Links I’ve collected today but could not squeeze in:
- Obama not happy with the alleged Israeli hit on the Iranian nuke scientist, via Arutz Sheva and Commentary. In other news, Bibi is quite happy with the U.S. hit on Osama and other al-qaeda types.
- Conservatives remain the largest group in the U.S. (Conservatives 40%, Moderates 35%, Liberals 21%). 71% of Republicans self-identify as conservative. Don’t get me started.
- Elizabeth Warren out fund-raised Scott Brown in Q4 2011.
- Ben Smith formerly of Politico now is at BuzzFeed Politics, along with Andrew Kacszynski. You should bookmark it.
- Ann Althouse ran into some anti-Walker nutcases far from home.
- I absolutely, positively hate it when Greg Sargent and Andrew Sullivan make sense. But Is Bain really Romney’s Jeremiah Wright moment?
- John McCain went after Romney on Bain in 2008. So I guess you could say McCain hated capitalism before he loved it.
- McCain is still fighting with Mike Huckabee over 2008. Cat fight!
- He has said he is sorry for sending it, but this early front runner for Worst Tweet of the Year demonstrates how foul the anti-Newt rhetoric is becoming among Romney supporters on Twitter:
Update: What the hell is going on? Is this the new defense, that because Romney’s financial practices are criticized we’re one step away from anti-Semitism? Just stop:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I still don’t know why someone hasn’t gone after Romney for his statement that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism and is completely distinct and separate.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/03/mitt-romney-jihadism-is-not-part-of-islam
Seems to me that’s an issue that 99% of conservatives and Republicans would disagree with as opposed to this Bain issue which naturally causes people, especially the big money people in the establishment to rise up and defend Romney.
Who’s going to rise up and defend him for saying Islam is a great religion and that it has no connection or relation to terrorism?
I think he’s much more vulnerable on that quote.
For me, that’s a position that is way more troubling than the Bain stuff. If he doesn’t understand or see the connection between Islam and terrorism, he’s simply not qualified to be President. We need someone who fully understands the threat not someone who makes like an ostrich and keeps his head in the sand and pretends it doesn’t exist.
I think an attack based on this could be very damaging. Much moreso than the Bain line of attack.
Eh, trying to nail Romney on one comment he’s made about Jihadism not being a component of Islam, isn’t going to be terribly effective—like it or not, War on Terror isn’t as strong an issue right now. Whereas the economy and everything perceived wrong with it (i.e., crony capitalism), is a cataclysmically pivotal issue. Which makes this Bain miasma a rather devastating line of attack.
The statement concerned me too. I wondered whether fear of Mormonism being thrown back as a “difference” issue puts Romney in a position in which he believes that he must defend a misguided multiculturalism, sharia, etc.
Keep pissing on Romney and we will wind up with 4 more years of Obama.
Not if Romney drops out.
(I’m in Florida. Do I get to vote in my primary first? Or must I assume that Romney is The One. Also that it’s okay for Romney supporters, which include the media Bain owns or graces, and the politicians whose careers he’s promised to grease, to crap on the other Republican candidates.)
“Palin also asked for more proof of Romney’s claim that he added “over 100,000 jobs”at Bain Capital. “I think what Gov. Perry is getting at is that Gov. Romney has claimed to create 100,000 jobs at Bain, and people are wanting to know, is there proof of that claim, and was it U.S. jobs
created for U.S. citizens?” she said.
Romney’s campaign says the figure comes from three companies Bain invested in: The Sports Authority, Staples and Domino’s. The figure does not include jobs lost at other companies Bain invested in. But more critically, it’s difficult to know what role Romney personally played in creating jobs, as opposed to the the role companies played themselves since the Bain investment.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/sarah-palin-mitt-romney-tax-returns-bain-capital_n_1202158.html?view=screen
//
Translation. The 100k number was made up out of thin air.
Wait, Romney was a pizza guy too?
Yup, the first to offer baloney.
Conservatives remain the largest group in the U.S. (Conservatives 40%, Moderates 35%, Liberals 21%). 71% of Republicans self-identify as conservative. Don’t get me started.
