1 Non-issue per Laura Ingram and me.

2 How is it a non-issue? What's the argument?

3

It isn't a non-issue. AT ALL.

This goes to the heart of what we are trying to blow up here, a system of office-holding and influence-peddling and mutual back-scratching that has directly led to trillion-dollar bank bailouts, $15 trillion in debt, and a Congress with a 14% approval rating.  The notion that Newt Gingrich, who spent the last 15 years being pretty much a poster child for this system, is the guy who will blow it up is just laughable.

 

4

But I guess none of that matters, all that matters is denying Mitt Romney the chance to be President.

 

Good job, conservatives.

5 How is it a non-issue? What's the argument?

LI's argument was that they should be debating differences in policy not consulting fees and wealth. That was on F&F about an hour ago.

6 GOD, who cares!?

Fannie Mac is a legitimate organization which benefits millions (my home loan is an FM loan).  Consulting is legal (last time I checked) and so is lobbying.  Consultants make a lot of money.

We have HUGE problems facing this country and THIS is what we are talking about?  Newt broke no laws, did nothing unethical so get the f*ck off it already.

7 Don't worry.  Newt's a good debater!!

8 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

9

I implore everyone to go get "Reckless Endangerment" on their Kindle and read it immediately.  You will see what Newt Gingrich was a part of.  It's a big fucking deal to me.

 

10 There's influence and then there's outright lies, subterfuge and destruction (which is why this household won't be tuning into to SOTU tonight. If Newt can use his wily wit to influence some independents, I'll settle. But my idealistic heart hearts Santorum.

11 The Mutt folks should be happy Newt brought this up. It will co-opt Obama's use of it later.

12 Who said Noot is a perfect candidate?  Aren't we always being lectured by our betters not to let the lack of a perfect candidate end up fucking us in the ass?  There's plenty of donk perfidy on the side of Freddy and Fannie for this not to be an issue.

13 .......i don't like either of them but their success is impressive.....and should be applauded.....

14 When Mitt was at Bain Capital, did they employ lobbyists?

15 They should be debating policy?  That's letting Newt off the hook.  The whole reason people are supporting him is that they think he and not Romney will blow up Washington.  That ship sailed a long time ago.  Neither of them will.  But people who still think Newt will do it really need to understand how much a part of the Washington lobbying scene he has been.  For chrissakes, he had Bob Freaking Walker standing right behind him during his victory speech in South Carolina.  Walker is one of the biggest of the bigtime DC lobbyists.

16 rockmom, Thank you for reminding me! I had wanted to read that; great suggestion to get it on Kindle. I'll do that.

17 Yes, Newt is a liar, so is Mutt. No differences there.

18

.......i don't like either of them but their success is impressive.....and should be applauded.....

Yeah, but the point is that one guy's material success is wholly the result of "legal" graft from the Federal Treasury.  I thought the Tea People despised that sort of thing and wanted to change it.  But now I know that the Tea People really wanted the opportunity to tell John King where to get off.

19 >>>They should be debating policy? That's letting Newt off the hook. The whole reason people are supporting him is that they think he and not Romney will blow up Washington. +1 Another big reason is Romney's mandate, which Gingrich was supporting on Meet the Press as of May 2011. Yes, 2011.

20 Reckless Endangerment on the kindle is more expensive than the paperback at Amazon. The publishers sure know how to market don't they?

21 Only a fool believes that Newt is some Washington Outsider.  The fact that he was good at navigating DC politics irks Romney because Romney was so fantastic at politics he decided not to run for re-election rather than get trounced, then ran for President for 6 years and couldn't move the needle on his Republican support.

I don't care about Bain Capital itself (it does look bad- and so it needs to be addressed).  I don't care about Mitt's taxes in themselves.  I don't care about Newts time at Freddie Mac in itself.

At this point, I care about three things.
1) A meteor smashing into the next debate so we can hit the reset button.  But that's not going to happen.
2) Record: which of the candidates, on his record, has actually proven successful at achieving Conservative goals?  Or which has come closest to doing so?
3) Which one actually is bothering to try to get my vote?

Okay, number 1 is off the table.

Number 2 goes decidedly to Newt.  Imperfect though they were, Newt pushed Welfare reform and a Balanced Budget all the way through the federal law making process.  That's a big thing.  There's also the fact, as some yesterday were pointing out, that prior to 1994, it was just assumed that the Democrats were going to control the House, that the Senate might go back and forth, but the House was solidly in the D camp for a generation.  It was Newt and his Contract with America that changed that.

Number 3 also goes decidedly to Newt.  Until the SC Results came in, Mitt had shown absolutely no interest in getting the votes of actual grass-roots conservatives.  He played the aloof elite, strolling to his coronation.

22 As an investor in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I am OUTRAGED!

23 Does Tiffany do offshore accounts?

24 It isn't about money or the legality of consulting/lobbying, it is about Newt defending an engine of socialism from conservative attacks. While we enjoy Newt chewing on the media's leg, let's not harbor any illusions that he is a conservative.

25 >>>It was Newt and his Contract with America that changed that. It wasn't. Santorum was talking about this. I had forgotten, but his mention of it reminded me, as I had been following the elections at the time. The big issue at the time was the check-kiting scandal. The Contract with America was mentioned, but it didn't actually get much traction. It was discussed a lot more after the election than before it. I'm sure it had some effect, but not as much as you're claiming. Do you think people were more animated by the debacle of Hillarycare (similar to ObamaCare in as much as the politicians were ignoring us, though there, they did cave) and the check-kiting scandal or a series of procedural promises made by a politiican they were only vaguely aware of?

26 shit this no paragraph thing is annoying. How do you make paragraphs?

27 Pixy has been struggling this morning.

double entry check for paragraph.

28 Works fine

29 Saying the Contract With America wasn't a big deal before the 94 elections is revisionist history.   I certainly remember it being discussed and thinking it was one of the best marketing strategies I'd ever seen by a party.

30

Test of link to Reckless Endangerment

31 Link system still broken.

32 you just double return for a paragraph? test

33 nope didn't work for me. Double entry means what, Vic?

34 shit this no paragraph thing is annoying. How do you make paragraphs?
---------------
When two sentences love each other very much...

35 Before Newt is given too much credit for advancing conservative principals, let's try to remember that he undermined some of those efforts by his ineffective management style and his being charmed/intimidated by Clinton. 

I particularly remember Gingrich standing on the floor of the House railing about the sale of missile secrets to China by Doral, and how he was going to talk about it every day until he got some answers.

And then we never heard a single word about it again.  I surmise this was when Clinton called him in for a meeting and told him that he was just like Clinton. (Or,  "I know about Callista and if you don't shut your trap it will be all over the papers and TV within 24 hours.")

In a very real sense,  a sale allowed by Clinton,  which endangered American security,  was given a pass by Gingrich.  To this day I would like to know why.

36 #35 Should read LORAL,  not Doral.  Sorry for the flub.

37 The Contract was a way of nationalizing the election.  It was a clever marketing ploy, but the fact is that the Contract itself did not win the GOP the House in 1994.  It was a combination of a massive tax increase which passed by a single vote in 1993, a gun control bill, the House checking scandal,  Hillarycare, Clinton playing footsie with some Marxist "industrial policy" shit, and a bunch of other stuff.  Basically, people thought they were getting a moderate Democrat with Clinton but he let the liberals in Congress run over him.  The only difference between that election and 2010 was that Congress actually passed the health care bill, which pissed people off even more.

38 It's really simple.  We're down to a two man race, and you go to war with the army you're given.  What that means is Newt simply has to be the same or more conservative than Romney.  Not perfect, not a True Conservative(tm), none of that because there's no such thing in this race.

And as per AllenG above, Mitt needs to stop acting like T. Coddington Van Voorhees and start trying to earn peoples votes instead of "here I am now, annoint me".

39 People supporting Mitt are asking "Why don't you support Mitt? What is it?". ......People rarely enjoy something being forced on them. ......We're having someone forced on us, someone who doesn't care about us, someone who is a member of the elitists who look down on us. .....But we're supposed to shut up, and take it, because of the fear of another 4 years of the SCoaMT.

40 I disagree about policy discussions letting Newt off the hook. As of right now, I'm leaning toward him as a result of his history of real conservative results in the face of heavy opposition. Romney has zero results in that regard. Because Newt has "it"- The Undeniable Star Power of Newt Gingrich and Romney and the others don't it's extremely important that we know exactly where he stands on issues like energy production and global warming. Issues where he has been weak in the past to say the least.

41 #38  Let's see if he does that.  His appearance at the Ham place in South Carolina indicated a guy who was a bit less stiff.

I think part of the problem is that he is a reserved man and is trying to follow a well-thought out plan,  which doesn't always work once you are in the race.  If he manages to switch gears,  he will be a better candidate in the fall.  If he can't,  then he will lose to Newt or even Santorum.

42 Eh, linky no work. Blog is broken again.

43 Am I nuts or were you agin' "purity" just yesterday, Ace? I told you supporting Newt was the opposite of purity. (Glad to see I'm headed for a career in influence peddling!)

44 Do you think people were more animated by the debacle of Hillarycare (similar to ObamaCare in as much as the politicians were ignoring us, though there, they did cave) and the check-kiting scandal or a series of procedural promises made by a politiican they were only vaguely aware of?

Okay... and who was in charge of the House when Hillarycare got squashed?  Well, rather, who was in charge of the opposition in the House at that point.

And (being a teenager at the time) I didn't pay that much attention- but I knew about Check Kiting only because my dad is a banker (not surprisingly, it came up occasionally), and was fairly aware of the Contract (if not, as a teenager, specifically what it meant or what was in it).

Besides, you're the one who tried to give Boehner the credit for 2010- doesn't that mean that Newt should get the credit for 1994?

45

#35 Yeas, I am really wondering now if the stories were true and Clinton told Newt that he knew about Callista and was going to blow him up if he did anything to really hurt Clinton.  It would be tacky to ask Newt the question directly, but I wish somebody would. 

 

The thing that scares me most about Newt as nominee is that Bill Clinton himself will gleefully play the hatchet man for Obama.  This will be the Last Campaign of Slick Willie's dreams, the chance to finally settle all of his scores with the Republicans.  I'm pretty condifent that we'll actually see more of Clinton than Obama on the campaign trail if we nominate Newt.  Obama will go campaign in the black and Latino areas and leave the rest to Slick.  And there won't be a damn thing we can do about it.

 

If we want this campaign to be about the 1990s, we will lose it.  That would be an absolute gift from Heaven to Barack Obama.

