January 10, 2012
— Ace Very interesting thoughts from Rush. He doesn't seem committed to any candidate, but is defending Romney some. And also knocking Romney.
Today apparently Rush has sharpened up attacks on Newt. Via Twitter, people say Rush said Newt is no longer running for president, but just running a vengeance campaign against Romney.
He then (audio clip) attacked Newt for using Obama's worldview to attack capitalism.
He says he's never heard Newt Gingrich speak this way "It sounds like left-wing social engineering."
He also launched into (transcript only) a very positive screed about Romney being the only candidate out there who's actually defending capitalism.
The point that Nordlinger is making here is that "over and over, Romney defends and explains capitalism." Now, Nordlinger, I'm gathering -- I don't know this, but I'm just assuming from the way he's written the piece here -- that he's for Romney. He says, "Over and over, Romney defends and explains capitalism. And heÂ’s supposed to be the RINO and squish in the race?" The one guy out there defending capitalism, the one guy out there trying to explain corporate profits to the Occupy crowd, he's the squish, he's the moderate, he's the guy that we have the problem with? "ThatÂ’s what I read in the conservative blogosphere, every day. What do you have to do to be a 'real conservative'? Speak bad English and belch?"In the Saturday debate, Santorum knocked Romney for being just a 'manager,' just a 'CEO,' not fit to be president and commander-in-chief. This was odd for a couple of reasons: First, Romney did have a term as governor of Massachusetts (meaning he has executive political experience, unlike Santorum). And second: Since when do conservative Republicans denigrate private-sector experience?" And a lot of people are asking, "What is going on, why is Newt denigrating private sector experience?" And then saying what Romney does, put people out of work, is a takeover artist and he slashes jobs? That's what Obama's gonna say. Now, about that, we can sit here and wring our hands and lament that this is happening, "Oh, no!" but it is happening, so we have to deal with that, and so what it does is present Romney with an opportunity to defend himself. We'll see how he does. He's gonna have to. He's being assaulted. It's gonna be very eye opening for a lot of people.
I live in Realville. I'm telling you, what happens is what is. That's literal, that's real. It may be totally stupid, it may be totally unfair, it may be outrageous, it may be self-defeating for these Republicans to start ripping into big business or ripping into capitalism, but it's happening.
Y-Not also linked this bit of Rush -- from yesterday, I believe, making the point I've been trying to.
In 2008, Huckabee stayed in the race only to deny Romney the presidency. Huckabee had been mathematically eliminated; Romney had not. Romney was the only candidate capable of defeating McCain. And I supported Romney then, by the way, because I wanted to defeat McCain -- this constant crap about "you RINOs who forced McCain on us" notwithstanding. That was the socon populist Huckabee's call.
But the point is, history is repeating itself. Just as Huckabee had come to hate Romney, now Gingrich apparently does, and is going kamikazee on him, and blowing up capitalism and simply chalking that up to collateral damage.
Why? Well, as Rush explains, when you go scorched earth on your rivals, you can't be shocked when they go scorched earth on you.
I just got an interesting e-mail, and it reminded me of something. I don't know what it was, 'cause it doesn't say, that spawned the question in the e-mail. The person wanted to know, "Rush, why was Romney so disliked in 2008?" By the candidates he was disliked, I don't mean so much by voters. There's a reason for that. Back in 2008, Romney was the only guy, much as is the case this time around, who had his own independent money. Romney's independently wealthy, and people have forgotten it 'til this guy asked me this question. I had, too.Now, we talk often about how Huckabee and McCain joined forces, but there was a reason for it. Romney was out running a series of negative ads against every Republican, and a lot of them resented the heck out of it, and he was doing it early in the Republican primary. Giuliani hated it. I mean there were a number of Republicans back in 2008 who thought it was unnecessary and gratuitous. And so Huckabee and McCain joined forces in West Virginia and a couple of other states.
...
But anyway, the reason for bringing all this up, was this question I got from people, why is Romney so disliked? And I think with all of this money that Romney has spent -- Romney hasn't, but his super PAC against Gingrich, it's a multimillion-dollar attack on Gingrich. And I think, I could be wrong, but I think that may come back and haunt Romney because others have learned from him. So people like Ron Paul now and a lot of the other candidates are now engaging in these scorched earth tactics because when Romney did it against Newt, it worked.
I think it's unfortunate it's come to this. I don't like seeing any of this transpire. But this is why Giuliani doesn't support Romney. It's why Fred Thompson hasn't come out for him. It's because they don't like the super PAC spending all this money in scorched earth and they remember it's what Romney did in 2008. Now, it's also fair to say, hey, this is politics, this is what happens and money is the way this is -- and that's all true, too. I'm not condemning Romney, don't misunderstand. I'm just saying that you start this process, you demonstrate that it works, you're gonna cause copycats, and it's now starting to take place. Several others who were dealt this way by Romney or Romney's PACs in 2008 are now starting to respond in kind. The media keeps asking, for example, what's Newt's problem with these attacks? I mean this is politics. What the hell does he expect? And these are not attacks. Newt's engaged in self-defense. Newt was wandering around minding his own business, he got hit, he got hit, and he got hit, finally some people have sent him enough money that he can retaliate now.
It's not Newt that's doing the attacking. It's Newt that's doing the defending. And, you know, Romney took a chance, it helped him in Iowa, he was able to really cut Gingrich off at the knees in Iowa, and he showed the others that it's okay to slam away that way. So they're now slamming away, everybody is slamming away at everybody on the Republican side. It's just once it starts and once it's shown to be effective, then here come the copycats. So Newt now is going after Romney on this Bain Capital business, and you might say that they're not defensive, but I don't know that Gingrich would be doing this had Romney not taken the steps he took in Iowa. But Newt's out there saying, (paraphrasing) "This guy, he's not a conservative. All he does is go in and take over companies and fire people, lays 'em off. This isn't capitalism." He's laying into Romney the way the Democrats are going to. Bain Capital is going to be the Halliburton of 2012 if Romney does indeed get the nomination.
Posted by: Ace at
10:54 AM
| Comments (261)
Post contains 1275 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: Alte Schule at January 10, 2012 11:00 AM (MLJu8)
Posted by: Anthony Weiner at January 10, 2012 11:01 AM (fOmkv)
>>>Rush said Newt is no longer running for president, but just running a vengeance campaign against Romney.
Thats kind of my feeling. He started out running for book tour. He was suprised as anyone when he got a Ant-Romney bounce. Now he's bitter that the prize has been snatched from his fat little fingers.
Posted by: Max Power is the Dunning–Kruger effect made flesh at January 10, 2012 11:01 AM (q177U)
Posted by: ABO at January 10, 2012 11:01 AM (MbeEN)
Romney? Blecch. But he's starting to look inevitable.
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at January 10, 2012 11:01 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: blaster at January 10, 2012 11:02 AM (7vSU0)
Team. Meteor.
