home

Romney Ahead in NH

The votes from New Hampshire are coming in. No surprise, Mitt Romney is ahead.

If you are following the primary, here's the vote tally in progress.

< 10th Circuit Blocks Oklahama Ban on Sharia Law | Joran Van der Sloot Back in Court, Expected to Plead Guilty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    funny (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:14:55 PM EST
    watching Paul babble on CNN and they have this little live feedback from SC voters thing going.

    babble babble lower taxes less government blah blah
    the little lines cruise along and then as soon as he starts talking about how we cant be the police man of the world, we spend to much on war etc the little lines head straight for the bottom.

    These speeches at the end (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:17:19 PM EST
    Are good for reminding people that no,  the two parties are not the same.  

    hard to remember a time (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:33:49 PM EST
    when they have been less the same than this year

    Parent
    You may disagree with (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:40:07 PM EST
    Obama but you can work with him. He's likely to listen to the little guy even if he doesn't do everything we demand.

    The 2012 version of the republican party is kind of crazy..  You don't hand a loaded presidency without the safety engaged to a crazy party.

    Parent

    They are nuts aren't they? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    Let's hope no one ever gives a republican president the power to disappear Americans at his/her/its whim forever.

    Parent
    Welcome to the history of the GOP presidency (3.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:09:57 AM EST
    from the first in 1862, to the most recent in 2001.


    Parent
    Your history is incomplete (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    Most recent one was 2008, not 2001.

    At least Jose Padilla (an American citizen) had a Habeas hearing.

    Thanks to Barack Obama that's one irritant out of the way now for the next republican president.

    Streamlining, I guess. It's bipartisan, you know...

    Parent

    I was referring to the passage of the AUMF (none / 0) (#78)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:08:26 AM EST
    on Sept. 18, 2001, and Bush as the most recent GOP president.

    As to Obama, he isn't grabbing any executive rights to detention that weren't already in the AUMF.

    The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat.

    link

    Of course, you can certainly call him a liar. But based on the signing statement - for what that's worth legally - he is claiming nothing new.

    Parent

    He is a liar (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    But I guess since you've got the religion and you're in heaven over this, there's not much I could say that'll bring you back to earth.

    No, he is not "claiming nothing new".

    You're ok with it as long as it's someone else they pick up and disappear and not you, I suppose.

    And I suppose you're ok with someone else being ok with it as long as it's you they pick up and disappear and not them.

    Parent

    Religion? Heaven? No. You couldn't be more wrong. (3.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    I'm giving you links to facts and documents. My personal preferences and beliefs as to Obama's actions haven't entered into this.

    However, for future reference if you'd like to know where I stand, here's a clue: I have an Amnesty International poster on my wall that reads "The America I believe in doesn't torture people." I've been against the unAmerican idea of disregarding human rights and due process of law since the signing of the AUMF.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:08:59 PM EST
    You posted one link, not "links", and to the white house of all places.

    This is about the NDAA and the indefinite detentions provisions. Not about the AUMF.

    Go back to sleep. They won't pick you up. They already have.

    Parent

    The signing statement was for the NDAA, in case (3.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:34:30 PM EST
    you missed that, and it cited precedent from the AUMF. The White House is where the signing statement is posted on the web - why would you rather I linked to a secondary source?

    By the way, I'm sorry to see you're against AI. You might want to check them out; they've done some good work over the years. link

    Parent

    Actually, AI has issued ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    ... a statement strongly condemning Obama's signing of the NDAA.

    "Despite expressing serious reservations, the Obama administration has paved the way for legislation that will authorize indefinite detention. The bill places enormous power in the hands of future Presidents, and the only answer the President has is to say "trust me."

    "Once any government has the authority to hold people indefinitely, the risk is that it can be almost impossible to rein such power in. President Obama has failed to take the one action - a veto - that would have blocked the dangerous provisions in the NDAA. In so doing, he has allowed human rights to be further undermined and given Al Qaeda a propaganda victory."

    Does this mean you're "against AI", now?

    Parent

    Nope, still for them. I wish Obama had (none / 0) (#103)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    vetoed the bill instead of simply issuing a signing statement. As I mentioned, I don't know how legally binding such things are, but I think they're weak sauce. However, that's the path he chose, and that's what I pointed out. Just a citation on the events that occurred.

    Indefinite detention and disregarding due process of law is wrong and unAmerican, no matter who the president is or what party they're in. That's my position, and I stand by it.

    Parent

    At least you stand by you position (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    Unlike Obama on signing statements.

    Parent
    My comment was more about ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:20:37 PM EST
    ... your characterization of edger being "against the AI".

    But Greenwald has a good piece explaining why the NDAA is an expansion of the AUMF, rather than merely redundant legislation.

    Parent

    My comment to Edger was based on his ranking (none / 0) (#114)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    my post of support for AI with a 1/5. He either doesn't like AI - hence my question - or he had another reason. Only he knows what that could be. ;-)

    Thanks for the Greenwald link.

    Parent

    I don't have (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:37:25 PM EST
    any more time for your lies and strawman. Thanks for playing.

    Parent
    I'm lying? You're the one who said I only posted (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:51:12 PM EST
    one link, when I've posted four since this sub-thread started at comment #31. That makes your statement the factually-challenged one.

    As to strawmen, how so? You rated my statement of support for human rights, due process of law, and Amnesty as a 1/5. That's a fact. You, on the other hand, have been attacking my motives or character rather than the policy or position I support. That's called ad hominem. Here, have another link.

    Parent

    Or a Democratic presidency (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:42:58 PM EST
    the exact same thing:  "What about the Japanese American interment under Roosevelt?"  Great minds, and all that.   ;-)

    Parent
    That nastiness popped into my head as well (none / 0) (#100)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    but since the original post had to do with GOP presidents I limited my comment to that. There is probably a case to be made for presidential abuses of power regarding human rights going back to Washington, sadly enough.