Reagan was a RINO! No truce on social issues!
Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, who is not always a person I agree with (sometimes he is just outright irritating) gob-smacks Karl Rove right at the chin line:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/last-chance_616645.html
Would anyone care to tell me if the rumors in Austin are true; that Rove is quietly working for Romney while hanging on to his Fox gig which pays quite well? Nina Easton was quite unfront about her husband’s role in a presidential campaign. Why isn’t Rove, and the other paid talking heads?
For anyone who is researching the Bain background, there is a LOT of detail in this book by Josh Kosman. See Chapter SIX especially which is largely devoted to Romney himself:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7VE-RZHOLCsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Josh+Kosman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V4UPT6zKCsiItwf_ofWPAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Josh%20Kosman&f=false
While I stick by my earlier comments that the key is the overloaded debt, Kosman’s book makes clear that the problems are even deeper than that. It is simply not possible that the information in this book is not going to be front and center with the Obama re-election campaign. The full picture really is disgusting, as big or bigger than the subprime market scandal, and Bain and Mitt are right in the center of it. This is BIG.
If Romney becomes the nominee and obama goes after him about Bain, one of the comebacks could be that obama is a sorta corporate raider in reverse. Corporate raiders bankrupt the companies they buy in to with high fees and mega loans. Obama is doing the opposite by steadily and determinedly bankrupting the “company” he is president of with high spending and crony capitalism. The end result will be the same. Somebody (us) gets screwed.
“Reagan was a RINO! No truce on social issues!”
We need to forget social issues for the time being. If we continue to go down the same road we are on now, social issues will be moot as will be everything else. Besides, the federal government has no business giving tax payer money to leeches and/or intervening in our personal lives in any way. The federal government should not be in the charity business. What they need to do is leave the charities alone to work things out in their own way.
Re: The “Israeli hit”, those which have preceded it:
http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/2012/01/todays-assassination-in-iran.html
and
http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/2011/08/assassination-of-iranian-academics.html
@BarbaraS: I would argue social issues ARE economic issues. Social programs, special rights, abortions and the rest are part of Big Government and the out-of-control spending.
Romney supporters and the republican elite can hide their heads in the sand all day long but the fact of the matter is that conservatives will not vote for a guy who screwed companies and fired and/or laid off people on a daily basis. Whether true of not, this perception will be the one voters see. There are too many unemployed and bankrupt people who have lost everything out there in the same boat. And those who still have their jobs and their homes know others who do not. With the media daily telling the voters what a caring person obama is (and thus giving him free ads on top of the billion dollars he is collecting from our enemies all over the world) who do you think the uninformed voters will vote for.
Deekaman
What you say is true but those things are a drop in the bucket compared with the outright goverment takeover obama is doing by ignoring both congress and the judicial branch and the overreach of his agencies. The important thing is to get obama out of the WH. That is what we need to focus on and everyone should forget (at least until after the election and/or the 2013 inaugeration) their favorite issues. All conservatives should join together to accomplish this. This is the most important issue and should be the only issue for this election.
For goodness sake Professor, there abounds acre-feet of digital ink against all candidates.
Heck, there is plenty of it on this site alone… And aside for all your protestations, you are as guilty as most others. That is the problem with investing so much in a sub-standard candidate in a sub-standard field – constantly knocking the other candidates does not benefit yours.
This is all quite sporting.
It is nothing compared to what goes on around the world.
Mild Bains , very mild.
So true. While we bicker over Presidential primary’s (well the right bickers, the left protests and pollutes, riots and destroys) millions of people wish for the strong arm of a benevolent benefactor to swoop in and save them.
Funny how, irrespective our several ill-conducted military interventions, the world still looks to, and dependents upon our magnanimity.
And Barack wants to “fundamentally” change that?
Then start, and finance, your own blog. Until then, Professor Jacobson owns this one and ownership allows him to say whatever the hell he wants to.
Perhaps you would be happier at some blog that is pandering for Romney? I hear Stacy McCain is looking for readership now that Cain has dumped him.
