« | »

The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves

Here is our usual weekend discussion thread, where comments on the general topics of the day are welcome.

But please remember to post and comment on specific news items in the ‘News Selected By Our Correspondents’ thread below or via the link found in the sidebar.

Thanks!

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, January 27th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

124 Responses to “The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves”

  1. tranquil.night says:

    I found this a real solid analysis on the current grassroots vs establishment divide by a blogger called Baseball Crank, who I believe is Ben Domenech, a writer at Redstate, if one is interested (h/t Smitty at theothermccain):

    What The Republican “Establishment” Really Means:

    Establishments and Our Money

    As he puts it, probably at the core of the divide is probably not so much ideological as it is a disagreement on pace of implementing reform. I disagree with that to an extent (although I certainly don’t believe the establishment are necessarily soft socialists either), as I don’t think you can call yourself a Constitutional Conservative today and approve of all the tasks that many Republicans have accepted as federally necessary (unfortunately Santorum falls in this category too with his position on entitlements, which is why currently my vote is more line up with Newt’s plan even though I like Rick personally so much more).

  2. tranquil.night says:

    In the previous thread, Steve writes:

    “I don’t know why it isn’t possible for people to oppose Newt Gingrich simply because they don’t believe he would make the best nominee.”

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that? (can’t speak for Pro). And there’s nothing wrong with that either. I’ve been openly not-Romney in the primary. I’m fairly positive that I’ve said before too that I think a lot of people in the Mitt vs Newt dynamic aren’t pro-Mitt as much as they’re worried Newt can’t win, don’t like his history, like Santorum or Paul more. It’s definitely not as simple as this establishment vs grassroots meta-schism but the point I really believe is that we are seeing this dynamic play out in parallel to through primary in the Romney vs the anti-Romneys.

    Where I get lost is that I don’t know why that justifies calling Newt supporters lunatics, writing scathing after scathing editorial, or throwing out your editorial standards altogether, falsifying the man’s record to make absurd allegations, and participating at times in Left’s attempts to politically assassinate him rather than winning on the strengths of the ‘better’ candidates?

    I’m really not trying to be contentious and incredibly respect your thoughts and willingness to engage on it, SG. Thank you.

    • Steve says:

      “Where I get lost is that I don’t know why that justifies calling Newt supporters lunatics, writing scathing after scathing editorial, or throwing out your editorial standards altogether, falsifying the man’s record to make absurd allegations, and participating at times in Left’s attempts to politically assassinate him rather than winning on the strengths of the ‘better’ candidates?”

      I think a lot of people think (and probably rightly) that we are at a fundamental juncture as a country. So passions are even higher than usual.

      If we don’t go crazy, it could be a good thing.

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”So passions are even higher than usual……”

      Steve, you have a penchant for understatement. What worries me is the tendency of people to go all out in a scorched-earth policy in the defense of one’s chosen candidate……a “he started it–I’ll finish it” attitude. I remember well my dismay when my kids couldn’t be disuaded from escalating an issue. Now they have kids of their own doing the same thing. I believe they’re beginning to understand.

      Me? I’m just observing and taking notes. Even in the sometimes over-heated rhetoric there is something to be learned. Regardless of how this plays out, it will be difficult for all sides whose candidate didn’t prevail to reconcile themselves to voting for the candidate that did.

      I’m old enough and have lived long enough to realize you should be careful of whose toes you step on on the way up, as they may be attached to the ass you must kiss on the way back down.

    • Steve says:

      Amen, JMG!

    • proreason says:

      It was ok for Romney, but now it’s not ok for Gingrich.

      And Romney has done in it one way or another against Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Huckabee, Perry, Cain and Gingrich.

      If I had to design a perfect candidate, Newt would be below the middle on my list.

      But Romney in now at the absolute bottom. I won’t support him in the primaries no matter what happens, and I’m re-thinking whether I will support him if he buys the nomination. He lies…about everything…all the time. I don’t believe he will do what he says he will do. Pat Bondi yesterday said that he is going to “fix healthcare”. Oh yeh, that is what we need. Mitt Romney fixing healthcare.

      So count me anti-Romney rather than pro-Gingrich.

      Santorum, Gingrich, Romney…all big government guys who claim to be conservative. Two have ACTED conservatively in their political careers. One never has. But none of that is the major problem with Romney. The major problem is that he is the ideal candidate to lose.

      – Wall Street corporate raider. Not a banker, but that will be a distinction without a difference
      – Architect of Romneycare, and hence Obamacare
      – Self-proclaimed anti-Reaganite and progressive. Governed as a liberal. He will be percieved as obama lite
      – Mormon, which many see as a cult. No amount of education will overcome this
      – The guy who has serially attacked every Republican opponent for 5 years. (note: Gingrich has attack ads from Romney. Romney has attack ads from multiple candidates for 5 years. The ones from McCain and Huckabee are devastating)
      – A more famous flip-flopper than even Kerry. He will be portrayed as, and is, an unprincipled politician who will do anything to win. The position changes go on for pages.
      – Refuses to attack obama for any reason other than easily countered “he failed”. Obama easily answers, “it was worse than even we imagined.”
      – a wonky, passionless guy, except when it comes to attacking Republicans

      Nancy Pelosi has twice attacked Gingrich. Obama purrs that he is grateful to Romney for Romneycare.

      This is the electable candidate? Give me a break.

  3. Mithrandir says:

    MOVIE: RED TAILS George Lucas’ continued attempts at eliminating liberal white guilt.
    YouTube Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpA6TC0T_Lw

    :27 “Our boys are getting cut to shreds.”
    “I need pilots who will put the bombers ahead of themselves!”

    I got it! Let’s find black people who will protect the bombers! OR, since it’s the military (and we already have trained pilots) we COULD just ORDER people not to do whatever it is that is causing casualties, NAH, let’s just replace the white pilots with black pilots, that makes sense.

    It’s another story that doesn’t need to be told—well, at least not by this guy. Just like: “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, The Star Wars Holiday Special”, “Howard the Duck”, the needless insertion of Lando Calrissian, the Ewoks, the stupid jab at George Bush in S.W. episode #3,

    Lucas embarrasses himself on John Stewart:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as9EF9dVWEY

    “…it’s one of the first all-black action pictures ever made.”
    Hmm, I guess he forgot about: “Shaft” “Glory” “Amistad” “Ali” and 100 other all-black movies Lucas never saw: http://www.ranker.com/list/all-black-movies-or-list-of-black-movies/all-genre-movies-lists

    The reason the studios rejected it, is because it’s another poorly written, poorly directed, racially antagonizing, jumble of discontinuity–again! Stop claiming racism, the movie is a god-awful stinker, BUT DON’T WORRY, you’re off the hook of ever being accused of being racist, at least you tried man. Perhaps in the future, you can re-edit Indiana Jones and Star Wars, and insert more racially diverse characters to erase the remaining white guilt, and maybe give away the billions you made from both franchises.

    • Anonymoose says:

      It’s hard to believe this is the same guy who made the original Star Wars or was involved in Raiders of the Lost Ark. One of the Tuskegee Airmen lives where I’m at and comes out to the air shows. Honorable man, served his country with distinction, but one movie was already made about them, a made for TV one that actually was pretty good. A second one that essentially told the same story didn’t need to be made. What I’m hearing from several sources is that aside from the special effects Red Tails is just not a good movie. Lucas explaining the dislike for the movie as racism is making him look like Oliver Stone, who thought people were too dumb to not be blinded by the light of his genius with his fiasco about Alexander the Great.

    • Mithrandir says:

      Non-introspective analysis, uncritical thinking, illogical neurosis = claims of “racism.” It is the mind of the liberal simpleton, like George Lucas, who can’t win an argument based on thought, so he/she makes an absurd claim causing you to disprove an untruth. It is just as easy to turn the tables on them, and make them walk through the thought process leading to the conclusion of “racism, sexism, homophobia.” When they stumble through their ridiculous explanations, they are exposed as the frauds that they are.

      It’s too bad Republicans usually are not smart enough to dodge and parry such futile arguments, but instead we have seen so many times, they get off track for 10-15 minutes defending themselves. They try to prove they have black friends, or volunteered or donated to black causes etc. When the whole argument can be ended with a simple refusal to play the game to begin with, and expose the accuser as a racist himself. Why doesn’t Ron Paul reference Rev. Wright when his newsletters are brought up? Or reference KKK Robert Byrd? Or why when Rep. are accused of sexism, why isn’t it a golden opportunity to reflect on Ted Kennedy’s 47 years in office?

      Any media person black or white, such as Chris Matthews, who goes on to say the Tea Party is racist, can be made a fool by a few simple questions: “Let us know your home address so we can verify its racial and socio-economic demographics. Let us know where your children go to school, where your family lives, how much money you make, what social causes you volunteer and donate to, to see how racially diverse each sector is. And also, when and why aren’t you giving up your job position to someone of color, if you think races have been kept down for so long?”–crickets…

      The studios could easily do this with George Lucas, instead of taking claims of racism on the chin. Be honest and say the film is racism itself, and they don’t want their fingerprints on it.

      Sheesh! People need a little training on how to debate these racial frauds and cowards!

    • beautyofreason says:

      Lucas is one of the worst directors today. After the Star Wars prequels he stopped caring about narration, pacing and dialogue. The new films raked and buried his original trilogy; they are no more than special effects. The actors try to make the best of a rough script. Have you seen Red Letter Media’s review of the films? Hilarious to say the least.

      Lucas is also big on the politics. In Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls there is no good or bad side. Lucas and Spielberg portray 1950’s American students as nuts for opposing communism. The reds are shown as logical and on the defensive. It does not surprise me that Lucas uses “racism” to shout down criticism.

      I loathe movies that are made to promote a social issue, that use mind numbing characters to make the point as simple as possible. Usually the plot is to fight a tradition, conservatism, a Christian view, or a prejudiced white male. Even when there is no such conflict, the heroes are absurd. I’m thinking of the film Precious. That joke was nominated for best picture Oscar. The script writer did everything short of murdering the main character to elicit sympathy. The main character is a black female who is morbidly obese, stealing fast food, infected with HIV, raped by her father, beat up by her mother, and parent to two of her dad’s kids at the age of 16.The story was not believable at all but it had a positive message so it was given accolades. The same goes for Avatar. The special effects and theme of evil white corporations destroying the environment / natives appealed to Hollywood libs.

