January 20, 2012
— Russ from Winterset I didn't watch the debate last night. Truth be told, I haven't watched any of them since January third. Why? Because I've already voted (uhm, IOWA, remember), so it's not like any of this will influence my decision.
I am interested in the whole campaign strategy where Newt seems to think that Romney's past work for Bain Capital is newsworthy. Here's how I immediately respond to charges that Mitt Romney made "too much money" working for Bain Capital:
Mitt made millions working for Bain Capital. Bain Capital is still a going concern, making money for all its employees and business associates.
Newt made approximately $1.5 million consulting for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Fannie & Freddie are giant, smoking holes in the ground that the Federal Government is still shoveling cash into to keep the fires burning.
Remind me again: Which candidate benefits from reminding Republicans about their prior work experience? This is like Jim Kelly criticizing Tom Brady for the fact that all his Super Bowl CHAMPIONSHIP rings look "too tacky".
(My vote in the caucus? Perry. That 'tard had a conservative record as governor of Texas, but after his "clown show" of going after Romney from the left on this issue I'm sort of hoping that he finds a Gila Monster in his urinal, IYKWIMAITTYD.)
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at
04:35 AM
| Comments (205)
Post contains 231 words, total size 1 kb.
I am utterly unconvinced by Romney's response to this line of questioning thus far, as well as calls that he release his tax returns. He is acting like he is hiding something. Ron Paul, incidentally, refuses to release his tax info as well.
Posted by: CausticConservative at January 20, 2012 04:47 AM (gT3jF)
If Perry were to find a gila monster in his urinal, he'd blast it with his 9mm.
And the ricochet would hit his foot, if his recent record is any indicator.
Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at January 20, 2012 04:52 AM (2Oas0)
It's a good thing this is coming out now, because his flubbing of it the response so far would be a nightmare if this were September or October.
Posted by: taylork at January 20, 2012 04:53 AM (5wsU9)
Newt throws out red meat all the time, so it is easy to call it for him. The debate began with a question about Gingrich's infidelities, which made everyone squirm. but he swatted it away and bashed on CNN and ABC which the crowd loved.
Romney suffered through his second debate deflecting questions about his income and tax returns, which was bad optics. He tried to rescue it by saying he wouldn't apologize for being successful, but nobody was really asking him to do that.
Luap Nor didn't get any foreign policy questions, so he naturally came off looking less batshit crazy than normal.
Santorum was in a tough spot. He had to attack bot NG and MR as insufficient candidates for the general election and make the case why he would be better. He made the argument but I didn't find it convincing.
I thought it was a scrappy debate, good jabs were being made all around. I could support any of NG, RS, or MR for President if the time comes.
Posted by: CausticConservative at January 20, 2012 04:57 AM (gT3jF)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez HATES Primaries at January 20, 2012 04:59 AM (yAor6)
Look, Newt, many voters are concerned about your previous behavior. Like it or not, it's a pertinent question. That response may work in the primary, but it won't work in the general.
Posted by: taylork at January 20, 2012 05:00 AM (5wsU9)
Posted by: NY Mets at January 20, 2012 05:01 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Jim Kelly at January 20, 2012 05:03 AM (/ZZCn)
The media covered up for John Edwards, I don't see why Newt family life should be an issue.
Posted by: real joe at January 20, 2012 05:06 AM (w7Lv+)
Sorry, but as much as I would like to see Newt demolish Obama, I don't know that he can win. He's just not a sympathetic or attractive figure. He also has that global warming thing hanging around his neck like a giant albatross. His infidelities gross me out too.
Posted by: dagny at January 20, 2012 05:07 AM (Ke2m6)
Actually, that was very much the intent of the questions about his taxes. Republicans make a mistake in accepting the premises of questions like these rather than rebuking the questioner for their effrontery. Romney was at his best on this question when he delivered the not apologizing line, just like Gingrich is at his best when he tells off the press. I would really love it if Romney would say, "I'm not releasing my taxes because they are none of your business unless you work for the IRS". Won't happen of course.
Posted by: pep at January 20, 2012 05:08 AM (YXmuI)
Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at January 20, 2012 05:09 AM (r2PLg)
Because he is a Republican.
Posted by: pep at January 20, 2012 05:09 AM (YXmuI)
Posted by: alaskagal at January 20, 2012 05:10 AM (BXrzV)
Posted by: traye at January 20, 2012 05:10 AM (XeJQz)
Posted by: Jimbo at January 20, 2012 05:10 AM (O3R/2)
This. It's the progg equivalent of "When did you stop beating your wife?" The only response should be "FYNQ", although I'd accept "What percentage of your total income did YOU pay in taxes last year, Mr. Multi-millionaire Talking Head?"
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 20, 2012 05:11 AM (ZKzrr)
Translation: It's still too early in the process where anything in them could put his candidacy at risk.
Posted by: CausticConservative at January 20, 2012 05:11 AM (gT3jF)
RIght now there is not on Republican candidate that I can see myself supporting actively. And I am strongly ABO.
I am committed to working actively at the local levels to ensure the candidates that support my views and postions are elected. I am a conservative libertarian living in a strongly republican district, Michigan 11, and so my efforts will have some effect on who we send to the Michigan house and Senate, and perhaps who we send to the US House and Senate.
