Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Drill, baby, drill

Drill, baby, drill

Funny, when Mitt Romney and his supporters played Mediscare against Rick Perry on social security and class warfare on capital gains tax rates for those making over $200,000 per year, I don’t recall a chorus of objections that Romney was using leftist rhetoric and giving ammunition to Obama against the then leading Republican candidate.

When Mitt Romney and his supporters played class warfare against Newt Gingrich, portraying him as a greedy Washington insider who spent too much money at Tiffany’s, made too much per hour in his consulting business, and ran a think tank which received funding from health care companies, I don’t recall the denunciations that Romney was using leftist rhetoric and giving ammunition to Obama against the then leading Republican candidate.

When Mitt Romney and his supporters spent several weeks and millions of dollars portraying Newt as mentally unfit for office, or “zany” in Romney’s words, I don’t recall many people in the conservative media being concerned that Romney was irrevocably damaging someone who at the time was on track to be our nominee.

But now that Mitt Romey’s Bain days are under scrutiny, all of the sudden the most likely nominee must be protected, and questioning Romney’s narrative of job creation and business practices are off limits as “attacking from the left.”

I have pointed out so many times why that argument is wrong, both on the merits and on electability, I won’t repeat myself.

Romney has received a pass at every stage of this primary season because all along he was viewed as the presumptive nominee.  Regardless of what the talkers told us, when push came to shove, they never were going to do anything to truly damage the narrative of Romney inevitability.

Now the conversation pretty much has been shut down by use of the “anti-capitalist card.”  Unless something dramatic happens in South Carolina or Florida, the populist movement within the Republican Party will have no place to go other than Ron Paul, and that is not acceptable to most of us.

I’d write some more, but I have to head off to the dentist, who I’ll ask to drill my teeth even if I have no cavities, to take my mind off politics.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Listening to Rush yesterday I heard him say that Newt was using the language of the Left in confronting Romney about the Bain issue. So what, I say. We on the Right should question the ethics of our business practices. Capitalism doesn’t get a free pass.

Lately, Rush is acting more like a court jester than the preserver of conservatism he claims to be.

    Bain Capital wasn’t entirely a vulture-like endeavor, but it did use some vulture-like endeavors.

    On the good side of capitalism, we have Staples which was funded by Bain during it’s startup phases. On the bad side of capitalism, we have Clear Channel Communications which market watchers believe won’t survive when the original loans taken out with Bain’s help go into refinancing.

    What seems to be lost in the Bain discussion is that there are forms of capitalism that have a really bad track record of bringing misery, while at the same time there are also fine upstanding examples of capitalism doing what we expect it to do, generate wealth.

    Businesses are much like people .. they are born, they grow, they get old, they die. Bain seems to, on more occasions than anyone would like, to be there collecting their fees .. play a business Dr. Kevorkian as they speed up the dying process.

    The common theme, involving Bain, is that folks who look askance at Bain’s Dr. Kevorkian role are condemning all doctors. This is simply not true.

      Conrad in reply to Neo. | January 11, 2012 at 11:06 am

      Sorry, but this is a ludicrously tendentious analogy. Kevorkian wasn’t practicing medicine at all, he was killing people. To call Bain a Dr. Kevorkian implies that Bain only existed to destroy jobs, whereas the purpose of other businesses was to create jobs so as to contribute to the overall health of the economy. The fact is that businesses exist to create profits, not to create jobs and not to help the overall economy. Those benefits (jobs and a healthy economy) are the result of having a system where businesses are relatively free to seek profits wherever they might be found (excluding illegal drugs, etc.).

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 11, 2012 at 8:27 am

So… if scrutiny of Romney’s Bain tenure is now ‘Anti-Capitalism!’, then shouldn’t any scrutiny of Gingrich’s or Santorum’s tenure as elected officials be called ‘Anti-Democracy!’???

By that logic, shouldn’t any examination of Perry’s record as an elected state official be derided as ‘Anti-Regionalism’ or ‘Anti-Tenth Amendment’???

The smug hypocrisy of the GOP elites, the Romney Campaign, and it’s supporters is truly breathtaking. Certainly on a par with the hypocrisy we see from the Left and the current administration on a daily basis.