46 How do you get paragraphs?  The blog is broken.

47 May the fleas of a thousand stray dogs infest the pubic area of the asshole who fucked up the blog yesterday.

48 Sorry Perry did not have a brain, then we would not have attack a day on whoever is NOT Perry on this blog. It truly gets to be a weary thing. Nobody is any good, can do us any good, will manifest just the right quantum states to please many of the bloggers here. We get either Romney or Newt, no choices left now. I blame the GOP establishment, and the shortsightedness of those that would have been great candidates, but actually think there is time for another election cycle. The problem is too many in the political world do not have a sense of emergency, of urgency about the state we are in. That is the greatest attraction of Newt, he is flaky, full of baggage, but he has a sense of history that MUST be a part of candidates now. Romney is going to manage a four-alarm fire with a squirt gun. And according to many here Newt will also have a squirt gun but his will be filled with gasoline. So then what are our alternatives? Personally I think it is over, the American experiment is dead, just not buried yet.

49

AllenG, believe it or not, the guy who actually killed Hillarycare was none other than Arlen Specter.  He and his staff came up with a brilliant chart of all the bureaucracy that the bill would have created, and Specter brought it out on the Senate floor, and it was pretty much over.  The country recoiled at the Rube Goldberg machine that was displayed on that chart, and because Specter was seen as a liberal Republican, his opposition really hurt. 

50 If we're supporting Gingrich because he's ostensibly conservative, shouldn't this stuff bother us, whether it can be used in a political ad or not?

It should.  Just as much as Romney's obvious flaws.

Which means it's a wash, despite your repeated attempts to insist that it's not.

51 #46  I am just typing my answers as if I were writing an email.  I am not using any sort of HTML at all.

I am puzzled as to why everyone else is having problems.

52 Oh, and BTW, $25,000 a month is a pretty big consulting contract.  Considering that Newt probably had one or two meetings with the Freddie Mac lobbyists,  he was probably more overpaid than Mitt Romney.

53 >>Which means it's a wash, despite your repeated attempts to insist that it's not. Posted by: WTF at January 24, 2012 09:07 AM (gVqQ3) Well if all else is equal, how about we choose the guy without Palin-level disapproval ratings?

54

Obama's ads write themselves.  He will trumpet his new crackdown on lobbyists and that there aren't any in his Adminstrato, and go down the list of all of Gingrich's non-lobbyng lobbying contracts.  He'll portray himself as the guy who is trying to save America from the special interests like those who ought Newt Gingrich. 

55 @53 because that guy historically loses elections.

56 4 But I guess none of that matters, all that matters is denying Mitt Romney the chance to be President.Good job, conservatives. You decry Newt for being a creature of the system, complain endlessly about his wives, as if you were one of them, then you post this? Do you think Romney is the answer, or any answer at all? Most of us that do not accept Romney, neither hate him or act like he destroyed our company while at Bain. I take it he is a decent man, but he comes across as someone that is going through his checklist: Succesful businessman: check Turned around Olympics: check Governor of a State: check "Umm...what next, O, I know President": check

57 >>>Which means it's a wash, despite your repeated attempts to insist that it's not. Yes it's a wash. So we go for the guy who's less likely to win...?

58 Ace, everyone knows about Newt. If not every specific detail, they know,the trail of his past bandwagons. I guess it's all you have but ironically you keep building up that weakness which is his biggest strength, and beiing the only not Romney left standing, a crucial strength. Newts the hired gun. To getbwhat he wants he has to be what we want, and argue our case now, and he's good at it. He's an ambulance chaser for a sick America, and damn our chances of throwing off some weak- ass settlement and intimidating the insurer or persuading the jury JuSt WENT UP!

59 And I'm still shaking my head at the "purity" 180.

60

54 Obama's ads write themselves.....Posted by: rockmom ---

Yeah, the same can be said about Romney. ....The ads will be about how Mitt "bought up US companies, closed them down, killed US jobs and created jobs overseas".

 

 

61 I will take everything Newt ever did with his dick as if he did it to me.

62 I would like to point out that Obama has a history of "clearing the field" so that he gets an opponent he can defeat.  He also has a history of using the media and the courts to aid and abet him.

Several people never entered the race, some no doubt through intimidation and threats we don't know about.

Of those who did enter the race,  they have been whittled down by scandal and magnified flubs.

So now,  we are down to 4.  Santorum apparently did not succumb to a threat to release his wife's personal history, which is a point for him.  The worst thing so far on Romney is that he is rich.  Gingrich has some stuff which hasn't come out yet, although there are hints of stuff coming.

I ask myself how it is that a governor of Texas is out of the race, as well as a governor of Minnesota,  while a very unpopular former Speaker of the House is a front runner.

And no,  I don't think it is unreasonable to be a bit suspicious.  I still remember how Ryan got replaced in Obama''s senate race by Alan Keyes.  And also how Mike Ditka expressed interest in running for that seat and then suddenly changed his mind.

63 "Yes it's a wash. So we go for the guy who's less likely to win...?"

Based on the only polls that matter (actual votes) he's no less likely to win than Mitt. 

Don't insult the electorate, ace.  They'll just bow their necks even more.  You'll have to woo them.

Also: we're not going for "the guy who's less likely to win," we're going for the guy who actually asked us for our votes.  If Mitt doesn't want them, we'll give them to someone who does.

64

 Newt equals John McCain 2.0.

 He's only conservative because you really, really want to believe that he's conservative.

 (Romney equals Trump lite, but with a better wardrobe and hairdresser.)

 

65 I can't believe that Newt's response to the accusations of influence peddling is to turn around and point the finger at Romney for investing in Fannie and Freddie.

Once again, how dare that rich man risk his own money in such organizations.

Damn that rich guy.

66 I have no illusions that Newt is not as liberal (if perhaps in different areas) as Mitt. My issue is that I have no assurance Mitt won't veto an ObamneyCare repeal. That, and Mitt has a glass jaw, and will fold like a cheap tent when the left decides it's his turn for "vetting".

67

ItÂ’s not a two man race yet.  Sure, Newt and Mitt are the main factors in Florida, but thatÂ’s to be expected with NewtÂ’s supporters in the Panhandle and along the Space Coast and Mitt doing well in the more affluent south.

Santorum did well last.  He will probably outperform the polls. 

Remember, these early states have half the delegates they normally had and are all proportional.  Lots of time and states left to go.  IÂ’m still in favor of taking this all the way to the convention and picking someone new.  As it stands, thatÂ’s the most likely outcome.

Newt has about a 70% of blowing up in huge ball of flames.  If he doesnÂ’t have an actual girlfriend that heÂ’s been seeing on the side, the Mormon Church or the Illuminati will invent one just long enough to destroy him.  If not that, then something else that takes him out of the running.  At that point, someone else will jump in just to take delegates away from Mitt.

This is turning out to be fun.

68 If only us posters here were the MSM and had turned our steely eyes upon Obama and explored all the shitstains on his underwear...sigh

69 (Romney equals Trump lite, but with a better wardrobe and hairdresser.)

Ahem. MUCH better hairdresser.

70 >If he doesnÂ’t have an actual girlfriend that heÂ’s been seeing on the side, the Mormon Church or the Illuminati will invent one just long enough to destroy him.<

This made me giggle.

71 Newt is not John McCain 2.0, that distinction belongs to Obama. We only had version 1 to vote for, and nobody, but nobody wants version 1. Newt is more like Reagan .5

72 Of course Gingrich was peddling influence. It's exactly the system-within-the-system that creates the unelected "elite" so often railed about. Will Gingrich be able to escape the charge with some fancy jargonin', I wouldn't put him past him. Think of how many hundreds and thousands of lies Newt must have told throughout all his marriages, his affairs, his ethics investigation, etc. He has decades of experience dissembling, this campaign is only a few months long. I wouldn't bet against him being able to dupe a bunch of people eager to be duped.

73 Romney talks like a conservative and he seems like he has conservative instincts.. but his record and past statements contradict his conservative claims. But the same exact thing holds true for Gingrich. He's far less conservative than he claims to be. Worse, Gingrich has RECENTLY defended single-payer health insurance and RECENTLY trashed Paul Ryan's economic plan as "right wing social engineering". 

74 Newt has about a 70% of blowing up in huge ball of flames. If he doesnÂ’t have an actual girlfriend that heÂ’s been seeing on the side, the Mormon Church or the Illuminati will invent one just long enough to destroy him. 

Posted by: jwest at January 24, 2012 09:20 AM (FdndL)

Uhhhh....what???

75 If Romney wins the election you think we will not hear about the Mormon belief in ruling a planet, or is that Jehovah Witnesses?

76 67.....This is turning out to be fun. ....Posted by: jwest ----- Palin will never be president. ....She damaged herself beyond repair with that long tease. A president needs to be able to make a decision, quickly.

77

LI's argument was that they should be debating differences in policy not consulting fees and wealth. That was on FF about an hour ago.

--

This is a bullshit attempt to conflate Washington influence peddling with legit earning of wealth. Newt's sucking at the Freddie Mac teat is not equal or comparable in any way with Romney's legit (from everything I've seen) earnings and wealth from Bain capital. They're not the same and it's dishonest to pretend they are

78 If we're supporting Gingrich because he's ostensibly conservative, shouldn't this stuff bother us, whether it can be used in a political ad or not?

Yes, it should bother us.  There are several things about Gingrich that bother me - his serial adultery and divorces, his deviations from conservative orthodoxy (although, some such deviations were not necessarily deviations at the time they occurred, but are considered deviations now).

But, on the whole, Gingirch is far, far more conservative than Romney.  I do not see where that is even debatable.  Romney is running as a right-of-center candidate and has never run as or governed as a conservative in any election, nor has he fought any conservative battles.  Claiming Romney is conservative or more conservative than Gingrich is simply dishonest.  Shouldn't such dishonesty bother us also?

So, we are ultimately left with only 2 questions:

1)  who has the better chance in the general election and

2)  assuming it is Romney, is it worth giving up conservative policy ideals to beat Obama.

First, I disagree with some conventional wisdom that Romney has the better chance in the General Election.  I see both Romney and Gingrich as flawed candidates, but in different ways. 

Romney is flawed in that he is a terrible candidate who is not particularly good on the stump, does not excite anyone - the base or independents, has no theme or reason for running other than desire to be president, is not good at reacting to attacks, is seen as not having any core values, and has a pretty tin political ear as evidenced by the primary thus far.  And his vaunted organization has not been proven in the primaries thus far.

Gingrich is flawed in that he has a lot of baggage that may drag him down and could potentially make a serious gaffe.  However, a lot of that baggage is baggage that would normally drag him down on the right, not the left or middle, so it is unclear to me that such baggage will drag him down.  The adultery - if he wins the GOP primary, I don't see independents or democrats caring much about it.  they loved Clinton after all.  Lobbying - again, most independents and non-tea party types are not going to care about someone working as a lobbyist.  It is not independents or democrats who dislike gov't and look at gov't as the enemy.  It is like being an attorney - you are paid to advocate for someone - that doesn't mean you like that person or agree with the position they are taking.  So, I'm not sure his "baggage" is as much of a hurdle in the general election as people are making it out to be.  And, aside from teh baggage, Gingrich is the much better candidate in terms of stump speech, attacks, reacting to attacks, debates, etc. and has the potential to excite the base and even some independents (He may not currently have the organization, but I think that will get taken care of if he is the nominee).  As to the potential for a campaign killing gaffe, I think it is unlikely.