But the top to the ticket? I am not sure I will be able to bring myself to endorse any of them. It will be tough to hold my nose and vote for Mitt, maybe too tough. Newt is just not my guy, great in debates, fast on his feet, but not my cup of tea, so to speak. Santorum is good in some aspects, but there is no fire, somehow I think dead fish when I see him. And Ron Paul? I like a lot of what he stands for, and I do not like a lot more of what he stands for. The only reason he may have a miniscule chance at my vote is his strong support in the military, which i do understand. War, in fact, is Hell. I do know that.
So what's a guy to do? Be practical and vote for a candidate who may be able to defeat BHO, or stick to his principles? What a choice.
Posted by: Mister Money at January 20, 2012 05:12 AM (wN82N)
Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 20, 2012 05:14 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Ms Choksondik at January 20, 2012 05:14 AM (fYOZx)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 20, 2012 05:16 AM (hiMsy)
Romney's accountant has not done anything illegal. It's just jealously and that 99% liberal horseshit that makes all the stupid malcontents pant over the LEFT's poking at Romney's income.
Really, how long are some of you going to accept the left's story lines?
Posted by: dagny at January 20, 2012 05:16 AM (Ke2m6)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at January 20, 2012 05:17 AM (IGkEP)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at January 20, 2012 05:18 AM (IGkEP)
Posted by: Sub-Tard at January 20, 2012 05:18 AM (ursbV)
Posted by: StrategicCorporalUSMC at January 20, 2012 05:20 AM (zgwWv)
Posted by: NY Mets at January 20, 2012 05:20 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: jjshaka at January 20, 2012 05:20 AM (jeH2H)
Hahahahaaha.
That was a joke, right?
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 20, 2012 05:21 AM (hNdbt)
Posted by: NY Mets at January 20, 2012 05:21 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Phillip McCrevis at January 20, 2012 05:22 AM (q0JIJ)
Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 20, 2012 05:22 AM (Ho2rs)
I wonder if Obama has an "open marriage" with that Pokistoni he was living with in college?
Really, every tax/Bain/Newt penis question should be answered with questions about Obama's property, sex life, love life, et al.
Posted by: dagny at January 20, 2012 05:23 AM (Ke2m6)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 20, 2012 05:23 AM (hiMsy)
Posted by: jeanne! at January 20, 2012 05:25 AM (5Rw93)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 20, 2012 05:26 AM (H01li)
Newt's self-righteous anger act is not going to work in the general. EVERY time any question of moral values or trust comes up he is going to be on defense, waiting for those inevitable questions regarding his personal integrity. You fuckers can bash Romney all you want but those are the facts. We will lose with Gingrich, period.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 20, 2012 05:26 AM (9zzk+)
So they MFM can act like it's a horrifying new development that capital gains and dividends are taxed at different rates from ordinary income.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 20, 2012 05:27 AM (hNdbt)
Posted by: Roy at January 20, 2012 05:28 AM (VndSC)
I love the Money Hole!
Posted by: Phinn at January 20, 2012 05:28 AM (KNtHw)
Posted by: dagny at January 20, 2012 05:29 AM (Ke2m6)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 20, 2012 05:30 AM (hiMsy)
48why do they have to release tax records?
So they MFM can act like it's a horrifying new development that capital gains and dividends are taxed at different rates from ordinary income.
Same reason you release your college transcripts and accept matching campaign funds - so the press can call you dumb and limit your resources. Hopefully, whoever is our candidate, that they like Sparky refuse matching funds. Lets pop a few statist mindsets using Sparky's tactics. You know the dyke on MSNBC will be all en feugo if unlimited funds are at play in this election. Somehow they will have to find a reason to blame a pubbie for this act.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at January 20, 2012 05:31 AM (ursbV)
thought it was more about the cayman accts, which be listed on sched d.
Posted by: jeanne! at January 20, 2012 05:32 AM (5Rw93)
Why do we care about Romney's taxes?
Pay no attention to that fucked-up economy due to SCOAMF's policies behind the curtain.
Posted by: Roy at January 20, 2012 05:32 AM (VndSC)
Every Republican running for office needs to repeat that over and over. Say it to themselves each morning in the mirror until it sinks in: The media is not your friend, will not help you and any attack on a rival is merely in furtherance of advancing the Democrat agenda.
Posted by: Jimmuy at January 20, 2012 05:32 AM (pbKln)
Posted by: Mister Money at January 20, 2012 05:32 AM (wN82N)
Posted by: jeanne! at January 20, 2012 05:34 AM (5Rw93)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Has Joined Team Meteor at January 20, 2012 05:34 AM (8y9MW)
He paid taxes on the money that went to the Caymans. The money went there so that it could be borrowed by foreign investors. There is nothing wrong with that. I would like to have enough cash to put in a Cayman acct so that it could be borrowed at a higher rate but that would be a decision made by my fucking accountant.
The media is expert at throwing out doggie treats and making people SNAP at them.
Posted by: dagny at January 20, 2012 05:34 AM (Ke2m6)
Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 20, 2012 05:35 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: NY Mets at January 20, 2012 05:35 AM (i6RpT)
I am just saying, we are not going to end up with a cheap, opportunistic whore as the first lady. Maybe the Democraps could get away with that but the party of family values should not be involved in doing that.
The only reason Gingrich is still in this race is because of all the red meat he throws our way. In the general the audiences will not be people like us, he is not going to get wild standing ovations for yelling at the media.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 20, 2012 05:35 AM (9zzk+)
Posted by: NY Mets at January 20, 2012 05:36 AM (i6RpT)
Sept. 7, 1994 -- Ben Jones files complaint against Gingrich.