      I guess I just want to watch good films with character development. I don’t want to “get back” at anyone based on what their ancestors did. I don’t want to patronize movie goers with politically correct casts and cookie cutter scenarios.

    • beautyofreason says:

      “And also, when and why aren’t you giving up your job position to someone of color, if you think races have been kept down for so long?” – Mith

      My views on affirmative action were essentially formed when my aunt told me that upon being hired to a local community college in the eighties, her new employers told her “If a qualified black person applies for the job, you’re out.” That statement infuriated me. The idea that someone can be hired or fired based on their skin color, that my family could be punished due to the actions of people over 100 years ago is hard to swallow.

    • Mithrandir says:

      Star Wars Episode 3:
      Anakin: “Either you are with me, or you are my enemy!”
      Obi-Wan: “Only the Sith deal in absolutes.” (ONLY the Sith? –Isn’t that ALSO an absolute?)

      George Bush: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

      Everywhere you look, liberals try to slip-in their dogma, political slights, ideological metaphors. I just watched one of the “Twilight” series movies, New Moon I think, the character Jacob Black, a werewolf says, “I was born this way, this isn’t some lifestyle choice!”–sound familiar?

      These people have no “off” button, as my liberal college professor said, “Everything is political.” –She was right, in the mind of the politically insane, there is no other way of thinking…..just like robots.

  4. tranquil.night says:

    Hmm: Palin – Rage Against the Machine, Vote for Newt!

    “Annoy a liberal, vote Newt!”

    More than just a lib at this point. Heh.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Forgot the hattip to The Right Scoop there, who is also a very fine alternative source on the sphere.

    • proreason says:

      The anit-Newt brainwashing is so thorough that something is happening that rarely happened before. Right wing commenters on the blogs are now actively attacking Palin…or perhaps, the Romney smear machine has tons of people willing to go on the blogs and attack a woman who has been virtually left alone up to now.

      I lean toward the latter explanation, btw, because it is beyond clear that Romney will do anything to get the nomination. If he has an ethic, I’d like to hear about it.

    • Melly says:

      First Iowa would decide everything. Then NH was crucial. But then SC was decisive. Now FL will be pivotal. But Super Tuesday really is Super. The media just love it because it is job security for them. All weekend the pundits told us how important the so-called debates have been. For the media they are cheap to produce and give them audiences their regular programs can’t match and paid ads galore. This is nasty? You mean like the vicious stuff between Obama and the Clintons, most of which the media kept hushed up? And I luv the code word coming…ethics, honesty, machine. Who really is runnig the show here? All I know is that people enter the voting booths by themselves without an evil politcal insider by their side. This is politics. It’s dirty. Such naiveté and feigned shock vis-a-vis the tenor of the attacks. There is no avoiding the negative side of politics during a presidential election. Jefferson’s side started by calling Adams a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Adams supporters responded by labeling Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

    • tranquil.night says:

      Integrity is for rubes! This is politics. Say whatever, do whatever. Maximize whatever advantage you can, whether real or one you can create just out of perception, because perception is reality with the rube mob. Just win baby.

      And this is why we are on our way to losing.

    • tranquil.night says:

      The utopians own that relativist ruleset. They’re much better at it. Play in their house and the house will win.

  5. phinehas says:

    Two things I thought were interesting.

    I was watching c-span and they had on the Conservative Black Forum on 5 day ago. Interesting what Allen West stated around the 1:35:15 mark..with context by moderator. Allen West WRONGLY interprets, “promote the general Welfare” in the Constitution’s preamble as a constitutional mandate versus plainly being a result of having a Constitution.

    http://www.c-span.org/Events/Rep-Allen-West-R-FL-Hosts-Conservative-Black-Forum/10737427371/

    Second…

    Interesting and telling admission from a non-profit regarding high taxes preventing them from manufacturing the $25 Raspbery Pi computer in England, versus Asia. Starting at the 2nd to the last paragraph.

    http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/509

  6. captstubby says:

    debate is one of the corner stones of a democracy.

    but a Suicide Virus has infected this process.

    one of the early signs are the spewing of venom.

    next is the displaying of rap sheets,quickly followed by counter lists.

    the final stage is the brains reasoning process to a state of absolute Dead Right rationalization.

    come November, when the Democrats cry “bring out your dead!”

    we will be among them.

    Ms Coulter has apparently contracted this.

    ask your selves ,

    would we have been better off if a Democrat held the candidates previous elected offices?

    we are spinning out of control here people.

    lets use our resources to win this election.

    life forces us to make hard choices.

    lets not make extinction one of them.

    • proreason says:

      As far as I’m concerned there are two enemies. The leftists and the group that is fighting with everything they have, not against the marxists, but to hang onto the crumbs of power and wealth that fall from the leftists plates.

      Because if the republican ruling class’ primary goal was to defeat the leftists, then Romney would not have attempted to destroy his opponents, particularly Newt. It’s not as if Gingrich has no flaws. It was never necessary to go nuclear.

      So what has going nuclear accomplished?

      The indisputable fact that the republican ruling class has chosen to do this makes me question whether they are worth supporting at all. If the enemy they choose to fight is me, rather than my enemy, how does supporting them help me?

    • Steve says:

      “The leftists and the group that is fighting with everything they have, not against the Marxists, but to hang onto the crumbs of power and wealth that fall from the leftists plates.”

      Some might argue that Newt was doing that at Freddie Mac. While the ‘establishment GOP’ (President Bush and the Republicans in Congress) were trying to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and scale them back, Newt was being paid to defend the status quo.

      And defend it he did, such as in this interview that was posted on the Freddie Mac website back on April 24, 2007:

      Market-Based Models Are Key to Transforming U.S. Government to a 21st Century Organization – Freddie Mac
      http://web.archive.org/web/20080909224217/http:/www.freddiemac.com/corporate/about/policy/policytalk_gingrich_42407.html

      Gingrich: … Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs, but I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae…

      These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself…

      Q: This is not a point of view one normally associates with conservatives.

      Gingrich: Well, it’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace. But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism…

    • proreason says:

      The Fannie / Freddie thing with Newt is the third most outrageous claim against him.

      The first two are that he was anti-Reagan and that he is anti-capitalism. The simple fact that they are willing to say that kind of nonsense is the reason I and many others have turned against them. The attacks are just so over-the-top crazy that it completely destroys whatever credibility they had, which wasn’t much to start with.

      Regarding the GSE’s, Gingrich said that there was bipartisan support for the GSE model. That is an unquestioned fact. If you are arguing that the Bush administration was arguing to dispand the GSE’s I’d like to see that evidence. “Reining them in” is not disbanding them. But even if they were arguing to disband them, whether GSE’s are a decent model for government to be involved in is a totally separate issue from whether Fannie and Freddie were the lynchpins in the the housing meltdown. Fannie and Freddie existed for decades before they went rogue. Nobody was arguing then that they should be disbanded. The CRA, combined with the marxists tactics to force banks to loan to deadbeats, is the root of the problem, not the GSE’s themselves.

      Show me where Gingrich argued that the Community Reinvestment Act was a good thing and that prospective homeowners should be given loans they had no chance to pay back. Then you will have a convincing case.

      But of course, despite the Bush administrations efforts to reign F and F in, we know that they were pushing the expansion of home ownership at the same time. EVERYBODY’s position was that expanding home ownership was a good thing. Somewhere, there is probably a quote from Romney praising government for expanding home ownership. I don’t know it for a fact, but I know that he is every bit as much of a big-government guy as Gingrich is.

      So the F&F attack on Gingrich on those grounds is a distortion of the situation at the time. It’s corrupt revisionist history. It’s just further proof that the Ruling Class are corrupt liars and willing to do or say anything to maintain their power.

      Meanwhile, Romeny was designing Romneycare…but we are supposed to accept that. And he won’t back off it an inch.

      It’s mind numbing.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Second-hand source which I’m sure takes some of this out of context, but I trust this is open Senate record: http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_6/Rick-Santorum-Fannie-Mae-Freddie-Mac-1045542-1.html?zkPrintable=true

      In 2005, when Banking Committee Republicans were trying to tighten the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Santorum pushed to include language in the legislation that would strengthen their affordable-housing goals.

      “We’re very concerned about making sure that we do things in working with this legislation to improve the access to affordable housing,” Santorum said during a July 28, 2005 hearing on the Senate bill.

      He added that he wanted to orient Fannie and Freddie “toward taking a more active role in creating housing opportunities for low and moderate income families.”

      D’OH.

      Santorum and Paul are now the ones who’ve most aggressively talked about reforming or removing the GSE’s.

      I agree with Pro. The anti-Newt crusade is more than just anti-Newt, it’s anti-Conservative. This continuous attempt to call into question Newt’s much understood lackluster credentials when by the same standards no one else is anywhere near sparkling either only nails that perception home for me. If it were Santorum in Newt’s place right now, this exact same fight would be playing out over whatever Santorum’s sins are that make him ‘unelectable.’

    • Steve says:

      “Show me where Gingrich argued that the Community Reinvestment Act was a good thing and that prospective homeowners should be given loans they had no chance to pay back. Then you will have a convincing case.”

      You should have read the interview:

      Gingrich: … Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs, but I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it’s clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace. Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that home-ownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.

    • Steve says:

      Four years before the above Gingrich interview, from the New York Times:

      New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

      By STEPHEN LABATON
      September 11, 2003

      The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

      Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

      The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

      The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates…

      This move would have effectively taken away Fannie and Freddie’s Congressional Charters. Unfortunately, the forces at Fannie and Freddie and there supporters inside and outside of Congress were too powerful, and it did not happen.

      Bush, McCain Tried To Reform Freddie Mac | Sweetness & Light
      http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance

    • Steve says:

      “[Criticizing Newt over his paid support for Freddie Mac] is just further proof that the Ruling Class are corrupt liars and willing to do or say anything to maintain their power.”

      Gosh, I guess I’ve finally made it to the Ruling Class.

      BTW, speaking of maintaining power, you do know that Gingrich supported the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” back in 1987. Think of how different our world would be if that had passed.

      But once again I will reiterate, I would happily vote for Gingrich or whomever of the remaining candidates gets the nomination, rather than vote for Obama. Even Ron Paul.