I was thinking about this at lunch today and it's a problem I do not know how to answer. Bain is going to be a problem for Romney in the general, presuming he's the nom. Like it or not, he is going to be portrayed as Snidely Whiplash. The firing people comment feeds into that.
We've gone round and round here about how to deal with the reality that everything, every single thing, that a Republican says or does will be cast in the worst possible light. Tempermentally, I am in the fuck 'em and fight back camp. Practically, that's not always possible. I do not know what the workable solution is. It's all well and good to say reject the premise of the question, but then how to you respond to the charge without coming across as trying to change the subject? As I said, I don't know.
I'm liking my throw jarts at them idea more and more.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 10, 2012 11:03 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: maddogg at January 10, 2012 11:04 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at January 10, 2012 11:05 AM (AQD6a)
Posted by: blaster at January 10, 2012 11:05 AM (7vSU0)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 10, 2012 11:06 AM (h6mPj)
whoever survives this bloodbath will be ready to do battle with the filthy socialist parasites
Mitt Romney 2012 : Bain'd and Able
Posted by: Kennel Up! 2012 at January 10, 2012 11:06 AM (fOmkv)
Posted by: RogerB at January 10, 2012 11:07 AM (nhjSK)
291 278
That's why Newt is so upset, I believe.
Because he lost his huge lead in FL.
I think Newt was hoping for FL to be his big win that would propel him towards the nom.
Krauthammer is obviously an AOSHQ reader. He had a great quote about Gingrich, and how his motivation is now to hurt Romney, since the nomination is out of his reach. He describes Romney as his white whale, and Gingrich as Ahab. Good stuff.
Posted by: pep at January 10, 2012 11:07 AM (YXmuI)
Posted by: Truman North at January 10, 2012 11:07 AM (I2LwF)
Like this --
Obama plays the race card at fundraiser Monday night.
Here's what he said --
Everything we fought for during the last election is at stake in this election. The very core of what this country stands for is on the line — the basic promise that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, this is a place where you could make it if you try.
link to the White House Dossier
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 10, 2012 11:08 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 10, 2012 11:08 AM (i6RpT)
This is AoS comment board. Snark > Common Sense. Get with the program.
Romney is a RINO-1%-er !!111!!!eleventy!!!111
Posted by: IrishSamurai at January 10, 2012 11:08 AM (ZW9en)
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 10, 2012 11:08 AM (sEvRn)
Posted by: ParisParamus at January 10, 2012 11:08 AM (FIQiO)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 10, 2012 11:09 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at January 10, 2012 11:09 AM (mfbqu)
In 2008, Huckabee stayed in the race only to deny Romney the presidency. Huckabee had been mathematically eliminated; Romney had not.
Newt is doing Romney and the primary a favor. If Romney can't cut it, someone including Newt, can still be the nominee.
Posted by: liontooth at January 10, 2012 11:10 AM (9wLy+)
Posted by: bannor, voting for NotRomney at January 10, 2012 11:10 AM (6AXh/)
Posted by: Janetoo at January 10, 2012 11:10 AM (/TVdO)
Posted by: jeanne! with two N's and an E at January 10, 2012 11:10 AM (GdalM)
Posted by: blaster at January 10, 2012 03:02 PM (7vSU0)
he'll pick the VA guv
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voted Already at January 10, 2012 11:10 AM (yAor6)
That only works if our guy has the stones and the brains to bring that up. But the Marquis of Queensbury has forbidden it!
Posted by: Truman North at January 10, 2012 11:10 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 10, 2012 03:08 PM (sEvRn)
So Perry and Newt are just a flight simulator for the real trip?
Posted by: ParisParamus at January 10, 2012 11:10 AM (FIQiO)
I just want it recorded that you heard it here first (unless you heard it somewhere else, in which case screw you all), but the more reasonable explanation for Perry's attack on Mitt from the LEFT is not that Perry suddenly forgot he's not a Democrat anymore, it's that Perry has been bought and paid for by Team Romney since the Iowa caucus.
I like Perry, I have from Day 1, but I know he knows he's not going to win the nomination. So he's in this for some other reason. Could be his ego won't let him quit. Could be he wants to be in line for 2016. Could be Romney needs him in the race, and he's obliging as best suits Mitt.
Now, which of those three is most compatible with Perry adopting the "capitalism is bad" attack? It energizes conservatives, including Rush, to have Mitt being attacked on the ONE PART OF HIS RESUME that looks kind of good to conservatives! I say "kind of" because we still don't really know what Mitt did at Bain, or why he's not out there himself vehemently defending his record as a venture capitalist.
Posted by: Burt TC at January 10, 2012 11:10 AM (TOk1P)
If Rush is right, then it is better for us for Rick Perry to hang in as long as possible.
If we lose Rick Perry, then Newt gets enough of a boost to let him linger until the convention. And that's not good.
Think about it. Do you want your nominee to get beat up by a malcontent on our own side AND to have to waste money on resources making sure Newt doesn't win?
Posted by: from soothie's heart, i stab at thee at January 10, 2012 11:11 AM (sqkOB)
Unfortunately, Newt is dragging the GOP brand to the left with this style of populism as he calls it.
Posted by: Valiant at January 10, 2012 11:12 AM (aFxlY)
How the F--k is Gingrich out of it? This is the second primary!
Posted by: liontooth at January 10, 2012 11:12 AM (9wLy+)
Theoretically, in the general an attack from the left would be fought off by a unified right. It's easier for any candidate to make a case for something if his own party isn't fighting him on principle.
In the general, if Romney is nominated, will Perry and Gingrich decide that firing people and profits are ok? Or have they already salted that earth?
Posted by: MayBee at January 10, 2012 11:13 AM (PLixr)
Posted by: Jean at January 10, 2012 11:14 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: bannor, voting for NotRomney at January 10, 2012 11:14 AM (6AXh/)
Fun? Sheesh. I'm looking for a new hobby. I'm thinking knitting. Only because I'd fear for my liver if I took up the real hobby of choice.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 10, 2012 11:14 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: joeindc44 - fully stoked tebow crazed rioter at January 10, 2012 11:14 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Ronster at January 10, 2012 11:15 AM (JGYCE)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 10, 2012 11:16 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 11:16 AM (40rE+)
If he hadn't already concluded that he was out of it, he wouldn't have adopted this approach, because after this, he has no political future. It's a banzai charge.
Posted by: pep at January 10, 2012 11:16 AM (YXmuI)
Posted by: giftogab at January 10, 2012 11:16 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: izoneguy at January 10, 2012 11:17 AM (i6Neb)
@13-
I think you are on to something there, and (since this is a Rush Post) Limbaugh brought up this same notion, that the Republicans are shooting for just that- an Obama presidency, with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, so that they can control the committees and money.
The biggest drawback I can see about this "strategy" is the Supreme Court; there will be at least 2, possibly 3 appointments coming over the next 4 years and the Republicans cannot afford to piss away this opportunity to shape the court for a generation.