Jan. 17, 1997 -- Ethics committee votes 7 - 1 for the reprimand and fine.
From the Gingrich ethics committee report at page 92
"Subcommittee and the Special Counsel recommend that the appropriate sanction should be a reprimand and a payment reimbursing the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000."
The ethics committee heard from an "expert" on tax law and 501(c)3 organizations who determined Gingrich violated tax law governing charities.
The IRS, concluding a three-year investigation, ruled that the Progress and Freedom Foundation's donations to Gingrich were "consistent with its stated exempt purposes," and Gingrich's course and course book "were educational in content."
Posted by: StrategicCorporalUSMC at January 20, 2012 05:37 AM (zgwWv)
Posted by: Huggy at January 20, 2012 05:38 AM (FD6YW)
Posted by: NY Mets at January 20, 2012 05:39 AM (i6RpT)
Newt has issues ... I wasn't paying attention in the 90's ... I have to wonder how much of his "problems" were due to standing up against the RINO's.
Sununu gave us Souter ... and many hold grudges and against Newt. It is clear that media and politicians will go for personal destruction of anyone that doesn't "play ball" with their big government plans.
But then Newt had to sit with Pelosi on that park bench ... and supported the health care mandate ... still, even Krauthammer says he does best at explaining the conservative vision.
Posted by: Illini bill at January 20, 2012 05:39 AM (8ynJZ)
The media is expert at throwing out doggie treats and making people SNAP at them.
Posted by: dagny at January 20, 2012 09:34 AM (Ke2m6)
Ah ya don't need that much money. I have money in Camden...oh ya mean the Caymans? I thought you said Camden NJ....Never mind It was his company's money to risk. Why does the press not get interested in the tax money sent overseas to build electric cars and solar cells by the smartest one ever? I believe Bain did earn money on their money in the Caymans, how well has Sparky's transformative investments worked out for us?
Posted by: Sub-Tard at January 20, 2012 05:39 AM (ursbV)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 20, 2012 05:40 AM (hiMsy)
Newt's self-righteous anger act is not going to work in the general. EVERY time any question of moral values or trust comes up he is going to be on defense, waiting for those inevitable questions regarding his personal integrity. You fuckers can bash Romney all you want but those are the facts. We will lose with Gingrich, period.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 20, 2012 09:26 AM (9zzk+)
Not defending Gingrich but wasn't the "crazy eyed platinum blond" doing to ol marianne exactly what ol marianne did to Newt's first wife? Both marianne and callista managed to get him to leave his wife which is something they usually say but never do. It's tough to look at he reality of what goes on, it's a man's world still and not everyone is as pure as mittens, santorum, paul and obama. At least 50% of the folks have been divorced and not everyone has the perfect wife and family to display to the masses.
Posted by: c. up at January 20, 2012 05:42 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 20, 2012 05:42 AM (FzVXi)
Posted by: Vic at January 20, 2012 05:42 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: catman at January 20, 2012 05:43 AM (YKUmW)
Posted by: JackStraw at January 20, 2012 05:43 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 20, 2012 05:44 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 20, 2012 09:22 AM (Ho2rs)
What Mitt and other Republicans should say when the MFM demands every bit of information out of them is, I'll release that information when Barry releases his college transcripts. Or hit the MFM on going after Barry for his information which they will never do. It's beyond disgusting the MFM creamed their panties over Sarah Palin's emails yet Barry could be a mass murder and the MFM would turn a blind eye to it.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 20, 2012 05:45 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 20, 2012 05:46 AM (XBdI0)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 20, 2012 05:47 AM (H01li)
Just let me be clear when Whorealdo asked me aboard his yacht and offered to share HIS dingy with me and his body guard and his wife I told him NO.
I am not into foursomes with race baiting trial lawyers turned talk show court jester!
That said if Whorealdo is serious I suggest he bring me on board this debate to save his ass when Newt shows, for all to see that Whorealdos mental capacity is as vacuous as Al Capones vault.
as far as Wallace saying it was a perfectly good first question and he would have asked it too?
Well a week after the last time Chris questioned newt he was still putting lotion on it so i say, ah, NO, Wallace isn't going to ask for another ass pounding by the munchkin with the brain and the mouth.
Posted by: Bill Oreally at January 20, 2012 05:47 AM (vXqv3)
76Ken the audiences will be 42% us and 23% them (Mostly louder) and 35 % squishy middle.. That is why it is called the gotta have part. Don't be afraid to fight in the general. IT IS WHAT WINS LANDSLIDES!!! SO far the states have ALL had OPEN primaries.. HMMMM.
Catman, the reason Newt is still in it and leading in SC is that Willard like Sparky is seen as cold and removed. There doesn't seem to be any there, there. Willard may win the nom, but his lack of personal appeal coupled with his wonkishness does not bode well for the general. Why do I see Dole, McCain and Ford when I watch Willard speak? This is a problem. Maybe Newt can shake him up a bit and improve his performance. So far Willard is all "play it safe." Does he have a temperature?