However on balance, I think Gingrich stands the better chance against Obama.

As to point 2, I 'm not sure it is a win to have Romney in the WH.  My argument has long been that Romney will serve only as a caretaker, will not tackle tough issues like entitlement reform and will not advance any conservative policies.  He will instead seek to "manage" the status quo - which means all of the significant gains of the last 4 years the left has made become hardened and much,. much more difficult to undo.  As far as Obamacare - if it is not overturned by SCOTUS, Romney will never put in the time or effort to get it repealed.  He will tweak it at the edges.  So, the left will have won the most important battle, making the federal gov't responsible for our very health and expanding the commerce clause to cover absolutely everything, giving the federal gov't unfettered power. 

So, on balance I am not convinced that electing Romney as president is good in the long term for the US.  In the short term he would definitely be better than Obama, but the damage of allowing liberal gains to harden may be worse then the damage Obama might do in another 4 years.  Plus, if SCOTUS does not overturn Obamacare, supreme court picks are not that important any more as the left will have won the greatest victory possible at SCOTUS - essentially expanding the commerce clause to cover absolutely everything.  So, the one major factor that could sway me to believe Romney is worthwhile as President may not be that important come election day.

79 I have no illusions that Newt is not as liberal (if perhaps in different areas) as Mitt. My issue is that I have no assurance Mitt won't veto an ObamneyCare repeal.

Romney has said, repeatedly, that he will repeal Obamacare. So, what makes his statement less trustworthy than that of Newt who has supported the individual mandate in the past?

80 newt tried to compare what he did for freddie mac to what romney did at a private company called bain, "you consulted, i consulted..."; this alone should disqualify him; a typical statist who cannot admit that selling access to various politicians to influence regulation is slighly different than consulting companies on how to maximize their roi

81 Ace, you've got a formatting problem in this thread. Paragraphs and spacing and italics not being recognized

82 >She damaged herself beyond repair with that long tease. A president needs to be able to make a decision, quickly.<

And I know this may sound snooty, but something about hearing someone in a position such as she use the phrase "panties in a wad" about a sitting governor is, well, crass.

83 Mook, I know. We had a saboteur yesterday and had to disable HTML to stop him. Pixy's working on a solution. For now, it's disabled.

84

76 67.....This is turning out to be fun. ....Posted by: jwest ----- Palin will never be president. ....She damaged herself beyond repair with that long tease. A president needs to be able to make a decision, quickly.

Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 09:26 AM (ALwK/)

 

How about the person I’ve been advocating for the pick at the convention – Rubio.

85 Does the
command
work?

86 >Ace, you've got a formatting problem in this thread. Paragraphs and spacing and italics not being recognized<

This thread????

87 Has anyone said yet that it is still a 4 man race.  Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are still in the race.  Yes, last night there were many times I wished someone would run out with stools for them while they watched the verbal dance, but yeah, they are still there.  Each of the three top contenders won 1 state, let's not forget that Rick Santorum, despite the incompetency of the Iowa GOP, won in Iowa.

I know everyone called Michelle Bachman crazy eyes and you made fun of her over the guardisil but she was very important.  She literally schooled the entire country on obamacare and what it takes to repeal obamacare and the president, whoever it is, cannot do it alone.  The libs are making fun of her and when they do they repeat, almost word for word, the speech she made in every single debate in which she participated.  Eventually, that might just resonate at an inopportune time for the party now in power.

I miss herman cain, that evil philanderer.  He taught the entire country simple facts about the economy.  His 9 9 9 plan was brilliant in its simplicity.  It was/is an undaunting straightforward education for the "you said there would be no numbers" crowd.   I still can't find anyone who hasn't been to that page and hasn't read the plan and I encounter more lib/dems in my travels than republican conservatives.

Never was a Mitt fan, never.  Gingrich looks pretty good to me but then I'm told that's because I am not aware of his history.  With 21.7 M of income each year in investment income and that piddling amount of about 300 grand for talking, you can bet that interns from a lot of places are going over Mitt's tax returns with a fine tooth comb.  There is a lot more public record from Wall Street than you think.  Last night after he released the taxes the campaign said they would discuss it today.  How they discuss it, in the face of your average American having a very short return and not a tome, will color the race going forward.  The small plus for Mitt on this is that the national debt won't be daunting to him, he's accustomed to huge numbers.

I'm not sure about Gingrich, just that he looks pretty good.  I'm reading a lot of "but just wait until all the ethics stuff comes out, then he won't look so good".  Essentially I'm waiting to learn more about Gingrich before I draw the conclusion that he can't win.

I'm an independent.  Tim Thomas spoke beautifully yesterday about how many of us feel.   To see his statement on his fb page warmed a lot of hearts.

88

How are you people getting breaks in your paragraphs?

89 Paragraphs: The command "br" -- br in angle brackets -- seems to work.

so manually installing a br (for "break") command seems to generate paragraph breaks.

double br command for the typical two-spaces between paragraphs.

90 LI's argument was that they should be debating differences in policy not consulting fees and wealth. That was on FF about an hour ago. -- This is a bullshit attempt to conflate Washington influence peddling with legit earning of wealth. Newt's sucking at the Freddie Mac teat is not equal or comparable in any way with Romney's legit (from everything I've seen) earnings and wealth from Bain capital. They're not the same and it's dishonest to pretend they are

Is representing someone in an advocacy role not legit?  Why?  There are tons of lobbyists lobbying the gov't for conservative issues / policies and on behalf of conservative organizations.  Are they all illegitimate? 

Lobbying is the same basic thing as representing someone as an attorney.  You advocate for a client for a fee.  It does not mean necessarily that you agree with the position you are advocating.  Now, some argue you shouldn't take "cases" if you don't agree with the position, but that doesn't make the earnings illegitimate.  For instance, many argue that all criminal lawyers who take cases where the accused is most likely guilty are scum.  Maybe so, but their earnings are not illegitimate.  They perform services for the money.  It doesn't make me happy that Gingrich lobbied for Freddie or Fannie or whoever, but I don't see it as disqualifying in any way. 

By your logic every business in America that does business with the federal gov't is illegitimate b/c they are "sucking from the gov't teat".  Getting a fee for service is not the same as getting a welfare payment.

We should instead be arguing about the size and scope of gov't that allows what is essentially a federal agency to pay such enormous amounts of money for lobbying.  If gov't was not so big and so involved in every aspect of our lives, then people would not be willing to pay such great amounts for lobbying.

91 #80 What runner said! Worse, Newt seems to truly believe that his influence peddling contracts with Freddie Mac are equivalent to Romney's work at Bain. In Newt's mind, it's all the same. It was a revealing exchange.

92 How are you people getting breaks in your paragraphs?


I'm hitting the enter bar.

93

Newt trained my dog to roll over and play dead.

Only problem is that after two weeks the dog is still playing dead.

Mitt couldn't get my dog to sit while offering it a treat.

Luap Nor? My dog just pissed on his leg.

Santorum? Yup you guessd it, humped his leg till Karen Santorum said a prayer and kicked the dog in the ass.

 

 

 

 

 

94 @75: If Romney gets the nomination, I fully expect all 3 networks to air Parker & Stone's "Book of Mormon" musical once a week until the election.

95 turns out "an october surprise every day" is prescient - yesterday it was an ex-wife all over the media, today it is missing tax form and unpaid medicare bills, tomorrow ? who knows, a disgruntled former employee, wonder if newt has any in his past

96 It's poor salesmanship to prissily say "have NO  illusions about Newt!" Because we farking don't already.

Do you get it yet?  Purity is not driving this.

97 jwest, it also seems that different browsers behave differently here. Right now, I'm using FF and can break by hitting 'enter' as usual but can't do any html such as italiczing.

98 It's pick your poison time and Newt has the advantage. 

99 Romney promised to "keep the good, and get rid of the bad" w.r.t. ObamneyCare. That's a nothing statement.

100 Oh bother. A lot of stuff bothers me about Gingrich, but more stuff scares me about Romney. I chipped in $100 on Newt's money bomb.

101 @75: If Romney gets the nomination, I fully expect all 3 networks to air Parker Stone's "Book of Mormon" musical once a week until the election.

Parker and Stone, ahem, make fun of all religions equally.  It's South Park on Broadway for fucks sake!

102 @ 84....jwest, ---- Rubio? I like Rubio. .....But in this cycle? Didn't you get the memo? ....You have to have been campaigning for all of 2011, and do well in the debates. ....No wait, the debates don't matter anymore. So who the hell knows.

103 97 jwest, it also seems that different browsers behave differently here. Right now, I'm using FF and can break by hitting 'enter' as usual but can't do any html such as italiczing.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 09:38 AM (piMMO)

 

These thread problems can only be punishment by the Karma gods for Ace's treatment of Palin.

104

I liked the *idea* of Romney going into this race, because I liked the idea of posing this election as a SCOAMF of a President vs. a guy who has been extraordinarily successful at everything he has tried.  The guy who we still know nothing about vs. the guy whose life is an open book.  Also the guy who has suddnely turned into a leftist class-warrior vs. the moderate corporate Republican who cannot be painted at a crazy right-winger.  I realize that most conservatives want this election to be The True Conservative Savior vs. The Evil Marxist Who Hates America.  I just never thought that campaign would win.  And I'll tell you what else won't win, the Washington Lobbyist vs. the President who got the lobbyists out of the Administration.

I haven't been terribly impressed by Romney as a candidate, either in 2008 or now.  I wish he was better at it.  I still believe that Obama is virtially unelectable, but I am a lot more worried about losing to him with Newt than with Romney.  And I think America is truly boned if we re-elect Obama. 

105

Is representing someone in an advocacy role not legit? Why? There are tons of lobbyists lobbying the gov't for conservative issues / policies and on behalf of conservative organizations. Are they all illegitimate?

<br>

As a former speaker of the House, influence peddling is shady business, not even close to being comparable to earning income in private industry. Govt. contractors that provide an actual product are also probably shady because they typically acquire their contracts through political favoritism.. but at least they deliver something tangible, unlike Newt's "history" consulting contract.

-----

I think it's deeply problematic that in Newt's mind, earning money in that private sector is no different than he earning money from influence peddling at Freddie Mac. They're not the same, yet Newt believes they are.

106 any chance of a broken HTML haiku thread?

107 Rubio? I like Rubio. .....But in this cycle? Didn't you get the memo? ....You have to have been campaigning for all of 2011, and do well in the debates. ....No wait, the debates don't matter anymore. So who the hell knows.

I know there's a lot of Rubio love around this place but we're letting our crushes get in the way of our line of site. He's my senator, and I do like him, and think he has a very bright future ahead, but he is not ready. Let's not forget a couple of recent fumbles, including one that had the potential to toss us back into a cold war.

108

102 @ 84....jwest, ---- Rubio? I like Rubio. .....But in this cycle? Didn't you get the memo? ....You have to have been campaigning for all of 2011, and do well in the debates. ....No wait, the debates don't matter anymore. So who the hell knows.

Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 09:41 AM (ALwK/)

 

 

Can you imagine the panic in the Obama camp if Rubio walked out of the convention with the nomination?  This is actually how it should be done.  As Ron Paul can tell you due to his Nazi leanings, blitzkrieg campaigns work (especially against Jews in Poland).

109 #90, it's the narrative here.  The 2010 elections were about blowing up the corrupt system of Washington back-scratching and Treasury-raiding and crony capitalism.  That's why we elected so many honest-to-god genuine working Americans to Congress, not a bunch of professional pols just moving up to the majors from the minors.  The idea that Newt Gingrich could be the standard-bearer for these people is just laughable. 

110 Test.....<br>Testees....<br>Testus.....<br>Testium

111 lets see,  how many people got hurt by the massachusets medical plan, (and please dont' try to tell me that obamacre is modeled on romney care, it's an obama campaign line) vs. how many peole got drowned by Freddie mac ? worldwide recession ring a bell ? and people are pushing this mass care line as worst then freddie mac? seriously ? what did masscare do to US economy ? how about freddie mac and other cleverly devised GSEs ? where was newt when republicans tried to dismantle them ? working for them

112 Well, inserting that <br> thing didn't work. .....At least not for me.

113 >>I think it's deeply problematic that in Newt's mind, earning money in that private sector is no different than he earning money from influence peddling at Freddie Mac. They're not the same, yet Newt believes they are.<<

Expect Newt's defense of his relationship with Fannie and Freddie to point out that Romney had the nerve to invest HIS OWN MONEY in those same organizations....for PROFIT!!!

114 Of course influence peddling is legal, Congress makes sure it stays that way. Bribe someone with ten grand stuffed in an envelope and you're a criminal, bribe them with the golden parachute of a million dollar sinecure and you're a respected elder Statesman.

115 Does it work<br>for</br><br>me?</br>

116

112 Well, inserting that <br> thing didn't work. .....At least not for me.

Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 09:48 AM (ALwK/)

 

 

If youÂ’re typing the comment in Word and then pasting it in the box, try reentering the spaces after itÂ’s pasted.

117 if massachusets wants to run their helathcare centrally, let them do it, if california wants to ban lightbulbs, and sanity, let them do it, each state can decide what experiment it wants to do. Anybody want to look up reagan's record when he ran california ?

118 Wheatie, which browser are you using?

119 >>if massachusets wants to run their helathcare centrally, let them do it, if california wants to ban lightbulbs, and sanity, let them do it, each state can decide what experiment it wants to do. Anybody want to look up reagan's record when he ran california ?<<


THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS! We only like states' rights when those states do what we want them to do. Examples: "Romneycare" and Perry's tuition rates.

120 I think that Romney supporters are greatly underestimating or ignoring the way that Romney will play in the South. .....When was the last time that they went for a rich northeastern elitist carpet-bagger type. .....Oh, and he was a private banker too. Yay. That's gonna go over really well.

121 Attack on Bain Capital = Attack on Capitalism Why, oh why, do you hate Capitalism?

122

118 Wheatie, which browser are you using?

.....Effing IE.

123 Just heard Sarah Palin on the radio.  Nice of her to bailout Chris Christie. 

124 @117 Mitt is not Reagan. Reagan was an ardent anti-communist for decades who wanted to challenge the Soviet Union. It was his big issue. What is Mitt's big issue, aside from his candidacy? What has he been fighting for?

125 What is Mitt's big issue, aside from his candidacy? What has he been fighting for?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 24, 2012 09:57 AM (UwYXB)

himself

126 "If we're supporting Gingrich because he's ostensibly conservative, shouldn't this stuff bother us, whether it can be used in a political ad or not?"

Yes, it should. But no one is saying Newt is perfect or even close to it, only that he is preferable to Mitt. Both of these guys suck, but some of us think Newt sucks less.

127 @119 State's rights mean you have to vote for people who Implement stupid policies in their states? Maybe these guys shouldn't run on their records in state government if they don't want criticism.

128 I get the same impression about Newt, that he's only fighting for himself and his "legacy" of greatness.

129 THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS! We only like states' rights when those states do what we want them to do. Examples: "Romneycare" and Perry's tuition rates.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 09:54 AM (piMMO)

Yes but I know a lot of folks who used to live in Massachusettes and work in Boston.  They literally moved to New Hampshire and drive a greater distance to work.

If something is implemented on the state level and you don't like it, you can move.  I know people in NY who are saying out loud that they might move to Jersey to take advantage of Christie's new tax structure.

If something is on the federal level, nationwide.  You can't get away from it except to move to another country.

130

Both of these guys suck, but some of us think Newt sucks less.
--

I used to think that. Now I'm not so sure. I'm hoping for a Santorum surge in FL.

131 @128 I don't hear Newt = Reagan as often as I hear Mitt = Reagan. Nobody believes Newt = Reagan.

132 Newt strategically sandbagged the debate last night...Early in the debate, you could see when Mitt was going after him, he was struggling mightily to hold it in. He wanted to come off as reasonable as the MSM is painting him as a bomb-thrower.  The lack of a crowd reaction probably hurt him most but only because the topics were not in his wheelhouse. Because of that (IMHO), he took a pass on flaming the stage. In his post-debate comments he mentioned the lack of crowd reaction, that won't be a problem on Thursday when the real Newt returns.

133 I think Romney wants the job because he thinks he'd be good at it, while Gingrich wants the job because he thinks he'd be the greatest leader in the history of Western Civilization.

134 Mitt is not Reagan.

of course he is not reagan.  not saying that.

mitt's big issue,  it seems to me, is to get baracky's ass out of the white house.  and then to minimize government (because business people like that sort of thing), to repeal obamacare (yest i trust him to do it) and all the other crap like dodd-frank, and to build up our military. what was Bush II fighting for in 2000 ? remind me ? i seriously don't recall

135 @133 Mitt wants the job to fill out the modern day cursus honorem. His governorship in MA was about checking the checkbox. That's not why Reagan wanted it. So we should stop saying Mitt is the next Reagan.

136 Are there people that honestly believe Willard = Reagan?

137 If something is on the federal level, nationwide. You can't get away from it except to move to another country.

***
I agree completely, but folks are attacking Romney for what he did within his own state, the same with Perry on tuition.

138 @134 That doesn't work. Mitt started running in 2006, when Barry was a rising Senator an the big issue was Iraq. He was touting his Healthcare experience in Ma as a reason we should vote for him. He's been at this way too long for it to be about Barry. It's about him.

139 Newt cannot win. So, hey, lets go with Newt!

140 Are there people that honestly believe Willard = Reagan?


****

No. I'm voting for Romney and still don't buy that equation.

141 No. I'm voting for Romney and still don't buy that equation.

********

Good answer; I'll vote for him in the general election if he's the candidate, and do it without a single qualm, but anybody claiming he's something he's obviously not really sends up red flags for me.

142 One of the late questions asked Mitt what were his particular conservative accomplishments and all he could come up with was that he raised a family...I think Newts conservative resume has a bit more heft to it than that...

143 I'm supporting Newt because he is the most Conservative candidate who can win.

144 One of the late questions asked Mitt what were his particular conservative accomplishments and all he could come up with was that he raised a family

yeah, that was weak;   he ran a list of things after that, what he's done while governor, balance the budget, private sector jobs, etc., but that was not the best moment

145 #142  That's a fair criticism.  If he wants the nomination he is going to have to come up with a list.

I will point out that some of Newt's accomplishments are not as granadiose as he says,  however.

146 I'm supporting Newt because he is the most Conservative candidate who can win.

****

Newt? Conservative?

_Okay.

147 Bloody sock.

148 I'm supporting Newt because he is the most Conservative candidate who can win. **** Newt? Conservative? Okay. Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 10:35 AM (piMMO) The operative word is "most".

149

In addition to equating his sleazy influence peddling for money at Freddie Mac with Romney's earnings in the private sector, Newt also said in the video that he was proud of his efforts in expanding Medicare with Part D, claiming that Medicare Part D was based on a "free enterprise model". That is Newt telling us the kind of 'free market' ideas he will implement if elected President. <br>

I didn't used to believe this, but I'm now convinced that at his core, Newt is more big govt. and less conservative than Romney. Newt also revealed himself to be a fcking liar over the scope and the nature of his dealing with Freddie Mac. This exchange reinforces my worst fears about Newt. I'm hoping for Santorum, but if Rick doesn't make it, Romney's the least worst choice over Newt.

150 I am starting to make a list for myself of what I think the republicans need to have in their presidential candidate.  I guess it's sort of like a job description for the presidency in this climate at this time.  I'm hoping that once I've come up with what I think is needed that I'll look at the candidates and a clear choice will come out of this.

I'm starting to hear from people that whine where they say that maybe BO needs another 4 years to really accomplish what he set out to do.  They ruminate that after all, we gave GWB 4 more years so why wouldn't we give them to Obama.  I'm sensing people buying the "things are getting better" idea and assuming they will continue getting better.  When asked directly if they don't think that things might begin to look better becasue this is the election year and that all the problems would come home to roost after the election they respond that both parties do this so it's a non issue.  It's a little maddening.  

151 The thing that scares me most about Newt as nominee is that Bill Clinton himself will gleefully play the hatchet man for Obama. This will be the Last Campaign of Slick Willie's dreams, the chance to finally settle all of his scores with the Republicans. Rockmom, I'm not at all sure about this. Clinton has no reason to love Obama, the man who knifed Hillary, and who thinks he's greater than Bill. And Bill cares about his own "legacy" a lot more than he cares about the Democratic party. Newt keeps talking about all the things he accomplished with Bill Clinton. The picture of Bill Clinton, presiding over prosperity, and working with an opposition Congress , is pretty attractive, and something I'm sure he'd like to revive. So while he certainly wouldn't endorse Newt, he might pull his punches. If he can hurt Obama without damaging his own reputation, I think he'd find it pretty satisfying.

152 #151  Things are getting a bit better now because a lot of business people assumed Obama would lose and "help was on the way."

Newt's win has scared a lot of them because they are worried about him having a good chance of winning,  plus he obviously doesn't understand business.

Got a friend who has a son working here for a company based overseas.  He is being called to CEO' s office to give an explanation of the American political mood because they thought Romney would win and now they are worried.

153 Romney's conservative accomplishments according to his critics do not exist. One reason is that they don't consider anything done outside of a political context. The other is they dismiss anything he did as MA governor. Once again he inherited over a billion dollar deficit and left office with over a hundred million surplus without raising taxes. He vetoed in state tuition for illegals, he vetoed almost a thousand pieces of liberal legislation, he issued an EO to allow State Troopers to inquire about resident status, he submitted legislation to have the death penalty reinstated, he vetoed the morning after drug legislation, he withdrew from participation in the NE greenhouse initiative. After his term he put together a PAC that helped take back the House and a number of Governorships. If he loses this nomination he will continue to help the conservative cause in spite of the hate he's received from 'true' conservative.