I have not been a Romney supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but these latest attacks by Newt are really leaving me scratching my head over the motive and sanity of this particular strategy.
Posted by: DaveinNC at January 10, 2012 11:17 AM (boNGU)
Your logic is the biggest reason that women shouldn't have the right to vote. Realize you probably are not a woman
<sarc>
Voting for someone based on "personal" reasons is so fucking anti-intellectual our founding fathers would be so proud of what this country has become ...
</sarc>
Posted by: IrishSamurai at January 10, 2012 11:18 AM (ZW9en)
Posted by: ace at January 10, 2012 11:18 AM (nj1bB)
The Almighty tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're focked.
Posted by: that Irish guy from Braveheart at January 10, 2012 11:18 AM (FUYSU)
heh, it's funny you should mention that. Mitt's dick came up on CSPAN.
Posted by: Y-not, patriot with a chance of clouds at January 10, 2012 11:19 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 03:16 PM (40rE+)
I would rather have an unlikeable platic dick than a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant. At least I want a cigarette after the plastic dick.
Posted by: giftogab at January 10, 2012 11:19 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: Truman North at January 10, 2012 03:10 PM (I2LwF)
And obviously Newt has the stones to go bare knuckle.
Ironically, Romney is being pushed to the right from Newt's attack on his left contrary to what Rush said.
Unfortunately, Newt is dragging the GOP brand to the left with this style of populism as he calls it.
Posted by: Valiant at January 10, 2012 03:12 PM (aFxlY)
Exactly right about Rush, but the thing is that "this style of populism" is what Obama was going to use anyway. Newt will have the balls to point out that Obama's Chiefs of Staff, Daley and Rahm, are wall street insiders.
Posted by: liontooth at January 10, 2012 11:19 AM (9wLy+)
So he's all in for a piric victory?
Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 10, 2012 11:19 AM (tf9Ne)
"Rush also mentioned he was worried that Romney is Nixon II "
You say that like it is a bad thing. Asked McGovern what he thought of Nixon, if you could.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 10, 2012 11:20 AM (kaOJx)
Posted by: wooga at January 10, 2012 11:20 AM (vjyZP)
Posted by: Y-not, patriot with a chance of clouds at January 10, 2012 03:19 PM (5H6zj)
Bet that was embarrassing! Was Rep. Weiner there with a camera?
Posted by: giftogab at January 10, 2012 11:20 AM (SPVfc)
True that. If anything ... Romney is flip flopper on capitalism. Fuck, the guy can't even get those terms right. We don't have "crony capitialism", we have "crony SOCIALISM" ... but non-PC terms can't be uttered by the plastic candidate ...
Posted by: IrishSamurai at January 10, 2012 11:20 AM (ZW9en)
43 -
I'm actually in agreement with you on that, something I don't often do. I'm enjoying playing "guess their motivation" for the various tactics flown by various players, and not just the people on stage right now.
Posted by: Burt TC at January 10, 2012 11:20 AM (TOk1P)
---------------------
He aint doing a lot of defending, it'll cost him the election. As I said in the previous thread, Mitt can not run on jobs or Obamacare. Basically, the Bain stuff shattered his aura of electability.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 11:20 AM (40rE+)
Posted by: Dr Spank at January 10, 2012 11:20 AM (Sh42X)
Posted by: Tonawanda at January 10, 2012 11:21 AM (fgysf)
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at January 10, 2012 11:21 AM (xMU3a)
Posted by: joeindc44 - fully stoked tebow crazed rioter at January 10, 2012 11:21 AM (QxSug)
But SS has been a third rail issue for a long time.
Only the stupid Republicans would make capitalism/profit a third rail issue.
Posted by: from soothie's heart, i stab at thee at January 10, 2012 11:21 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: © Sponge at January 10, 2012 11:22 AM (UK9cE)
If by a pyrrhic victory you mean one without a rational political end other than spite and Gotterdammerung, then yes.
Posted by: pep at January 10, 2012 11:22 AM (YXmuI)
Unfortunately, Newt is dragging the GOP brand to the left OWS sewer with this style of populism as he calls it.
Posted by: Valiant at January 10, 2012 03:12 PM (aFxlY)
---
FIFY
Posted by: Primary at January 10, 2012 11:22 AM (sJKFk)
Posted by: tcn at January 10, 2012 11:23 AM (ZOUmX)
The Doomsday Clock, a figurative timepiece used as a barometer of humankindÂ’s fate, was moved one minute closer to midnight on Tuesday, the first time it has been nudged forward since 2007. It is now 11:55, five minutes before the appointed hour.
If The SOCAMF gets reelected, then SPROING!!!!
It's Midnight, Bitches! And yeah, I'm not atomic, but I am wound up pretty tight. And I don't give a shit what time you say it is.
Posted by: Doomsday Honey Badger Clock at January 10, 2012 11:23 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: the EPA at January 10, 2012 11:24 AM (6AXh/)
Better to have him vetted than not. I think he can easily answer it - Bain's strategy involved a lot of investing in troubled, beaten-down firms. These type of firms are much more likely to go under than other firms. So the relevant point is "how would they have done without the Bain investment?" It's likely that Bain's investment might have actually improved their financial health. I think it's possible to spin it that way, and then use a "there you go again" approach once he's answered it and they keep bringing it up.
I hope the SCOAMF brings this up in the general election - that would give Romney a chance to tee off on it like this. Because you KNOW it'll be coming.
Posted by: RightWingProf at January 10, 2012 11:24 AM (UOcNk)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 10, 2012 11:24 AM (QcFbt)
Posted by: pep at January 10, 2012 03:16 PM (YXmuI)
What political future did he have to begin with? The party insiders hate him to start with. Worrying about the future is what's been the problem with the Republicans. You play to win now.
Posted by: liontooth at January 10, 2012 11:24 AM (9wLy+)
Posted by: Iblis at January 10, 2012 11:25 AM (9221z)
I would rather have an unlikeable platic dick than a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant. At least I want a cigarette after the plastic dick.
Posted by: giftogab at January 10, 2012 03:19 PM (SPVfc)
Yeah, but you have to be likable to be elected.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 11:26 AM (40rE+)
Posted by: joeindc44 - fully stoked tebow crazed rioter at January 10, 2012 11:26 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 03:16 PM (40rE+)
Who has the endorsement of CharlieBrown'sDildo? Posted by: wooga at January 10, 2012 03:20 PM (vjyZP) I am going to guess Lucy?
Posted by: Minnfidel at January 10, 2012 11:26 AM (OCCG6)
I'm still thinking about my vote in the Florida primary. I had been planning to still vote for Perry, regardless of the state of the race. But I'll be damned if this crap isn't making me think about voting for Romney.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at January 10, 2012 11:27 AM (Zbj8z)
Posted by: Huggy at January 10, 2012 03:04 PM (FD6YW)
No. The recess appointment thing has just shown that Bambi will simply go full-on authoritarian in that case. We have to control the executive branch too.