Posted by: Sub-Tard at January 20, 2012 05:47 AM (ursbV)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 20, 2012 05:50 AM (i6RpT)
I know this is a bit of a heresy to say here in Moronville, but I never quite understood the fascination with Perry. Sure, he has a nice record of job growth in Texas but, honestly, so what? It's not as if he inherited a Democrat Workers' Paradise like - ahem - Massachusetts and turned it into a job-manufacturing Fredonia. He took a small tax, small government state and managed to not dork it up. That's certainly better than dorking it up, of course. But seriously, what sort of governemnt a President Perry be looking at? The Workers' Paradise or Fredonia?
Posted by: DocJ at January 20, 2012 05:50 AM (A5uiv)
I didn't watch the debate last night. Truth be told, I haven't watched any of them since January third. Why? Because I've already voted (uhm, IOWA, remember), so it's not like any of this will influence my decision.
Well the guy is still campaigning for the 10th ammendment, so he's OK in my book.
Let him who has no one who wants to see his penis get bitten off toss the first gila monster.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 05:50 AM (mf67L)
I was looking for a little inspiration and a touch of passion to motivate me to work for a candidate. Maybe there will be some rejuvenation after the nomination process is over, I don't know, it's been pretty ugly & our candidates are pretty dismal. If not, I'll just get drunk & pull the R lever on Election Day. Hell, I'll do that anyway
Posted by: jeannebodine at January 20, 2012 05:51 AM (byR8d)
Err... wtf? Meant to quote this:
(My vote in the caucus? Perry. That 'tard had a conservative record as governor of Texas, but after his "clown show" of going after Romney from the left on this issue I'm sort of hoping that he finds a Gila Monster in his urinal, IYKWIMAITTYD.)
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 05:51 AM (mf67L)
Or his records on Fast and Furious, or tells his A.G. to back off the voter ID lawsuits, or fires his lawless AG.
Posted by: Concealedkerry or SubMitt at January 20, 2012 05:51 AM (vXqv3)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 20, 2012 05:52 AM (hiMsy)
Posted by: consensusscienceisbunk at January 20, 2012 05:52 AM (dhNwe)
I was disappointed that not one of these guys swatted away one of the lame John King questions and went on an extended attack of Obama's Keystone policy and general energy and job killing policies.
Well maybe you should have watched the debate.
I think two or three of them did that.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 05:52 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: javad at January 20, 2012 05:53 AM (xXhWA)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 05:56 AM (Gc/Qi)
If you had a son, which candidate would you have him emulate - hold up as a role model?
Posted by: franksalterego at January 20, 2012 05:57 AM (9XykO)
That crazy eyed platinum blond cunt (23 years his junior) who participated in a six year affair with Newt Gingrich, fucking him in his then wife's bed, will never be the first lady of this country. That is a simple fact you all need to get your head around right now.
Rick Santorum's ditzy wife, in her 20's, had a long term sexual relationship with the 60 year old geezer doctor who delivered her as an infant.
Also, he was an abortionist.
That's kind of creepy.
What kind of 20 year old dates a 60 year old? I've met those girls... they usually don't date people their age. Daddy issues. Almost universally screwed in the head.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 05:57 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: JackStraw at January 20, 2012 05:58 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 05:58 AM (A98Xu)
That crazy eyed platinum blond cunt (23 years his junior) who participated in a six year affair with Newt Gingrich, fucking him in his then wife's bed, will never be the first lady of this country. That is a simple fact you all need to get your head around right now.
Mitt Romney and his wife were pro-choice before he decided to run for President.
Also, mormons believe that Jesus wasn't particularly special, you too can become the Jesus-like godhead of your own universe.
In fact if you start digging, it does very much seem to be the 19th century version of Scientology. I would never put a scientologist in the white house.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 05:59 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 20, 2012 09:26 AM (9zzk+)
She's still more palatable than the current first wookie lady.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 20, 2012 06:00 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 20, 2012 06:00 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 06:01 AM (Gc/Qi)
What kind of 20 year old dates a 60 year old? I've met those girls... they usually don't date people their age. Daddy issues. Almost universally screwed in the head.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 09:57 AM (mf67L)
Ahh - finally, something to look forward to in my old age.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 20, 2012 06:02 AM (xUM1Q)
If you had a son, which candidate would you have him emulate - hold up as a role model?
If my son was a politician I'd disown him.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 06:02 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 06:02 AM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 20, 2012 06:03 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: c. up at January 20, 2012 06:04 AM (oZfic)
Dude, that train left three years ago.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 20, 2012 06:06 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: c. up at January 20, 2012 06:07 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 06:07 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Has Joined Team Meteor at January 20, 2012 06:07 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 06:08 AM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 20, 2012 06:08 AM (hiMsy)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 06:09 AM (A98Xu)
........
You may not care, but millions of voters will. We live in a fucked up country where New Jersey Housewives and the Kardashian gals are all the public wants to see.
You really expect a juicy story of Newt and his dalliances and how he fucked over his two previous wives will not be the headlines for many months to come? If so, you are stupid, or at the very least naive.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 20, 2012 06:09 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 20, 2012 06:10 AM (i6RpT)
.......
Hey now.. Newt gave them a history lesson for that 1.6 million! That's gotta be hard work!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 20, 2012 06:10 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: JackStraw at January 20, 2012 06:11 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 06:11 AM (Gc/Qi)
Because he's a liberal and doesn't really believe it. As a rich, white, male, liberal, he has this great sense of guilt. Not enough to overcome the enormous ego he also has, but enough that it's hard for him actually to defend the way in which he made all of his money.
As for the Tax Returns- at this point it's just accepted. Many moons ago, someone should have said, "F that, it's not your business," and killed the notion in its proverbial cradle. They didn't, and any candidate who tries to do so now would be excoriated in the media.