I’ve been active on these intertuby things since well before GW Bush won in 2000. I prefer the smaller sites where I can get a sense of the other participants. But the one thing I really dislike are the 24/7 fanboy sites. Professor Jacobson has done a wonderful job in mostly avoiding that, mostly so.
That takes a introspective mind.
To give you the really sad state of affairs, I supported McCain over Bush in 2000 because I felt he was the more conservative of candidates. I supported Romney over McCain in 2008 because I felt he was the more conservative candidate… the GOP is inching towards a conservative candidate…
This year, I went with Bachmann, because of all the declared candidates, she was the most conservative.
Jacobson blasted her early – but I took no offense. No my objection is that his desire for Newt has inoculated him against the onslaught that the left would unleash were he to be the nominee. And that is not to say that Mitt or Rick would not be similarly subjected. I am just acting as a counter-weight saying that Newt’s Big Government/Mercenary Capitalist history are just as detrimental as Mitt’s Bain Capitol days, something our good host conveniently neglects to mention these days.
I just watched the 28 minute video in the Andrew Sullivan piece. Wow. Obama can make these ads and run them endlessly with about $800M of resources.
Sorry prof: Pointing out that McCain went after Romney/Bain is the opposite of improving your argument.
In fact- one could base their entire campaign on doing the exact opposite of what McCain did… or maybe I got the wrong impression from Palin’s book.
McCain is doing the opposite -endorsing Romney.
But Palin foresaw that & equalled the game by kneecapping Chavetz’s senate bid in August.
Don’t worry about the latest round of cheap shots coming from the Romney camp, I’m sure Jim DeMint, and all the other ‘uncommitted’ people will be around shortly to tell them to knock it off with the negativity. Just like they scolded Gingrich the other day.
Or, maybe not.
It would appear that Bain is nothing more than part of the Wall Street axis that connects Romney to Obama.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/12/revealed-bain-company-advised-obama-on-auto-bailout-recommended-cutting-dealerships/
Wall Street wants Obama v.s. Romney because either way they win.
I’ve got one for you. I read recently that Bain employees contributed more to Obama’s race in 2008 than to Romney’s – by a huge factor.
These attacks personal against Newt, of false accusations of anti-semitism, by Romney’s superPAC, fanatical loyalists, and so on, as well from the Ron Paul radical lunatic fanatics, are so ludicrous and absurd, they would be laughable, if not for what is at stake in this up coming election.. As everyone already knows Newt’s absolute defense of the State of Israel and the Jewish people, is without question.
These attacks personal on Newt, are straight out of the radical leftist Saul Alinsky playbook.. It will not work, and conservatives, will exact a serious price from them, for it..
Of course, Greg Sargent couldn’t say it, but Solyndra is also perfectly legal capitalism.
Where were all the “legal capitalism is beyond reproach” people when Gingrich was being raked over the coals for doing perfectly legal capitalistic business with Freddie Mac? Last I checked conservatives liked the idea of government entities contracting out various parts of their work to private companies rather than growing the bureaucracy to take care of all government “needs”.
Seems that all capitalism is equal but some people’s capitalism is more equal than other people’s capitalism.
My tweet (if I knew how to tweet):
We’re all rich Jewish Mormons now!!!
I’ll tweet it for ya! 😉
Getting on Twitter isn’t that hard.
Luke, you are invited to join H.A.T.E. – Henry’s Anti Tweet Enclave – for people who reject yet another informational techno-vector to keep up with.
LUDDITES UNITE!
Haha!
You guys are too sweet and cute!
How will Romney respond to that vast and almost overwhelming ovation from the convention when he finally takes the podium down in Tampa? Will Mitt do a redo of JFKerry’s famous handsalute and say he’s reporting for duty? Will Mitt instead do something more novel and cry over the relief of finally getting it done; 2016 might be snap to run then as he’s finally getting it down.
It might be that instead, it’ll be the audience crying over what could have been; If only if …!
Stiil, what are the rules in this game of the GOP? Can the convention revolt and declare someone else as the nominee? Seriously, can that happen?