      In fact, I think Newt could probably make a great President. But I also believe we should know who we are talking about.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Oh no, I think we’ve solved the puzzle Mr. Sajak.

      Newt: “We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace.”

      Rick: “He added that he wanted to orient Fannie and Freddie ‘toward taking a more active role in creating housing opportunities for low and moderate income families.'”

      Newt was clearly lobbying for Rick!

      And here all this time I’ve been railing against Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Hank Paulson…

      Well for solving this round of wheel of fortune, our prize is the guy who birthed the prototype of ObamaCare to contrast us against Obama. Winning!

    • Steve says:

      “If it were Santorum in Newt’s place right now, this exact same fight would be playing out over whatever Santorum’s sins are that make him ‘unelectable.’”

      Or you could look at it as the front runner getting vetted. Once Gingrich became the front runner, he got vetted.

      It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy. I believe in vetting.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “Or you could look at it as the front runner getting vetted.”

      Really? Because then I’d hope that would go both ways. And when Romney’s Bain record was taken out of context but also questioned there was a defeaning roar that both the unjustified critics and the people a who were uncomfortable with how some of the decisions Bain made would be portrayed by the Left in the general were anti-capitalist, empowering the Left’s argument, hurting the cause, wahh, wahh. I don’t hear such indignation when Romney runs with Pelosi’s ethics baiting on the show-trial back in the 90s about which he was ultimately exonerated for the most part. Why is one set of falsehoods fair game but the other not if the rules are that anything’s kosher in the name of vetting?

      Here’s Sarah:

      “We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

      I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

      “It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy.”

      It isn’t, it’s a strategy. Sort-sighted, employing tactics that won’t be effective in the general but likely backfire, and one that runs a great risk of damaging the party’s electoral coaltion when unity and enthusiasm will be needed most.

      I look at it exactly how this Romney staffer describes it: “It not about winning here anymore .. It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.” http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-eyeing-blowout-keeps-foot-to-newts-neck

      And exactly how the Slimes describe it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/politics/the-calculations-that-led-romney-to-the-warpath.html?pagewanted=all

      Romney has never gotten vetted to this degree. Nobody else has the Republican Establishment to circle the wagons around them and write editorial after editorial making sure their every electoral strength is high-lighted (no matter how superficial) and the weakness of their opponent is cemented into conventional wisdom (even if those same weakness could be applied to the candidate on whose behalf the charge is being made).

    • proreason says:

      You should apply the same research skills to digging up quotes about what the other candidates were saying at the time, when there was clearly a bi-partisan agreement to expand home ownership. If you did that, it would be a balanced approach, instead of an anti-Gingrich approach.

      But to be specific, being in favor of a liquid market, as Gingrich argued, has nothing to do with making loans that people can’t afford to repay. Market liquidity is a good thing, not a bad thing. Moreover, this is part of the quote: “So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.”. a) Gingrich addressed market liquidity, the function of GSE’s and home ownership; his remarks didn’t address the CRA and bad loans, b) he supported improving GSE regulations, and c) the republicans could have enforced stonger GSE regulations, since they had the power before 2006, but didn’t, whereas Gingrich wasn’t in power at the time, and d) CRA was the problem; take that away and there would have been no housing meltdown.

      That takes care of the first quote.

      Re the second quote, I like the fact that the Bush administration pushed for oversight and managing the risk. They did it several times. Unfortunately for your argument, they chose not to use the power they had to make it happen. There is more truth to the fact that they were complicit in the meltdown than there is in trying to pin the problem on Gingrich, of all people, which is laughable, since he had no power at the time.

      btw, Newt spoke against the bailout of F&F in 2008. Bush could have vetoed the bailout, but he didn’t.

    • proreason says:

      “Romney has never gotten vetted to this degree.”

      For example, there has been no vetting of his religion, even though everybody knows this will be a major theme of the general election if he is successful in buying the election.

      The screams from the Republican Ruling Class would be even louder, if possible, that the screams about anti-capitalism, anit-reaganism, and the Fannie Mae tempest in a teapot. Whoever brings it up will be labeled as being opposed to the 1st amendment….probably the entire Constitution.

      So that won’t come up…we won’t hear about it until pravda makes it a centerpiece of the fall campaign.

      And the ruling class was also successful at shouting down the perfectly legitimate concerns about having a presidential nominee who made a fortune with a business model that a very large percentage of the country is going to find, at best, questionably ethical. The deflection of saying the issue proves that the questioner is against capitalism worked with the 10% of the voting public who participate in Republican primaries. It won’t work when the voters being courted increase in numbers ten-fold. The ironic thing is that everybody knows this, yet here we are back to holding our hands over our ears. That’s why they call Republicans are the stupid party.

    • proreason says:

      Another point about all this is that Gingrich has been making public statements for the over 30 years he has been a politician.

      Nobody denies that he has said a lot of things that don’t fit perfectly with the current perfectly formed conservative ideology. I think that people need to balance those numerous proclamations against what he has been able to accomplish, as well as against what his numerous enemies say or have said about him.

      Romney has been in the public eye for about 1/3 of that time; a couple of years when he ran as a Rockefeller Republican against Ted Kennedy, and since 2002 when he was a progressive and then converted to conservatism in 2007 so he could say he was a mainstream republican and run for president.

      Just on the raw timeframe, there should be three times as many quotes out there from Newt to pick apart. But when you realize that Romney wasn’t really a national politician until 2007, the factor is really much greater. There is probably ten times as much material to pick through about Newt than there is about Romney (same for Santorum, btw).

      Add to that the fact that there are probably 100 times as many people trying to take Newt down as Mitt, and it’s actually shocking that the contest of personal destruction is as close as it is.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Vetting: Levin – Character Matters and Romney’s Worries Me

      “My great fear is, however, that he is the weakest candidate who can face Obama and will go into the general election with a fractured base, thanks to his own character flaws, which are now on display, and his tactics of personal destruction.”

      That is now a potential consequence for what by all circumstances in the country right now should be an unfathomable possibility, despite however Pro or I feel, and that’s hattip the Stupid Party.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “Nobody denies that he has said a lot of things that don’t fit perfectly with the current perfectly formed conservative ideology.”

      As Allahpundit says, it’s priced into his stock.

      The anti-Newt’s might not understand that a lot of Newt supporters are making a judgment call based on the candidates and tasks at hand, not because they support everything the man’s said and done. Not whatsoever.

    • Steve says:

      “And the ruling class was also successful at shouting down the perfectly legitimate concerns about having a presidential nominee who made a fortune with a business model that a very large percentage of the country is going to find, at best, questionably ethical.”

      You support a candidate who saw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as models that he would want for everything from NASA to government healthcare?

      And you attack a candidate whose private equity model helped save the American economy in the 1980s and 1990s?

      (BTW, as we have noted, Gingrich was once on the board of a private equity firm. In fact, the firm that invented leverage buyouts.)

      But why does Romney’s past record matter if Gingrich’s doesn’t it? If we are going to forgive the one, shouldn’t you forgive them both, and just go on what they are saying now.

      And, if we go by their current positions, Romney is currently to the right of Gingrich on many issues. Including amnesty.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “But why does Romney’s past record matter if Gingrich’s doesn’t it?”

      Because the me-me everyday isn’t about how Romney’s record makes him unelectable, and at times in upwards of 40% of the primary electorate is voting on the premise of ‘electability,’ which is nothing more than a perception.

      “And, if we go by their current positions, Romney is currently to the right of Gingrich on many issues. Including amnesty.”

      Okay, by a margin. It’s not total amnesty nor even total citizenship for what it does address. Nor is it a final product. As Rubio said, both candidates are for securing the law and securing the border first.

      What else? How about spending, entitlement, and tax reform, articulating and advancing conservatism passionately in contrast with the debt armaggedon the regime is purposely steering us towards?

      Doc 0 – GOP presidential platforms, timid and bold

    • proreason says:

      “But why does Romney’s past record matter if Gingrich’s doesn’t it?”

      Because Gingrich is a man who has implemented the major conservative reforms since RR; tax reform, welfare reform and budget reforms. Romney is a man who says he is conservative but who has never acted like one. His major accomplishment is Romneycare and he’s damned proud of it.

      I can trust the WORD of a guy who has changed every position he has ever held, who governed as a liberal, and whose entire approach is based on smearing his opponents, or the record of the most important conservative figure in the post Reagan area.

      Obviously, people can find plenty of things to slime anybody with. The snakes would slime Reagan as well.

      It’s sad that you have been caught up in it, Steve.

      And of course, the slime throwing began when it was clear that Gingrich had won the contest of ideas a few weeks before the Iowa voting.

    • proreason says:

      parting thought for the day.

      What if Newt had 15 times the money to spend instead of Romney?

      For that matter, what if the money was just even?

      For 90% of the electorate, you get the candidate who buys you, one way or another.

    • Mithrandir says:

      IT’S THE CLASSIC “GOTCHA” IN POLITICS” …and we are supposed to be surprised by this.

      @proreason: The CRA, combined with the marxists tactics to force banks to loan to deadbeats, is the root of the problem, not the GSE’s themselves.

      That’s right. Democrats forced banks into this, knowing the results, that tax money would be used to cover it up, and banks / Wall Street will take the blame, not democrat policies, and not deadbeat citizens. ~genius!
      There is nothing inherently wrong with GSEs, as there is nothing inherently wrong with many government programs, with Gingrich giving examples: railroad land grants, Homestead Act, telephone service and electricity to every community in our nation.

      (Gingrich Article) All of these are examples of government bringing about desired public purposes without creating massive, taxpayer-funded bureaucracies.

      Am I missing something here? Isn’t that the CRUX of most debates? At what level is government helping, and where is the turning point into which it has become destructive and abusive?
      I didn’t read anything Gingrich wrote that I disagree with, whether he took money from F&F or not. ~Have you not noticed Democrats have gotten ZERO PERCENT of the blame for any of this?

      I think the debate is at what point did people realize that F&F’s portfolio was an unsustainable bubble, a democrat party kick-back to voters, a social engineered Titanic waiting to happen? As we have all found out over the years, you can support good intentions like welfare, the TSA, social security, but NEVER support the evil vines that grew from it. However democrats engineered all this, vehemently opposed regulation of it (caught on video) Barney Frank denying there needs to be any oversight (also on video) Bush, Paul, & McCain gave multiple warnings, meanwhile Gingrich is left holding the bag. (?)–terrible….