    Parent
    Very true, I wasn't trying to ding you, (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    just throwing it out there that it's been a
    bi-partisan issue.

    Parent
    6% (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:54:24 PM EST
    but I sincerely hope he takes it.

    woohoo (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    called for Romney

    shots for everyone.

    Parent

    to late (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:26:07 PM EST
    I am a sad sufferer of premature intoxication.

    Parent
    Boy (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:18:53 PM EST
    that was soon.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:20:30 PM EST
    cable is still trying to spin a win for Huntsman.  maybe.  I agree Paul is irrelevant.

    Parent
    Save the time (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:25:39 PM EST
    and just rewind all of Iowa's Oh Beautiful For Spacious Skies . Just kick it to the 55 second mark and you can hear tonight's speech from all of last week. It lets you start the shots earlier.

    Parent
    Whew! At least Perry is edging past (none / 0) (#3)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:06:45 PM EST
    Fred Karger and Buddy Roemer.

    I think that this means the end of their races.

    if so it would be (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    good news for Santorum.  hard to see how Perry doenst go to SC but I think there will be pressure.

    this finish, Romney 1st Paul 2nd is IMO the best possible outcome for democrats.

    Parent

    I needed to add <snark> (none / 0) (#5)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:16:53 PM EST
    I guess.  I had no idea that anyone actually would worry that Santorum could not beat Karger and Roemer.

    Parent
    I meant its good news (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:18:21 PM EST
    for Santorum going forward if Perry dropped out.

    Parent
    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:20:57 PM EST
    from what I've been reading. The Perry supporters hate Santorum,and call him a "big government conservative"

    Parent
    msnbc saying (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:21:30 PM EST
    Huntsman says he is not getting out.

    probably wants to see (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:23:07 PM EST
    if the bloodletting in SC gives him ans opening.

    Parent
    What I (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:27:48 PM EST
    want to know is where do Ron Paul's voters end up in November? They're certainly not going to vote for a Romney nor are they going to vote for Obama either.

    And yet (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:35:15 AM EST
    Romney handily won both tea party voters and evangelicals in NH.

    In fact, extreme conservatives are grasping to defeat him in SC, but they are scrambling. Nikki Haley, governor of SC, is a tea party favorite and she has already come out in support of Romney weeks ago. SC is not NH, of course, but this train is pulling out of the station and leaving everyone else in the dust. Romney may not run the table leading up to Super Tuesday, but it's time to put a nail in the coffin of the Gingrich, Paul, Huntsman, Perry, and Santorum campaigns.

    And when it all comes down to it, and despite all the rhetoric now, the tea partiers and evangelicals will absolutely vote for him in November. So, these fun little parlor games about 3rd parties and suprise upset nominees are entertaining, but not going to happen.

    Parent

    I would (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:49:58 AM EST
    think that Nikki Haley's endorsement might actually hurt more than help since she is unpopular and has largely been a failure as a governor.

    Oh, I have no doubt that everyone will vote for Romney just going by anecdotal info I have seen. Even if they have to literally put a clothespin on their nose, they will vote for Romney.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:54:28 AM EST
    A CNN poll last week had Romney at 37%.  Since he's clearly the frontrunner and the extreme conservative campaigns atre only floundering, I expect that number to stay the  same or go up.

    Parent
    many of them will go to (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:29:30 PM EST
    the tea party candidate.  who will be there.
    and depending on how the republicans treat Paul I still think it could be him.

    Parent
    Everything (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:35:07 PM EST
    I have read has said that Paul will not be the tea party candidate even if there is one which is still in doubt and frankly a lot of the tea partiers are neocons so I imagine that Paul is not very appealing to them.

    Paul doesn't want to mess things up for his son is the reason he will not run as a tea party candidate.

    Parent

    maybe (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:38:14 PM EST
    but the way things are going he is going to have some delegates and expect to have some clout.  if they dis him . . . .

    Parent
    This is agenda-settting (none / 0) (#18)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:40:39 PM EST
    That's all -- but for libertarians, that's a lot.

    I.e., he will keep going to get sufficient delegates to swap for legislation or whatever.

    It's the whatever that will be interesting.

    Parent

    agreed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:47:32 PM EST
    Yes, I see that we (none / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:54:28 PM EST
    agreed at the same time!

    Parent
    With 3rd party Gary Johnson (none / 0) (#26)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:21:34 PM EST
    and/or (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:57:27 PM EST
    Buddy Roemer

    Parent
    I'm tempted (none / 0) (#33)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:23:04 PM EST
    to crash a GOP primary and make Buddy my write-in.

    Parent
    I like the guy (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:31:31 AM EST
    but listening to him talk is sort of like scratching a blackboard.

    Parent
    I was hoping for 2nd (none / 0) (#21)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:55:26 PM EST
    But I will take third. It gets him to dirty SC.

     I wonder what awaits him in SC.?

    Depends (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:04:43 PM EST
    on how the murder/suicide pact Romney and Newt goes.  Apparently the word has gotten out to start dinging Newt as I read that Limbaugh has started on Newt.

    Parent
    I've been noticing the same thing (none / 0) (#32)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:11:47 PM EST
    Newt was on fox today. Fox was accusing him of attacking like a democrat. Newt asked was it ok for Romney to attack him in Iowa. Fox seemed to think it was ok. Newt disagreed.

     Newt is pissed. At Romney and the Repub.party. He's beginning to feel the party has thrown him under the bus.
     If the party keep pushing him, he will take the party down. He will not bow out gracefully. He is dangerous when angry.
     This primary is starting to look like the dems 08 primary fight. But Newt will not go without a fight. The media coverage sounds the same also.

    Parent

    Is he setting up a Sister Souljah moment? (none / 0) (#36)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:56:40 PM EST
    As far as I know, 11-Dimensional Chess wasn't trademarked by the Democrats in 2008.