I see the New Hampshire didn’t exactly of stellar turn out of rank and file GOP voters. Expect more of the same if Romney is the nominee. He has shown through the conduct of his campaign and the petty attacks on his opponents and their supporters, that he has little interest in unifying the GOP rank and file. I’d expect them to respond in kind come the general election if Romney is at the top of the GOP ticket. Energizing the base is apparently not his cup of (rather weak) tea.

    Nobody is saying there shouldn’t be any scrutiny of Romney’s record in business. What people object to is the particular criticism Newt is leveling at Romney’s record, which seems to be straight out of OWS in its suggestion that businesses shouldn’t be guided by a desire to maximum profits for their owners but rather a desire to provide steady paychecks to working folk. Newt should feel free to criticize Romney business record all he wants, but itshould be fair-minded, conservative criticism, not demagoguery predicated on a leftist view of private enterprise.

      Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Conrad. | January 11, 2012 at 11:31 am

      “Nobody is saying there shouldn’t be any scrutiny of Romney’s record in business.”

      Bull…. of course they are in the manner of their overblown response. To liken an attack on a candidates record in business to ‘an attack on CAPTIALISM!’ is a tactic calculated to shut down further discussion of the record. No different than tossing the race card, the gender card, or any other ‘card’ you care to mention.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 11, 2012 at 8:29 am

“I see THAT New Hampshire…”

Ugh. My kingdom for an edit button!

workingclass artist | January 11, 2012 at 8:37 am

Obama will run a FDR v Hoover campaign against Romney

Well, it looks like this November I will be voting for lesser of two evils in my humble opinion. Thus, I think I will be asking for a paper ballot so I can write in my own name. It will be nice to have subsidized health care and a nice income again when elected (Lol)- then maybe I can afford to visit my dentist for some much needed dental work.

This campaign circus has gone on for far too long and the powers that be in the RNC and the candidates are allowing the MSM Hacks to make them look silly, impotent and childish. I fear that when the dust settles this November on election night, Obama will be reelected and he will retire upstairs at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to continue planning his assault at light speed on America and her allies without any fear of the Republicans.

Obama has taken measure of the Republicans in Congress and he knows they are gutless cowards who will not stop him because they have no problem with bigger and bigger government. The fight is really about who gets to dish out the spoils to their supporters and followers.

DINORightMarie | January 11, 2012 at 8:59 am

Wow, Professor, you must really be discouraged if you want the dentist to drill!

Don’t lose heart. Stand strong. You and Dan Riehl are making the good, logical argument. And, whether the Romney-bots want to admit it or not, the Left is just itching to take down Romney – they believe in destroying opponents, and Mitt has targets all over him. What was that old WWII saying, “It’s like a turkey shoot!”

I pray that voters in SC and FL will hear reason, see the hypocrisy of Romney, his unacceptable progressive moderate record, and choose Newt or Perry (my preference is Newt, of course, because I see him as the Churchill of our time, but I digress).

Sarah Palin was interviewed by Eric Bolling last night, and she is right, IMHO. This is far from over, and many voters are not decided yet – they are not satisfied with Mitt (that last part is my takeaway, not her words).

Hang in there! This is going to get really dirty and tough; but we must stand strong against the Obama machine. Because they are up next.

You’re quite right. Romney’s Bain will be our bane in the general. The distinctions between the wealth creators at Bain and the derivatives makers on Wall Street are too nuanced for most voters to grasp; clearly they’re beyond the GOP elite. Romney will be Occupy’s poster child in no time flat. Better get a night guard for grinding from your dentist.

With all the talk about how there were/are “no good candidates” in the field, I happily could have voted for most of them — and Romney was not one. (I put this in the past tense only because of drop outs — I still hold out hope).

Well, you have to admit that Romney has all three legs of the stool, just not the ones you wanted. His three legs are named: crony capitalism (via his father’s name), corporate raider, and system abuse king.

It is clear that the powers that be that live inside the NY/DC beltway bubble, have chosen Mitt Romney. At least the ones that are supposed to be on the right side of the aisle. You see, the elites on the right side of the aisle have no more respect for your ability to chose a president than the left side does.

America’s free market system is the best economic system in the world. But there is 10% of it that is not. What we are being told about that is just what the Democrats have told us about our voting system: it’s the best in the world and if there is 10% of it that is bad because of groups like ACORN and La Raza, we should just shut up about it. You have the 90%, what’t to complain about?