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 10, 2012 11:28 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Dr Spank at January 10, 2012 03:20 PM (Sh42X)
But too bad Romney's campaign is too stupid. Mother says she seen ads already in SC, not defending himself will cost him. He has to now. McCain or Sununuununuun cant cover for him.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 11:28 AM (40rE+)
Want a 66 R senate and a 304 R house and Obama president.
Why? Obama will ignore the Senate and the House, as he's doing now, and nobody will stop him. Many of those 66 R's would be Scott Brown types.
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at January 10, 2012 11:28 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Penfold at January 10, 2012 11:29 AM (1PeEC)
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at January 10, 2012 03:24 PM (qjUnn)
Newt should be helping with that, it's only fair.
Posted by: robtr at January 10, 2012 11:29 AM (MtwBb)
They've got that already in TX. oh you mean the voting poll not the dancing one I bet.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 10, 2012 11:29 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: DaveA at January 10, 2012 11:29 AM (t/mAc)
Posted by: Mitts fired UNION Idiot at January 10, 2012 11:30 AM (sJKFk)
Posted by: Soona at January 10, 2012 11:31 AM (/VmDe)
Posted by: Capitalism at January 10, 2012 11:31 AM (F6KtL)
Both Perry and Romney have proven very capable at handling large amounts of money and not fucking misplacing it. Whereas O'numbnuts has never shown that he even understands the concept of money. (I just talk and say shit and walk around and people give me stuff).
So you have - Adults - and a petulant teenager.
Me, I could live with either Romney or Perry for that reason alone.
Posted by: tubal at January 10, 2012 11:31 AM (BoE3Z)
Posted by: Iblis at January 10, 2012 03:25 PM (9221z)
THIS. And then some. We all sit around wrenting at our cloths about an agenda set by the MFM and trotted along with even by Fox. Doesn't anyone have enough self respect, intelligance or confidence to play their chips at their own state process? do they all have to follow like lemmings what NH or IOWA does? IF this is truly decided today, it is notbody but the R's fault for buying into the headlines and soundbites of the media...all of them. Wake up your memory: At this stage last time they said Hil was DONE. She should have NEVER given up. But even SHE didn't give up this early.
Posted by: giftogab at January 10, 2012 11:31 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: CNN Moderator at January 10, 2012 11:32 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Minnfidel at January 10, 2012 11:32 AM (OCCG6)
In 2008, Huckabee stayed in the race only to deny Romney the presidency. Huckabee had been mathematically eliminated; Romney had not.
Romney quit, oops -- suspended his campaign, on February 7th. In what possible way was Huck continuing to run be considered c-blocking Mitt?
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 10, 2012 11:33 AM (3wBRE)
well, we can all vote on the drudge primary open ballot.
Too late. The Paulbots found it and spammed it.
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at January 10, 2012 11:33 AM (YmPwQ)
It's good that this takes place now, so that it's negative effect lessens and it can be fully countered. And if he can't successfully weather this storm, then someone else will rightfully emerge.
Posted by: A.G. at January 10, 2012 11:34 AM (myTwx)
Posted by: giftogab at January 10, 2012 11:34 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: joeindc44 - fully stoked tebow crazed rioter at January 10, 2012 11:35 AM (QxSug)
It's good that this takes place now, so that it's negative effect lessens and it can be fully countered.
--------
When the hell will he defend though?
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 11:36 AM (40rE+)
Rush's arguement that Newt and others are pushing at Romney from the Left on this issue is valid and true, but i have no love for companies like Bain Capital, they have a right to exist in a free market, but they are not what i hold up as the ideal in a free market system, it is parasitical in nature and i find that distasteful, like ambulance-chasing lawyers and snake-oil salesmen.
Posted by: Hate to say but RP is going to drink your milkshake at January 10, 2012 11:36 AM (jdOk/)
Tommy Lee Jones character from the first Under Siege; he knew the game was over, but if the crazy rambling fucker couldn't win, he just had to go and launch a few nuclear-tipped tomahawks at Pearl Harbor so nobody could win.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOWO6Zf9szM
Posted by: Uriah Heep at January 10, 2012 11:36 AM (447Af)
I'll have you know I graduated at the top of my economics class at Underpants Nome U.
Posted by: Barry Obumbles at January 10, 2012 11:36 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Iblis at January 10, 2012 03:25 PM (9221z)
Don't kid yourself. The dems have big fat dossiers on every candidate. The stank will begin within an hour of anyone being nominated. And we just think this dustup within our party is bad. Just wait.
Posted by: Soona at January 10, 2012 11:36 AM (/VmDe)
Regarding the Nixon II thing, I'm not sure what Rush might have meant, but Nixon ran the classic campaign in '68, where he basically didn't say jack all the way up to the election.
I think the strategy was that since everyone already knew everything there was to know about Nixon, and since Nixon's negatives were pretty high, all they wanted to do was have him stand there and show that he wasn't Lyndon Baines Johnson. It worked, more or less, but it probably wouldn't have if RFK had lived long enough to win the D nomination. The fact that LBJ dropped out, and Hubert "sourpuss" Humphrey ran instead gave Nixon the win in a close race. I've said in the past it's because Humphrey was the one person in the country who, standing next to Dick Nixon, made Nixon look warm and kind.
Posted by: Burt TC at January 10, 2012 11:36 AM (TOk1P)
So Perry and Newt are just a flight simulator for the real trip?
Posted by: ParisParamus at January 10, 2012 03:10 PM (FIQiO)
If they can't manage to be a decent candidate, they can at least be useful this way.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 10, 2012 11:36 AM (sEvRn)
Here....to lighten things a bit...
Health Inspector at #OWS DC camp -- "It's no different from a refugee camp".
Please let these people show up at the GOP convention. Please please please.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 10, 2012 11:36 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 10, 2012 11:37 AM (+lsX1)
Romney needs to go all Christie on this.
“Firing people? You bet your ass I’m going to fire people. I’ve spent the better part of my life taking failing organizations down to the bone and rebuilding them so that they work and succeed. And that’s what I’m going to do to this bloated, dysfunctional government.”
“If Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Barack Obama think we’re going to bring back employment and opportunity to the middle class of America by demonizing capitalism while paying government workers twice what the private sector pays, then I’m here to say there is a better way.”
All you need is the right speechwriter.
(and yes, jwest is very, very expensive)
Posted by: jwest at January 10, 2012 11:37 AM (FdndL)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 10, 2012 11:37 AM (YeIP1)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 10, 2012 11:37 AM (hiMsy)
Posted by: izoneguy at January 10, 2012 11:38 AM (i6Neb)
President Obama's first chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once sat on the board of troubled federal mortgage giant Freddie Fraudie Mac. Bill Daley, the president's chief of staff whose departure was announced today, was previously a top executive at financial firm J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. So of course there should be little surprise that Obama's latest chief of staff, announced today by the president himself, also has deep ties to the financial industry himself. << NO KIDDING ?!?! >>
This is a perfect tie in for their own F#&king !% crap that they they're trumpeting. Hello Romney staffers ??