    Parent
    the 9 circle (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:11:14 PM EST
    of hell

    Parent
    Accusations (none / 0) (#45)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:51:10 AM EST
    of racism, certainly.

    Parent
    was going to respond to this last night (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    you think Huntsman will get accusations of racism?
    why,from whom?

    Parent
    He speaks Chinese (none / 0) (#77)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    That just ain't right.  Who's he really working for?  Ahem.

    Parent
    assuming (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:14:59 AM EST
    that is what Towanda meant that to me would seem like racism used against Huntsman.  that did not seem to be what was said.

    Parent
    i was just snarking in general (none / 0) (#89)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:24:26 PM EST
    He already has (none / 0) (#99)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:58:16 PM EST
    You may have missed the accusations about his alleged role in China's one-child policy.  That's one that already seems to attach the adjectives "white" and "wealthy" to Huntsman like leeches.

    As if all of the candidates now aren't, as entirely to be expected, "white," "wealthy" -- and, of course, male.

    Whatever; it's South Carolina, and race is also now attached to that primary like a leech, as well.

    Parent

    Go Huntsman (none / 0) (#34)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:27:56 PM EST
    seriously.... I do not see how Romney beats anyone he is so plastic.  He has the air of a serial killer, or like his real face is a scary clown face and it is trying to break out from under the false candidate face.

    Please God, don't let our next president be an evil/mad clown in republican disguise.  

    Romney can't win (none / 0) (#37)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 10:07:44 PM EST
    Huntsman is in until at least Florida. I think he did well. I remember when I first bought his name up no one knew who he was. He entered the race in June with no name recognition. He came in third.
      Romney is a terrible choice, and he will lose.
    I have often said there is a battle within the repub. party, the fight continues.
      The old party has settled on Romney. The new party do not want Romney. He received 38% of the vote, after running for 4yrs., he lives there in the summer.
      There is going to be a stop Romney movement, in SC. it's going to get very dirty.

    Parent
    SC is always dirty (none / 0) (#38)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 10:24:59 PM EST
    & you are probably right about Romney in SC, but who will SC choose instead? Perry? i don't see SC going for Huntsman, & Santorum looks like the big loser tonight, whereas Newt is a sick joke at this point

    Parent
    that is the problem isnt it. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:30:35 AM EST
    but I think Ricky may do well in SC

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:46:14 AM EST
    while I think in spite of my best efforts Huntsman sort of missed his chance last night he is going south and he could still become an alternative if everybody gets bloodied in that knife fight except him and Santorum.  still much more Santorum territory than Huntsman.

    Parent
    I would (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    be very surprised if Santorum did well in SC just judging from what I am seeing and hearing.

    Parent
    not sure (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    why you would be very surprised.  60%+ of the republican primary voters there describe themselves as evangelical.  he has been talking directly to them since Iowa.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:27:26 AM EST
    but a lot of evangelicals don't like him as evidenced in the polls. Santorum also has things like the title of the "most corrupt Senator". Evangelicals have a whole slate of candidates who agree with them on social issues so why would they pick Santorum over someone else?

    Parent
    the whole slate (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    would be Santorum, Gingrich and Perry.

    I think most people would think that of the three Santorum is the most viable.

    in any case we will probably know soon because all the right wing christians who have been desperately meeting all over the country will probably endorse one of them before the SC primary.

    Parent

    This is (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:09:00 PM EST
    SC and they aren't going to vote for someone who comes from above the Mason Dixon line in enough numbers to help Santorum. These people think Gingrich is a viable candidate and they think Perry is a viable candidate along with Santorum. Last poll I saw had Gingrich polling above Santorum which I didn't find surprising at all.

    Parent
    PPP and South Carolina (none / 0) (#35)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:51:09 PM EST
    Stephen Colbert wanted to sponsor the South Carolina Republican primary.  He wanted his name on the ballot and he wanted a referendum about whether corporations are people or only people are people.  He was rebuffed in his efforts but our team at PPP decided if he couldn't get all that stuff on the actual ballot, we could at least poll it for him.  Here's what we found:

    5% of primary voters would pick Colbert.  He runs behind Mitt Romney's 27%, Newt Gingrich's 23%, Rick Santorum's 18%, Ron Paul's 8%, and Rick Perry's 7%.  But's he beating out Jon Huntsman's 4% and Buddy Roemer's 1%.

    Two-thirds think that only people are people.  Interesting cross-tabs.  

    Link

    just heard Gingrich (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:29:25 AM EST
    make the most cogent argument for using the Bain stuff I have heard so far in an interview with Chuck Todd. something like this:

    if these Bain stories are going to make him unelectable, which he thinks they will (and I agree), isnt it better for them to be made now than after he is the nominee.

    hard to argue with that Rush.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:02:32 AM EST
    but certainly the same arguments can be made against Santorum and the polls back up the fact that Santorum is a sure GE loser for the GOP. This is why Newt is a lunatic. He's not really concerned about the GOP winning in November. But the GOP created this monster and they are going to have to deal with the fallout. I will have to give Romney a few points for actually doing what no other Republican has had the guts to do though: expose Newt for the bag of pus that he is.

    An interesting twist is that Ron Paul is playing kumbaya with Romney.

    Parent

    Funny argument for Newtie to make (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:05:23 AM EST
    Since the Easter Bunny has more electability appeal (and a greater chance of being elected) than he does.

    Parent
    you think he (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:28:47 AM EST
    he would be making democratic arguments in a republican primary if he was concerned about being elected?

    Parent
    Newt (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:20:42 AM EST
    Is an egomaniac who looks like a child taking a temper tantrum.

    The very fact that he was run out as Speaker and couldn't neat old Bill Clinton through impeachment and a government shutdown just shows what a troll he is.  I don't know what his motivation is, but he isn't coming off looking hood to anybody.  Maybe he just lost his mind.