I suggest all of you look up the term “corporate raider.” That is what Bain did. Other corporate raiders were T. Boone Pickens and George Soros. I wonder if Romney supporters would support them for president.

We have candidates that have records to run on. Solid conservative records. Mitt Romney doesn’t have that. Yet, he is being pushed down our throats by those we trusted, like Fox. Now any pointing to Mitt Romney’s failure to govern from the right, his corporate raider tactics, his arrogance, is all hand’s off.

I will not vote for Mitt Romney even if he is on the ticket in the general. I will not vote for someone who is not a nickles worth of difference from Barack Obama. And when you look at both records of governance, there is no difference. We, who took to the streets in 2010 to protest the decline of our nation, were loud and clear; we wanted a more fiscally and socially responsible government. We elected those who subscribed to our beliefs with the hope that our message was being heard. For what? Romney?

Well, if our nation is going to continue its swirl down the commode, let it be under a Democrat, because if we have a President Romney, all the gains we made in 2010 will be lost in 2014. Bet on it.

    janitor in reply to retire05. | January 11, 2012 at 9:40 am

    I agree with you. Until Romney started using his money to defame good, sincere conservative candidates, I was thinking ABO. But I refuse to endorse this insult. (If conservative Republicans don’t get with this program, I doubt that it will matter anyway. If Romney is the candidate, we the people are going to get months of media lessons and documentaries about those nasty thieving Republicans, from the S&L scandals onward.)

    Conrad in reply to retire05. | January 11, 2012 at 11:31 am

    “It is clear that the powers that be that live inside the NY/DC beltway bubble, have chosen Mitt Romney. ”

    What “powers that be” do you imagine forcing Republicans to vote for Mitt? If you think Republicans are mindless sheep incapable of making up their own minds, then it’s just as well you seem intent on abandoning your party.

I’m sympathetic to this feeling, as I had similar feelings in 2008 with McCain, so maybe it’s just the frustration talking. But this is a little bit overwrought. The Professor is painting a scene that has Romney treading a gilded path to the nomination, while a bunch of hypocrites applied a double-standard to every other candidate.

Why can’t we accept defeat graciously, like Michele Bachmann did? After all the hand-wringing about the control this mythical “establishment” has over the process, the voters have actually spoken. Romney persuaded two very different kinds of Americans in two very different types of processes to give him the nod, and barring some incredible turn of events, will almost assuredly do the same in SC and FL. He’s not being coronated, he’s WINNING THE MOST VOTES.

My preferred candidate didn’t even get in the race, but I’m not anti-Romney, and I will be happy to vote for him over Obama. One thing I have always appreciated about Rush is that he generally remains positive and upbeat, and directs his anger and ire toward the Left. It’s time we adopted that approach.

Prof. The Grand Old Party is fading fast.I believe as the dems,have gone further and further to the left,the elists-progressives of the gop have followed them to the left.Many of these voted for obama last time out.Romney is their choice this time. There is very little difference between the two.If Romney gets the nod and goes to the national election,They can’t lose.Romney can lose,but they will have obama so either way they win.Their manipulating have all but made my vote a ABO I still can’t give up on Perry or Newt.Maybe the sheeples,cattle will wake up and take the ring out of their noses…

I would hope that people who voted for Santorum based on his Iowa bump, will now seriously think of going back to Perry/Newt.
This Bain Capital debacle, will be the bane of our existence over the next 11 months, and then we will lose. The “villain” in the publics eye will be Romney, and therefore the GOP.
Corporatism vs. capitalism are difficult concepts to grasp at the best of times, and to the person who has been out of a job for 2 years or more, these are definitely not the best of times. Romney cannot be the nomnee or Obama wins.

Not to get in the way of the Romney bashing and general “Newt is the bestest!” echo chamber, but I am of a mind that the Wall St. Journal had a good summary (at least to my admittedly layperson ears).

All I can say is that in attacking Romney with the left’s rhetoric, Mr. Gingrich sounded a little too much like his “the Ryan plan is nothing but extreme right wing social engineering” self. He walked back on those comments, and I think he should walk back on these. If he clarifies that these situations upon which he is commenting are 1) a moral agrument, 2) few in number versus Bain’s total business numbers, 3) and really just an attempt to question Romney business ethics in these few instances versus Bain’s business model.