  7. tranquil.night says:

    Jacobson: Allen West Close to Being Redistricted Out of Existence in Effort Led by Romney Florida Spokesman

    Col. West has been a bigger problem for the establishment than just talking nice about Newt.

    This isn’t about saving our Republic to them. These rising stars are a threat to the established order. They can’t destroy Rubio anymore, hell they can’t even marginalize him anymore he’s too damn good. But they are doing their best to co-opt him.

  8. canary says:

    Builder & Economist Made in the USA Products Only Home. Government listen up.

    CBS
    http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_04vzdsr5/uiconf_id/5590821

  9. Steve says:

    Speaking of the Republican Ruling Class Elite, there is this via the Daily Caller:

    Pat Buchanan: Reagan White House saw Newt as ‘something of a political opportunist’

    .. “[I]n the Reagan White House, Newt Gingrich was considered quite frankly by a lot of folks to be something of a political opportunist and who was not trusted and who had played no role whatsoever,” Buchanan said. “He was a Rockefeller Republican in the great Goldwater-Rockefeller battle, where conservatism came of age.” …

    Newt Gingrich | Reagan White House | Pat Buchanan | The Daily Caller
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/28/pat-buchanan-reagan-white-house-saw-newt-as-something-of-a-political-opportunist/

    Oh, and then there is this:

    Gingrich says REAGAN is a FAILURE but praises TRUMAN!!! – YouTube
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEHaF-6TEQ4

    • tranquil.night says:

      Oh good, for a minute there I thought Drudge had missed this breaking headline schoolyard gossip news.

    • Steve says:

      I actually did not see the story on Drudge. But did Drudge bring up the claim that Gingrich worked hand in glove with Reagan? Did the Romney cabal?

      Or was that Newt? — In fact, Gingrich has cited Reagan 61 times in 19 debates.

    • proreason says:

      Nancy Reagan must have been kidding when she said that Barry had passed the torch to Ronnie and that Ronnie had passed the torch to Newt.

      And Michael Reagan’s memory must be clouded as well. What could Reagan’s son have known anyway?

      Pat Buchanan and editted youtube clips are the authorities on this matter.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “Or was that Newt? — In fact, Gingrich has cited Reagan 61 times in 19 debates.”

      Oh, so then this wall-to-wall airing of personal vendettas by just about everybody in politics for the past 30 years is all just in the interest of fact-checking. Okay then.

      “I was there. I lived it. I saw it. Or let me put it this way — Newt Gingrich, if he does nothing else, did more for the conservative movement and to stop the liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives than virtually everybody today who’s criticizing him.. If this is what the Conservative movement has become then count me out.” – Levin

      http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/27/mark-levin-bucks-conservative-media-trend-comes-to-gingrichs-defense/#ixzz1ktQSMSn2

      Count me out too. This is absurd and has not a thing to do with either Newt’s qualifications for president or the issues facing this country.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I guess Matt doesn’t find what the author of the current NYT best-selling Conservative book (and a Reagan official) has to say about Romney that newsworthy.

    • proreason says:

      A lot of conservative sites and authors are going to be surprised at their drop in income. Drudge isn’t the only aggregator.

      HotAir is dead to me. Off the favorites list. I’ll still look at Drudge because his site has always been mostly about what the msm doesn’t tell you. He liked obama a lot in 2008 as well. It doesn’t surprise me he is in the tank for Romney. If HotAir had offered a balance of opinions, it would be different. But they didn’t.

      There are thousands of sites out there. Why attend one that is obviously shilling (against the wishes of its audience) and goes days without offering a counter opinion on a critical issue.

      At least Steve has mostly remained above the fray and is allowing an open discussion about the most contentious issues.

      As I tell Ms Reason, our most powerful vote is with our wallet.

    • Steve says:

      “Nancy Reagan must have been kidding when she said that Barry had passed the torch to Ronnie and that Ronnie had passed the torch to Newt.”

      That 1995 clip makes it clear Nancy was talking about Newt and the 1994 Congress:

      “They believed that government should simply get out of the way. Ronnie and Barry fought for those principles, which, today, have been overwhelmingly embraced. So they must have done something right. Just take a look at the extraordinary men and women who make up the 104th Congress, and, of course, this distinguished Speaker Newt Gingrich [gestures to Gingrich]. The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie. And in turn, Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive. I know that Ronnie believes it will succeed, and that the American people support their efforts.”

      There were 230 Republican members of Congress that year. And lot of them, including a number of the 1994 freshmen, soon turned on Newt, as I and others have noted.

      Gingrich does not believe “that government should simply get out of the way.” Gingrich, by his own words, is “a Teddy Roosevelt conservative.”

      BTW, in 1964 Newt was a state chair for Nelson Rockefeller. In 1968, he was a regional chair for Nelson Goldwater.

    • proreason says:

      Mrs Reagan could have said “the Republican members of Congress led by Newt ”

      But of course she said instead “Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress “. If wasn’t an off the cuff remark. It was a formal speech that was carefully crafted and which she had the time to edit.

      I hate to nitpick, but that’s what the woman said. If tiny minutia counts when attacking Newt, then tiny minutia counts when defending him.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Steve, if I may ask directly, are there a lot of Conservatives from the old guard out there who pretty much put it on Newt as a central reason why Conservatism went off into the wilderness for a decade, while the brand and the last of the old Reagan guard were co-opted into the Bush Establishment? On top of everything else he’s done and said in the past decade, is this effort to humiliate him now anything to do with those who I’m sure felt humiliated by his fall in the late 90s – and are all these wounds too deep that those who were there would do everything in their power to see that not happen again, even if it means effectively lining up with a moderate, because they’re that convinced he is doom?

    • Steve says:

      “Steve, if I may ask directly, are there a lot of Conservatives from the old guard out there who pretty much put it on Newt as a central reason why Conservatism went off into the wilderness for a decade, while the brand and the last of the old Reagan guard were co-opted into the Bush Establishment?”

      I honestly don’t know. And if they did, that would surely be wrong.

      But I do have to say that I know a couple of people who have probably been Newt’s biggest supporters from the very beginning. And even they had/have questions about him. Though, now that Perry has dropped out, they are back to backing Newt.

      Again, please do not take my posts as any condemnation of Newt. I actually like Newt. I always have. I do think he is inspirational. He has always been. And all of the current candidates are flawed in one way or another.

      I just think we should keep our eyes open. A few months ago Newt was in single digits in every poll, even among conservatives. Newt has become a protest vote. I understand that.

      But there is no reason to condemn Romney as Satan.

    • tranquil.night says:

      That that was really well put and you’ve reassured me a bit for what it’s worth.

      It’s been a very nice privilege to get to read what you think and engage you directly on this whole mess. Thank you for taking the time.

    • BigOil says:

      Romney is not satan – but he personifies weakness. His conservative record is weak, as are his dealings with the opposition. He was silent for over two years while the republic was enduring what amounted to a marxist coup. Millions of conservatives were out at protests, townhalls, and supporting conservative candidates across the country in order to stem the tide. Where was Willard?

      Now Romney wants to lead the party that is supposed to represent conservatives. His strategy is to call Barry a failure. Has Romney not been paying attention? Our President told us he planned to fundamentally transform the country during his last campaign. Last I checked…he has been fairly successful.

      We watched this same scenario play out in the last Presidential election. A centrist candidate that refused to properly define his opponent and create the necessary ideological contrast. Why do we expect a different result this time?

    • Steve says:

      “Romney is not satan – but he personifies weakness. His conservative record is weak, as are his dealings with the opposition. He was silent for over two years while the republic was enduring what amounted to a marxist coup. Millions of conservatives were out at protests, townhalls, and supporting conservative candidates across the country in order to stem the tide. Where was Willard?”

      Willard was putting together an extensive organization to run again for the Presidency. Where was Newton?

      Mr. Gingrich has done nothing for the conservative movement since 1999. (And some say even before.) In fact, he seemed to be working for the other side in the years since.

      In fact, Newt couldn’t even be bothered to put together a campaign organization for his current Presidential campaign/book tour.

      — Just giving the other side of the coin, BO, since some are saying no one will speak up for Romney.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Do you have any thoughts on the second half of BO’s post, Steve?

  10. canary says:

    The Daily Caller is now saying Mitt Romney’s present aids supported Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac

    According to the AP, former Rep. Susan Molinari — a top Romney surrogate and adviser (watch her attacking Gingrich in this video) — was one of the former GOP lawmakers paid quite handsomely to help stop “any meaningful regulation in the years before the housing mortgage giant crashed …”

    She’s not alone. One of Romney’s top economic policy advisers, Vin Weber (whom Politico described as a “former Minnesota congressman and certified member of the D.C. power elite), spent years lobbying for the group. According to the AP, in 2006 alone, Webber’s lobbying firm (Clark and Weinstock) was paid $360,297 by Freddie. And according to the AP, Weber made no bones about his close ties to the failed mortgage giant:

    “I personally met with the CEO several times and with Hollis and his team regularly,” Weber said in the e-mail. “Clark and Weinstock worked effectively and intensely for Freddie Mac under Dick Syron [Freddie Mac’s then-chairman and chief executive] and [Senior Vice President] Hollis McLoughlin.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/25/top-romney-advisers-lobbied-for-freddie/#ixzz1ktLDWIYt

    One thing Romney has made clear. He will continue ObamaCare as he brags Obama got it from him.
    It will be mandated, tax controlled & penalities, but Mitt thinks individuals should be charged $300 dollars a month instead of Obama’s $500.

    Romney’s Mormon religion (a business themed religion) will help him because so many democrats are Mormons and would vote for him.

    No one is attacking on Obama on his unnoticed ongoing tweaking of Obama Care, which explains Pelosi’s comment about we won’t know what’s in it til we pass it.
    instead of Obama’s

    Anything Newt whose visited on news in last few years before announcing election where he commented on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Did he give any regrets or explain what went wrong or avoid the issue through the crisis?

    • canary says:

      And the Mormon religious more of a business with lot’s of democrats certainly wants as much government handout’s as they can get passed, so they can put their money elsewhere.