    Parent

    He's certainly an egomaniac (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:24:39 AM EST
    I agree.  See my comment #61.  He hasn't recently lost his mind, though.  This is the way Newt's always been.  He'll even blow himself up, as long as it means "getting back at" his perceived enemies.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    (since I'm so cynical)....

    Maybe that's Newt's role - get all this stuff out about Romney now and by the summer it will be old news and no one but Democratic pundits and bloggers will care.  Thevrest of the world will gave moved on.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:47:14 PM EST
    The rest of the party may ultimately decide that Newt's airing of all this stuff about Mitt now might be useful in the way you suggested.  But I don't think that's the reason Newt is doing it.  I'm betting that he genuinely feels disrespected, angry (a frequent state of mind for Newt), and is out for blood.

    Parent
    Oh sure (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    But this could be a two-fer.  Newt gets his say and the eventual nominee gets his "dirty laundry" aired early and diluted.

    All the rest of this is just theater.

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#157)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:03:42 PM EST
    Jb, sweetie, all of politics is just "theater."  I'm sure that you know that!  ;-)

    Parent
    I'm still convinced that Newt entered into this (none / 0) (#86)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:58:09 AM EST
    campaign as a money-making scam. Then his ego got stroked when he briefly sat in the not-Romney chair, which is all it took for him to start believing his own lies about why he's running.

    Parent
    Santorum, unelectable? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:30:03 AM EST
    come on.  everyone sleeps with their dead children

    Parent
    Paul & Romney (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    And the future of Rand Paul. What surely is becoming more obvious--as you have alluded to GA6th--is that interest in the son's political prognosis plays a role here.  iMO, Paul's allegiance to his Repubs is strong & there never was possibility of a 3rd party run...ergo, Paul ultimately shields Romney.

    Parent
    Bad Argument For Two Reasons (none / 0) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:41:58 AM EST
    One, he doesn't have to discuss it, now or then.

    Two, once he gets the nod, all the people who were against him in the primaries will be on his side, including Fox and Rush.

    Parent

    It's over. (none / 0) (#49)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:05:22 AM EST
    My only other takeaway from last night is that Ann Romney is a surprisingly strong, confident and effective public speaker, at least judging from her two minutes intruducing her husband for the victory speech.  The Romney campaign is going to benefit with swing voters letting her be a prominent spokesperson on the stump and in interviews.  An added plus is that apparently she is actually politically to the left of Willard, so when she speaks she'll likely be helping to bring him back to the center with the electorate.

    Things are so far playing out as I anticipated.  A fairly easy time of it for Mitt getting the nom.  Unfortunately I also see a still sluggish economy, at best, heading into November, creating the conditions for a narrow Romney win with or without the help of the usual GOP election shenanigans.

    there has been no substantial (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:18:24 AM EST
    attack of Mitt until the last 48 hours or so.  that is about to change.  I dont disagree that it is hard to see how anyone takes this from him.  
    but its not over.  
    even if he wins SC (at which point the nominating process would almost certainly be over) he is about to get punked in a way he so far has not and at the very least it will make him a weaker GE candidate not a stronger one.

    Parent
    Eau contrary, the remaining (none / 0) (#52)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:28:15 AM EST
    contenders, seeing the writing on the wall now, will decide under increasing pressure from the mainstream and far right GOP establishment factions, to curtail the amount of negative rhetoric they direct at the frontrunner.  It's called political self preservation.

    The only thing left now to debate is who Romney will select as a running mate.

    Parent

    really (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:33:18 AM EST
    I saw Newt this morning and he didnt sound the least bit interested in the peace pipe.

    and as far a "curtailing the negative rhetoric"

    must by why this ad went up today.

    Parent

    Okay except for (none / 0) (#58)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    a last gasp desperation campaign from a now marginalized second tier candidate whom very few expect to win, I expect the negativity overall in SC to be less than what was seen in IA and NH, with some of the sharp personal attacks becoming softened and more nuanced.  

    Newt might be the exception but even there he might be serving up a lot less to Romney than originally planned.  I think he's already been told by party bigwigs to tone it down or risk being a despised outcast with no political future, especially if O should win using some of the Gingrinch attacks.

    Parent

    I think Newt (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:20:26 AM EST
    will not pay any particular attention to the party bigwigs.  He's a loose cannon and a "legend in his own mind."  I think that Newt is going to do what Newt wants to do, regardless of whether it blows up his career (or the Republican Party).  He's done it before.  His ego is so big, he's not going to listen to anyone else.  When he threw his hat in the ring and everyone in the party did not immediately fall into line and anoint him the presumptive Republican nominee, and the other candidates running did not drop out and started campaigning against him (particularly Romney), he got royally ticked off.  He cannot stand any criticisms or questioning.  So, yes, I think he's perfectly capable of sinking the ship, even with himself on it.

    Parent
    Possibly we'll see how (none / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:43:28 AM EST
    it plays out.  I think though that his impulse to exact revenge on Willard will eventually lose out to his political and personal need to go out on a more positive note and thereby avoid being tagged by everyone as a Sore Loser who helped reelect Obama.  He's a bit nuts but not that nuts and so I don't think we'll see a Kamikaze Newt all the way through SC.

    Parent
    honestly (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49:22 AM EST
    these comments seem like satire.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:00:55 PM EST
    Some of your comments have cracked me up - sound just like Newt!

    Parent
    this is exactly right (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    and far from "fall into line and anoint him" many publicly said pretty much exactly what you just said which is that Newt is always in it for Newt.

    which is true but from Newt egomaniacal point of view they are dirty little ingrates who threw him under the bus.  he doesnt give a damn what they say. and for the record anyone who says:

    I expect the negativity overall in SC to be less than what was seen in IA and NH, with some of the sharp personal attacks becoming softened and more nuanced.

    has no clue about the history of SC politics in general and especially SC republican primaries.
    I was just watching the head of the SC republican party and some guy they called the godfather of SC republican politics basically saying that it is going to be a bloodbath of historic proportions.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:56:55 AM EST
    thing is though and I came up with this after cruising some conservative blogs, Romneycare is a MUCH more salient issue with the GOP voting base than Bain Capital. Why Newt doesn't raise this issue is beyond me. They are calling Romneycare the grandfather of Obamacare. Don't you think that would hurt him a lot more in places like SC than Bain Capital where the voters in SC actually believe in the plantation system espoused by Bain Capital.