Remember that Rick Perry managed never to debate (or maybe they only had one debate... I can't remember) with Bill White in 2010, because Perry made a requirement of having any debates that Bill White release his tax returns. It hurt Mr. White more not to release his returns than it hurt Perry (as the incumbent) not to have a debate.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Has Joined Team Meteor at January 20, 2012 06:11 AM (8y9MW)
If you had a son, which candidate would you have him emulate - hold up as a role model?
Posted by: franksalterego at January 20, 2012 09:57 AM (9XykO)
NOT how I would do it cause I want a Tazmanian devil to take on the commie Rat Bastards and Newt is the closest thing to that we have.
Newt has the added advantage of knowing where the bodies are buried and the skeletons hidden so he could call up Boehner or McConnell and say pass the goddamn thing or national Enquirer and your wife will be getting a call from Trixy, Dixie and Chyrstal, get my drift? you do remeber those ladies don't you? from the party the other night it appeared you know each other rather well and the girls are looking to take some cash from my pass the goddamn thing fund.
Besides some dork might answer your question with barrack OBlahBLah!
Posted by: concealedkerry or SubMitt at January 20, 2012 06:12 AM (vXqv3)
Whatever voters in South Carolina decide it increasingly appears that Mitt Romney will be the nominee as all Republicans from center-right to very conservative seek for the nominee who can win, not debates with MSM moderators, but an election against Barack Obama.
A national election in deeply troubled times cannot be won by grandiosity, but by sober, specific, competent plans communicated by a confident, experienced leader of accomplishment and character.
Hugh Hewitt - 1/20/12
"With legs that go all the way up *sigh*"
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 20, 2012 06:12 AM (3wBRE)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at January 20, 2012 06:12 AM (roASQ)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 20, 2012 06:12 AM (hiMsy)
I do lean Gingrich, but I worry about his appeal to the moderates. Will he scare them off? I'm resigned to the fact that it's either him or Romney. Each one is going to be attacked...hard...by the left for their own weaknesses. Of course, the MSM being the MFM, Obama still will remain unvetted, unquestioned and unconfronted. I'm trying to evaluate who is going to come off better to the frigging moderates after the bowel dissection they're going to get from the media during the race to the general.
Last night's debate left me worried about Mittens performance in the future when he gets hit hard and heavy on his financial successes. I don't for one second believe he did anything illegal, yet how will the mushy moderates -- already stewing in Obama's class warfare -- take him? He's not very convincing when he stutters and stammers. If I were him, I would simply not release my returns. Why the hell should he? Obama released nothing and nobody cared. We're left to speculate this or that, yet without proof, he can't be held to account. Romney should let everyone flap in the wind, imo. And he should remind everyone, every step of the way, that Obama hasn't released his transcripts, college papers, medical records...and it took 2 years to get a birth cert after he was elected.
Posted by: Lady in Black.....{sigh} at January 20, 2012 06:13 AM (F+Xfj)
I don't think it is that Mitt is getting worse at these debates. It is just becoming much more apparent that he is not as good of a debater as people think. He is not doing himself any favors though - on questions such as releasing his tax returns. I don't care whether he releases them or not. And if you are going to release them April 15, then just say that and stop talking. He hates dead air, so he keeps talking and it just comes across as disingenuous.
Newt is the best debater no doubt. And while I think his media rightousness is working in the primary, I do think he will have to abandon it in the general. At least when it comes to his personal life. If he is the nominee, I hope he continues to "fight" the media on their race baiting and other gotcha questions.
Santorum is serving a purpose for me in this debate, but it is in exposing Mitt. Santorum is acting like an experienced prosecutor setting up Mitt and then attacking him. This brings Mitt down, but it doesn't make me like Santorum any more. But since I am anti-Mitt - or want to at least see Mitt convince me to vote for him - I am finding it helpful.
I may be in the minority here, but I found last night's discussion on abortion very good. I don't understand why people think it should not be discussed when it is a major (if not the most important) plan of the GOP platform. The pro-life debate is a proxy for a lot of other issues - notably the nomination of justices. And while I wish we could have a 15 minute discussion on judges, this will have to serve. It is very easy to claim to be pro-life - as every GOP candidate must. And I do believe they are all pro-life to some degree. But it is in the degree that matters. I am confident that Santorum and Newt would nominate justicies who would likely overturn Roe v. Wade (or restrict it). If they are willing to do that, then they are likely willing to take other conservative positions on cases before the SC. I have no confidence that Mitt would. Santorum was right last night - you have to explicity say funds will not be used for abortion. All pro-life politicians know that. It is telling that Mitt did not even push for that. Will he use any political capital on this issue. Again nothing in his past suggest he will.
And contrary to conventional wisdom, this is not a losing issue for the GOP. Our candidates do not lose when they expres a pro-life position.
Posted by: SH at January 20, 2012 06:13 AM (gmeXX)
My hunch is that Obama&Co wants to run against Newt because he's the weakest candidate in the general election..........baggage doesn't even to begin to describe that load he drags around, not to mention he's personally 1) ugly and 2) a hypocrit to the nines.
Obama looks damn good to the independents if you stand him next to Newt. And Newt's alleged skill at debating can be defanged in a second by the moderators. Newt = 4 more years of Obama.