      The question is. Do we vote for the one we think will beat Obama. We need more to choose for.
      By the way since Sarah is no longer governor in Alaska health care is now worse than ever in that state.

    • proreason says:

      Gingich’s contract specifically says that his company would not lobby. So Romney changed the smear to “influence peddling”. If the contract turns out to prohibit “influene peddling”, he will change the smear to “advocating” or some ever more ambiguous term.

      The Romney staffers were lobbyists.

      But Romney, of course, was the liberal governor of Massachusetts at the time, so he can’t be accused of lobbying. He was busy raising taxes, increasing the size of the state government, imposing state controlled medical care, and building the 47th worst record on jobs in the country.

      If you want a Massachusetts governor that is good at creating jobs, you’ll have to go with Dukakis.

      And if you want a businessman who created jobs, you can go with Romney who created 100,000 jobs by investing in Staples in the 90’s, you can go with me who created millions of jobs by investing in Walmart during the 70’s.

  11. canary says:

    http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Immigration.htm

    I’m getting confused. Wasn’t it Romney who mentioned giving visiting immigrants voting cards or Newts.
    Is so difficult when Romney only has a couple of paragraphs on “issues” on his site.
    A blank check.

    And I’m sure it was Newts idea on immigration that me start looking into Santorum’s.

    I have a real problem with Mitt having illegals working on his lawns and having to fire them.
    I have a problem with Mitt saying we should have intellectual brilliant immigrants come to U.S.
    Americans need these yard jobs. I know a kid this summer that went around an middle-class his neighborhood and said I’ll do your yard less than the Mexicans do it for, and he got lots of lawns.
    And I have talked to so many people that complain about their Mexican workers that don’t understand
    a word they say and never get their tree lights up right. So, fact. Mitt likes dumb illegals who do the work cheaper. And for Mitt to admit he talks in Spanish on his site to attract voters says he’s for dumb ignorant people to vote.

  12. canary says:

    The Republican candidates should be exposing Obama’s writings in his book.

    Where he is angry of Mexicans’ getting jobs that could go to blacks. How it angered him trying to talk to the Mexican repairing
    his work, and angered him, and how the Mexican’s standing outside his office wanting Amnesty angered him, until a light bulb came off in his head that he needed them to get elected. How Obama made fun of
    learning to say the same thing to all the different countries thanking them for their contributions.
    A little Latino girl speaking translating for her Mexican parents touched his heart, and he knew then he’d make sure his own daughters learn Mexican. What kind of parent would force their child to learn Mexican.

    Why not Chinese, Arabic, or French. I’d say daddy, when you learn to speak it, I’ll learn to speak it.

    We need to be learning Arabic so we can figure out what the terrorists are saying and not have to depend on middle-easterners working as double agents.

    The Mexicans need to stay in their country and make it prosper. They’ve learned enough from us. The Mexican gangs and cartel are what’s coming in this country because they have more money to fabricate
    false documents.

    I think older conservatives don’t have a problem with Mexican immigrants and don’t realize things have changed.

  13. Mithrandir says:

    Dismantling Detroit
    The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/dismantling-detroit.html?_r=1

    Depending on your sources, around 80%+ of Detroit is black, but did you see any black faces in the video? –no. Just white people scrounging for metal. If you are not even honest about who lives in Detroit, I suspect the facts regarding it are not all that honest either.

    RIDICULOUS VOICE-OVER @ Minute 3:48: “We got into this problem by doing the most dangerous thing a country can do, we misread our environment at the end of the cold war. We thought we could actually put our feet up, in fact by winning in the cold war we unleashed a world of 2 billion more people like us–competitors! …..”

    You mean more dangerous than allowing our terrible public schools to churn-out stupid people? Our gov’t to reward people who are ACTUALLY putting their feet up on welfare, causing Detroit to be what it is? More dangerous than dismantling Christianity & family values at every juncture? You’re right. Why did we bother with the cold war? Competition is bad, and exposes our socialist institutions to be the frauds that they are.

    4:36: China is really a mirror of us, of things that we feel we once had, particularly the ability to act collectively.

    BA-WHA! That’s what this is really all about! It’s not the unions acting collectively that bankrupted manufacturers. It’s not the democrats that acted collectively that chased the remaining tax base out of town. It’s not collectivists that ruined Detroit with their social services….it’s that we didn’t act MORE collectively…..like communist China. The answer to failed liberalism is always more liberalism. If high taxes don’t work, just enact higher taxes. If throwing money at failing social programs don’t work, throw more.

    2012 Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady: “Detropia” coming on video soon, I can’t wait to see how democrats and their voters are not to blame for any of this. Since the N.Y. Times featured it, you know it’s democrat approved.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dZec5s2-l0M#!

  14. proreason says:

    Will obama run on his record? lol. Of course he won’t. He will demonize his opponent.

    Is Romney running on his record? lol. Of course he isn’t. He s deomonizing his opponents.

    He has a 4-year record as the governor of Massachusetts. He claims to have lowered taxes multiple times. He may have, but Massachusetts taxes went up, not down. He claims to havee cut speniding, but Massachusetts spending went up, not down. He implemented Romneycare. That is a disaster now, but we are supposed to believe it is because he didn’t remain as governor. He must not have foreseen that, because he could easily have run for a second term. But he didn’t. Perry was a sitting governor when he began his candidacy for presisdent. Why didn’t Romney stay around to make Romneycare the grand success it should be?

    Mitt also has a long record as a businessman. The business he was in was investing in other businesses and sometimes telling them what to do. Why doesn’t he describe all of his successes for us? Surely there are dozens of stories about how he restructured organizations, redirected strategies, cut costs, re-educated workforces, introduced new products, outmaneuvered competitors. Why don’t we have dozens of videos describing all of those successes?

    What we have is an unending series of attacks on his opponents. Why is that?

  15. proreason says:

    Has anybody seen a single positive comment about Romney on any blog since last week?

    There’s lots of Newt hatred.

    But nobody praises Romney, ever.

    Strange isn’t it.

    Millions of attack ads can persuade people to vote for a black widow spider if the ads smear the spider’s opponent.

    • Steve says:

      “Has anybody seen a single positive comment about Romney on any blog since last week?”

      Well, I might have posted something, but you’ve put the fear of the lord into me.

      (Again. Kidding.)

    • Melly says:

      Blogs? It seems blogs are just spinning there wheels today whistling in the dark – “Sweetness and Light” EXCLUDED. Blogs aren’t where the action is with regard to Romney. All the action, enthusiasm, praise, and shared hope for the future of the country is percolating on facebook such pages as: Mitt Romney Express, President Mitt Romney 2012, Mitt Romney Central, Vote Mitt Romney 2012, Evangelicals For Mitt, America Needs Mitt, Tea Party Patriots for Perry NOW for Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney Forever – just to name a few. Or one can hang out at a grass roots website (not funded by Romney or PAC) called Mitt Romney Central and converse with Romney supporters in their chat room. I hear the chat room is monitored by the liberal press and pundits. Oh, there are over 33,000 folks that follow Mitt Romney Central – the wealth of information exchanged on the website is impressive, to say the least. Currently, the site it down due to an alleged hacking (I wonder why). Looking for something positive regarding Romney — well, I guess you are looking in the wrong places or maybe you prefer to look in places where you seek the response towards Mitt that you desire.

    • proreason says:

      I sure don’t remember you saying anything positive, Steve. And how could I scare anybody, anyway?

      You had a lot of negative things to say about Gingrich though.

      But don’t feel bad, there aren’t many people who have much good to say about the man who is in the lead to be our nominee in the most important election of our lifetime. Ann Coulter is an exception. She thinks he is really a conservative guy. At least, back when people were reading her stuff, that’s what she was saying. If the size of his fan club is any indication, I sure hope Romney’s smear machine can crank it up against obamy, becasue the fan boys aren’t exactly burning the wires of the web world.

      Funny thing is, I’ve had more good things to say about Mitt than anybody else. Before he got behind Newt by 15% back when they talked about the issues, I had a some good things to say about him. I even claimed in pre-hate-Gingrich world that I thought he was a conservative guy, even though the only evidence was what he says. But maybe his fans are holding back now because they are humble.

    • proreason says:

      I didn’t think there were 33,000 people in the ruling class.

      They must have signed their pets up on Facebook

      ;-)

    • Steve says:

      “I sure don’t remember you saying anything positive, Steve.”

      I try to be consistent and not say anything positive about anyone or any thing.

    • Melly says:

      “Condescension” – hmm, I thought the Liberal elites cornered the market on that. The defining lines are getting blurred it appears.

    • Steve says:

      “You had a lot of negative things to say about Gingrich though.”

      To be perfectly honest with you, Pro, I just felt a little obligated to counter some of the over the top things you had been posting.

      If you are trying to win people over to your candidate here, you might want to read a Dale Carnegie book.

      That is, unless you are also working for the omnipresent Romney cabal in deep cover. (If so, you’ll know the secret high sign.)

    • proreason says:

      I’m flattered.

      btw, I was 50/50 for Newt and Romney before Romeny went nuclear negative. I felt like a bit of a pariah, since nobody would say anthing good about Mitt.

      Specifically, I said the following:
      – Romney is more conservative than people give him credit for being
      – he is a good debater and a polished candidate
      – I thought he had a decent counter to Romneycare, since he won’t abandon it
      – I wasn’t worried about his governing style, because I thought Congress would take the lead
      – I see both Mitt and Newt as big goverment guys, so there isn’t much to pick between them on that front

      In addition, I wasn’t even for Newt until a couple of months before Iowa. I didn’t have a favorite, but I didn’t like Cain after he published 9 9 9. If anything, I was for Romney in the beginning, but only mildly. I was suggesting for a while that the hard core conservatives like Cain, Bachman and Santorum wouldn’t have a chance in the general election and that the race would come down to the big names (perhaps even including Huntsman, but he never got any traction). Romney and Newt seemed like the heavy hitters to me, but Newt was languising for a long time, so I was pretty sure it would be Romney until Perry jumped in. Then I became disappointed that Perry didn’t seem to be major league and wasn’t good at mitigating his harder right positions without alienating conservatives.

      You could look it up.