    Parent
    he absolutely is raising it (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:59:13 AM EST
    check the new anti Romney ad I linked to below.  which btw is from him not his pac.  

    he is making those attacks and leaving the Bain stuff to the superpac.

    Parent

    funny (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:19:16 PM EST
    I was just watching Tony Perkins (assume we all know who that is) being asked about SC related politics.

    when asked directly if Romneys faith and the fact that many evangelicals view it as a heretical cult would be a problem he starts off, "wellll, you know there is an issue there that we cant tap dance around . . . "  and then proceeds to tap dance around it.  doing exactly what I have mentioned that I have seen these people do.  it looks like they all got the memo to direct the conversation to his policies which are really the problem.
    wonderful
    but the other interesting thing he said was just short of an endorsement of Santorum.   saying many evangelicals were moving his way and he thought they would continue to do that.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    and the GOP elite in SC always state things like "it's going to be a bloodbath" when it isn't and "things are going to go great" when they aren't like in 2000. That so what they are saying really doesn't mean anything.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    well
    check back with me in a few days on that one.

    Parent
    however (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    over the last couple of days we are seeing people like Rush Limbaugh driven to support Romney because of the attacks.

    so on one hand they are going to cut and on the other it may get him some support he would not have had before.  good for us.  Rush Limbaughs support may help in a republican primary.  it wont help in the general

    Parent

    exsqueeze me? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    I expect the negativity overall in SC to be less than what was seen in IA and NH, with some of the sharp personal attacks becoming softened and more nuanced.  

    wow
    lets just say, I disagree.

    Parent

    I Agree Capt (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49:06 AM EST
    I think SC is going to be a bloodbath.

    Parent
    I just saw Newt (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    being ask by a campaign embed about these very subjects.  what about the argument that you are making democratic attacks and you will just damage the eventual nominee blah blah.

    Newt could not have been more dismissive.  and added that Romney WILL NOT be the eventual nominee.


    Parent

    Two things Mon Capitaine (none / 0) (#105)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    1.  While SC does have the one bloodbath aspect in its primary history, it also strongly tends to confirm the perceived frontrunner from previous contests.

    2.  No other Repub primary contender has done what Willard did, winning both IA and NH, thus reinforcing point #1.

    Also Newton is not this year's version of 2000's Shrub Bush and his sway with the electorate by going nuclear as GeeDub did will be de minimus, which El Newto will have to acknowledge after a week or so, after which he will be forced to retreat.

    The other candidates I contend will offer only moderate opposition to The Inevitable One as they still see and want a future for themselves and their issue in party politics.  

    Parent

    "moderate opposition" (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    like this last night on FOX?

    PERRY: Sean, there's a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism.

    I will take that bet on all counts.

    Parent

    "vulture capitalism" (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:14:20 PM EST
    btw Perry is crisscrossing the state today using that line in his stump speech.  and his super pac is spending between 2 and 3 million in SC.

    so this is not going to just be a Gingrich thing.
    and you may have noticed that Bain left a big muddy footprint on the carpet of SC.  dont think that wont matter.

    Parent

    ps (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    and this

    winning both IA and NH

    is the very reason it will be bloody.  its now or never.

    Parent

    It is (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    now or never and after reading some more I think Newt is delusional enough to think that he can win SC and it set him on the road to winning the primary because the states that come after he probably has zero chance of winning unless he wins SC.

    My aunt called me today from SC and I usually don't even want to talk politics with her but I wish I had gotten up the courage to ask her what she thought about the candidates.

    Parent

    one more interesting bit (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:52:21 PM EST
    from that interview

    HANNITY: Well, are you saying that he's -- you said specifically that they're not ethical. You said specifically -- you're saying that Mitt Romney, Governor Romney, is a vulture capitalist, that Governor Romney is unethical?

    PERRY: What I'm saying is that the way that they operate at Bain Capital, with those two particular companies in those two South Carolina cities, I think was irresponsible. So you know, the truth is the truth, Sean, and there's no use in us trying to shy away from it. If we think for a minute that Barack Obama is not going to attack this and talk about it, we might as well get it out in the open and discuss it right now...




    Parent
    And since when (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    Do you believe anything Newt says or that he even knows what he's talking about?

    And who's listening to Mr. 1% of the vote in NH Perry?

    All last week you insisted it would be Santorum.  Today Newt will be the downfall of Romney.  Who's next?

    Parent

    Go for it (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    etc.

    btw
    Santorum did win.

    Parent

    see (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:00:26 PM EST
    The chairman of the Iowa Republican Party issued a statement Thursday night in response to a story from the Des Moines CBS affiliate, KCCI, which reports there was a 20-vote discrepancy in rural Appanoose county, which is located along the Missouri line.
    Citing an interview with the vote counter, who asserts that 20 votes were mistakenly recorded for Mitt Romney, the story raises the question of whether the results of Tuesday's caucus might have been different -- and whether Rick Santorum should have won.


    Parent
    Triple hearsay? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    And woulda coulda shoulda.

    Mittster is going to SC as the winner of Iowa and NH with at least a 10 point lead.  I know you've been in denial for 2 years that he wouldn't be the nominee, but barring some bizarre turn of events - like finding a dead boy in his bed - you need to start to accept the fact that he will be

    Parent

    What does it say about people's (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:03:22 PM EST
    confidence in (1) Obama's chances and (2) his ability to run on his record, that all the focus seems to be on praying to the electoral gods for the worst, craziest GOP candidate to get the nomination?