154

I like both candidates against Obama.  Right now I am leaning Newt.  I understand all the issues we have with him, but he is out there saying the right things, sure we can argue day and night whether he really means them or not.  My feeling is if we do elect him, and he does get out of line - he is someone we can whip right back in. 

The biggest thing I want is for someone, anyone to communicate the basic differences between conservatism and Obama's socialism.  The country needs to see it.  We don't need another McCain saying "Well my friends, I can reach across to my friends on the other side, and give them 90% of what they want".

I like Newt because regardless of his past few years where he's not been in government, I feel he will make that difference clear.

To be honest I really like when Mitt makes the point that as a businessman - he wants the government out of the way, HE creates jobs, not them.  Anytime a politician takes credit for creating a job, they should be punched in the face.  Mitt should drive that point home - government does not creat jobs, it can only stop them from every being created, only ideas that become small businesses that become large businesses can create jobs.

155 Posted by: Miss Marple at January 24, 2012 10:42 AM (GoIUi)

That dove tails with my friends working for American companies overseas.  They are all saying that they are being asked questions about "how America works".  And sadly they are all admitting that they are brushing up on it cause they realize when being asked that question that they didn't know as much as they thought they knew.  I've seen more discussions lately among my peers about the difference between a democracy and a democratic republic.  My gramma had something called civics where she says she learned all of this.  I mean it was probably covered in AP American but you go so fast you barely touch on anything of major import for more than a couple of minutes in class and a page in your textbook. 

156 And Mitt passed the biggest,most costly piece of legislation EVER.  The one that is currently bankrupting MASS.

BTW would someone please call the Romney office and let them know that Mook, their campaign coordinator, is goofing off over on the AoS message boards.

157 Where are people getting the idea Newt is as electable as Romney?

I realize everyone thinks they're a brilliant strategist that's been overlooked by the establishment, who knows the TRUTH, but this is incorrect. This is at best an opinion that is unsupported, indeed it is diametrically opposed to the actual data -- which is all we have to base any informed decision on.

And the data, while noisy like all social data sets, is all pointing in one direction -- Newt is amazingly unpopular.


Newt's numbers as of Nov 11th,


Pew Poll: 48-31%  [net -17% unfavorable]
CNN/ORC: 39-36% [net -3% unfavorable]
ABC/Wash Post: 42-35% [net -7% unfavorable]


All numbers as of Jan 12th,

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51-46%, [+5 favorable]
Romney, fav/unfav, 45-38%, [+7 favorable]
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27-56%, [-29 unfavorable]

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38-45%, [-7 unfavorable]
Romney, fav/unfav, 21-35%, [-14 unfavorable]
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17-49%, [-32 unfavorable]

PPP, 1/13-1/17
Obama, app/dis, 47-50%, [-3 unfavorable]
Romney, fav/unfav, 35-53%, [-18 unfavorable]
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26-60%, [-34 unfavorable]

Newt is toxic. This is Sarah Palin-level toxic. The down-ticket effects would be devastating to our chances of even retaining the House.

The Salamander is popular in the Tea-Party sub-set of voters who want to see blood, not the general population -- don't conflate the two. It's like saying Che is popular among #OWS.

158 Yeah, Mutt "balanced" the budget by raising taxes in addition to a few spending cuts. He just claimed he didn't raise taxes by calling them "fees" and loophole closings.

Typical behavior.....for a Democrat.

159 All these foreigners our now so concerned.... the same ones that were are screaming what rubes we were for not anointing BHO king...  the same ones that are now bankrupted by their own socialist governments.

160 Perry must be a Democrat then right Vic? Do you know what tax loophole he closed? Thanks by the way , closing that loophole was on of his conservative accomplishments I left off.

161 brainpimp, you named me in response to a post from someone else. What specifically have I posted that you have a problem with. Do you agree with Newt that Medicare Part D really is based on a "free enterprise" model? Or is that just Romney propaganda?

162
128 I get the same impression about Newt, that he's only fighting for himself and his "legacy" of greatness. Posted by: Mook at January 24, 2012 09:59 AM (+pY8V)

 I get the exact same feeling about Mitt.

163 Hey uriah,

Maybe you should look at the new article on top of AoS.   LOL

Talk about instant karma.

164 If we're supporting Gingrich because he's ostensibly conservative, shouldn't this stuff bother us, whether it can be used in a political ad or not?

Sure - but who else is there?

165 Perry must be a Democrat then right Vic? Do you know what tax loophole he closed? Thanks by the way , closing that loophole was on of his conservative accomplishments I left off.

That came from the Club For Growth's white paper on Romney. They were not imprerssed with his "tax" bonifides

166

Ace,

When this lobbying issue first came out, Newt said on the TV that he wasn't a lobbyist but someone who told them who to talk to, where to go to get things done.

Evidently, Newt wasn't lying.  Turns out that, yes, he was hired as a consultant for their lobbyist.

Mitt is desperate and trying to make Newt out to be something he wasn't.

Newt clearly had a job to help their lobbyists perform better, however, Newt clearly was NOT a lobbyist himself.

167 As a former speaker of the House, influence peddling is shady business, not even close to being comparable to earning income in private industry. Govt. contractors that provide an actual product are also probably shady because they typically acquire their contracts through political favoritism.. but at least they deliver something tangible, unlike Newt's "history" consulting contract.
-----
I think it's deeply problematic that in Newt's mind, earning money in that private sector is no different than he earning money from influence peddling at Freddie Mac. They're not the same, yet Newt believes they are.

Oh come on.  And Romney did not use his father's connections at all like he claims?  Please.  Everyone in positions of power peddles influence, except perhaps former Presidents.  Grow up.  And I'm sure Newt doesn't think the two are the same thing, but he's not going to admit that during a debate/campaign.

168 Perry raised fees on smokes and industry no different than what Mutt did in MA from what I can tell, maybe even worse than Romney. I work in a TX branch of a CA based company with offices in several states, yet TX tax agent Comptrollers are the only ones who regularly audit our home office to ensure that their state taxes are collected and paid. Perry has pushed for aggressive collection of taxes and fees.

169 Did I say Perry was great in the small government taxes department?

No I didn't. In fact I dinged him as well in that category.

Mutt was dinged in EVERY category.

170 Oh come on. 

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 24, 2012 11:12 AM (sOx93)

<br>

Re-watch the video and tell me that Newt isn't dead serious in equating his sleazebag lobbying money with Romney's legit earning of money at Bain. And perhaps someone can explain Newt's claim that he proudly supported Medicare Part D because it was, in his sincere view, a "free enterprise model". That should give some idea as to the kind of programs and ideas Newt would give us as President.

171 As to people saying things like "these 'true conservatives' won't consider Mitt's actions in a non-political context . . .

Look, running a venture capital firm is not a "conservative" action and does not "advance" conservative goals.  There are plenty of hard left venture capitalists out there. 

Also, having a good family is not necessarily a "conservative" action and does not necessarily "advance" conservatism in the way we mean here.  there are plenty of liberals who are good family people.

so that is a nonsense argument.  As to his time in MA.  Yes, he did some good center-right things.  He also did some bad left of center things.  He nominated liberals as judges to state court and had liberals in his cabinet.  He signed on and still supports Romneycare.  That 4 years does not overcome his lifetime prior to that of explicitly stating that he was not a conservative and holding forth liberal positions.  Nor does it erase his history of not being visible in battles of conservative ideas / policies.  Sure, he formed a pac and supported GOP candidates.  So did every moderate republican.  That just means he's a republican team player - it does not prove any conservative bona-fides.

To claim that Romney is as conservative or more conservative than Gingrich is nuts.  Gingrich created the contract with America.  Gingrich was instrumental in getting a GOP majority.  Gingrich got most of the contract with America passed into law.  Gingrich has been vocal and in the forefront on many conservative issues over many, many years.  Yes - he has deviated, but he clearly has the factual history of being a fighter for conservative causes and getting conservative polity goals advanced.  Romney simply does not.  Dishonesty on this front will simply not persuade anyone

172

Romney promised to "keep the good, and get rid of the bad" w.r.t. ObamneyCare. That's a nothing statement.

-----

 

That is NOT a 'nothing' statement. That was the position of the GOP squishes coming off it's passage. It did not mean nothing.

Of course, what's "good" and what's "bad" may change, but specifically they wanted to keep the mandate that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, but get rid of the 'individual mandate' that you must buy insurance.

Sure, that's a crowd pleaser, keep the unicorns and cut the farts. IT'S FUCKING INSANE.

That's what the FAR left nutjobs wanted, as a more effective trojan horse to wreck the private health industry nearly overnight and pave the way for only a public option.

These statements enfuriated me at the time, mostly because if that comes to pass, we will literally have reached a point where democrats are being more fiscally conservative than republicans are.

173

Gingrich has been vocal and in the forefront on many conservative issues over many, many years

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 24, 2012 11:20 AM

---

Newt RECENTLY backed cap & trade, he RECENTLY endorsed single payer, he took money from Freddie Mac when conservatives were trying to dismantle it, and he RECENTLY trashed Paul Ryan's modestly conservative budget as "right wing social engineering".

Anyone claiming that Newt has an established consistent history of pushing conservative legislation is either lying or ignorant.

174 <<<Re-watch the video and tell me that Newt isn't dead serious in equating his sleazebag lobbying money with Romney's legit earning of money at Bain. And perhaps someone can explain Newt's claim that he proudly supported Medicare Part D because it was, in his sincere view, a "free enterprise model". That should give some idea as to the kind of programs and ideas Newt would give us as President.>>

I don't see lobbying money as sleazebag so I guess you are starting from very different assumptions.  I also don't see all venture capitalism as noble conservative high-value enterprise.  It's not like Romney was building a product or creating something.  He came in, fired people to make a place more efficient, then sold it off either whole or in parts.  Yes, there is some necessity for people like that in our system, but that doesn't make it noble.  And, you don't become a "venture capalist" unless you have a lot of money to begin with.  Romney tries to claim he is a self-made man.  B.S.  he used his daddy's contacts, influence and money.  I have no problem with that, I would too.  but don't feed me dog-shit and call it filet Mignon.

Medicare Part D, that's a fine argument, and I agree that is problematic.  What is the answer - nominate Mr. Romney/Obamacare?  The guy who won't accomplish anything as president and will allow the liberal's gains over the last 4 years to be hardened while he tinkers at the edges?  That is all you would get with Romney.

175 Oh come on. And Romney did not use his father's connections at all like he claims? Please. Everyone in positions of power peddles influence, except perhaps former Presidents. Grow up. And I'm sure Newt doesn't think the two are the same thing, but he's not going to admit that during a debate/campaign.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 24, 2012 11:12 AM (sOx93)

Please tell me how you think Romney used his father's connections, in Michigan, to get a job at Bain and Co., in Boston.  Fact is Romney was at or near the top of his class at Harvard Business School and he was recruited by Bain, and was wildly successful there.  It wasn't his father's connections that made Mr. Bain ask Mitt to launch Bain Capital, it was his performance and ability, and it was that ability that made Bain Capital into a private equity powerhouse.

