Image 01 Image 03

As the world turns

As the world turns

it turns:

  • How Romney won New Hampshire.  It’s the (supposed) electability, not conservatism, stupid.
  • Bad signs for GOP.  Why do you hate capitalism?
  • Another Iranian nuke scientist goes down.  And I don’t mean what you think I mean, you depraved freaks.
  • Have you noticed that Fox News turned negative on Newt over the past month or so? Wonder why.
  • Romney raised $24 million in Q4.
  • Some Utah-04 news.  Carl Wimmer has the big money behind him, hopefully Mia Love can beat the big money.
  • more to follow.
  • Quote of Day… why should conservatives have to defend the worst kind of capitalism to “defend capitalism”?  It’s like saying “defend Micahel Vick, otherwise YOU HATE FOOTBALL.”
  • Another Quote of Day:  “The Republican leadership should be panicking right now, but they’re doubling down instead.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Just spoke with my friend in Rome (NY). She and I talked about how we can’t take Fox News any longer. I do check Fox Business News, especially for the market updates. But Fox News, like the GOP, left me long ago.

“Why do you hate capitalism.”

This is great … the Willardbots complaining about Gingrich laying out the facts of what went on at Bain is somehow anti-capitalism is directly analogous to Tony Soprano carping that allegations of lawlessness against the Mafia are attacks on the free enterprise system.

According to the Fox News exit poll, Mitt Romney won 49% of the NH voters that identified themselves as Republican, a far higher percentage than any other candidate.

Likewise, he won 40% of voters who identified themselves as ‘moderate’, 48% of the ‘somewhat conservative’ voters, and 33% of the ‘very conservative’ voters. He led each of these candidates.

Now then, as a Republican conservative myself, I should be thrilled (and I am) with a candidate who appeals successfully to voters from moderate to very conservative. Huntsman is the only candidate who beats him in the moderate-to-liberal voter range, and the only one favored by Democrats (!!).

For the good Professor and for other commenters, a simple question: what’s the problem?

You have a candidate with pretty broad appeal. He’s known, well financed, well organized, and if he doesn’t check every one of your boxes, he’s at least reasonably well in the Republican party mainstream. Listen to his acceptance speech Tuesday night. Is there something about his ideology, his contrasts to Obama, and his plans that are that objectionable to you?

So, what’s the problem? I’m a Pub. I’m fairly conservative. Mittens might not be ideal but I can go forward with him. I’ll vote for him, canvas my neighborhood for him, and toss a few coins into the bucket for him.

Can someone explain all the hand-wringing? Professor?

    If you don’t get it by now…

      stevewhitemd in reply to raven. | January 11, 2012 at 12:45 pm

      Explain it to me, Raven, clearly I’m dense.

      People here and at Hot Air are wringing their hands over Mitt’s supposed problems vis a vis Bain, his personal fortune, etc.

      Allow me to borrow an old military saying: whatever problems you have, the other side also has problems.

      Yes, Obama might try to throw Bain in Mitt’s face, and Mitt will have to defend what he did. How about, “Unlike our president, I actually created and saved jobs while at Bain, and I know the difference.”

      Obama might try to use the “I like firing people” line. Mitt’s response (if I am he): “Firing people is just what we need to start doing if we’re ever going to cut the size of the Federal government. Our current president is a community organizer. I’m a businessman. I know how to fix things. He doesn’t, as his record clearly shows.”

      Bain got money from the Federal government. Response: “Unlike Solyndra, we knew how to use money to create jobs. If I were still at Bain I don’t think we could have saved Solyndra. What does that say about this administration’s skills at handing out money?”

      Corporations are people. Response: “Corporations are created by people like you and me. They employ people like you and me. Corporations are one part of what makes our country work. It’s no surprise that the President would attack corporations — he’s been attacking most everything that works in our country these last three years.”

      Romney is a one-percenter. Response: “I’ve done well. A lot of people have done well in America. That’s the great thing about our country; you can start at the bottom and move up. Mr. Obama is someone who did just that. He, and most everyone in Washington today, are also one-percenters. The choice is a simple one: I and my party want everyone to have a chance to succeed. Mr. Obama and the progressive Democrats want to keep everyone in their place. I see America as Americans. Mr. Obama sees America divided by class. I’m here to tell you my way works and his doesn’t.”

      Mr. Romney has some problems. So does Gingrich, Perry and Santorum.

      More importantly, so does Obama. His problems are worse.

      I’d rather be Romney than Obama in this election.

        Forget Bain. It’s small beer in the bigger picture of Romney’s gobsmacking unsuitability as a Republican challenger to a sophisticated and ruthless Marxist dedicated to transformation of America shielded all the while by an equally dedicated and ruthless media. I’m not going to rehash it all. Scroll through LI’s threads for the last month. Better yet, look at Romney’s career as an equivocating wanna-be (and couldn’t-be) career politician with no record of conservative risk-taking and indeed only expedient even weak-kneed collusions with moderate/liberal/leftist elements, a man who has contributed nothing to the conservative intellectual storehouse or the larger political dialogue.

        He should return to Bain. Do what he does best — make more money. One might think that his family, which has watched its estate slowly eroded by his extravagantly inefficient dollars-for-votes “investments” of ego, would appreciate it.

Mr. Keck: so, what exactly happened at Bain that was illegal or immoral?

Since you’re talking about ‘Gingrich laying out the facts’, what are the facts?

Private equity firms make sausage. No one likes watching sausage being made, but PE firms do things that are useful in a free-market economy.

You might claim that they could do it ‘better’. The problem is, that’s exactly what Obama and his cronies think, and their idea of ‘better’ robs me far more than anything Bain might ever do.