On the other hand, if Newt’s not going to make it, then perhaps another strong, even much more conservative, person step into this race at this time? Golly, perhaps there’s real hope for the GOP; seriously I think there’d be a huge ground swell for Palin if she were to step in now.
To kind of paraphase a slogan from my highschool days: I like Newt! Heck, I’d also like Palin too.
Bains
“To give you the really sad state of affairs, I supported McCain over Bush in 2000 because I felt he was the more conservative of candidates. I supported Romney over McCain in 2008 because I felt he was the more conservative candidate… the GOP is inching towards a conservative candidate…
This year, I went with Bachmann, because of all the declared candidates, she was the most conservative.”
So what you are basically saying is that you have supported losers every time. Let’s hope this trend continues.
“Heck, there is plenty of it on this site alone… And aside for all your protestations, you are as guilty as most others. That is the problem with investing so much in a sub-standard candidate in a sub-standard field – constantly knocking the other candidates does not benefit yours.”
Pot=Kettle. Really, I can’t decide if you are a Romneyite or a Paulbot. Your complete submersion into idolatry suggest either.
“millions of people wish for the strong arm of a benevolent benefactor to swoop in and save them.”
A white knight, perhaps? Or is that racist?
Don’t you find it a little convenient this new poll comes out with such a “surge” of “moderates”? There was also another poll showing more and more republicans being able to stomach (holding nose at voting booth) Romney.
We’re getting played again.
Dig deeper into the those “moderates” to who they really are. Hmmmm.
With regard to the worst tweet of the year it seems that with the Republican fans they can be compared to the Arabs in their tribal/clan clashes.
Barry Rubin had an article on
http://israelseen.com/2011/12/11/fact-checking-newt-gingrich-and-the-fact-checkers-on-the-middle-east/
about Gingrich’s interview, on ABC
” Yet ABC and everyone else missed the real bombshell in what Gingrich said:
For a variety of political reasons we [the United States] have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it’s tragic.
It would be fascinating to hear Gingrich expand on that point. “
Here is the description for the twitter guy named “Keder”
“A one-man media organization and propaganda machine.”
Yep, pretty much sums it up.
Thank you, Professor Jacobson, for writing one of those assertive insightful blogs that educate your readers (and, in the nature of the internet, well beyond to “conservative” principles.
Many writers have noted that in this primary voters are more intelligent, require more vetting, and are more “conservative” than in previous elections. My take is that more citizens are waking up, especially now that our 20th Century savings are caput and an era has ended, to the need to protect and restore the basic principles of American classical liberalism and “responsible free market principles”. The government has a role as referee, but it should not favor one business over another; for the last 20 years or so it has been favoring the bankers and financiers — easy money, easy credit, and theft from “us”. However, this downward path is also caused by “the end of an era”.
If we must take Romney as nominee (the chosen one of the Republican Establishment and the financial types), let the vetting of Bain and Corporate Raiders lead to new or repaired laws that prevent the Raiders’ preferred place in the economy, as contrasted to venture and “vulture” equity. Let what is good about the latter two (life needs vultures to clear out the detritus) forms of the free market be clarified. But we don’t need Raiders who get easy money and a clear path to massive leverage, loaading a corporation with “their” debt while they walk away with millions, plus eventual dumping (on private insurance or government) of a company’s pension agreements. Furthermore, the entire pension issue needs to be dealt with in a “conservative” manner as well, and not left to the Raiders to decide.
Thanks to Thomas D (1/12 11:14 pm) for the Wall Street Axis, Obama-Romney, and to TJSC (9:59 pm) for Josh Kosman, The Buyout of America, Chapter 6 on Romney.
My guess is the “financial types” are done with Obama and his marxist silliness and have moved on to Romney. I hope “the people” will extract some fairer financial rules and regulations with a reasonable money market so that Americans have an opportunity to prosper and create new wealth from our abundant natural resources. Who will control this bounty seems central.
Professor have you seen this….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/president-obamas-got-sons/2012/01/12/gIQA3FEUtP_blog.html
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/obama-has-sons-110617.html
Obama’s sons?
The anointed one believes that he is the sovereign. Parens patriae.