cycle ultimately takes us to a sane Republican Party based on real ideas.”

Since Huntsman, I'm told, has a fairly conservative plan (or he claims it's his plan) -- which parts of it does he deem insane? I trust the insane parts are not really offered seriously, but instead are offered to placate the loonies, right?

Posted by: Ace at 03:13 PM | Comments (665)
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Gingrich's Super-PAC is hitting Romney on how he made his fortune.

Gingrich accused Romney of building the fortune that has underwritten his political career through a “flawed system” – better known as private equity – in which “a handful of rich people [can] manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money” by “looting a company and leaving behind broken families and broken neighborhoods.”

...

“At some point, Governor Romney is going to have to answer those questions. And I think it’s a legitimate question about exactly what happened: Where did the money go? Who got the money? What happened to the people involved? And to what extent is that his responsibility?” Gingrich told reporters in Manchester, N.H.

Huntsman hits this theme obliquely, talking up a line of Romney's that he likes being able to fire people-- that is, people who don't give full value for Mr. Anka's money.*

There's kind of nothing wrong with that line, but it's like "Corporations are people, my friend." Well, technically, under the law, they are legally fictitious "persons" for purposes of owning and selling property and carrying on business and paying taxes and so on, but... people?

He's not at politics. He tends to lose. There are reasons for these losses.

Perry's got a ringtone of Romney saying that. And more.

Perry plays the class warfare/populist card, and also seems to push a charge of mismanagement, that Romney is not the turnaround guy he claims:

Have you met the Real Romney? The Romney that bankrupted 22% of the companies he bought? Although the scores of employees he laid off know Romney all too well, voters are just now meeting the Real Romney–the buyout tycoon who executed takeovers, bankrupted businesses, and sent jobs overseas while killing American jobs!

Will you donate $22 — the percentage of companies Romney sent into bankruptcy?

Yeah I would ditch the class warfare/populist economics (which is really just guaranteeing people in noncompetitive industries their jobs via government interventionism and subsidy) and make the case that if he's a turnaround guy, why did one fifth of his takeovers go bankrupt, and how do we know America would be one of the fortunate 78%?

Eh. It's a rotten scrum. Can't say Romney doesn't deserve it, though. Romney has rarely met an attack too cheap to deploy.

Santorum meanwhile declines to press that attack:

Leaving the frozen event, Santorum also declined to take a shot at Romney over a remark earlier from the front-runner that he “likes to fire” workers who are not doing a good job.

“We try to hire good people, we try to keep them employed. If someone if obviously not performing their duty and their mission, obviously a business has a responsibility for the greater good of the business and the other employees to make sure that everybody there is pulling their weight,” Santorum said.

Asked whether Romney’s corporate takeover experience at Bain Capital would be a liability, Santorum said: “I’m not making it a liability. I believe in the private sector.”

That may be tactical, as Santorum is suspected on issues of capitalist freedom generally, as he often votes in a pro-union way, and seems at least somewhat supportive of state intervention in the economy.

Plus, there's his whole "personal autonomy" shpiel:

Here is what Santorum told NPR about the role of government in 2006:

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don't think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone ... [that] government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. ... Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone."

And meanwhile, two free-marketers not named "Jen Rubin" weigh in to defend Romney's record at Bain. Serious Romney critic Philip Klein:

In reality, capitalism is the most moral economic system ever conceived of, because it’s the only one that’s consistent with personal freedom. Investors such as Romney pump money into businesses, and often have to cut jobs in an attempt to make them more efficient and profitable. And sometimes they fail despite their best efforts. But by cutting their losses, they have more money to invest in other businesses, and hopefully the gains outweigh the losses. In Romney’s case, he was tremendously successful overall, helping to grow businesses such as Domino’s and Staples that now employ tens of thousands of workers. In the process, he produced huge returns for his investors, who in turn had more money to invest elsewhere. However tragic the displacement of some workers was, on a net basis, companies like Bain help fuel economic growth. And there’s also no reason to believe that jobs that were lost – in steel investments, for instance – would have survived anyway. None of his rivals are accusing Romney of doing anything illegal or fraudulent in his business dealings, so it's purely an attack on capitalism. It’s sad to see them go this route.