If Romney did something illegal, call the Feds. Until then, all this nonsense about Bain looks like desperate grandstanding from candidates who are flailing about trying to save their campaigns. They couldn’t lay a glove on Mitt otherwise so they’re going after his former employer.


    Samuel Keck in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 11, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    You’re right … Bain took the trouble to set up the veil of a corporate organization to shield it’s “bust outs.” Tony Soprano was obviously never one to stand on the legal formalities.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Samuel Keck. | January 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm

      Thank you for demonstrating that you’re not serious.

      The Wall Street Journal reported that Bain saved about 3/4 of the companies it invested in. The other fourth went down. That’s a pretty good batting average for a PE firm. And it’s good for the country: the saved firms kept jobs, kept their local economies going, etc.

      Was Bain perfect? No. But comparing them to Tony Soprano shows that you simply aren’t serious and don’t understand the issues.

      Again: show me something they did that was illegal. Better yet, don’t show me, show the Feds.

        Aarradin in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 11, 2012 at 1:44 pm

        “saved” ? No. The WSJ reported that 3/4 of the businesses did not go bankrupt. They didn’t examine the more crucial question of whether these companies were better or worse off as a result of Bain’s involvement.

        @Stevewhitemd What Bain did was not illegal, but it was certainly immoral and bears no resemblence to the spin they and their supporters are putting on it. They bought out companies with a few million down and a few hundred million borrowed – not borrowed by Bain but borrowed by the company being bought. Once in control, Bain had these companies take on additional loans for the sole purpose of paying themselves and their investors enormous dividends. The result was 3-400% returns in a year or so for Bain. For the companies bought the result was crippling debt and all their cash looted to pay Bain dividends.

        Romney was NOT laying people off to save these companies. These companies were being forced to downsize to pay off the debt Bain had burdened them with – for the initial buyout and to pay the Bain dividends. Thousands of stores were closed. Many thousands of people lost their jobs.

        The fact that many of these companies didn’t file chapter 11 is irrelevant.

        The relevant point is this: Bain acquired these companies for the sole purpose of looting them.

        Romney and his supporters are trying to rewrite history. They want people to believe they were buying troubled companies and making tough choices to make them profitable. Not true. They were buying profitable companies and looting them. The people that lost their jobs did so because of the debt created to raise the cash to pay Bain dividends.

        Typically, companies pay dividends out of their profits. They don’t take on tens of millions in new debt for the sole purpose of paying dividends to new investors. But, that is exactly what Bain had these companies do as soon as they got control of them. Pointing this out is NOT an attack an Capitalism, rather it is merely drawing attention to the unscrupulous and unethical business model of Bain Capital.

        There are many thousands of unemployed as a result of this and some of them are already on the DNC payroll. They are being paid to follow Romney around and tell the truth about what happened to their company. Remember, this is still primary season and there are many indications the D’s actually WANT Romney to be the R nominee. If they are employing these people now, think what they’ll do during the general election. The media will be all over these people getting their story out. Obama, the DNC and PACs supporting them will be running, literally, >$100 million in TV ads detailing these stories.

        Samuel Keck in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 11, 2012 at 1:53 pm

        “But comparing them to Tony Soprano shows that you simply aren’t serious and don’t understand the issues.”

        Well, then, please go ahead and explain to me exactly how the Bain Capital dealings that brought about the demise of KB Toys differs from how Tony Soprano and his crew busted out David Scatino’s sporting goods store.

        Thanks for your help.

Check out the links to the “Quotes of the Day”. The full comments are terrific.

I had a dream last night that both Sarah Palin and Tim Tebow endorsed Newt.

“I had a dream …”

Good thing we’re not being sore losers here.

Why are the Romney people in such a rush to eliminate the rest of the primary process? Mitt has come in first in 2 primaries involving a whopping 10 electoral votes – is it unreasonable to think that some other contests in other states might be appropriate before we all fall in line behind a guy the GOP didnt like enough to nominate last cycle?

    stevewhitemd in reply to katiejane. | January 11, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    I don’t know that I’m a “Romney people” though I will vote for him in the Illinois primary.

    However, I have no problem letting the primaries run for a good while longer. It’s good for the party and frankly (assuming that Romney does well) it’s good for Romney. He’s a better candidate today than he was six months ago. It’s better to debate his issues now than in September. Ditto if Santorum eventually wins: better to hone and temper them now.

    The primaries will help the candidates improve as candidates, keep the publicity going, and continue to allow the Pubs to demonstrate their differences with Obama. That’s all good.

    Who is eliminating the primary process? Last I checked, the calendar is set, and Romney intends to compete in all of them.

    No one is stopping anybody from voting for whomever they wish, except the candidates themselves (see: Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann), so I’m not sure to whom your plea is pointed.

    I’m also curious, which primary yet-to-come do you see Romney not winning?

I’m not saying someone is calling for the primaries to be ended but it seems like a lot of Mitt supporters are concerned that the other candidates are ringing up issues that will ultimately hurt him if he is the nominee.

I don’t know that Romney can be expected to win all contests in states where the voters tend more conservative

Romney voters in NH 2012 vs 2008. The numbers in the linked article tell me more about Romney’s competition than it does about him. In 2008 Romney did better with Conservatives because the main choice at the time was between him and McCain. In 2012 Conservative voters were split between several candidates.

Its not so much that Romney’s ‘base’ has changed, its merely that this time he is the most moderate candidate (possibly excepting Huntsman) while last time the perception was that McCain was Left of Romney.

Okay, that made me laugh. Out loud.