      But when Newt got traction after Cain withdrew and Perry decilined, Romney went nuclear negative, and I began thinking about what had happened to Guiliani, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Perry, Cain before Newt. Of course, nobody has proven that Romney is the one who got Perry with the rock and Cain with the women, but I concluded Romney was the snake who can’t win on his own record and decides to play dirty. And then when conservative pravda climbed on board the money train, you’re right, I escalated.

      But when you say over-the-top; you don’t consider attacking the legacy of the most important conservative figure since Reagan to be over the top. I think what I’ve said about it is mild compared to saying that Gingrich attacked capitalism and RR. The person I consider over the top is Ann Coulter when she laughingly asserts that Romney is more conservative than Newt, and basically implies that Newt is insane.

      I don’t like it when people play dirty, particularly when it’s a habit.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Romney will probably win the nomination.

      If he can maintain that kind of composure in the face of the blitzkrieg the running dog marxists will throw at him, he can beat Obama as well. Even if a lot of the hard-core right sits out, he can still win, because there are a lot more people in the soft middle than the hard right.

      One thing you have to give him credit for is discipline. He has only broken ranks once or twice in the last four years, and he has put in place the organizational elements that overcome even passion and hatred. The endorsement by Nikki Haley is an example. Another is the endorsement by the Iowa newspaper.

      And the concerted attack on Gingrich by all manner of republican / conservative / rightwing pundits and talkers is also impressive. For somebody who doesn’t generate much heat in his supporters, Romney sure has assembled a strange and extensive coalition of supporters who are willing to go after anybody who opposes him like rabid dogs.

      A cookie to whoever can guess wrote that!

      http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-hive-please-talk-among-yourselves-22#comment-206652

    • proreason says:

      One of many, tn. One of many.

      But you will see a clean break two or three weeks before Iowa. That’s when Mitt realized he had lost the battle of ideas, and decided to win at all costs.

      And that’s the core of the issue. Romney wasn’t able to compete on his record, his ideas, or his communication skills….so he decided to bludgeon Gingrich to death. If it had been the first time, or if I believed for a second that he is willing to do the same to obama, I would overlook it. But his history proves that it is simply what he does…to Republicans. To this very MINUTE, nobody defends Romney….all they do is attack Gingrich. It’s really pretty breathtaking.

      Newt and Mitt were on Hannity last night. Hannity asked them both how willing there were to go after obamy. There is probably a video out there by now. Romney started out by saying that of course he would use every device to challenge the Moron’s record. He then went on to talk about “his record” about five more times. In other words, his entire campaign, if he is able to buy the nomination, will be based on what obamy has done in office. That’s it. Like McCain, he won’t mention a single word about little lenin’s communist connections, Alinsky, his anti-semetic advisors, the socialist policies, etc., etc., etc. HE TOLD YOU HE WON”T.

      Of course, we know that obamy already has the defense lined up for “his record”: it was worse than anybody thought; he kept us out of a Depression; the gubamint statistics will be showing a turnaround; he has created 3 million jobs; we can’t return to the policies that got us into the mess in the first place. Conservatives, of course, of course, will laugh at that. Everyone else will believe it, because it will be coming from the oh-so-reasonable lips of the POTUS.

      It won’t even be close. Romney will lose in a landslide.

      Gingrich might lose as well.

      Wouldn’t you rather fight?

    • tranquil.night says:

      “Wouldn’t you rather fight?”

      Yes! And during Operation Scorched Earth Ohio this was me on that thread: “We all have the lines we won’t cross lest we plunge down a slippery slope. For me, letting the Establishment dictate false narratives out of what they think is political expediency without challenge is one of them, because when their feet aren’t held to the fire they happily just watch the goal posts move back and back until big-government Welfare Statism is the acceptable Centrist position to which there shan’t be a challenge of the status quo. No that doesn’t mean we take ourselves to the extreme where every little thing is going to be a ‘hill you’re going to die on’ situation.”

      Before the Romney team had thoroughly pissed you off, it was actually you trying to help me cope with his tactics and inevitability. I have been there everyday to experience everything that has happened which has provoked you (and Newt too) to escalate more and more.

  16. DW says:

    Steve: Given the way history seems to be repeating itself, can we also look forward to a “Get drunk and vote for Romney/Gingrich/Paul/whoever” sidebar to this site?

    • Steve says:

      I hope not, DW.

      (Actually, the only one I would have to get drunk to vote for would be Paul.)

    • captstubby says:

      i have always found Wild Turkey to work for the real tough choices.
      but it would take a lethal dose of tequila for Paul.
      but in their infinite wisdom,
      they use to close saloons on election day.
      the Soviet people for decades drown themselves in vodka
      to just get through the day.
      it could happen here if we got four more years…

  17. canary says:

    Predicament is calling Republican candidates liberal means if a liberal candidate wins the Primary, then
    less Democrats will vote for Obama.

    I’ve probably blasted Romney more than anyone for his overbearing regulations on building, mandatory health care ran by tax commissions, and over the top environmental issues.

    But, there is no downside because the Democrats will be happy, and either vote for Romney or not vote at all.

    If the candidates would start blasting Obama, then we could get feedback from Obama early on, because attacking Obama will wear him down.

    I think people don’t want fancy talk or simple talk rebuild America. Build are defense. I think they need examples.

    EXAMPLE. GAO reports show Obama has done nothing to improve Navy ships and subs, instead, giving them green jobs on solar panels and windmills.

    Further Obama just sent an old warship that’s last days have been used as a cargo ship. The ship was ready to be scrapped, but instead Obama sent it to the sea close to Iran.

    So, this is a recycled test ship. And the Navy on board are test ducks. If Iran destroys the old ship and it’s ducks on board, then Obama figures no loss.

    Does anyone know where I highest tech ship is since it was last seen in Indonesia waters deep sea exploring and blowing up the bottom of the ocean for riches and not available for Obama’s oil spill in Florida.

  18. Melly says:

    RedState endorses Mitt Romney
    …….. Mitt Romney wasn’t my first choice when this election cycle began, but in my mind he is clearly better than both Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama, and so on Super Tuesday, he’ll get my vote.

    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/01/30/romney-over-newt/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    • tranquil.night says:

      Distortion: Rush has also said he wants the primary to go on as long as possible. He is purposefully looking to avoid influencing votes, that’s why he’s not publically saying he’s ruling out Romney.

  19. Mithrandir says:

    Understanding Newt

    Let me break this down for all of you, just to lighten the load……
    ~Newt has a lot of baggage.
    ~Newt has done / said unconservative things.
    ~Newt seemed to have backtracked on a lot of conservative promises when he was speaker, Affirmative Action has also been mentioned as another sticking point issue.
    ~Newt seems to say or do whatever he must to get elected.

    So why isn’t Newt easily dumped in favor of debonair Romney?

    Because it’s a mutiny! And people are angry! People are sick and tired of political lifers telling the rest of us who we must accept—-again.

    1. George H.W. Bush was the air apparent, so we accepted him, and he gave us reliable liberal, David Souter, and didn’t forcefully continue the Reagan legacy.
    2. Good ‘ol Bob Dole had the most amount of time in service, so he was the next in line for promotion. (how did that work out for you?)
    3. George W. “We ain’t the policemen of the world” Bush expanded government, got us into 2 expensive wars, and seemed like more of a thumb in the eye to the Clintons and liberals.
    4. Enter the next elder statesman John “Reach across the aisle” McCain. To massage the skittish moderates, and again the mantra, “It’s his turn.”
    5. NOW the old guard is selling us the same horse once again. Good ‘ol moderate Mitt Romney. Another unreliable conservative that ran and lost in the playoffs the last time around, so he earned enough stripes to get the nomination.

    I speak for a lot of people when I say, “I would rather lose on my feet with Newt Gingrich, than lose on my knees with Mitt Romney.” Romney will 100% break your heart. If he wins, expect liberal judges to be appointed, and a democrat win in 2016. If he loses, Obama will appoint liberal judges, and then Obama will run as V.P. in 2016.

    If the old guard Republicans are angry over Newt –GOOD! Screw you, how have you done any better?! If the media is angry over Newt–GOOD we hate you too. If liberals are angry, —GOOD, even better! The country is broken and the apple cart is upset? —GOOD! It should be. It may be irrational, but getting institutions just as angry as you are is sometimes cathartic.

    • proreason says:

      Every verbal heresy of Newt is more than matched by Romney. Of course, now that he is running for president for the fifth consecutive year, Romney’s rhetoric is very disciplined. Gee, will he be as conservative in the general election if he is able to buy the nomination. Well, surely he will govern conservatively though, won’t he?

      Throw the words away.

      The difference is Newt’s actions. He was a major player in getting the first Republican congress in decades elected; as speaker, he balanced the budget, implemented welfare reform, cut taxes and fought like a rabid do against liberals.

      Romneys actions were to lead Massachusetts to 47th place in job creation in the US and to implement Romneycare, which he continues to defend to the death.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Mith strikes a loud chord here.

      I watched similar behavior in the military as to who got selected for colonel and general. This is where the rank becomes completely political. The guy who “fit in” the best got the promotion. And fitting in had a lot to do with the social norms as decided by the structure. For example, in 1950, the Lt Colonel who was at the bar every night with the other higher-ups and discussing the “situation” til all hours got the promotion. In the 1990’s, the Lt Col who abstained completely from alcohol, drove a mini-van, and was the scout-master got the promotion. He was a cardboard cutout from the template as the social norms have decided.

      I have seen completely incompetent officers become colonels. Also, the fact that they were vindictive, petty, childish and a plethora of other negatives seemed to matter not as they had pleased their masters.

      The GOP party controllers seem to operate under the same pathetic, fraternal, secret-handshake routine. It’s not that I resent that kind of thing categorically. Well, ok, I do but in certain cases it’s especially counter-productive. But, it’s also as old as mankind itself. It cannot be changed.

      But this is why I like Newt. Newt strikes me as a non-conformist and the stuff that the republican elite are trying to slam him with seem to bleed from the margins of why they don’t like him. And that non-conformity is at the base of it. I can also imagine that at certain times, Newt has spoken his mind in a certain context without paying homage to the party kingpin he was addressing. He “failed” to recognize the hierarchy inside the party. Speaking from experience, I know how much that rubs the “cool kids” the wrong way, especially when you’re telling them something they don’t want to hear, because it’s a failure of their policies or rules. Been there, done that. So, the natural instinct is to blame said messenger for their “inability to understand”. Or, find something else to criticize. At the end of the day, the manipulators/controllers of the hierarchy want only one thing: Loyalty. Don’t do ANYTHING that could make them look bad. Even if they do it themselves.