And James Pethokoukis:

Of course, Romney and Bain weren’t in the game to create jobs. They were in it to make money for their investors and themselves. Then again, the same would go for Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Warren Buffett, and just about every other successful entrepreneur and investor you could name. But that is the miracle of free-market capitalism. The pursuit of profits by creating value benefits the rest of society through higher incomes, more jobs, and better products and services. This isn’t “destructive creation”—like, say, crippling U.S. fossil fuel production before “clean energy” sources are viable—but “creative destruction” where innovation and efficiency sweep away the old and replace it with a more productive and wealthier society.

This is true enough, but a frequent knock on Romney is that "he looks like the guy who fired you," as @fredosso said on Twitter the other day. Certainly he shouldn't be playing into that.

* This meme is so old I forgot who did this rant. I wrote "Neil Sedaka" and decided that didn't sound right. I had to google it.

Maybe I'm just getting old quicker than I ever thought I would.

Posted by: Ace at 01:25 PM | Comments (380)
Post contains 1073 words, total size 8 kb.

I have a policy of not linking Gawker, but I suspend that when they talk about a coming story about our distracted, diversion-seeking president having a case of clinical depression, or when a former employee unloads on Herr Olbermanngruppefuhrer.

Some choice allegations. Allegedly, these are allegations, which have been alleged, by an allegor. Allegedly. Because who knows, it's Gawker.

-Keith is the walking definition of a hostile work environment. Countdown had a 75% staff turnover rate in the time I was there — high even for the cable news business. Keith had people he liked, and people he didn't like, and there was no rhyme or reason to it. When he didn't like someone, he'd berate them and belittle their work until they left the show. Then he'd do the same to the next person on his shit list. When someone he liked moved on, he'd take it out on the rest of us....

-If someone he didn't like left, he'd tell them how useless/incompetent/stupid he thought they were, instead of handling it like an adult and just being quietly glad they were gone. Then he's put someone new on his s list.

Full size
-He has terrible fashion sense and ill-fitting suits. [Ed. note: absolutely true, see the attached pic for but one example of his well-chronicled bad suit fit affliction]

Okay, sure. Now at first I thought this criticism was kind of gay. Who cares. I'll tell you who doesn't care -- me, because I dress like crap and don't care. And so I guess this makes me... like him more?

However, it's the reason for the lack of fashion concern that intrigues me:

And yet, no one was allowed to talk to him about this and remedy the problem because he was "traumatized" (the exact word from our EP) by a shopping incident in his childhood when his mother made him try on wool suits in the summer and he got hot.

These aren't necessarily the two best examples; they're just the first two. There is plenty of meat left back at the link ("It's not about her, it's about me" and his Super Sniffer).

My speculation was that Keith's latest temper-tantrum was over a trivial point. Now I'm guessing on this, but I guessed that maybe Current wanted him to host and produce the Iowa caucus coverage, but wanted it a Current branded show (hosted by Olbermann), rather than a Countdown-branded show.

Just a guess. I don't know.

But given his lunacy about branding and "It's not about her, it's about me," that theory does seem consistent with his ego.

Via Jammie Wearing Fool.

Posted by: Ace at 12:35 PM | Comments (139)
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

He's not up on all the details (which is forgivable, I think), but seems to support the basic thrust of it.

Even more interesting is this thing that Tina Korbe linked -- Louis C.K. cutting out the middleman and selling a comedy show tape to his fans directly.

In twelve days, Louis C.K. earned more than $1 million from people downloading the special — far more than the $170,000 it cost to produce the video. Louis C.K. gave his thoughts in a post on his site:

“I would have been paid [less than $200,000] by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you, but they would have charged you about $20 for the video … This way, you only paid $5, you can use the video any way you want.”