He hasn't been in any position to peddle influence the way Newt was, and did.  Totally apples and oranges.  People peddle influence for money, and power. Mitt Romney already had those thigns and he got them on hos own. 

That's one reason I like him for President, he doesn't owe anyone anything.  I think he'll make decisions based honestly on the facts and what he thinks is best for America, not what is best for some former client.  Newt's been taking millions for years from the big health care companies, I do not trust him to either repeal Obamacare or come up with actuall market solutions to out health care mess.

176 <<<<Newt RECENTLY backed cap trade, he RECENTLY endorsed single payer, hetook money from Freddie Mac when conservatives were trying to dismantle it,and he RECENTLY trashed Paul Ryan's modestly conservative budget as "right wing social engineering".
Anyone claiming that Newt has an established consistent history of pushing conservative legislation is either lying or ignorant.>>>

yes, and Romney recently backed Obamacare by creating it on the state level.  Romney was for cap and trade in the past.  Romney was for amnesty.  romney attacked Perry for wanting to reform SS. 

Gingrich has actual efforts and successes in getting conservative policies enacted and in fighting for conservative policies.  Romney has none and derided Reagan and conservatism.  You are simply not going to win a debate on this when you have no facts.  It is dishonest to claim Romney has any history of conservatism.  Gingrich has a rich history with admitted deviations.  Romney has nothing but deviations and talk.

You are being very dishonest in claiming the conservative mantle for Romney.  I fully admit that Gingrich is not a perfect conservative.  But he is certainly far more conservative than Romney.

177 Newt RECENTLY backed cap trade, he RECENTLY endorsed single payer, hetook money from Freddie Mac when conservatives were trying to dismantle it,and he RECENTLY trashed Paul Ryan's modestly conservative budget as "right wing social engineering".
Anyone claiming that Newt has an established consistent history of pushing conservative legislation is either lying or ignorant.

Posted by: Mook at January 24, 2012 11:24 AM (+pY8V)

 

As I said yesterday, Newt goes wherever he thinks the zeitgeist is going. In 2009 he thought liberalism was on top, so he went left.  He is above all desperate for attention and desperate to be part of the national conversation. 

 

And it's kind of interesting to me that he chose not to run in 2008, a year everyone knew was going to be a bad one for Republicans, while Mitt Romney did.  He waited until it looked clear that Obama had a poor chance of reelection before he jumped in, and then he only did that in a half-assed way with a half-assed organization. 

178

The idea that Romney would have been just as filthy rich if his dad hadn't is something I find quite preposterous.

There are a lot of smart poor people, and none of them will go to Harvard Business School.

There's nothing wrong with it, but let's not pretend Romney wasn't blessed with every opportunity there is. Because he was.

179

I suppose Paris Hilton is a self made woman?

I mean she went out and got her own modelling career and spun the PR and turned herself into a celebrity.

She doesn't need daddy's money... I'm sure she'd be doing just as well if her father had been a roofer.

180 <<<<<Please tell me how you think Romney used his father's connections, in Michigan, to get a job at Bain and Co., in Boston. Fact is Romney was at or near the top of his class at Harvard Business School and he was recruited by Bain, and was wildly successful there. It wasn't his father's connections that made Mr. Bain ask Mitt to launch Bain Capital, it was his performance and ability, and it was that ability that made Bain Capital into a private equity powerhouse.>>>>

Yeah, cause George Romney had no connections anywhere but Michigan.  Live in the real world.  I did not say Romney had not ability and didn't do good work.  but to believe he never used his father's connections or money for anything borders on the willfully ignorant.  If he didn't he's the first guy in the history of the world who did not use his family connections at all.  Please.

As far as lobbying goes, you people obviously think it is the most evil thing since satan himself.  So I guess you don't give money to PACs that lobby or groups that lobby - who all hire people to peddle influence (former congressmen, staffers, etc)?  You are all pure and would never stoop to such things as donating money to the NRA or some other group advancing conservative agendas?

Such silly arguments. Would I prefer a different candidate altogehter?  Yes, absolutely.  But I have to chose between the candidates we have.  Between those I believe Gingrich would be a better president and I believe Gingrich would actually have a better chance against Obama.  I think Romney is a terrible politician.  He is just not good at it.  he has bulled his way this far with money, but that will only take a candidate so far usually. 

You may think differently, that Romney has the better chance and that he would make the better president.  Fine.  I can respect that.  but don't try and tell me that Romney is a rock-solid conservative that we can trust on the issues.  He doesn't have the history to back that claim up.  Maybe it will turn out that way, but it's taken completely on faith at this point.

181

Miley Cyrus succeeds on pure talent alone.

The fact that her father was an entertainer and had experience in the music industry in no way influenced her rise to top.

Just don't tell my achey-breaky heart.

182 Newt did NOT back crap and tax but he did sit on the couch with Pelosi and said "something" needed to be done to combat AGW.

Mutt did back a cap and tax policy in MA but pulled out of it when he decided to run for President. Then his Dem successor put it in place.

Both Newt and Mutt now say AGW is a valid concern but they do not support cap and trade.

183

<<I don't see lobbying money as sleazebag so I guess you are starting from very different assumptions. I also don't see all venture capitalism as noble conservative high-value enterprise.>>

--

Do you equate the two as Newt has done repeatedly? They're not equivalent, and who said capitalism was "noble"? Capitalism's benefits are based on self-interest and free exchange, not "noble" ideals. Mutt no doubt did make good use of Daddy's contacts, but unlike Newt, he didn't use the contacts to suck out taxpayer money from "history" contracts with Freddie Mac, he earned it in the private market. Do have a problem with Newt's lies about the scope and nature of his contract with Freddie Mac? Consulting on 'history'? Newt blatently lied his ass off about his dealings with Freddie Mac. What other large issue is Newt lying about?

I trust Romney will keep his word and dismantle Obamacare. I could be proven wrong, but I don't think so.  I believe Newt is more likely to try and dismantle some of Obamacare and keep other parts as part of a grand compromise as part of his legacy. A President Romney would probably do a lot of things that would piss me off. I believe a President Newt would be even worse. It's unbelievable to me that Newt can pretend with a straight face that his sleazeball influence peddling scam with Freddie Mac is any way comparable to Romney's experience at Bain.

Right now, Rick Santorum is who I'm supporting. If he drops out, then Romney over Newt. Again, re-watch this video to see "under the hood" how Newt really sees things. It confirms conservatives' worst fears about him

184 The idea that Romney would have been just as filthy rich if his dad hadn't is something I find quite preposterous.
There are a lot of smart poor people, and none of them will go to Harvard Business School.
There's nothing wrong with it, but let's not pretend Romney wasn't blessed with every opportunity there is. Because he was.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 24, 2012 11:36 AM (mf67L)

 

Have you ever heard of GMATs?  Harvard Business School requires that you get a pretty high score to get in.  Maybe in the 1930s Daddy could call the Dean and get you in, but it wasn't that way when Romney went there.  And even back in the day, you had to be several generations of money to have that kind of pull.  The Romneys are certainly not like the Bushes in that respect.  Mitt Romney was an A+ student in college and he was also at or near the top of his class at HBS and got a Harvard Law degree at the same time, which is really hard to do.

 

The 1980s were a time when a lot of people more or less hit the lottery by becoming private equity specialists, bond traders, and the like.  They were lucky, but those like Romney were also good. 

185 <<<<As I said yesterday, Newt goes wherever he thinks the zeitgeist is going. In 2009 he thought liberalism was on top, so he went left. He is above all desperate for attention anddesperate to bepart of the national conversation. >>>

Kinda like Mitt suddenly embracing "conservatism" in order to run for president?

<<<And it's kind of interesting to me that he chose not to run in 2008, a year everyone knew was going to be a bad one for Republicans, while Mitt Romney did. He waited until it looked clear that Obama had a poor chance of reelection before he jumped in, and then he only did that in a half-assed way with a half-assed organization>>

Not sure what this means.  He didn't run last time so what, it's not his turn?  It means he doesn't really want it as bad as Mitt?  That what, exactly?

Circumstances change that open up opportunities.  Newt ran this time b/c there was an opportunity that would not have been there in 2008.  People are more open to him now then they would have been then.  So what?  what do you think that proves?

186

Rockmom, I can do nothing but repeat myself.

 

If you had stolen baby Romney from the crib and given him to a single welfare mother, he would NOT have ended up at Bain Capitol.

 

Period end of story. If you want to believe otherwise, knock your socks off.

187

You are being very dishonest in claiming the conservative mantle for Romney

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 24, 2012 11:32 AM

---

Except I NEVER said or even suggested such a thing. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I support Rick Santorum and that Romney was, in my opinion, "less worse" than Gingrich. You're simply lying your ass off about what I've posted.

188 Posted by: Mook at January 24, 2012 11:41 AM (+pY8V)

Exactly - you are taking Mitt completely on faith.  I disagree with you assessment and think Romney will not keep one promise he has made to conservatives.  He's a manager and a go-along-get-along guy.  He will do business as usual in DC and tinker at the edges.  He will not tackle anything tough or take any controversial positions.

As to Lobbying - you think its the worst thing ever apparently.  I don't.  It's a job.

As far as lying, I'm sure Mitt has not lied at all during the campaign thus far - about former positions he's taken, etc.  I perceive his entire campaign as something of a lie b/c I think Mitt's ideology is centrist / deal-maker and he doesn't believe 1/2 of what he is saying trying to win the nomination.  So, take your poison on the lying.  If Santorum were remotely viable for winning the nomination when they got to my state, I'd seriously consider him.  I doubt that will happen though.

189

Maybe in the 1930s Daddy could call the Dean and get you in, but it wasn't that way when Romney went there.

-------

Ummm... it's still that way.

 

You CAN get in on grades, or AA, or lots of things... one of which has always been and will always be craploads of money for a new recreation center.

190

Newt Gingrich said in 2007 that he would "strongly support" cap-and-trade if combined with "a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions" and in 2009 House testimoney said that he still might support a cap-and-trade system covering "the 2,000 most polluting places," if packaged with incentives for nuclear power and "green coal," among other things.

191

Harvard and Yale crank out legions of wealthy imbeciles, most whom march straight into Government work.

192 Posted by: Mook at January 24, 2012 11:46 AM (+pY8V)


It may not have been you specifically, and if not, I'm sorry.  I'm not going to bother researching the comments to find out.  But I was being more general toward Romney supporter b/c most Romney defenders are pretending that Romney is conservative and/or more conservative than Gingrich.  That's complete nonsense.  romney is not conservative and has no history of being conservative.