Posted by: Boots at January 20, 2012 06:13 AM (neKzn)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 06:13 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Has Joined Team Meteor at January 20, 2012 06:13 AM (8y9MW)
That's stuck with me and is coloring the way I view things.
Posted by: c. up at January 20, 2012 06:14 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 20, 2012 06:15 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 06:16 AM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 20, 2012 10:12 AM (hiMsy)
MFM: Because we are scandal mongers except when it comes to Democrats then we turn a blind eye
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 20, 2012 06:17 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 06:17 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Pooter Hound at January 20, 2012 06:18 AM (ELPgk)
"I'm not questioned on character or integrity very often."
I'm sure if he asked nicely, the Left would leave him alone in the general.
Posted by: StrangernFiction at January 20, 2012 06:19 AM (VDZLQ)
Most Ethical Administration ever?
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 20, 2012 10:10 AM (i6RpT)
Ethics schmethics- he got a better offer to keep his trap shut.
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 20, 2012 06:20 AM (RSqz2)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 06:20 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: JackStraw at January 20, 2012 06:20 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 20, 2012 06:20 AM (FzVXi)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 20, 2012 10:12 AM (hiMsy)
Finding things like that and making them public seems to be one of Axelrod's specialties.
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 20, 2012 06:21 AM (RSqz2)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 06:22 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: mare
.........
Mitt is saving up for the general. He will go full-on against Obama, but he's not going to do it in the primaries.
And, to be honest, no one but romney-haters really sees this "being walked all over" in these debates. It has become a convenient meme, however.
Mormonism will not play a significant part in this election. Contrast him with Obama who listened to the communist ravings of Rev. Wright for 20 years, and Mitt comes out ahead every time. Newt's religion? Who knows? What week is it?
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 20, 2012 06:24 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 10:22 AM (A98Xu)
You do realize that's 'curious', don't you? Don't expect anything logical.
Posted by: Tami at January 20, 2012 06:24 AM (X6akg)
I know, Jack. Lots of people are really scared the Team Romney won't win. Their careers are on the line here.
Well Mittens likes to fire people who don't service him.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 06:25 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 06:26 AM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 20, 2012 06:26 AM (niZvt)
Mitt is saving up for the general. He will go full-on against Obama, but he's not going to do it in the primaries.
Right. You've got to vote for the campaign to see what's in it.
People who support Mitt seem to be doing the same thing Obama's supporters did. They're all projecting into an empty vessel. "Oh, he doesn't really mean that". "I think he'll really do this instead."
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 06:26 AM (mf67L)
Yes I know but I'm wondering more and more if character and integrity and a willingness to take a stand and stick with it and support it will matter in this election. Perry had a force choice test when he endorsed. He might have been better off behaving like Bachman and not endorsing anyone. With that one comment he called forward a host of issues about the president and the presidency and the American people.
Posted by: c. up at January 20, 2012 06:27 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 06:28 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: alaskagal at January 20, 2012 09:10 AM (BXrzV)
Friday is Monty's day off. Did you guys get more snow?
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 20, 2012 06:29 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 20, 2012 06:29 AM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 06:30 AM (Gc/Qi)
Grover Cleveland married a girl more than 30 years younger than him when he was President. And she was sorta his foster daughter (he was her legal guardian, or something like that) before she was his wife.
First Lady: not the most important "job" in a Presidential Administration.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 10:11 AM (Gc/Qi)
Grover Cleveland's admin was interrupted by the Harrison administration because people were scandalized by his illegitimate child. The slogan was "Maw, Maw, where's my Paw?" "Gone to the White House, haw, haw, haw."
My grandfather's name was "Grover Clevland Lastname" as Cleveland was highly celebrated in the south as the first democrat elected since the civil war.
Posted by: dagny at January 20, 2012 06:31 AM (Ke2m6)
Chi-town. The only issue in which I see Mitt saving up for Obama is with respect to the release of his tax records. Its clear he wants to use such release as a way to get Obama to release his records. I can't disagree with the strategy, but he is just not executing it well because the primary candidates are demanding his release.
But I don't see any area in which I think Mitt is saving arguments for Obama.
Posted by: SH at January 20, 2012 06:32 AM (gmeXX)
Why would anyone think he knows anything about economics or business?
Fer Crissakes - he's already stated, in front of God and everybody, his profound ignorance of, and animosity for honest business transactions.
Posted by: franksalterego at January 20, 2012 06:32 AM (9XykO)
Posted by: JackStraw at January 20, 2012 06:32 AM (TMB3S)
Well no one seems to be bringing up Mormonism except to mention the over 10% in tithing that Romney apparently did. I don't think he should release his income tax, ever. I don't think it matters for any of them. But the one thing that totally bothers me about Newt is that he worked for Fannie and Freddie. You can criticize Bain capital but they have done a lot of good. It's no secret that Fannie and Freddie are a total disaster.
Posted by: c. up at January 20, 2012 06:33 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: dagny at January 20, 2012 06:34 AM (Ke2m6)
Gingrich paid 31.5% tax on over $3 Million in income. He paid $20K in alimony.
Romany wants to wait until the Nomination is decided before we see how his bets against Amerikkka have paid off. Staples, Sports Authority, Dominoes Pizza, the capitalist juggernaut.