Posted by: A defensive battle is a LOOSING battle. Time 4 aggression Mitt ! at January 10, 2012 11:38 AM (sJKFk)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 10, 2012 03:24 PM (QcFbt)
Universal suffrage = universal suffering.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 10, 2012 11:38 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: joeindc44 - fully stoked tebow crazed rioter at January 10, 2012 03:35 PM (QxSug)
What we are worried about is that he will go nuclear on conservatives, or at best ignore them once he has what he wants from them. Even when I supported him back in 2008 against McCain his lack of principles left a really bad taste in my mouth, and that is something I cannot forget.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 10, 2012 11:40 AM (sEvRn)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 10, 2012 11:40 AM (YeIP1)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 10, 2012 11:41 AM (PLHIl)
Yes, but, leaving aside these, um, youthful indiscretions and, um, uh, lapses, you could get behind him, right?
Posted by: tubal at January 10, 2012 11:41 AM (BoE3Z)
Posted by: Biggest Loser producers at January 10, 2012 11:42 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: giftogab at January 10, 2012 03:34 PM (SPVfc)
Great campaign slogan.
Posted by: BugPowderJunkie at January 10, 2012 11:42 AM (jWr7a)
That's genius fat man to you.
Posted by: Newt Gingrich at January 10, 2012 11:42 AM (F6KtL)
Re: Romney & Bain
"I think it's a big distraction. And they're picking up on this...and those who are condemning him for it, I think, are arguing like Democrats. You know, restructuring in the free market is a good idea. [...] But the principle of restructuring is a good thing in the market place because if a company is in trouble and they're about to close its doors, restructuring is the only thing that saves the company. Yes, in the short-run there are some cuts that have to be done, and yet in the long-run it's a savings. For conservatives to come through and say restructuring is bad, ah, I think there's a big difference if you're restructuring in the free market and you're doing a positive thing versus somebody who might've taken money from Freddie Mac, and the government is involved...General Motors...and the banks get involved, or you get contracts from the government. That is an entirely different story."
--Ron Paul
today on Laura Ingraham
(transcription by me)
Posted by: from soothie's heart, i stab at thee at January 10, 2012 11:43 AM (sqkOB)
-------------------------------------------
What do you think about Romneys comment on Perry's SS comments? Then shut it. You better tell Mitt to hurry the hell up and defend himself if he wants to mitigate the damage.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 11:43 AM (40rE+)
Yeah, 'cause that's Mitt's problem. Too nicey nice a campaign.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 10, 2012 11:43 AM (0q2P7)
That's an interesting quote for 2 reasons.
1. Ron Paul does a better job defending Romney than Romney.
2. Ron Paul takes a swing at Newt at the end, which is funny.
Posted by: from soothie's heart, i stab at thee at January 10, 2012 11:44 AM (sqkOB)
Romney was the only candidate capable of defeating McCain. And I supported Romney then, by the way, because I wanted to defeat McCain -- this constant crap about "you RINOs who forced McCain on us" notwithstanding. That was the socon populist Huckabee's call.
Ace pointing this out is definitely true. You can go back to 4 years ago and see Ace trying to offer the Romney Campaign advice on enticing more conservative voters to give him a look in order to beat McCain.
Additionally of note in that post is ace pointing out that MassCare was socialistic. That was actually my reason for looking back at posts from 4 years ago; because I think the claim Mitt supporters have been saying that conservatives like his healthcare plan in 2008 was bullshit. I think this verifies that the bull had indeed shat. And just as an added bonus have a laugh at Jeff B. who in the comments proves himself to be one of the "RINOs forcing McCain on us." Comment 50 is especially hilarious.
And I feel that I must add that I do not comment at Hot Air under any name. Anyone there using a form of "buzz" in their name is in no way associated with me and any similarities are purely coincidental.
Posted by: buzzion at January 10, 2012 11:44 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: Lance McCormick at January 10, 2012 11:44 AM (bp264)
Posted by: t-bird at January 10, 2012 11:45 AM (FcR7P)
They don't even do that when they're drunk and giggly on the ONT.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 10, 2012 11:45 AM (FUYSU)
"These idiots are attacking Romney from the left and all it's going to do is burnish his credentials as a conservative. Because it forces you to defend from the right."
Monty Burns would say: "Excelllent!, it's all falling into place."
Posted by: RP is Awful, but not as awful as the others at January 10, 2012 11:45 AM (jdOk/)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 10, 2012 11:46 AM (hUM6f)
Posted by: PJ at January 10, 2012 11:46 AM (DQHjw)
141 -
Me, as a broken record: Perry's doing what Mitt is paying him to do at this point. Yes, make the attack from the left. Not because Perry believes the leftist point, but because Mitt needs the push.
Simple. Clear. Not at all nutty/conspiratorial.
Posted by: Burt TC at January 10, 2012 11:46 AM (TOk1P)
No. The recess appointment thing has just shown that Bambi will simply go full-on authoritarian in that case. We have to control the executive branch too.
Two words: Articles of Impeachment.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 10, 2012 11:46 AM (d0Tfm)
...
3.) The record in Texas? Posted by: izoneguy
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's not going to be his record they attack.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 10, 2012 11:47 AM (jcnm8)
1. Ron Paul does a better job defending Romney than Romney.
-------------------
It's embarrassing. Flip Flopney will defeat Obama? pfft, they cant even defend themselves.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 11:47 AM (40rE+)
Oh good now an Obama spokesman is on Fox gloating about the bi partisian support they are getting from Newt and Mitt against Romney and Bain.
Jesus H. Christ.
Posted by: robtr at January 10, 2012 11:48 AM (MtwBb)
I have been mentioning since 2010 that this next election was going to be uglier than anything this nation has ever seen. Gird your loins, folks. None of this is going to be pretty.
Communists/marxists do not give up without a long protracted fight. It could be very bloody in the symbolic sense (which I hope is all it is) or, when desparation sets in, the literal sense.
Posted by: Soona at January 10, 2012 11:48 AM (/VmDe)
Posted by: Jean at January 10, 2012 11:48 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 10, 2012 11:48 AM (i6RpT)
---
We've been going downhill since the New Deal and its marble-cake federalism, and I think we'll soon realize and admit that we're politically a lot like many European countries in that we have the socialist left vs. the not-quite-so-extreme-socialist left for our parties. We're just using the (D) and (R) for old times' sake.
I'm also pretty sure we true dual-federalism types are the <5% crazy vote, just like the green anarchists on the other end.
Posted by: RogerB at January 10, 2012 11:48 AM (nhjSK)
Posted by: twoslaps at January 10, 2012 11:48 AM (zaXRo)
Obama picks immigration reform advocate to lead domestic policy
President Obama has picked a strong advocate of immigration reform to head the Domestic Policy Council.