Is this the way things are going? More and more creative types are doing this, blowing off the media companies and selling directly. Could be a nice change for everyone (except media companies).

This would support, sort of, Breitbart's prediction that the media is "done" within 5 years, all of it. I think that timeframe is far too short, but with self-publishing and self-podcasting. Adam Carolla started his podcast after he was laid off, then, when offered another job, decided no, he'd just stick to the podcast, as he was making plenty of money and had total control.

And self-releasing records, like Aimee Mann and others are doing. (I meant to mention this, but forgot, thanks to the Liberal Ace of Spades Reader, Really!.)

Even D&D dorks are finding it more profitable to self-publish than to get a contract from a game company. (Light content advisory as that's "D&D with Pornstars," which is sometimes kind of dirty, but I think that post is fairly clean.)

Apart from the truly expensive forms of entertainment -- TV shows, movies, and now videogames -- not sure large corporations will have a major place at the table in 10 years.

Posted by: Ace at 11:09 AM | Comments (322)
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

So... no adult in the room again, huh?

No, of course not. Just like last time Obama had a new Chief of Staff, this time, too, it's a great trade-up (according to the media), giving him all these new tools for his toolbox.

And the great tools Daley supposedly was bringing -- adult in the room, knows business, knows how the world operates?

Yeah. Those tools suck. Not even worth mentioning as Daley exits (but boy how they were mentioned when he entered).

It's these new tools that are super-awesome.

As I keep saying, Obama moves from triumph to triumph.

Obama plans to announce the change in leadership in a public event Monday afternoon. The official shift will take place at the end of the month, giving Lew time to complete the administrationÂ’s budget proposal while Daley leads the team through the crafting of the State of the Union address due in two weeks.

The choice of Lew puts a veteran staffer of the White House, Capitol Hill and State Department in a critical position at a difficult time for the president. Obama hopes he can work through tough budget and economic issues with Congress this year despite fierce opposition from Republicans in the GOP-led House. Having a strong team captain who can deal with lawmakers, staffers and business leaders is considered crucial to their strategy.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:29 AM | Comments (212)
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Jay Carney with the day's stupidest statement.

Beating Meghan McCain by an emoticon of stupidity.

Posted by: Ace at 10:11 AM | Comments (116)
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

The Todd Palin endorsement.

I don't know all of his reasons for backing Gingich, but the one he's offered so far is Palinocentric.

[H]e said he respects Gingrich for what he went through in the 1990s and compared that scrutiny in public life to what Sarah Palin went through during her run for the vice presidency.

...

Todd Palin did point to last summer, when a large portion of GingrichÂ’s staff resigned and the candidate was left, largely by himself, to run the campaign.

Gingrich’s ability to overcome the obstacle and still move up in the polls showed his ability to campaign and survive, according to Todd Palin, who said Gingrich is not one of the typical “beltway types” and that his campaign has “burst out of the political arena and touched many Americans.”

Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (165)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

This isn't at all like Marie Antoinette, is it?

"White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans — or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care — that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton's and Depp's contributions went unacknowledged," Kantor writes....

"Fruit punch was served in blood vials at the bar. Burton's own Mad Hatter, the actor Johnny Depp, presided over the scene in full costume, standing up on a table to welcome everyone in character."

The media, of course, knew about this. How could they not? A party involving celebrities at the White House (with George Lucas sending over Chewbacca for no good reason) cannot really be secret.

But the media didn't report it, same as when they covered up JFK's well-known affairs.

Agreeement: Moe Lane sees this as an even bigger indictment of the Training Wheels For Obama media, too.

And More, With Pictures: At Verum Serum. The White House has this spin...

“This was an event for local school children from the Washington DC area and for hundreds of military families. If we wanted this event to be a secret, we probably wouldn’t have invited the press corps to cover it, release photos of it to Flickr, or post a video from it on the White House website,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement. “Even Johnny Depp’s fans knew about it and posted on their website. Just goes to show you can’t believe everything you read in books these days.”