Of course, a lecture from Mr. Gingrich in ethics does ring a bit hollow, doesn’t it?

    ntamulis in reply to ntamulis. | January 11, 2012 at 9:48 am

    and to clarify, GO RICK PERRY!

    janitor in reply to ntamulis. | January 11, 2012 at 9:51 am

    Of course, a lecture from Mr. Gingrich in ethics does ring a bit hollow, doesn’t it?

    No, actually, it doesn’t. This country is in serious financial trouble. If it were a person in need of surgery, would a factor in choosing a surgeon be his marital history — or the person with the longest track record of successes.

      ntamulis in reply to janitor. | January 11, 2012 at 10:12 am

      Sorry mate, don’t want to burst your bubble, I wasn’t suggesting that his adulterous ways were his only ethical problems:

      And more recently:

      Look, Gingrich the canidate has number of problems… do you all not remember him resigning from the House in disgrace? Just because he’s an eloquent notRomney doesn’t chance his own easily “tar-and-featherable” nature. He has a lot of ideas, and most of ’em aren’t necessarily small government. He might balance the budget (don’t get me wrong, a noteworthy Herculean task), but the government will continue to grow and grow, as it did while he was Speaker. That is why I’m a Perry guy: he couldn’t name the depts he was going to cut, but he at least had a sense of what really needs to be done!

        janitor in reply to ntamulis. | January 11, 2012 at 11:37 am

        From what I understand, the 1997 ethics charges were founded on claimed tax violations that later (too late) were found to be OK by the IRS.

          pamiam in reply to janitor. | January 11, 2012 at 12:10 pm

          I don’t remember exactly.but you’re right.It was another case of republicans eating their own. I’m a Perry supporter but I would take Newt over the others in a heartbeat.I will be an ABO if Romney takes the nomination.I’ll do it because not voting would be giving a vote to obama .I won’t do that.Another thought,what about the VP? Would that make a difference? To be honest,that’s the only reason McCain got my vote.

        Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to ntamulis. | January 11, 2012 at 12:03 pm

        From a blog posting I found from way back in 1999… gosh how short memories are!

        David Bonior brought 75 ethics charges against Newt, 74 which were found to have no merit whatsoever. The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class “Renewing American Civilization” properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.

        The first ‘charge’ from the ethics committee is that he “may have” violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.

        The second ‘charge’ from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. And what was this “false information?” Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to “Renewing American Civilization.” He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide. But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions. For this, there was an uproar about Newt’s ethics, and he was fined.

        Basically, Newt was fined $300,000 because he didn’t read his lawyers’ documents carefully. I could really get into the hypocrisy of this in light of the fact that people want to excuse Bill Clinton for lying under oath, (maybe if the course Newt had taught was about SEX the Democrats would feel differently) but that’s not the point of this article.

        Well, after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. “The … course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician.”

        Here’s the link, if anyone is interested:

        Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to ntamulis. | January 11, 2012 at 12:05 pm

        Honestly ntamulis… to call Newt Gingrich unethical based upon the bogus ethics charges leveled at him, is akin to someone calling Rick Perry racist because of what was painted on a rock by someone else on land he didn’t own.

          Really? You think that bsis talk of a 30 or so year old rock (that Perry didn’t own, etc;) is equal to ethics charges that, while perhaps spinnable in some way (i.e. he didn’t proof-read, eventual IRS finding)? Those are truly apples and oranges, but I suppose hyperbole is fair game in an election year, so point taken.

          My problem is that if there was no basis for any sort of action… why did Gingrich resign? Why did he pay the fine? The questionable nature of numerous documents he filed with the ethics committee is of concern, as much as Bain capital is, anyway. There are some skeletons in Newt’s closet, no doubt. The MSM is going to tie weights to ANY republican nominee… Bain might be one, but so are ethics complaints, lobbying activities, and all the other “insider” politics in Newt’s past.

          Anyway, don’t worry, I am already on the “we’re screwed” band wagon. I give the country less than a decade actually… my faith is shaken, my hopes dashed. Can the world absorb a US with 20 TRILLION in debt? Nope. Will there be any meaningful reform with any of these chuckleheads in charge? Nope. The people will still send people to DC who simply promise to solve all their problems for them, to protect them from any and all misfortune… and predictably, they will fail, creating misery for all.

Laying back and learning to enjoy it from Romney is the same kind of non-thinking that got us stuck with Obama

Nothing wrong with a little due diligence… right Mitt?