193 If Massachussetts Mitt had gone to MIT I'd be far more impressed.

194

Monkeytoe, I WAS a lobbyist for several years.  Like a lot of people, when I left the government it seemed the best way for me to make money.  I was good at it but I didn't like it.  Unlike most fields, it is not a meritocracy, it is all based on who you know and how sleazy you are willing to be to get what your client wants.  I was at a disadvantage because I never worked on Capitol Hill.  I know people who literally spent 6 months answering phones for an important Congressman and parlayed that into a six-figure lobbying job.  I was also at a disadvantage because I had a husband and children and could not spend 24/7 schmoozing and boozing.

 

It's an extremely sleazy business.  People leave a Congressman's staff to go lobby, and that Congresman will literally drum up business for the former staffer.  When it became known that my lobbying client was a very large company, I had several Congressman that I was lobbying trying to get my client away from me and go with their former staffer or campaign manager who was lobbying.  Shit like this goes on all the time.  And of course I got hit up for every freaking fundraiser that all of them were having all the time.  Lunckily I knew some of the consultants who put on the fundraisers so I could get into some of them without paying.  A very, very large amount of actual lobbying goes on at the fundraisers. 

 

There are lobbyists in DC who make millions of dollars every year.  Very little of that is honest money.  The schlub lobbyists for the Cracker Manufacturers Association who make $60k a year, those people make honest money. 

195 At the end of the day, I think both candidates, Romney and Gingrich are terrible candidates.  I desperately wish we had someone else.  But we don't.

196

<<As to Lobbying - you think its the worst thing ever apparently. I don't. It's a job.>>

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 24, 2012 11:47 AM

---

So you agree with Newt that his paid influence peddling at government-entitiy Freddie Mac is more or less equivalent to Romney's earnings in private industry?

197

<<romney is not conservative and has no history of being conservative.>>

--

Romney has as much or more record of being conservative as Newt, which is to say, a spotty and inconsistent record.

198 <<<<Unlike most fields, it is not a meritocracy, it is all based on who you know and how sleazy you are willing to be to get what your client wants.>>>

Umm, that is the meritocracy in lobbying.  As is promoting those who work longer hours.  My job requires me to work long hours despite my family.  Most high paying jobs do.  So, everything you described actually describe meritocracy as to who can achieve their clients' goals.  I'm not sure how you define meritocracy?  Promoting the noblest person?  the nicest person? 

And who are you to decide what is "honest" money and not? If it is legal - it is honest money.  If it is illegal - then it's illegal.  You are starting to sound a lot like a liberal.  Put another way, how is lobbying any different than a multi-millionaire spending his own money to try and elect a candidate (who, of course, the millionaire will then have some influence with)?  it's the same thing.  It comes down to freedom of speech.  And of course former congressional staffers who actually know everyone and can get their calls answered will get hired as lobbyists.  I'm not saying its pretty, but it is the way of the world and is unlikely to change except for making gov't smaller and less important to everyday business.

If you want to argue that we should reduce the size and scope of gov't so that lobbiests aren't as necessary or as many or make as much money - I'm all for that.

But as long as gov't is involved, people are going to try and influence it through lobbying.  And, we conservatives do it as much as anyone else.  that's one way to get the gov't to do what you want. 

199

I don't think Mitt has made a lot of promises to conservatives, and I don't think he is or can be a radical conservative.  Conservatives see that as a bug, I see it as a feature.  He's trying to run as Generic Republican in a year when he knows a lot of people do not want to vote for Obama again, but also do not want to vote for Movement Conservative because they think those people are crazy.  Generic Republican has led the polls all year long against Obama, while almost every individual candidate or possible candidate polls behind him. 

 

I just want Obama out, by any means necessary, and I think Romney is now the best guy left to do that. 

200

As a free speech absolutist, lobbyists are a necessary evil.

The problem is not the lobbyists...

The problem is politicians who can't drink their booze and eat their food and get their stupid nephew a job... and then fuck them in the ass and vote against them anyway.

You know, like they usually do to we the people.

201 <<<So you agree withNewt that hispaid influence peddling at government-entitiy Freddie Mac is more or less equivalent to Romney's earnings in private industry?

Posted by: Mook at January 24, 2012 11:52 AM (+pY8V)>>>

I'm not sure what you are looking for here.  I don't see a problem with either, necessarily.  I don't think either is noble.  both are legal ways to make money.  You seem to believe that one is moral and one immoral.  That isn't so.

Regardless, even if I thought that Mitt's way of earning money was "better" than Gingrich's, I would still think Gingrich is the better candidate.  I'm really not certain what point you are trying to make.  I know you started with the idea that Gingrich is a "liar" for equating the two.  but, they really are to a large extent both engaging in consulting - so Gingrich's answer is not so far off.  The difference between what Bain did and what a business consulting firm does is that Bain buys the business first and then does its bit where it makes it more efficient.  The consultant is hired to come in and do it for the business. 

I just don't see one as inherently more noble or "better" than the other.  Now, if it was between someone who created a product and manufactured that product, I'd probably say that the manufacturer is "more noble" then consulting.  But still, both are earning legal paychecks.  So I'm not sure why it is a big deal. 

I am interested in what advice, etc. Gingrich gave to Freddie.  That may influence me.  But the "fact" of the job means nothing.  Everyone who works/worked for Freddie is not automatically evil by virtue of having worked there. 

202 What evidence is there that Newt engaged in "influence peddling'? except for Romney's say-so? What Newt has said--and so far there's nothing to contradict it--is that he supplied strategic advice to Freddie Mac--and that included his opposition to practically giving houses away. That has nothing to do with influence peddling, which involves SELLING access to people in power. If evidence comes out that Newt was telling Freddie to keep on pumping out sub-prime loans to people who couldn't pay for them, that would be a significant strike against him. So far, there isn't any. All of you seem to have forgotten that encouraging minority home ownership has been a conservative plank since the late '70s. Margaret Thatcher pushed it in England. The conservative reasoning was, I think, very sound. Planning to buy a home gave people a reason to work and save. Owning a home gave someone a real stake in the community. Private property is a traditional bulwark against encroaching government. This was very productive when banks and Fanny/Freddie used traditional guidelines--good credit rating, realistic mortgage rates,and a 10-20% down payment. It is precisely the kind of policy that Newt sincerely believes in, and would want to be involved in. I don't think there would have been any conservative outcry about this at the time that he was doing it --it's not fair to decide he was corrupt only because we have 20/20 hindsight.

203 <<<<Romney has as much or more record of being conservative as Newt, which is to say, a spotty and inconsistent record.

Posted by: Mook at January 24, 2012 11:56 AM (+pY8V)>>>>

didn't you just call me a liar for saying you said this?  How funny.

anyway, the facts are not on your side.  I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over.  Mitt is no conservative.  Gingrich is.  He's not perfect, but he has a history.  Sure he's gone off the reservation, but I'd rather have someone who ventures off form time to time than someone that has never been on the reservation (i.e., Mitt).

You can scream until you are red in the face - but Mitt ran as a liberal for both Senate and Governor and denounced both conservatism generally and Reagan/Bush specifically.  He has held every liberal position under the sun.  He governed so-so as Governor (some right-of-center and some left-of-center things), but gave the world Romneycare.  he is not conservative, has no history of conservatism and I am not taking his alleged conservatism on faith.  He lived 40+ odd years proclaiming himself a liberal and in the last 5 years allegedly became a conservative, in time for his presidential bid?  Silly.

Mitt is a Northeast style republican.  That's not a terrible thing.  Some people like that.  I just wish he were honest about it.

204 <<<<<<<He's trying to run as Generic Republican in a year when he knows a lot of people do not want to vote for Obama again, but also do not want to vote for Movement Conservative because they think those people are crazy. Generic Republican has led the polls all year long against Obama, while almost every individual candidate or possible candidate polls behind him.

I just want Obama out, by any means necessary, and I thinkRomney is now the best guy left to do that.

Posted by: rockmom at January 24, 2012 12:01 PM (aBlZ1)>>>>>>

I can understand that answer and completely respect it.  I agree with you wholeheartedly that this is, in fact, the case.  It is also Mitt's problem and why he cannot connect with the base.  He is purposefully trying not to seem like a conservative in order to position himself for the general.  Which also - I think - demonstrates his weakness as a candidate.  A tin ear for politics and inability to shift strategy and respond to events.  Which is why I am not persuaded that he would be the best candidate against Obama in the general. 

Also, he is going to be painted as a far-far-right conservative by the media regardless of how he campaigns, so being as bland as he is does not really ultimately help him that much.  

So, I respect and understand your reasoning - I just disagree with it.

205

<<I know you started with the idea that Gingrich is a "liar" for equating the two.>>

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 24, 2012 12:04 PM

--

This is the second time in this thread in which you have outright lied about what I said. If you want to argue my points, then don't lie about them. I NEVER said or wrote or even hinted that Gingrich was a liar for "equating" his influence peddling monies at Freddie Mac with Romney's earnings at Bain. Newt "lied" when he claimed that it was all just an innocent contract for consulting on "history". That was a big fcking lie that reveals a core dishonesty with Newt. It was also deeply dishonest of Newt to minimize the amount he was paid, comparing Newt, Inc. which he owns and controls, with Bain Capital. It showed me that he is quick to lie, and it wasn't a tiny little lie either.

206

<<didn't you just call me a liar for saying you said this?>>

I count this as the third outright lie you've made about what I've posted. Show me where I called you a "liar" for that. You're showing a pattern here, aren't you?

207 Mook,

<<<<<This is the second time in this thread in which you have outright lied about what I said. If you want to argue my points, then don't lie about them. I NEVER said or wrote or even hinted that Gingrich was a liar for "equating" his influence peddling monies at Freddie Mac with Romney's earnings at Bain. Newt "lied" when he claimed that it was all just an innocent contractfor consulting on"history". That was abig fcking lie that reveals a core dishonesty with Newt.It was also deeplydishonest of Newt to minimizethe amount he was paid, comparing Newt, Inc. which he owns and controls,with Bain Capital. It showed me that he is quick to lie, and it wasn't a tiny little lie either.>>>>>

If I got your point wrong, then it is a mistake.  But it was hardly a big mistake.  You are really worked up about this whole thing.   You want to corner me into saying one job was equal to the other and then go on a rant when I take your argument to mean you were upset about comparing one job to another?  I think that was a pretty reasonable inference.  I guess to you it was not.  So, your claim is that he lied about what he did and who got paid what.  OK. 

As I said.  I think Romney's entire campaign trying to pretend he has a conservative bone in his body is a lie.  Which is the bigger lie?  Romney claiming he will repeal Obamacare is a lie.  Romney has absolutely no intention of doing that.  So, whatever.  Romney has consistently lied about his past liberal positions on every issue under the sun.  So politicians lie and lie alot.  Are you new to this?

that's why, instead of taking someone like Romney on faith as to what he'll do in office, I look to his history.  I think Gingrich's history w/ conservatism is better by far than Romney's.  You seem to disagree.  That's fine.  We look at the same facts and come to different opinions. 