      Newt knows that blind loyalty to anything is crap. He doesn’t do it. And, perhaps that’s why he verbally processes some seemingly outlandish ideas. Just throwing things out there.

    • canary says:

      Newt has been out there saying fairly acceptable statements under Obama’s reign.

      Romney was no where to be seen or heard. This way he can flip flop less noticeable
      Romeny’s couple of paragraphs on all the issues is so he can flip flop as the campaign goes on.

      I don’t like Gingrich’s past, but nor do I want to vote for Romney’s past not knowing anything about him, other than he is an actor who changed his “speech dialect” (accent mannerism) during the campaign.

      And while I think Romney has a better chance of winning over Obama, if Gingrich did win, Democrats won’t be phased at all about his immoral past. Nothing grosses liberals out. Not even ejaculating all over the oval office. I saw a display of pics of Obama’s feet on all this WH furniture. No excuse for such disrespect to historic furniture. A republican would gladly have followed him around with a place mat to put underneath his filthy shoes that walk on human waste Clinton’s left behind.

    • captstubby says:

      “I would rather lose on my feet with Newt Gingrich, than lose on my knees with Mitt Romney.”

      i think many would agree with your anger.
      but to just hand the White House back to obama?
      with out a fight?
      is this a wise move?
      a slim chance would be better than none at all.
      this country can not survive four more years.
      thank you.

    • Mithrandir says:

      Democrats may be smarter than Republicans (hey, dems seem to always get what they want, and rarely lose what they gained, –can’t argue with success)

      •If Republicans REALLY wanted the government off their back, they would vote Libertarian…BUT NO! The democrats might win, so let’s vote for a liberal Republican, which is a loss.

      •If Republicans REALLY wanted to obey the Constitution, they would vote Constitution Party….BUT NO! The democrats might win, so let’s vote for a liberal Republican, which is a loss.

      The democrats don’t have to worry about splitting their ticket, because they already merged their competition, socialists / communists / enviro-nuts, into the democrat party, those that STILL don’t conform are abandoned as powerless extremists. (they learned from the Ralph Nader experience, Republicans didn’t learn from the Ross Perot experience yet)

      Republicans, instead of snapping up Libertarians / strict Constitutionalists / any left-overs who hate democrats, have become just a party of well-connected moderate back-scratchers.
      ►Attack the Tea Party, ►dismiss Ron Paul and his legions, ► ignore Constitutionalists, AND PERPETUALLY FRET about one or more people running 3rd party: Donald Trump, Ron Paul, Jessie Ventura etc.……this is madness…”MADNESS? THIS IS THE G.O.P!”

      Eventually, you have to be smart enough to catch onto the game: Accept a lose-lose situation with a liberal Republican, (like all I mentioned above) or split the ticket….those are your choices, b/c Republicans are either too dumb or too stubborn, or too dumb (yeah I said it twice) to formulate an actual winning coalition.
      —————————————————————–
      If all the people here on Sweetness-Light got together somewhere, and had a strategy meeting for a few days, WE could come up with a better strategy to WIN NOW, and WIN FOREVER, than the boobs running the RNC. —no question about it. —in fact, I could probably do it myself if I knew they would listen…..but you all could help anyway ; )
      —————————————————————–

  20. proreason says:

    Ruling Class in a full-throated gloat tonight.

    Up yours, Tea Party.

    Money still rules !!!

    I’d like to hear one of them argue that McMitt would have won without outspending the field 15 to 1.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Yeah. It is what it is, my friend.

      If Newt wants to win, he has to find a way, and I can’t help but agree that it’s himself and his ego which are playing no small role in holding him back in the end, no matter how much better I find him than Romney. I don’t think the answer is in trying to push Santorum out or getting sucked into trying to win in this negativity tit-for-tat, either. He’s got to stop making everything and letting everything become about him and find a natural way for a more inspiring message to transcend the muck. It’s only going to be that much harder from here on out. While 32% is still enough to keep him in this, he still just wiped out again. He’s not endeared himself to Team Santorum at all, either. What Rush said today is probably very true with a sizeable chunk of Santorum voters: they’d go (and might have started in Florida) to Mitt.

    • proreason says:

      I have a wild theory that Newt may drop out in favor of Santorum. The reason is that I think he hates McMitt more than he wants to be president, and throwing his support to Rick may be the most viable chance to stop the money machine.

      It probaly won’t happen, but if it did, McMitt would just calmly accept the circumstances and go back to an issue based campaign, right?

    • tranquil.night says:

      It’s a possibility I’ve war-gamed a bit personally too, but agree, is unlikely (although not less so than a brokered convention IMO).

      “McMitt would just calmly accept the circumstances and go back to an issue based campaign, right?”

      Rush and Mark have been nailing this point too; that if it were Santorum they fully believe this would be happening to him too because this is the Establishment trying to suppress the Conservative Ascendency as much as it is about Mitt vs Not Mitt.

      So the word is getting out. It’s just a matter of whether a candidate can step up and inspire the confidence, the right message, and the organization necessary to consolidate these elements and beat Mitt’s resource advantage.

    • Steve says:

      “Out of the 66 percent of Florida voters who said they supported the small-government Tea Party movement, 41 percent cast their ballots for Romney and 38 percent for Gingrich, according to the data compiled for U.S. news organizations.”

      Romney takes Tea Party vote from Gingrich in Florida | Reuters
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-usa-campaign-exitpoll-idUSTRE8100AJ20120201

    • tranquil.night says:

      “Part of the Tea Party movement here … was concerned mostly about the deficit and the excessive spending and I think Romney got that portion of it.

      “Gingrich got more of the Tea Party slice that’s concerned about the constitutionalism, the explosion of government and federal authority. It was never a cohesive movement here to begin with. And the fiscal side of it was always the larger side of the Tea Party,” she said.

      So Romney voters were duped. That happens to the Florida GoP quite a bit. They either voted for him because they think he’s the most electable, or they think he’ll cut spending. Both are perceptions that could just as easily be false.

      Plus Reuters doesn’t note the difference between the support/strongly support TP groups, as Newt took the strong supporters which probably include more of the activists.. while Romney took more of those who passively identify with their message.

    • Melly says:

      “Money still rules” ??? Hardly, it didn’t assure a win for Perot, Kerry, Forbes and Rockefeller, to name a handful. Romney out-organized him, out-messaged him, and out-researched him. Looking at the Florida exit polls myself – Two observation to note: Newton scored the lowest on having strong moral character. Character, it seems, truly does matter to voters. And over a majority of the voters who voted for Romney made their decision more than a over a month ago. I guess the negative ads did not have that great of an effect on people’s decision making. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-31/florida-gop-poll/52909688/1

    • proreason says:

      Melly, you are extremely naive, or else very good at fooling yourself.

      Try this for a mental exercise.

      Reverse the 15 to 1 spending advantage McMitt had over Newt, and figure out what the results in Florida would be.

      If it wasn’t for money, you wouldn’t even know who Romney is.

    • tranquil.night says:

      If Willard is a man of character, then Obama is a man of the constitution.

      I bet with enough money to blanket the airwaves in perpetuum you could convince a majority of people in this country that both are true, even if they don’t know who each person is.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “In counties where Gingrich did better, Republican turnout was up over 2008. In counties where Romney dominated, turnout was lower.”

      In fact, compare turn-out in the state where the campaign was defined by an optimistic Conservative message with the states defined by the scorch earth campaigns:

      http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/apathy-will-be-the-legacy-of-romneys-carpet-bombing/

    • proreason says:

      The money chart from tn’s link:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/theyre-just-not-that-in-t_b_1246896.html

      Ignore that it’s from huggingandpuffingpost. The data is the important thing.

      It’s hard to read, but here is what it means: Turnout was up in countiesd that Newt won, down in counties that McMitt won. So, Romney won by shell-shocking conservatives into staying home. In counties where they couldn’t get away with it, people turned out in froves for Newt. Another way of saying it is that in counties where turnnout increased from 2008, Newt won about 45-47%. In counties where turnout decreased from 2008, Newt won about 35-37%.

      Prepare yourself for a worse defeat than you think if McMitt buys the nomination. As I’ve been saying, a lot of conservatives will stay home rather than vote for him. If you pay much attention to the blogs, you already knew that. (note: the establishment doesn’t care. They aren’t trying to win the presidency, just protecting the House and hoping to squeeze into the Senate.)

      That’s the real Florida message.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Money can’t buy you love.

  21. proreason says:

    Time for Rick Santorum.

    Real conservative, man of principle, always opposed romneycare, opposed the bailouts, vastly improved his debating skills, not a smear merchant, has won elections in a swing state, good retail politician.

    There is even a slight chance that Rick will do what he says he will do.

    I haven’t supported him previously, but times have changed. For one thing, he has improved as a candidate over the last year. For another, he’s honest, or at least, he hasn’t resorted to smearing his opponents.

    I have doubts about how aggressively he will go after the boy king, but he will certainly be more agressive than Bob Dole will be. Ooops, scuse me, than McMitt will be.

    And I have doubts whether he will tell the ruling class to shove it, but at least he isn’t singing harmony with the thugs.

    Newt might still pull it out, since there are a lot more conservative states to go, but if not, then Santorum is a good alternative.

    The only question really, is whether to go full Monty for Rick immediately or not.

    • David says:

      I just watched him make an blatant Arse of himself. What type of idiotic thinking was that?
      The democrats say “if they pick Romney will paint him as an uncaring rich guy”
      Romney’s response “I don’t care about the poor…”
      Well at least it will bring political advertisement spending down if all the Dems have to do is play that quote over and over again.

      Out of touch is not realizing that even middle-class folks tend to think of themselves as poor.

    • Melly says:

      “Soledad, finish the sentence…..” And so should some of you. In an effort to try and squash today’s buzz about Romney’s trouncing of Newton Leroy, The media have resorted to twisting Romney’s words or taking them out of context For example – Here are some links to just a few of the News outlets:

      Romney: “I’m Not Concerned About The Very Poor”

      Romney: Campaign ‘Not Concerned About the Very Poor’

      Did Mitt Romney just disrespect poor Americans?