Posted by: gary gulrud, former drunk Minnesotan, enjoying acid flashbacks at January 20, 2012 06:35 AM (hIChH)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 06:35 AM (Gc/Qi)
MSM Check
Romney is rich and he stole it from you
Romney is rich and he stole it from you
Newt is a cheater and will cheat on you
Newt is a cheater and will cheat on you
The economy is recovering look at that squirrel
The economy is recovering look at that squirrel
Posted by: Zombie JournoList at January 20, 2012 06:35 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 06:36 AM (A98Xu)
Mormonism will not play a significant part in this election. Contrast him with Obama who listened to the communist ravings of Rev. Wright for 20 years, and Mitt comes out ahead every time. Newt's religion? Who knows? What week is it?
Ah, ya do know hollywierd has a movie in the works on the magic Mormon Cult and it is do to air in the fall. To say Mitt won't be attacked on his religion is nuts, and the Wright stuff is history, McStupid, the GOP establishment great white hope last time blew that one.
newt however will scorch the earth with bamabis policies and ineptness!
Posted by: concealedkerry or SubMitt at January 20, 2012 06:36 AM (vXqv3)
Posted by: Burke at January 20, 2012 06:37 AM (9N3G1)
He asked her back about Hillary's million dollar advance fee nobody said a thing about.
Maybe newt is giving them all some ideas.
Posted by: Vic at January 20, 2012 06:37 AM (YdQQY)
Drudge also has this headline link to a poll:
Vote if you like, I didn’t watch the debate. My position is “who cares”?
<rant on>
We are left with zip dog shit for candidates. Year after year after year under the stagnated BS Republican Party primary rules we get stuck with shitty candidates. The primaries are preloaded with almost ALL blue States all the way up to the damn Super Tuesday date. This is why we get stuck with lackluster, its my turn “moderates”. Yet there are some here who keep saying this is all wingnut “conspiracy theory”. I throw the bullshit flag on that. Once is OK, twice may be a coincidence, three times is enemy action. Decades worth is Party design.
We are now left with Mutt Romney who they are still saying is the designated winner although he has only won one Primary in virtually his own home State and it appears he will NOT win SC despite all the MFM hoopala. He hasnÂ’t got a conservative bone in his body. He is not electable because he will split the Party and likely result in a third Party run. The base hates him yet if he does win it will be the same damn way McShitty won. A plurality of about 30%.
Then there is Eye of Newt. More baggage than an overloaded airport train headed for a wide body 747. He has a couple of finger bones that may be conservative.
Coming up third will probably be Santorum (at least in SC). He is arguably more conservative than Gingrich (maybe) but he so alienated his own State so bad he was routed in his last election attempt. His stress on anti-gay and on social con issues is so hard that he is virtually unelectable in any tight State like VA. The same way Mutt will cause conservatives to stay at home, he will cause some fiscal cons who donÂ’t give a shit for social ideas to stay at home. If he would keep his mouth shut on this score he would be a lot better off. Swing into that shit AFTER the election dumb ass. Do like the Dems do, run to the center and then after election go hard right social con.
Fourth is Crazy Racist Uncle. Not a chance of getting elected anywhere but he has a following of loud and obnoxious pot heads and skin heads.
This is what our Republican Party primary rules has given us. This and endless fucking bullshit debates hosted by the MFM designed not to allow the candidates to debate, but to pose “gotcha” questions, stir up controversy for ratings, and just generally damage the Republican party. Hell, the ONLY reason Newt has climbed out of the gutter is by attacking the debate assholes. Is this how we want to pick candidates; seriously?
All you Mutt-Mashers can bitch about this all you want, but I am about fed up with the Republican Party. They are not just the Party of Stupid, they are the Party of semi-Democrats. I am about to agree with Glenn Beck, there is not much difference between them but degree of how far left they want to go. Whether it is big government socialism for the Republicans or bigger government communism for the Democrats. Either damn way we are going off the cliff.
<rant over>
Posted by: Vic at January 20, 2012 06:38 AM (YdQQY)
Relax. Obama can't win again. The fix is already in.
Posted by: Pooter Hound at January 20, 2012 10:18 AM (ELPgk)
Would that it were true.
Posted by: Mister Money at January 20, 2012 06:39 AM (wN82N)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 06:39 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: mare at January 20, 2012 06:40 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 20, 2012 06:40 AM (XBdI0)
great rant.
Too bad the reupblican party can't be split into the rinos and the real republicans. My dad says the rinos are really conservative dems but that the dems have gone so off the cliff they had no where to go so they went to the republicans.
Posted by: c. up at January 20, 2012 06:40 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 06:43 AM (Gc/Qi)
@151 Newt is a great debater... the thing is, the debates during the Obama vs. Republican phase won't be nearly as important as the weeks of campaigning running up to them. There will only be three, near the end. It won't be like this never ending roadshow the GOP imposed on itself.
If Newt is the candidate, there may be only one debate, maybe not. BHO will run from him, debatewise, "affiars of state, you know"
Posted by: Mister Money at January 20, 2012 06:43 AM (wN82N)
Posted by: JackStraw at January 20, 2012 06:44 AM (TMB3S)
BTW, gila monsters aren't found in Texas that I know of.
Posted by: Sphynx at January 20, 2012 06:48 AM (fEmj2)
Posted by: Sphynx at January 20, 2012 06:49 AM (fEmj2)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 20, 2012 06:50 AM (Gc/Qi)
You know, the sanctimonious bastards attack Gingrich's wives really ought to be support Rick Santorum.