208 Mook

<<<<<Except I NEVER said or even suggested such a thing. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I support Rick Santorum and that Romney was, in my opinion,"less worse" than Gingrich. You're simply lying your ass off about what I've posted.

Posted by: Mook at January 24, 2012 11:46 AM (+pY8V)>>>>>

I don't anticipate an apology from you.   You a) did call me a liar, and B) you did then turn around and say the exact thing I said you said and then you call me a liar for saying that.  And you claim I have a pattern?

I have to get some work done so I'll leave it at that.

209

Monkeytoe, I mean that the the smartest lobbyists with the best arguments don't always win the day.  That's what I would call a meritocracy.  The knowledge I had was the knowledge of the laws and regulations, of the industry I worked in and how proposed laws and regs would affect the industry and the economy.  I also had a keen understanding of what kinds of arguments would work with liberals, conservatives, men, women, etc.   And I was very good at "selling" my client's position.  That's the "merit" part of being a lobbyist, and its fun and rewarding work.  But what I didn't have was the ability to be at the table at 2 a.m. when the "lobbyists' special" provisions got put into the bills, because I had not been drinking three nights a week with the Committee staff clerk or because I wasn't dating the Chairman's receptionist.  I didn't have the willingness to screw a Congressman or his Chief of Staff, and believe me, a LOT of that goes on. 

 

I admit that I was naive when I went into lobbying and perhaps should not have been as shocked as I was to find so much sleazy about it.  

 

Anyone who swims in that sewer for any length of time, as Newt Gingrich has, ends up with some stink on them. 

 

 

210

<<If I got your point wrong, then it is a mistake. But it was hardly a big mistake. You are really worked up about this whole thing. >>

-

I'm "worked up", but you're just making reasonable arguments right? That's why you've repeatedly lied outright about what I've written. When pointed out, you apologized once, but now you say it's all just a 'mistake' rather than an outright verifiable lie. 

There's quite a distinction between Newt lying about the nature and scope of his contract with Freddie Mac, which he is guilty of (consulting for "history" services), and discussion of whether influence-peddling monies from government entity Freddie Mac is equivalent to earning money in private industry. They're not equivalent, and I'm confident that the vast majority of conservatives would agree with me on that.. but I never called you a liar over it and I never accused you of being overly "worked up" over it. I just think you're wrong.

211 <<<<<Posted by: rockmom at January 24, 2012 12:29 PM (qE3AR)>>>>>

I understand what you are saying.  but the same is true in any industry.  In law firms, people who can schmooze and bring in clients become partners and make big money even though they may be terrible lawyers.  It's the same in corporate America and the same in gov't and the same in just about every field.  Social skills and the ability to connect usually win the day over actual substantive ability. 

But, that is also part of meritocracy.  Just like doing the things other lobbyists did to get ahead.  You have to be able to both bring in the client and deliver the goods. 

Studies routinely show that better looking people make more money for doing the same job as less attractive people. 

Society is not perfect, but it is better than having the gov't decide.

212

<< You a) did call me a liar, and B) you did then turn around and say the exact thing>>

-

I'm calling you a liar now because I was responding to your claim that I wrote/suggested that I ever said Romney was carrying the "Conservative mantle" (your 11:32 am post for reference) . I not only never said that,  I went to pains to say that Romney was "less worse" than Gingrich and repeatedly posted that I was supporting Santorum.

No wonder you have no problem with Gingrich lying. You're so quick to lie yourself. What an asshole you are.

 

213

One of the underlying currents in this campaign is how the bar keeps moving further and further right for what constitutes a True Conservative, or just keeps moving around, period.  Conservatives need to understand that they cannot dictate extreme positions to candidates during the nomination battle that will make the eventual nominee an easy target in the general election as a far-right extremist.  When even a relatively innocuous state issue like in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants becomes a line-in-the-sand litmus test, we're in deep shit.  I'm very pissed at conservatives for pretty much killing Rick Perry right out of the box on this nothingburger issue.

214 Posted by: Mook at January 24, 2012 12:32 PM (+pY8V)

You are an ass.  YOu changed the goal posts and you lied when you claimed that you never said Romney was conservative.  I didn't want to bother calling you on it b/c I don't feel like researching up stream, but you clearly are a dishonest person.

You are all over the map and making idiotic arguments.  I say your wrong when you say Romney is more conservative.  "I never said that - you are lying".  Five minutes later you say Romney is more conservative than Newt.  I call you on it.  You call me a liar again and say you never said that.  I point out your lie with cite to your comment and you still deny it and call me a liar again?  it's in black and white on the site dude - you can't lie it away. 

How sad.  You are truly over the edge.  Step away and calm down and be more reasonable.  You moved the goalposts on your stupid and inane argument about Newt's work with Freddie.  You pestered me in multiple comments on whether I think the WORK is equal and I reasonably infer that to mean your argument is that the work itself is not equal and you claim that is some kind of purposeful lie?

You need to grow up and take responsibility for your actions.  An apology would be nice.

215 Posted by: Mook at January 24, 2012 12:37 PM (+pY8V)

I point out your lie in writing and you go ahead and repeat the same lie?  either you don't understand what you wrote or you have serious problems.

"Conservative mantle" is hyperbole for claiming Romney is conservative and/or more conservative than Gingrich.  You really are not too bright.

What exactly do you think "conservative mantle" means?

Talk about parsing and trying to thread a needle to snake out of dishonesty.  Actually, I'm beginning to think you simply don't understand much of what is being written or argued by anyone.  So maybe you aren't lying.  Perhaps just confused.

216

What Gingrich did for Freddie Mac does fall well within what I would call "influence peddling."  It's trading on your name and who you used to be and who you know.  Newt was attractive to Freddie because (a) they wanted to use his name to conservatives as an endorser of their business, and (b) they wanted his advice on how to help them kill a regulation bill that a lot of conservatives supported (not all did, the GSEs were very good at painting themselves as the Saviors of Homeownership and a lot of conservatives were afraid of the Realtors and Homebuilders on the GSE stuff.)  I'm afraid it was more the former than the latter, which means Newt probably did little or no actual work for Freddie, he gave them a "big conservative name" they could drop when they were talking to conservatives. 

217 <<<I'm very pissed at conservatives for pretty much killing Rick Perry right out of the box on this nothingburger issue.

Posted by: rockmom at January 24, 2012 12:38 PM (NYnoe)>>>>

Something we can both agree on.  I would much prefer Perry to either of these clowns.

218 It seems to me that your remarks about how much actual work Newt did are pure conjecture. I also suspect that people who say Newt was lying because he was hired as an "historian" have a very narrow idea of what a historian can do. In planning long-term strategy, it can be useful to know what your organization has done in the past, what worked and what failed, how the legislation was passed, what objections and obstacles you've faced in the past--and Newt would certainly be one of the most qualified people to fill that position. ------------------------------------------------------------- they wanted his advice on how to help them kill a regulation bill that a lot of conservatives supported __________________________________________Which bill do you mean, and what proof do you have? I agree that if that's true, and if it was a bad bill, that would be pretty damning. My impression was that Newt supported Bush's attempts to rein them in. Did Newt generally oppose restrictions on Fanny/Freddie, or was there something specific about this bill that made him reject it?

219 Oops-- I meant if it was a good bill.

220

 I also suspect that people who say Newt was lying because he was hired as an "historian" have a very narrow idea of what a historian can do. In planning long-term strategy, it can be useful to know what your organization has done in the past, what worked and what failed, how the legislation was passed

--

Except that the Freddie Mac contracts with Gingrich Inc. were released and they made no mention of "historian" and there were no reports of any "historical" significance ever provided by Newt.  Please read rockmom's 12:45 PM post.

Romney was right in calling Newt out over this.

221

<<Which bill do you mean, and what proof do you have?>>

--

Former Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave,  Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake and Idaho Gov. Butch Otter have all gone on the record claiming that Newt lobbied them to support the Medicare prescription drug plan at the same time he was being paid by big pharma companies. Newt is a shameless lying scumbag when he claims that he "never lobbied"

222 "Consultant" can be an historian. And PhDs who've had to move into other fields remain proud of their academic work even while working in fields where its all regarded as "useless". My husband has a PhD in English, and was able to transition into a business career. He didn't write novels for his company, and he didn't edit papers. His colleagues thought his background was eccentric, to say the least. Yet he used skills acquired in graduate school--languages, cultural knowledge, and long-range perspective--all the time.

223 Freddy Mac didn't ask him to lobby for Medicare--I assume that rockmom is talking about something else. The Medicare lobbying is a little sticky. Musgrave says that at the time she didn't believe he was lobbying, and Flake and Otter say his activities "amounted to lobbying." Since Newt had gotten legal advice on what lobbying was, it's always possible that what he did was technically not lobbying, but had that effect. So he was splitting hairs to protect himself from the charge of lobbying, which makes him partly dishonest, but I think falls short of the 'shameless lying scumbag" standard. Let me add that if Romney had half of Newt's ability to fight, or if Newt had a more stable history, I 'd be a much happier woman.

224 Burke, if you believe that Newt "I've never been a lobbyist" Gingrich was truly a 'historian' then why no evidence of his 'historical' consulting work and why zero mention of it in his contract? And why was only 2006 contract released? Of course Newt was a paid political flack for Freddie Mac who is lying when hes says a) that he's never been a lobbyist b) that his consulting role at Freddie Mac was only/mainly that of a historian. He can tap dance all he wants, but Newt is lying his ass off.

225

justing reading the Romney supporters commenting here shows just how bad a choice Romney is as a candidate ...

Its attack, attack, attack ...

You know what the best way to defend Romney is ?  DEFEND Romney ...

Tell us why he governed as a liberal ...

Tell us why RomneyCare is nothing like ObamaCare ...

Explain why he refused to support Reagan or the Contract with America ...

Quit trying to make a case AGAINST Newt and make one for Mitt ...

 

226 "Consultant" covers "strategic advice from a historic perspective" just fine, and allowed Freddie Mac to draw on all of his knowledge. Suppose the contract had said "historian",and then they wanted to ask him something about legislative procedures, or govt. agencies he had worked with? He would be entitled to say that he wanted a separate contract and additional money for legislative advice. Would that make you happier? This is really making a mountain out of a molehill. Unless there is proof that Newt encouraged Freddie Mac in its risky loan practices, there was nothing wrong with his working for Freddie Mac. We all know that many ex-politicians cash in later as lobbyists and political consultants. Most of them have law degrees, which means they could earn a decent living while staying far away from Washington. Rick Santorum,, for example, makes a lot of money as a "political consultant" for a Washington lobbying firm. He is also very careful not to be defined as a lobbyist. Newt, on the other hand, has a barely marketable PhD. He was much more dependent on his Washington experience in launching his post-Congressional career than many other politicians. Yet he is the one who gets stuck being called a "sleazebag." There are certainly reasons to decry the revolving door between government and K street, but let's not pretend that Newt is somehow uniquely depraved, and is doing something that decent people don't touch.

227 As the article says ....I really enjoy your blog. Intelligent and to the point.