...but also went out of its way to refuse to say what costumes Obama's daughters had worn that Halloween. Of course, it turns out they'd worn Alice in Wonderland ones.

That key detail dug up by VS demonstrates that they were, in fact, actively hiding this, though they're now claiming they weren't.

Posted by: Ace at 08:50 AM | Comments (178)
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

Out of context? You bet. Will it be edited down and run in millions and millions of dollars worth of Obama commercials? Oh yes, yes it will.

(Video via Ben Domenech)

But hey, I'm sure the ads will get the dreaded "Four Pinocchios" from the Washington Post and maybe even a "Pants on Fire" rating from FactCheck.org. That'll even things up!

I get that people are annoyed with Newt (and now Perry is doing it) for going after Mitt's work at Bain but it's better to have it out there now and decide if it's baggage we want to carry into the general election.

I think this whole primary season has shown that reports of Mitt's "electability" are overrated but we are just now getting to his greatest vulnerability. Part of being "electable" is not saying dumb stuff that can be used against you. Just ask John "I voted for it before I voted against it". Kerry.

Yes, I know the theory, Bain's investors may have bought some companies with the idea that they would be downsized, broken up and sold off to make money but that just freed up capital that would invested in more profitable ones elsewhere.

That's a fantastic theory and creative destruction is a necessary part of a successful economy. It's also a losing political message. We can (and should) make the case for free market economics but let's not pretend that there aren't some real world downsides on the personal level that result from it. We also shouldn't pretend that people don't ever let emotion override a well made and rationale argument.

Again, maybe Mitt's going to be able to be a great ambassador for free market principles but let's not pretend he isn't also straight out the Democrats version of central casting of a fat-cat villain.

Just like the costs and benefits of what Romney did at Bain, we need to consider all the costs and potential benefits of nominating him, especially in this economy.

As Jeff Emanuel (who you should be following on Twitter) wrote:

So in a jobs & Obamacare election, the "inevitable" nominee made his $ eliminating jobs & his signature legislation is state health care

Just a reminder, Democrats have run this playbook on Romney before. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:49 AM | Comments (302)
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

I ring in the new year by bringing in a freighter full of DOOM, a ship packed to the gunwales with gloom, disaster, perfidy, and despair. I debated posting my DOOM backlog that I gathered over the Christmas break, but this would have led to a post roughly the length of Anna Karenina, so I decided to choose only the DOOMiest morsels to pass along.

Greece's default has been inevitable for some time now, and the last grains of sand may be running through the hourglass. One of the biggest surprises to me of the Euro crisis is how long a situation can persist in crisis mode: I seriously miscalculated the willingness of the EU's political class to ignore the catastrophe unfolding in front of them, and the willingness of the citizens of the Eurozone countries to muddle through from day to day. Greece's downfall will either be the beginning of the end, or simply the end of the beginning.

The WSJ does a video series called “Europe At the Brink” that I recommend to everyone who wants some background on how Europe got itself into this mess.

The idea that “financial self-interest” would prevent nations from going to war is silly, by the way. Or, rather, that nations can always clearly see their own self-interest (financial or otherwise) is silly. Every war ever fought in the history of humankind was caused by people acting in what they assumed was their own self-interest.

Greece is the perfect example: they entered the Eurozone assuming that it would drive their entrance into a first-world economy and style of living. But the problem was (and remains) that countries like Greece and Portugal are not like mature industrialized northern economies like Germany. A Greek word, ethos, describes the problem: the Greek ethos regarding work and productivity does not match that of their northern neighbors. What Greece really got for entering the Eurozone was poverty and ruin. Countries have had wars -- either civil or foreign -- over much less.

The WSJ video shows how interconnected modern financial markets really are. The US real-estate meltdown caused ripples that spread out and magnified existing faultlines elsewhere, but it could have been something else: the modern financial system has so many structural weaknesses that it was only a matter of time before something caused a catastrophe.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:44 AM | Comments (404)
Post contains 1352 words, total size 10 kb.