Seems right up your alley. Hell, Ricky actually thinks it's an issue. Even Mitt Romney said it was irrelevant.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 06:50 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: SH at January 20, 2012 06:51 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: jewells45 at January 20, 2012 06:52 AM (l/N7H)
Posted by: JackStraw at January 20, 2012 06:54 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: dagny at January 20, 2012 06:54 AM (Ke2m6)
Posted by: Sphynx at January 20, 2012 06:54 AM (fEmj2)
Fourth is Crazy Racist Uncle. Not a chance of getting elected anywhere but he has a following of loud and obnoxious pot heads and skin heads.
Ron Paul isn't going to win. This isn't an attempt at persuading anyone to support the guy - he's irrelevant, beyond being a subject of discussion.
But all those people you call potheads and skin heads, a lot of them are just like you.
I'm sure nobody ever called you racist, so you have no idea what kind of situation they might be in. Crazy skinheads and their crazy racist balanced budget demands.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 06:56 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: Vic at January 20, 2012 06:59 AM (YdQQY)
Not mad at all. Amazed at the cluelessness of the True Conservatives. I'm not going after Reagan, just pointing out that it was indeed Reagan who gave us socialized medicine by forcing all of us to pay for those who can't or won't pay for their own insurance. It also caused insurance premiums to rise. I just want to make sure you have your facts straight.
That would be among the reasons the crazy racist went all crazy racist 3rd party tried to genocide the jews.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 07:00 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: Mandy P. at January 20, 2012 07:01 AM (qFpRI)
"Fredonia"
The idea that Mittens turned Taxachusetts into some sort of wheeling dealing free-market paradise is delusional and untrue.
The fact that the man seems incapable of making a presidential run without surrounding himself with flat-out wrong lies is bothersome.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 07:04 AM (mf67L)
Don't be obtuse.
Posted by: DarkLord©, Rogue Commenter at January 20, 2012 07:05 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 20, 2012 09:35 AM (9zzk+)
Really? So picture teh One and Newt on stage in a televised debate, with the usual leftie moderator(s). And the moderator asks Newt a so-when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife question or somesuch. And Newt takes the person down hard. Do you really think that the millions of Americans watching won't be on their feet screaming for more?
Americans want someone to fight for them for a change, and are pretty much sick and tired of seeing our candidates/politicians just stand there and take it (hence, part of the GOP stupid party meme, IMO). Or worse, legitimize the question by actually trying to answer it.
In other words, Americans like righteous fighters. It's in our DNA.
Posted by: JoAnne at January 20, 2012 07:27 AM (8DdAv)
" I was just using your logic and asking if you believed he would impose a national Dream Act at the federal level. "
You mean the Texas Dream Act he could not veto? Perry said that there would be no immigration reform discussion until the border was secured, using strategic fencing, troops, more border agents, and predator drones.
Texas Dream Act passes w veto proof majority. Romneycare passes with veto proof majority.
Perry crucified. Mitt fellated.
Good enough straw?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 20, 2012 07:27 AM (kaOJx)
Posted by: cackfinger at January 20, 2012 07:31 AM (a9mQu)
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 08:35 AM
--
Russ, Just FYI - If you aren't paying attention to what's going on ("I haven't watched any of the debates since January third"), then why should I read anything you have to say? I stopped reading your post after that sentence.
Posted by: Not an Artist at January 20, 2012 07:35 AM (fOPv7)
The idea that Mittens turned Taxachusetts into some sort of wheeling dealing free-market paradise is delusional and untrue.
It's a good thing then that made precisely no such claim.
Posted by: DocJ at January 20, 2012 07:38 AM (A5uiv)
<rant over>
Posted by: Vic at January 20, 2012 10:38 AM (YdQQY)I love your font style; Verdana, no?
Posted by: JoAnne at January 20, 2012 07:41 AM (8DdAv)
he is not going to get wild standing ovations for yelling at the media.
Bullshit.
The thing Paul was quick to illustrate vis-a-vis the media being run by corporations - the leftards hate the media as much as we do. And the independants too.
For different reasons, but just the same. Everybody cheers when you fuck the media. They poll like 5% trust and approval.
Posted by: Entropy at January 20, 2012 07:42 AM (mf67L)
I haven't watched any of the debates. Living in Oregon I have no choice or say in who the GOP decides will run for president.
I will vote for any candidate running against the SCOAMF so I won't have to waist any time with the genral election debates as well.
This should free up a lot of time to prepare for the possible failure of getting a GOP elected.
I will vote in the general election but it won't matter because by the time I can vote, the election will already be called by most major news outlets and blogs etc.
All I can do is bitch and complain about whoever you all elect.
Posted by: What would Hitch do? at January 20, 2012 08:41 AM (zFMCq)
Posted by: msmulan at January 20, 2012 11:37 AM (Vq4oV)
But I think the entire "ethics" process in Congress is broken with congressmen investigating other congressmen rather than publish ethical guidelines and have an independent oversight body.
Posted by: StrategicCorporalUSMC at January 20, 2012 05:59 PM (zgwWv)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.389 seconds, 333 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








The complain is NOT that Romney made too much, it is about the leveraged buy out era, and whether PE companies built companies, or just came in and leveraged them up and fired people to make them look good to investors, then moved on. Two decades of leverage and junk bond marketing have left us with a mess.
THAT is the question ... not how much money Romney made.
Posted by: Illini bill at January 20, 2012 04:43 AM (8ynJZ)