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Reaganite Republican. | January 11, 2012 at 11:36 am

    “Nothing wrong with a little due diligence… right Mitt?”

    You know, you’d think that Mitt would be a bit more familiar with that phrase. Then again, perhaps he is and that’s why he’s trying to hide so much stuff…. just a thought.

I used to work for a company that was a loose conglomerate of personal investments by a family that had been taken public and afterwards run like a personal piggy-bank, first by the family and then by the top officers. After the grandson of person who had built the company died, his personal friends paid themselves salaries and bonuses in a total to equal the entire R&D budget for the company for about a decade, which just so happened to about the reported profit. Then they wound up the company. It takes a long time to strip several billion out of a company.

There is such a thing as profiteering off of a company for personal gain, to the detriment of both the company and its employees. The corporate form can be abused.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Valerie. | January 11, 2012 at 10:39 am

    I believe you’re saying that there is a distinction between good capitalist business practices and corporatist greed – that, when taken to the point of destroying good companies along with the bad, hurts free market capitalism.

    Is that right? I am having a bit of trouble understanding, because of this (emphasis mine):

    After the grandson of person who had built the company died, his personal friends paid themselves salaries and bonuses in a total to equal the entire R&D budget for the company for about a decade, which just so happened to about the reported profit. Then they wound up the company. It takes a long time to strip several billion out of a company.

    Those bits confuse me (please don’t take me wrong – I believe I agree with you, but I just want to be sure). Did you mean (my words added in [ ], bold):

    “After the grandson of person who had built the company died, his personal friends paid themselves salaries and bonuses in a total to equal the entire R&D budget for the company for about a decade, which just so happened to [just] about [equal] the reported profit. Then they wound up [taking down] or [stripping] the company. It takes a long time to strip several billion out of a company.”

    Is that right? Sounds like the new corporate execs destroyed the company, by using the profits and R&D funds to give themselves hefty raises and bonuses.

    That type of corporate exec behavior (corporatism – NOT free market capitalism), BTW, is what most people think when they hear “Wall Street greed” – not necessarily accurate or true, but it is what most people have been taught and had ingrained in them over the years. The execs look at the profits and funds as their piggy bank, and don’t care about the success of the company as long as their pockets are lined. (Remember the “robber barons” of the 19th century – they were villainized, using some examples as “the truth” to demonize.)

    (And for those preaching the “Newt is using the language of the left” and such: what I just said is what working people who are NOT execs think of those “head knockers” who take big bonuses and huge salaries at the expense of the business – i.e it hurts the company and they do it anyway. That’s reality, folks. Like it or not. The average person – fighting to keep a job or out of work – thinks that way. Deal with it!)

    Do I read you right @Valerie? If so, I agree. That is the average person’s view and experience, IMHO. And Romney has personified that, like it or not.

    Now Romney has an opportunity, thanks to Newt and this movie. Whether Mitt will use this as an open door to teach the public about free market capitalism, and how most of the companies who are going down in flames end up being handled by a Bain type group – often to save the company! – is TBD.

    I won’t hold my breath. Romney has already squandered the opportunity to teach, to defend and advance the capitalist system. Because, IMHO, he is a progressive who doesn’t believe in free market capitalism, but rather in cronyism.

    Conrad in reply to Valerie. | January 11, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Didn’t the owners of the company have a right to take out all the profit they could and then wind up the company? Sorry, but I don’t see why it was wrong for the owners to continue running the business for the sake of its current employees. If they want to do that, fine, but if they want to get out, that’s their business (literally).

    I guess we’ve become so dependent on someone else handing us a paycheck every week that we’ve come to think of this as a right, and not just a voluntary arrangement that either side is entitled to terminate.

    Also, I would have to assume that, in winding up the business, the owners sold off assets to other businesses, which allowed them to expand and improve operations; and that by forfeiting their share of the market by closing the business, the owners created an opportunity for their competitors to gain new customers.

This is all getting to be so convoluted. Can we get some talking bears to explain it?