    I feel like it says that there are a lot of people who are afraid Obama can't win any other way.

    Really too bad our so-called Democratic president has spent the last three years governing like a Republican, expressing his distaste for liberals, his fondness for fiscal austerity and anything authoritarian, and walking back all that crazy talk about transparency and accountability, huh?

    Oh, well...

    Parent

    hard to tell from nesting (none / 0) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:19:00 PM EST
    but if that was a response to my comment I dont actually think Romney is "the worst, craziest GOP candidate"  

    I actually think he may have a better chance against Obama than, well, any of the others.

    which to say pretty much no chance at all.

    I hope and prey he is the candidate because he is the perfect foil for the issues that this election will revolve around.  
    incredible really that in this year of economic unrest the repubs would be about to nominate a totally out of touch plutocrat who is the very essence of the one percent.

    Parent

    You would (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:33:25 PM EST
    be right if Obama had not bailed out the banks but Obama's record has not been good on this issue. I'm sure Mitt will make that known to the electorate if he's the nominee.

    Parent
    To be technically correct (none / 0) (#173)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:26:29 PM EST
    I believe he is in the upper one percent of the upper 1 percent.

    Parent
    I would love to know (none / 0) (#175)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:29:07 PM EST
     Michelle's take on all this.

    Three years of cowering, groveling, and reaching across the aisle; and being rewarded by having his hand chopped off, and losing the support, and the optomism from the people who backed him so powerfully and innocently. He, and his advisors, followed a lose, lose policy from the very beginning. So what was it? Stubbornness? Hubris? Inexperience?

    I've seen clips of him on the campaign trail, and I can't help but feel he just doesn't have the fire any more.

    From a political point of view the awful predicament the country was in when he was elected was manna from heaven. There was no where to go but up. Had he used that opportunity, and the overwhelming, heartfelt support for "real change"  he had nationwide, and proposed true Liberal programs and policies, (The country was ready for it) two things would have happened:

    One, the country would be a hundred times better off today, and, two, he'd be up 30 points in the polls.

    Oh, and three, He would have destroyed the Republican party as a viable, serious entity for generations to come.

    What waste, and what a pity!

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    and prey he will be.  

    Parent
    The Good News (none / 0) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:34:31 PM EST
    Unlike most of these discussions, in 10 days we will a definitive answer.

    Newt seems to be riding the edge of the rail.  I can't imagine him bowing out gracefully.  But then again, that might be hope on my part.

    Parent

    "bow out gracefully"? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    are you kidding.  we want him to go down guns blazing so that even if Romney wins (a prospect that seems less and less likely to me) he will limp over the finish line as an unrecognizable bloody pulp.

    Parent
    Newt (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:16:34 PM EST
    always goes down in a blaze of glory but always just takes himself out. He's a master of shooting himself in the foot.

    I just don't see how anyone beats Romney at this point. The next two states are FL and NV where Romney is going to romp. When is Santorum going to win a state? When it gets to PA?

    Parent

    I agree that it is really (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:57:38 PM EST
    hared to see how anyone takes the nomination from Romney.
    fortunately for us I dont think that is Newts mission.

    Parent
    I would love to know (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    how many of them even know what it means.

    you know there is another meme I am starting to hear a lot that I think could stick about Romney.

    he is buying the nomination


    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    'Cuz Mr. Wall Street- billion dollar campaign is just like you and me....

    Parent
    pssst (none / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:04:06 PM EST
    your republican is showing

    Parent
    Does the fact that many folks there still refer (none / 0) (#152)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:32:42 PM EST
    to the Civil War as The War of Northern Aggression count as nuanced? :-)

    Parent
    A lot of how "personal" it gets in SC (none / 0) (#142)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    Is up to Newt.  Typically, the campaigns get more--not less--negative there. In the background, candidate Perry is heard chirping that "Venture capitalism is good; vulture capitalism is bad.". Those Repubs do know how to home in with the succinct, nasty slogans that cut quickly.  So now, Perry, Gingrich, & (I believe) Santorum are referring to the Romney brand as Vulture Capitalism.  What a gift to us Dems for the General!

    The real & yet unanswered question has to do with how deep & personal Gingrich et al are willing to go?  Beyond bandages?  Part of that answer may be found in the money structure undergirding Gingrich and Perry.  My guess:  this finally appears to be tipping to the "If I can't win, I'll take the frontrunner with me."  (Example:  Gingrich newest ads are verging beyond tough in intranet-party squabbles. )

    'just loving it!

    Parent

    Perry has plenty of money (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:31:41 PM EST
    and Newts Vegas backer has very deep pockets and has suggested he is willing to spend 10 mill or is it 20, I will have to google.

    but you miss what I believe is an important point.
    Santorum is NOT jumping on the bash capitalism bandwagon.  has said he will not and I think that is an important point.

    Parent

    Santorum is threading a needle, Capt. (none / 0) (#145)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:40:17 PM EST
    I agree that he is avoiding the sledgehammer approach that could call into question his fealty to capitalism.  My impression is that he is waltzing around the edges...yet, thanks for the reminder about his actions to date & I'll watch closely.  (What I'm really thinking is that needle could jab him if he tries to be too cautious In CArolina.  if Newt goes for broke, and then does much better than Santorum, that would seem to push out S.)

    Parent
    Santorum is threading a needle, Capt. (none / 0) (#146)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:41:10 PM EST
    I agree that he is avoiding the sledgehammer approach that could call into question his fealty to capitalism.  My impression is that he is waltzing around the edges...yet, thanks for the reminder about his actions to date & I'll watch closely.  (What I'm really thinking is that needle could jab him if he tries to be too cautious In CArolina.  if Newt goes for broke, and then does much better than Santorum, that would seem to push out S.)