The White House announced Tuesday that Cecilia Muñoz, a former senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, would replace Melody Barnes at the top of the council. White House press secretary Jay Carney announced the appointment during his press briefing.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 10, 2012 11:50 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: t-bird at January 10, 2012 11:51 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Soona at January 10, 2012 03:48 PM (/VmDe)
Are we allowed to do that now? I sure hope so!
Posted by: Rep Weiner at January 10, 2012 11:51 AM (SPVfc)
Can't wait to see how all those Romney is a predatory capitalist ads in SC work out for Noot.
"Thanks to a $5 million donation from a wealthy casino owner, a group supporting Newt Gingrich plans to place advertisements in South Carolina this week attacking Mitt Romney as a predatory capitalist who destroyed jobs and communities, a full-scale Republican assault on Mr. RomneyÂ’s business background."
Posted by: WalrusRex
Posted by: from soothie's heart, i stab at thee at January 10, 2012 11:51 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 10, 2012 11:51 AM (UlUS4)
I've been following these elections since Goldwater ran against Johnson. I can't remember the R candidates savaging themselves to this extent.
We have to suspend belief and that these people will make a difference. All I'm seeing is a pack of 2nd-raters clawing each other to maybe, just maybe, get to the top of the heap of pork. Do you really think any of them would be substantially better than the SCF...marginally perhaps.
They're making Luap Nor look good, and you really need to suspend belief for that.
Posted by: Trainer as Minuteman until Juggy is gone at January 10, 2012 11:51 AM (Rojyk)
Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 10, 2012 03:47 PM (jcnm
Whoever is our nominee is going to be Palinized. Nothing will be out-of-bounds with these dem goons.
Posted by: Soona at January 10, 2012 11:51 AM (/VmDe)
I am sure there is something I am missing. Please help me out here.
Posted by: gulfkraken at January 10, 2012 11:51 AM (WBfjO)
Posted by: Cajun Carrot at January 10, 2012 11:51 AM (zHl9z)
Posted by: RNC at January 10, 2012 11:51 AM (xsPba)
Well maybe, or you could try and be even more left than your attack to defend yourself. We'll see on this one a little about what Mitt's instincts are.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 10, 2012 11:51 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Jean at January 10, 2012 11:52 AM (WkuV6)
Note that the $5M comes from a casino owner.
For ads about Mitt being a predatory capitalist.
Wait. This has to be a joke.
Posted by: from soothie's heart, i stab at thee at January 10, 2012 11:52 AM (sqkOB)
Simple. Clear. Not at all nutty/conspiratorial.
Posted by: Burt TC at January 10, 2012 03:46 PM (TOk1P)
Problem with that is, Mittens has to defend himself.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 11:52 AM (40rE+)
Posted by: THE First, and Probably Only, Affirmative Action True Half Black President at January 10, 2012 11:52 AM (jucos)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 10, 2012 03:43 PM (0q2P7)
Well, if he has the brains to turn that aggression on the SCOAMF in the run up to the general, then as far as I'm concerned all is forgiven. We don't need another limp-wristed milk sop in the race. I've been sickened by the weakness our prez candidates have exhibited ever since Bush the Elder. Kinder, gentler conservatism my ass. Only the shocking inadequacy of their Dem opponents allowed any of them to win.
Time for ruthlessness. If Romney can deliver that, then victory is ours. BO is vulnerable on many many fronts. All one has to do is kick in the front door of that puke's corrupt administration and it'll all crumble. When was the last time our side had a candidate with heavy enough boot to get that job done??? Even though he's too liberal for me, Christy is the only other guy I know who's got any balls, and a willingness to tell it like it is. Even if he's a damn gun grabber and underestimates the Muz threat, I'll still support the guy.
It's like being Abe Lincoln defending Grant's penchant for the bottle. I can't spare this man, he fights! But if Romney wusses out in the campaign after the primary, then he's dead to me. I'll still vote for his rotting corpse, but only because the alternative is so much worse.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 10, 2012 11:53 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: dblwmy at January 10, 2012 11:53 AM (BvTwT)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 10, 2012 11:54 AM (hiMsy)
Actually not OT at all - you have succinctly pointed out why it is absolutely essential to defeat the evil clown in 2012. Anyone will do, for me. When all of this nomination business is sorted out and yes, of course it's important and so on and so forth we must put on our big boy and girl panties and vote him out of office.
La Raza, indeed.
Posted by: tubal at January 10, 2012 11:54 AM (BoE3Z)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 10, 2012 11:54 AM (l9zgN)
So has ROMNEY actually come out and defended his position, or is he just sitting back, waiting to see what the most popular response is supposed to be (so that he can embrace that)?
'Cuz all I've ever seen the man do is wait to see which way the wind is blowing before he takes a stand.
I just about had an aneurysm when I saw how whiny he got at one of the recent debates when he thought someone was being mean to him, poor baby! He just couldn't believe that the moderator wasn't willing to step in and tell them to stop beating up on him....
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at January 10, 2012 11:55 AM (0xqzf)
176 -
Really? Because Goldwater was ripped apart by the Rinos... er, Rockafeller types (Goldwater would have been the Rino, from their point of view). They desperately tried to derail him, and after he lost in '64 they declared the conservative wing of the party dead and buried, once and for all.
Posted by: Burt TC at January 10, 2012 11:55 AM (TOk1P)
The White House announced Tuesday that Cecilia Muñoz, a former senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, would replace Melody Barnes at the top of the council. White House press secretary Jay Carney announced the appointment during his press briefing.
Talk about inviting crowds with pitchforks and torches...
This organization should have been shut down and its principles jailed long ago for sedition. They are openly anti-American and advocate the overthrow of the US government and the capture of American land for Mexico.
When is someone going to get the balls to file charges against these people for sedition?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 10, 2012 11:55 AM (d0Tfm)
Sure is nice knowing that the rest of us are relegated to blog comments while a small handful of IA cow tippers and NH maple syrup guzzlers decide who the nominee will be.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 10, 2012 11:55 AM (SY2Kh)
Note that the $5M comes from a casino owner.
For ads about Mitt being a predatory capitalist.
Wait. This has to be a joke.
Posted by: from soothie's heart, i stab at thee at January 10, 2012 03:52 PM (sqkOB)
That is sorta funny. The casinos here pray on the accounts of thepatrons and give them markers even after they run outta moolah. AND they ahave the ability to see what they have in the accounts....so yeah.....
Posted by: giftogab at January 10, 2012 11:56 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: from soothie's heart, i stab at thee at January 10, 2012 11:56 AM (sqkOB)
To hear supposed conservatives using the rhetoric of OWS and DWS and Obama is disheartening, but helpful. I've been choosing by process of elimination, and this socialist talk has cut Perry, the last man standing, from my list of Not Romneys, so I will support Romney.
Now, I was never "anti" Romney like some supposed conservatives. And I've been amused by, for instance, them calling him the establishment candidate when Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul have been in Washington for decades, the first two not even going home when they left Congress, preferring to be influence peddlers.