      Romney, citing safety net, says he’s ‘not concerned about the very poor’

      I’ve heard Romney make that same statement in numerous debates. His focus in on helping the individuals and businesses most hurt by this economic crisis…middle income. Help them and everyone benefits. Pay attention to his past debate rhetoric and his stump speeches and you will hear it too It is old news and that the media is just trying to drum up controversy for the only reason they care about: ratings.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Karma is a b**** ain’t it?

  22. proreason says:

    Bain Capital. An October surprise worse than you can imagine.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmrEUHdwAwQ&feature=youtu.be

    The problem isn’t whether Bain operated legally or not, the problem is that the business model is designed to exploit the tax code and extract money from other businesses. It has little to do with “fixing” other businesses and doesn’t create jobs. You will be learning a lot more about this in October if Romney buys the election.

    The 27 minute video was sensational and got a lot of facts wrong. The videos you will be seeing in October will be matter of fact and will be fully vetted to be factual. Count on it.

  23. captstubby says:

    a long overdue spanking the Republicans needed.

    yet it reveals a recipe for defeat that must be resolved.

    but in the jaws of defeat, there maybe slim chance of victory.

    how about this scenario.

    we all know where the Left Media and Entertainers stand.

    in 2008 Hillary should have been a sure thing…

    but then , like the goddess Hera , a fully formed Messiah Who Leaves No Foot Prints emerges.

    the Media hit the lottery for four years of fantastic tales of Socialism and Racial Bias.

    sorry Hillery.

    so with a 7 to 1 news coverage.the boy king was crowned.

    but a strange thing occurred.

    while there were great moments for their side to flaunt at first,

    the South did not Rise again.

    the only racism talk was on the Sunday talk shows.

    now the news and Hollywood are also business.s and elections equal Black Fridays.

    hundreds of millions of dollars flowing in without a single salesmen involved.

    the big gushers story’s just stopped.

    not going anywhere.

    yesterdays news.

    the well ran dry.

    Saturday Night live unable to turn on their own and few Republicans to mock began to doubt the wisdom of four more years.

    now who every the new Martin and Lewis the Republicans shove on stage are,

    just maybe the Fourth Estate and desperate liberal beautiful people ,

    just maybe take the bait.

    imagine the potential for them!

    too good to pass up.

    crazy talk? you decide.

    i make light of this because to consider the alternative is unthinkable.

    we need the strengths of everyone on this site to work together to prevent

    the political “2012 doomsday” from happening.

    thank you for your time.

  24. tranquil.night says:

    Ann declares Three Cheers for RomneyCare!

    Mark Levin rebuts her line for line on air (via the Right Scoop)

    Meanwhile Jeffrey Lord eviscerates Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin.

    • proreason says:

      Rush reports McMitt ran 65 adds for every Newt ad.

      LuapNor and Santorum didn’t run any ads.

      But don’t say McMitt bought the election.

      Oh no.

    • canary says:

      Think if Rick Santorum had more money he’d be doing better. He’s soliciting some very conservative issues. Santorum needs to take some well-worded cracks at Obama to get more of the low life media’ attention for free.

    • Melly says:

      You want to talk negative? The absolute bottom for Newton Leroy was the Robo-call in which Newton Leroy charged that as Mass governor Romney forced Holocaust survivors in nursing homes to eat non-kosher food. Invoking the Holocaust to score cheap political points? If that’s not a new low, then I haven’t been paying attention.

      If Newton Leroy were a conservative, he’d realize no one is forcing anyone to do anything. The senior citizens in question, assuming they actually existed, were on Medicaid. The food they got was provided free to them by the government. Yet watch his concession speech Newton Leroy conflates Obama’s new mandates on Catholic hospitals with Romney’s actions in Massachusetts. He lumps both under the label of “religious liberty.”

      That certainly applies to the Obama action, in which the government forces hospital administrators to do something they don’t wish to do. But in the case of those nursing homes, no one was forcing anyone to do anything, at least from a conservative analysis.

      If you endorse cradle-to-grave socialism then you might argue that people have a right to free food provided by the government. But no conservative could argue that the failure of the government to provide somebody with something at no cost represents an infringement on that person’s liberty.

      But let’s not examine Newton Leroy’s words; Liberals and some conservatives are too busy nitpicking, parsing, slicing, dicing, extracting Romney’s words to death.

  25. tranquil.night says:

    Oh, Maetenloch, who does Ace’s overnight thread, discusses a blog post by a certain Rusty Shackleford about perceptions on electability who those “independents” are the Republicans tell us we have to get to win elections and how what influences their vote is a lot different than fully engaged like us.

    If that’s our Rusty, then well done sir! I admire your ability to make unique points soundly outside of the conventional wisdom of both sides. Don’t fully agree with all your conclusions, but many of the points your making are crucial to understand. On the Republican Establishment side, a polished Conservative can win, as can Mitt too win (just at what cost for Conservatism). But it’ll be because a viable alternative to Obama has been presented to a voting public deeply disatisfied with economic conditions and other reasons much more than it being about the Republican candidate and his message and ideological platform. The average undecided voter just won’t be making judgments based on the complex array of information we’ve acquired watching the process up close. And that has always been one of the unique blessings of America – the freedom to be ignorant of government and politics to an extent since your life isn’t completely dependent on them. Of course as Conservatives we lament how much of the electoral system has been corrupted by the influence of the party who acquires its vote exactly by making people dependent on government, and we lament how ignorant our culture has become even of the basic foundations of our political, economic, and cultural heritage – but it is what it is and it’s important to be pragmatic about the situation if you want to take the steps necessary to reverse course and nurse it back to health.

    • proreason says:

      These kinds of analyses always make sense at first glance…who can’t quickly be persuaded that low-information voters dominate.

      The problem is that the writers always assume that 2012 will be a normal election.

      Who thinks that?

      My hunch is that dead people will vote in ten times the numbers they usually do.

    • JohnMG says:

      WE know that ’12 isn’t going to be a ‘normal’ election, but what troubles me is so many others aren’t as engaged as the population is here at S&L.

      I won’t quarrel with the statements above, but will this election excite the middle to a greater or lesser degree than is usual? And in which direction? I don’t know, but suspect as does pro, that fraud will loom large in this one.

    • proreason says:

      You may already know it, John, but in the Florida counties that Romney did better than his average, turnout was lower than 2008. In counties where Newt did better than his average, turnout was higher than 2008.

      McMitt isn’t going to inspire the base to vote…even in comparison to McCain.

    • tranquil.night says:

      You guys have touched on my central disagreement with some of the blog’s central conclusions. It’s asserted that the 1980 electability of Reagan was more due to the national conditions created by Carter more than a sudden and spontaneous embrace of Reagan’s ideology, which he’d been fighting on behalf for over a decade.

      Where I disagree is that I think it misses part of the lesson of 1980 and especially 1984. Maybe an establishment Republican could have beat Carter too. Maybe on paper at certain points a moderate Republican even appeared “less risky to lose.” But Reagan was able to do something almost never seen in American politics – produce back to back landslides that pulled even a whole block of the opposing party’s voters that the experts say always vote Dem into his camp.

  26. canary says:

    Advice, many Americans will hit their 18th birthday 2012.
    The schools and their Democratic Union purposes are hot on the trail with the kiddie Young Democratic club. Plenty of teachers involved getting the young to do phones and activity.
    On the other hand no Republican teachers or students want the flak of a Young Republican’s club.

    So, it might be good to remind people who know young adults to register to vote. And make sure you touch base with older people who are 4 years older and may not be as mobile as they were last election to vote.

    We need more ‘in general’ anti-Obama commercials and ads running.

  27. tranquil.night says:

    Bill Whittle over at Declaration Entertainment and PJM has been a real pearl for some time now:

    Here he is on why appealing to Independents by abondoning ideology in favor of the amorphous ‘center’ is not a way to win: http://www.therightscoop.com/bill-whittle-why-appealing-to-independents-is-not-the-way-to-win/

    Narrating a summation from Andy McCarthy’s “The Grand Jihad” on the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafist ideology, and Obama’s dangerous Chamberlain-esque Middle East record: http://www.therightscoop.com/bill-whittle-why-appealing-to-independents-is-not-the-way-to-win/

    And my all time favorite: a summation of Bill Epstein’s “Why Progressive Institutions Are Unsustainable” in the context of Occupy vs the Tea Party worldviews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojYjv72x5ts

  28. tranquil.night says:

    Ameritopia is kicking raw ass out there without practically any advertising or press coverage. Bravo Mark. It really is as everyone agrees: timeless.

    Jeffrey Lord, whose also been kicking a lot of raw ass, also had I thought the best review of the book: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/17/ameritopia-explodes-into-2012

    Favorite JL quote: “Ameritopia is historical X-ray vision in book form.”

    Ah, that takes me back to an essay from the Debt Ceiling battle: “Approach human events as a War of the Worldviews, and it is like having an x-ray visor to see through the Firewall of Lies of the Statists.” http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-hive-please-talk-among-yourselves-2#comment-202806

    Let it shine!

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Yup, been reading Ameritopia as my ….uh….”private-time” reader. I also carry it to lunch with me on weekends when I can’t listen to Rush. I just got through some of the part about Plato’s utopian society which, he admitted, would be flawed due to the faults of mankind. It amounts to little more than a paper exercise and that’s all communism, socialism, utopianism is ever good for. That and the occasional science-fiction series or big-screen movie. And, it’s the single reason I have no desire to see Avatar. Once again the commies getting their “message” out with pretty graphics and special effects. It’s no wonder they appeal to the altruistic minds of teens and the never-to-grow-up adults.

      But Mark’s book spells it all out and is very salient in all the important ways. I scanned some of the other chapters and can’t wait to get to them. The founding fathers knew that what we are facing now could happen. So here we are.

  29. captstubby says:

    have to polish off a few other projects before i can give Ameritopia my full attention.

    its a a sad fact that this and most like minded books will be bought, read, and put on a Conservatives shelf, while

    all of the Lefts writings are in thousands of schools and libraries as text books and reference material

    .maybe if we put more pictures in them…..


« Front Page | To Top
« | »