    Parent
    I honestly dont think (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:55:15 PM EST
    Gingrich is running to win anymore- something he would certainly never admit particularly to his rich vegas sugar daddy.  he is running to destroy Romney because Romney destroyed him in Iowa.  Gingrich really sort of winked and nodded this after Iowa.  calling Santorum the "junior partner"
    Perry is sort of irrelevant it seems except when you have millions of dollars to spend in attack ads - which he is doing and will continue to do - you are never irrelevant.
    so Santorum floats above it all.  I predict he will be the evangelical backing before the primary after watching Tony Perkins this afternoon and there we are.

    one thing for sure.  I think Romneys brand new "wallet envy" message is brilliant and I hope he sticks with it.


    Parent

    and the Bain discussion (none / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:14:21 PM EST
    is not an abstract one for SC.  more so because the last two states they competed in had jobless rates considerable lower than the national average.  starting with SC we are getting to the ones where they are higher.  FL even higher and also the foreclosure capital of the south.  not the best environment for mister "let the foreclosure thing bottom out"

    The Texas governor said investment firms such as Bain Capital, co-founded by Romney, are "just like vultures, waiting for a company to get sick so they can sweep in, eat the carcass ... and leave the skeleton."
    Perry told the crowd of about 200 at Sun City Carolina Lakes in Indian Land that his remarks were directed at Romney, citing two South Carolina companies Bain invested in and later closed - profiting from putting people out of work.

    The two companies were Holson Burns Group in Gaffney, which made photo albums, and GS Industries in Georgetown, a steelmaker.
    About 150 people lost their jobs in the Gaffney closure in 1992. Perry said Bain Capital made a $65 million profit in closing GS Industries. Other sources estimate the firm profit was about $58 million.
    "Rather than restructuring, they made a quick profit," Perry said. "The company that did that was Bain Capital, and Romney was in charge."



    Parent
    You're (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:40:50 PM EST
    completely off base about SC here. From 2002 to 2010 SC had the nation's worse governor Mark Sanford. Mark Sanford left the state with double digit unemployment but get this who did Mark Sanford endorse in the primary? Nikki Haley. So the GOP idiots in SC voted for Nikki Haley the handpicked successor for a disaster and she's been a disaster too. These people are not too bright. If someone comes out and tells them to vote for Romney they will.


    Parent
    no doubt (none / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:56:47 PM EST
    Romney hopes you are right

    Parent
    One of the fascinating tidbits at this (none / 0) (#177)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    Republic juncture is the role of Perry.  A good friend opined today that Perry's ringtone gambit (satirizing Mitt's " robust "I like being able Tories people") together with the "vulture catalyst" sobriquet for  Mitt was Texas powerful--cutting & effective--and that the stiletto jabs were something to behold.  We wondered then whether the idea from the further right was to allow Newt & Ricky to soften Romney directly, take down each other in the process...and, if it worked, there you are; and, if it didn't, no one is any the wiser publicly.  Mostly, we wondered about the sources of Perry's reorder substantial $$$.

    Parent
    and what do you think they will do with that (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    3 mill plus ad buy they just made in SC?

    Parent
    then there is this (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:39:34 AM EST
    Newt Gingrich is trying to recruit a former member of the Massachusetts Legislature who later "escaped" to New Hampshire to do a campaign ad for him in South Carolina.

    "Can I recruit you? I'd love for you to do an ad in South Carolina," Gingirch asked Teagan. "I think it just increases the sort of baloney factor, and I think that's his ultimate Achilles heel."

    "I'll see," Teagan later told reporters.



    Parent
    Brodie: (none / 0) (#98)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    Ann Romney is NOT as strong as Mrs. Gingrich's helmet hair, in the wind. ;o)

    Parent
    If there (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    is any of the wives that rate as creepy it's Callista. She looks so plastic it's not funny. She should be a walking advertisement for what happens to you with botox.

    Parent
    Why do you hate Calista (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    And her coif?  ;)

    Parent
    I'll miss thinking (none / 0) (#108)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:51:38 PM EST
    2/3 Lady Bird and 1/3 Janet Leigh when I picture Callista's face.

    Ann Romney I've already got down -- from certain angles -- as the issue of Walter Mondale, which again is another plus for her.

    Parent

    VP for Romney: (none / 0) (#117)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:43:38 PM EST
    I'm sticking with the pick I made a few weeks ago on a competing lib blog:

    Sen John Thune (SD).

    Advantages:  True Conservative to balance Mitt's Faux Conservative.  Older and Experienced -- allows ticket to use the Too Young and Inexperienced charge against Obama.  Already vetted and tested in campaign battle against Daschle.  Bland personality won't overshadow or call attention to Mitt's stiff audiomatronic corporate boardroom persona.  No major political gaffes on record.

    Downside:  reps state GOP already has in bag.

    Plan B:  Gov McDonnell of VA.

    Chief surrogates:  pitbulls Chris Chrispie and John Sununu allow Mittster and Thune to run mostly above the fray while hundreds of millions in negative ads by SuperPacs do the remaining dirty work.

    Brodie offers the most logical (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by BTAL on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:16:36 PM EST
    (along with jbindc) analysis of my party's candidates and primaries.  Especially when compared to the Capt's daily pin the tail on the donkey machinations - which I read for the comedic effect.

    As to the VP, can't see Thune.  McDonnell yes, Rubio yes, not Christie either.

    Parent

    Rubio (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:23:36 PM EST
    would be a bad pick but I certainly wouldn't stop it. Haha.

    Parent
    Why do you say that? (none / 0) (#144)
    by BTAL on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:35:47 PM EST
    Re: Rubio

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:50:07 PM EST
    he's a liar that ran around pandering to the Cuban American community telling them lies that his parents left Cuba because of Castro. His parents left over two years before Castro came to power and Castro wasn't even in Cuba when they left. When he's hit with the facts he starts dancing around saying it's family lore etc and implying that his parents have been lying about the family history for years which I doubt. He's the one with the incentive to lie about the family history because it makes a good story for the Cuban Americans to open up their pocketbooks to him. He's just another grifter along the lines of Cain, Gingrich, Santorum etc...