Posted by: Adjoran at January 10, 2012 11:56 AM (VfmLu)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at January 10, 2012 11:56 AM (21lBC)
In Perry's semi-defense, I don't think he really understood what he was saying. Sigh...
Posted by: sandy burger at January 10, 2012 03:51 PM (ErTq7)
IÂ’ve got to agree. Perry isnÂ’t a bad guy, but right now he seems to be the retarded kid that the smart kids get to do stupid things for them.
ItÂ’s kind of sad.
Posted by: jwest at January 10, 2012 11:57 AM (FdndL)
President Obama has picked a strong advocate of immigration reform to head the Domestic Policy Council.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 10, 2012 03:50 PM (9hSKh)
Seems crazy, until you remember that the disgusting bastard put a pedophile in as the "safe schools" czar. The Obama admin is going it's best to make sure that every hen house is assigned a fox.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 10, 2012 11:58 AM (xUM1Q)
------------------
He could be doing that. He'll probably come out and say something really vanilla and nothing to blunt the attacks.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 11:58 AM (40rE+)
Posted by: booger at January 10, 2012 11:58 AM (EjNp5)
Posted by: Rick Perry at January 10, 2012 11:58 AM (jucos)
jwest at January 10, 2012 03:57 PM
He could be worse. He could be a quitter, or have no political spine. Either way.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 10, 2012 11:59 AM (kaOJx)
holy shit it is not a joke!
"Thanks to a $5 million donation from a wealthy casino owner, a group supporting Newt Gingrich plans to place advertisements in South Carolina this week attacking Mitt Romney as a predatory capitalist who destroyed jobs and communities, a full-scale Republican assault on Mr. RomneyÂ’s business background."
Posted by: WalrusRex
hahahahahaha!
Posted by: from soothie's heart, i stab at thee at January 10, 2012 11:59 AM (sqkOB)
As if......
I know, but a Boy can fap, can't he?
This goes back to my previous comment: when will somebody actually start doing something about this shit? Can't any of this be proven in a court?
I'd think charges agains La Raza would be a slam dunk from the stuff of theirs I've read. How hard can this be?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 10, 2012 11:59 AM (d0Tfm)
186 -
Not if they're using the Nixon '68 playbook. Honest, if you don't know the history, Nixon essentially remained silent, stood "above" the bickering going on all around him, both within the party and without.
It's looked for some time to me like that's why Mitt doesn't say much of anything.
Posted by: Burt TC at January 10, 2012 12:00 PM (TOk1P)
Posted by: THE First, and Probably Only, Affirmative Action True Half Black President at January 10, 2012 12:01 PM (jucos)
"During Saturday night's GOP primary debate in New Hampshire, Gingrich said: 'I'm not nearly as enamored of a Wall Street model where you can flip companies, you can go in and have leveraged buyouts, you can basically take out all the money, leaving behind the workers.'"
On the other hand...
"...Upon leaving Congress in 1999, the former Speaker joined private equity firm Forstmann Little & Co. as a member of its advisory board."
Posted by: Miss80s at January 10, 2012 12:02 PM (d6QMz)
I am sure there is something I am missing. Please help me out here.
Posted by: gulfkraken at January 10, 2012 03:51 PM (WBfjO)
Huntsman can go, but the daughters - they stay. IYKWIM
Posted by: Not an Artist at January 10, 2012 12:03 PM (F1JEL)
I'd think charges agains La Raza would be a slam dunk from the stuff of theirs I've read. How hard can this be?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 10, 2012 03:59 PM (d0Tfm)
Except that the Left need not obey those laws. That's been proven repeatedly.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 10, 2012 12:03 PM (xUM1Q)
He could be worse. He could be a quitter, or have no political spine. Either way.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 10, 2012 03:59 PM (kaOJx)
At least my gal still has a shot. Perry is dead to the party now.
Posted by: jwest at January 10, 2012 12:04 PM (FdndL)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 10, 2012 12:05 PM (kaOJx)
-----------------
Are we talking about Warren Buffet? Bill Gates? Romneycare? Fact: None are conservative.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 10, 2012 12:05 PM (40rE+)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at January 10, 2012 03:56 PM (21lBC)
I had the same reaction. What's next? A ten-thousand word treatise saying Glenn Beck was right?
Posted by: Soona at January 10, 2012 12:05 PM (/VmDe)
jwest, how does a private citizen have a chance to be POTUS? You have to be a candidate and run for the office. You know, have the spine to throw your hat in the ring.
Sarah is only in politics now for one reason, the money.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 10, 2012 12:07 PM (kaOJx)
Posted by: January at January 10, 2012 12:09 PM (j9etX)
Posted by: Fritz at January 10, 2012 12:10 PM (/ZZCn)
I am sure there is something I am missing. Please help me out here.
Posted by: gulfkraken at January 10, 2012 03:51 PM (WBfjO)
They are disgruntled with Obama's incompetence and want a competent leftist to vote for.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 10, 2012 12:13 PM (sEvRn)
Posted by: ontherocks at January 10, 2012 12:14 PM (HBqDo)
Posted by: Miss80s at January 10, 2012 12:15 PM (d6QMz)
jwest, how does a private citizen have a chance to be POTUS? You have to be a candidate and run for the office. You know, have the spine to throw your hat in the ring.
Sarah is only in politics now for one reason, the money.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 10, 2012 04:07 PM (kaOJx)
The national press still hangs on every word she says. She could publish her grocery list and it would be a NY Times best seller. Palin is in a position to either jump in or wait for a brokered convention.
The coyote-shooting political genius will be heading back to Texas to permanently reassess his campaign, riding his pygmy pony into the sunset while people struggle to remember his name six months from now.
Posted by: jwest at January 10, 2012 12:18 PM (FdndL)
"brokered convention"
You Palinista's wet dream is a brokered convention where St Sarah the Spineless is chosen as the candidate WITHOUT GETTING ANY PRIMARY VOTES.
Sure, the GOP will hand the nomination to a quitter.
Perry at least will finish his elected term, excuse me terms, as Texas Governor.
Palin will write another book, pitch another novel, and cash in.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 10, 2012 12:22 PM (kaOJx)
If they genuinely like him that much, can he end up as the replacement VP for Biden?
I've been predicting that for months.
It would explain so much, including why he's walking around insulting conservatives.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 10, 2012 12:23 PM (XdlcF)
To summarize: romney's a sleezebag
He's a win-lose guy, not a win-win guy.
And now he's whining and has his minions crying about how the other guys are attacking capitalism. Bullshit. They're attacking a sleezebag.
Posted by: proreason at January 10, 2012 12:23 PM (gbQEv)
Perry has accomplished 3 things St Sarah hasn't. 1. ran for POTUS 2. Won re election as a governor (Romney didn't do that either) 3. finish a elected term as a governor.
jwest, do you have all of St Sarah's "reality" show on DVD or DVR?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 10, 2012 12:24 PM (kaOJx)
No one maintaining any grip on reality would support a nomination for Palin at this point.Whether it be a late run or a convention bid.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 10, 2012 12:26 PM (0q2P7)
I've been following these elections since Goldwater ran against Johnson. I can't remember the R candidates savaging themselves to this extent.
We have to suspend belief and that these people will make a difference. All I'm seeing is a pack of 2nd-raters clawing each other to maybe, just maybe, get to the top of the heap of pork. Do you really think any of them would be substantially better than the SCF...marginally perhaps.
They're making Luap Nor look good, and you really need to suspend belief for that.
Posted by: Trainer as Minuteman until Juggy is gone at January 10, 2012 03:51 PM
It doesn't seem to occur to people that the reason the fights are so savage this year is that the GOP nomination is worth having, because Obama is a SCOAMF and will be fired in November. I really don't think any of them thought they had a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected in 2008; they all knew Bush was the SCOAMF then and the GOP was toast.
Posted by: rockmom at January 10, 2012 12:27 PM (NYnoe)
I'm reaching out to Cavuto to express that, despite him being one of my favorite talking heads, I will skip his show entirely if he has that fat fucker on one more time.
Do you suppose FNC will have anything to say about that vid of him trashing Bachmann and Perry?
It makes you wonder what type of banter takes place with his panels prior to them casting votes.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 10, 2012 12:31 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: rockmom at January 10, 2012 12:32 PM (NYnoe)
Posted by: ChristyBlinky loves Rubio at January 10, 2012 12:33 PM (baL2B)
IÂ’m not saying that I believe Palin will jump in or get the nod at a brokered convention.
All IÂ’m saying is that between Palin and Perry, she has the better chance of becoming president in 2012. ThatÂ’s how bad PerryÂ’s chances are.
God, IÂ’m so glad I didnÂ’t waste the last few months promoting this idiot.
Posted by: jwest at January 10, 2012 12:33 PM (FdndL)
Posted by: rightist friend at January 10, 2012 12:35 PM (z+hCt)
Posted by: Miss80s at January 10, 2012 04:15 PM (d6QMz)
Look at the bright side - they are making this whole attack line look pretty stupid. How much stupider is it going to sound coming from the SCOAMF who has half of Goldman Sachs in his cabinet, had Jon Corzine as his chief bundler, and just made a Citigroup executive who got a $900,000 bonus in 2008 - while Citi took $30 billion in TARP money and a half a trillion in Fed loans - his Chief of Staff?
Posted by: rockmom at January 10, 2012 12:36 PM (NYnoe)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 10, 2012 04:31 PM (piMMO)
They're not panels, they're Budweiser Drinking Tours.
Posted by: ontherocks at January 10, 2012 12:36 PM (HBqDo)
Posted by: right leaning coffee cup at January 10, 2012 12:39 PM (z+hCt)
Posted by: rightist friend at January 10, 2012 04:35 PM (z+hCt)
No doubt this genius voted for Obama in 2008 though. So much for wanting the most qualified candidate!
It's liberal snobs and elitists who like Huntsman, because he talks like a condescending college professor at a wine and cheese party and is a former bureaucrat. He is just their type, the smarty-pants who they think should be making all the decisions for the rest of us dumbfucks.
Posted by: rockmom at January 10, 2012 12:40 PM (NYnoe)
He didn't dispute that but added that Huntsman seemed the very best candidate---more qualified than Barry.
If Huntsman had run in 2008 I probably would have voted for him.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 10, 2012 12:50 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: newbian at January 10, 2012 12:52 PM (i7mEE)
Posted by: January at January January at January January at January January at January at January 10, 2012 12:54 PM (j9etX)
Posted by: newbian at January 10, 2012 12:58 PM (i7mEE)
The good news is that since I live in California, I won't have to vote for Romney if he's the nominee.
Posted by: OCBill at January 10, 2012 12:59 PM (YJvVE)
Posted by: Barney Frank at January 10, 2012 01:19 PM (+ETde)
Posted by: Anton at January 10, 2012 01:26 PM (7/zQY)
Posted by: Michael Bates at January 10, 2012 01:37 PM (HRmxh)
As for the primaries-- for me, at least, all this Bain talk makes me like Romney more. All the supposed negatives-- the ruthlessness of the work, cutting what needed to be cut, killing what needed to be killed, for the sake of efficiency, in an attempt to salvage the whole-- gives me some hope that Romney might have some of what it takes to do some of the difficult stuff that needs to be done. As a businessman, at least, Romney wasn't a squish.
I have no idea how this is playing in NH, but my impression of the right-wing blogosphere & MSM is that the attack's mostly backfired, and rallied some unlikely conservative defenders of Romney. Some here wonder why he isn't doing more to defend himself; I agree with Burt that that may not be necessary. No need, at this point, for the lady to protest too much. He already efficiently defended himself during the debate; he's made a pithy cogent statement on the matter. If he's being well defended from many conservative corners, with fire being returned on the attackers, why should he enter the fray himself? As long as this isn't seriously imperiling him in the primaries, and there are other eloquent high-profile voices defending him, there's no need for him to unfurl whatever defensive/ offensive strategy he's going to use against Obama now; that can wait until he gets to the general campaign.
IIRC, in 2008 Obama did very little defending of his weak spots & liabilities, in both the primary and general-- mostly others did the defending (and attacking) for him. Obviously, Romney can't do that kind of outsourcing in the general-- he won't have the MSM in his pocket, running interference-- but it may not hurt him to keep above the fray for now. To insist on defending himself (more than he already has) is to turn the spotlight back on him-- and on what conservatives may not like about him. Better to keep the spotlight on his opponents, who're making fools of themselves at the moment, annoying & alienating many of their supporters.
Posted by: lael at January 10, 2012 01:45 PM (eAN1f)
The good news is that since I live in California, I won't have to vote for Romney if he's the nominee.
Is that true for National elections too? I thought only for state, gubernatorial ones...
Posted by: I too am hosed in California at January 10, 2012 01:52 PM (OyQf0)
Posted by: The 4th bestest blogger since Lincoln, FDR and that other guy at January 10, 2012 02:12 PM (+UYSd)
Posted by: garfish at January 10, 2012 02:27 PM (h6jtj)
Posted by: Mr. Wonderful at January 10, 2012 04:10 PM (vWrND)
Posted by: Smart Trust ePub at January 10, 2012 11:08 PM (DLvML)
Posted by: A Universe from Nothing ePub at January 10, 2012 11:29 PM (+M9J5)
Posted by: Greedy Bastards Mobi at January 11, 2012 12:09 AM (wwGAA)
Posted by: Poor Economics Audiobook at January 11, 2012 12:19 AM (Cndsw)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.254 seconds, 389 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Look at this.
http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/120110_ballotaccess.jpg
Posted by: aquaviva at January 10, 2012 11:00 AM (hkXlB)