    Parent
    I am (none / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    happy to be of service

    Parent
    however (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    the vp could be a mute point

    Parent
    I'm already on record (none / 0) (#161)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:38:49 PM EST
    (weeks ago elsewhere) predicting the economy will be in the doldrums this year, making the political terrain advantageous for Romney.  Thus he will opt to play the bad economy hand and play it safe for the VP pick, choosing someone who checks a lot of boxes and is safe but doesnt necessarily inspire.  Thune fits that portrait.  

    The Veep for the Repubs will not matter as much as it might for Dems by early Sept when both conventions are done and the fall campaign begins -- and it could be that the O team will regret not having been able or willing to switch Hillary for Joe in order to shake things up and provide the Dems with now badly needed enthusiasm.  But it's too late as that organic process needed to begin many months prior to their confab.

    Parent

    I hear (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:50:39 PM EST
    Sara Palin is available

    Parent
    McDonell (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    Might be an interesting choice.  He's term limited, with a term ending in 2013, so the timing would be right.  Virginia is a swing state that has a very good chance of turning red again, since Jim Webb's seat is open.

    And they could buy hair products in bulk.

    Parent

    I've seen (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:50:08 PM EST
    the governor of NM offered up as VP. I don't see Thune adding anything whereas McDonnell might.

    Parent
    oh noooooo (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    Newt Gingrich Walking Back His Attacks On Romney Over Bain Capital

    SPARTANBURG, S.C. -- Newt Gingrich signaled Wednesday that he believes his criticism of Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital is a mistake -- and that he's created an impression that he was echoing Democratic rhetoric.

    DAMN

    oh wait:

    Update: Or, maybe not:
    Newt Gingrich is calling a report that he regrets attacking Mitt Romney on his Bain career "misleading."
    Spokesman R.C. Hammond says Gingrich never said he had crossed the line, and maintained that Romney's decision to base his candidacy in large part on his record at Bain and Company made his work their fair game.

    for me the most interesting thing neither asked or answered in the original part is if Gingrichs superpac (which was always where the attacks were planned to come from) would do the same or if Newt would take the same approach Romney did in Iowa:  "I cant tell them what to do".

    I vote the latter.

    the full Monty is released (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:59:45 PM EST
    just to be clear (none / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:04:16 PM EST
    since I often link to odd things.  the above is a link to the full half hour KING OF BAIN movie about Romney and Bain.

    I suspect that it will be discussed extensively "in quiet rooms"


    Parent

    just reading about reaction to this (none / 0) (#164)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:02:20 PM EST
    CSMonitor has a piece meant to "answer questions about the film"

    here is the last one:

    Question: What does Romney say about the film?

    Answer: Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for the Romney campaign, said Saturday: "It's puzzling to see Speaker Gingrich and his supporters continue their attacks on free enterprise. This is the type of criticism we've come to expect from President Obama and his left-wing allies at MoveOn.org. Unlike President Obama and Speaker Gingrich, Mitt Romney spent his career in business and knows what it will take to turn around our nation's bad economy."

    excuse me???  THAT is what they say about the film
    I may be wrong but Im thinkin that aint gonna do it.

    Parent

    wow (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:19:44 PM EST
    the guy who made the film is on the ed show and tells a story that he said was NOT actually in the movie which is this:

    in one of the companies Bain liquidated in SC they shorted the pension and the federal govt had to step in and make up the difference.
    so
    your and my taxpayer dollars were used to make up the difference so Bain could walk off with more millions.

    damn

    Parent

    It's just another example (none / 0) (#167)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:38:11 PM EST
    of "socialized losses and privatized profits."  The problem is not even so much that they did what they did, the real problem is that the rules are set so that companies can continue to get away with this sh!t.

    Parent
    I think that single story (none / 0) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:48:02 PM EST
    could be made into a devastating political ad.
    and probably will be.

    Parent
    Oh, I'm sure it will be. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:54:14 PM EST
    If not by the Newt Gingrich minions, then by Obama's people if Mitt gets the Republican nomination.

    Parent
    This is not (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:30:04 PM EST
    surprising and I'm expecting this is what Romney is going to say if he is the nominee. You see he's knows how to push the tea party's buttons for sure. Will this work with the general electorate? Not sure but unless Obama can find a way to do something about this economy it's really not going to matter what either of them says.

    Parent
    and are you surprised (none / 0) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:49:43 PM EST
    that taxpayers - through as I understand it an insurance program sort of like the FDIC - were taped to save seniors so Romney could walk away with more millions?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:26:42 PM EST
    and no. No, because it has become painfully obvious to me over the last ten years that our system has become completely rigged so in that sense I'm not surprised. This is what makes me maddest at Obama. He has continued this type of thing. How is Obama going to fight against it when he has done the same thing? Even to the point of calling them "savvy businessmen"?

    Yes, i'm surprised because there's always a small glimmer of hope inside of me that things really aren't that rigged in this country.

    Parent

    Do some research on the PBGC (none / 0) (#178)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:38:43 AM EST
    Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation

    There are specific rules and laws regarding the funding of company pensions.  What funds can and cannot be used for.  Also, what liabilities companies are responsible for.  They pay insurance premiums to the PBGC to cover the event they pensions cannot be fully funded.  A pension liability is no different than any other ledger item in the event the company is failing.

    Parent

    OT (none / 0) (#159)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:12:25 PM EST
    but definitely GOP related from Political Wire:

    Warren Buffett tells Time he is ready to call Republicans' tax bluff. Last fall, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that if Buffett was feeling "guilty" about paying too little in taxes, he should "send in a check."

    So, he is willing to take them up on it and has pledged to match one for one all such voluntary contributions made by Republican members of Congress.

    Said Buffett: "And, I'll even go three for one for McConnell."



    And for those (none / 0) (#160)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:17:48 PM EST
    who want the link:  Here it is.

    Parent