I admit it I’ve been too hard on Newt (not having a blog, but having discussed much of your Romney complaints in my “Meat Space” conversations with friends, I’m not copping to those).
Perhaps the problem isn’t Newt’s line of attack persay, it’s that he (or his PAC I suppose) thought that that particular style of attack was the only way to get their point across. Sadly their probably right. Which really points a problem with the system as whole.
I’ve read several articles over the last few days (some of them here) that have offered critiques of Romney’s time at Bain that don’t drift as heavily into the class warefare rhetoric that I saw in the “Winning our Future” video. They’ve been well argued, and discussed important points. They also never would have been read by someone whose not a poli-wonk like me. You couldn’t have compressed them down into a soundbite. I suppse this is the problem isn’t it, that as a whole if you’re going to win, you have to go to the lowest common denominator.
Of course, clouds, silver linings and all of that. The general election is going to be a muck campaign, dirt flying everywhere. Romney’s proven apt at fliging as well as dodging said dirt (even if you don’t approve of his methodology) so perhaps that’s what we need to deseat the actual problem. I honestly don’t know. Contrary to veiled accusations, I don’t think I support any Candidate right now. (I’ve been most accurately accused of “Agreeing mostly with Newt”)
I think Romney’s great problems lie ahead and south (as in he can’t carry the south.) I’m also simultaneously concerned and confused by the rise of Ron paul. He usually does well in Iowa and flounders out pretty soon after. I’ve always said, his purpose is to anchor the party closer to libertarianism, not actually accomplish anything. So yeah…scared. (If he gets a big head and runs 3rd party, we might as well just crown Obama now.)

The only party worse than the Republican Party is the Democrat Party. The GOP may be un-reformable. The Dems (and the left) are in lala land on economics, science, capitalism, statism, internationalism, Islamism, corporatism, carbonphobia and much else with parts of the GOP not far behind. There is an opening a mile wide for a libertarian populist Austrian reformist conservative, but not this time around. Codevilla’s “ruling class” is probably safe for another few years unless the left pulls out an unlikely victory. Small scale entrepreneurship will continue to choke on rising costs and regulation while large scale entrepreneurship rides the statist bandwagon. China will build buildings in ninety days and we will continue to take six years just to plan and permit a project. Meanwhile, the Keynesian democratic socialist consensus rots around the world. And Canada is going to build that oil pipeline westward for China’s use instead of southward to the US.

I will admit to confusion regarding all the angst about Bain/crony capitalism/corporate good versus corporate bad.

But it seems even to me that the Romney folks are pretty quick to accuse others of destroying the GOP while denying that the Romney surrogate attacks against other candidates were hurtful. The Romney camp seems to be able to dish it out but unable to take it.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to katiejane. | January 11, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Indeed. When they attack, it’s ‘how the game is played’; but when they are the ones on the receiving end, they all suddenly take to their fainting couch and reach for the smelling salts.

    Must be tiring to be a Romney fan.

For those of you not yet preferring a root canal to more politics, this article will do it for you:

The New Authoritarianism

    LukeHandCool in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 11, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    At this point it’s a no-brainer: root canal, please. Hold the Novacaine, but stick me with the needle anyway, repeatedly.

    Thank you for the link. I am now thoroughly depressed.

    Does anyone else see the cosmic irony of the MSM using our own primaries to distract us from the actions of our President? Imperial Presidency, indeed. He has taking more illegal or at least unconstitutional actions in the last 2 weeks than I can list, and we talk about some company that closed 10 years ago, or some ethics violation from 20 years ago, or a painted rock from 30 years ago. And I admit guilt to being one of those so distracted…

    Boned. We are well and truly boned.

katiejane | January 11, 2012 at 10:57 am

I agree. All this reminds me of another time, another year, another candidate. Three guesses, first two don’t count.

Excellent points, Professor.

Note—the “social security” and “capital gains tax rates” links link to the same Politico piece.

The Prof said: “I’d write some more, but I have to head off to the dentist, who I’ll ask to drill my teeth even if I have no cavities, to take my mind off politics.”

I think that’s a good idea… Because you show signs of going off the deep end. Better to take a day or two off and reassess your position.

I realize you’re hurt by the Gingrich implosion but to an old geezer like me, that writing was plainly readable on the wall.

OTOH, I think that Romney has all the assets to address what’s ailing this country. Maybe not as good as Cain but certainly better than any of the competing career politicians in the current GOP field.

It’s time to buckle down and watch what happens in South Carolina and then support whoever the front runner may be. The sooner that this is decided, the sooner the actual battle for the White House can begin…

The issue here is not whether a private business should be distained (or punished) for conduct that is unethical, irresponsible, illegal or just plain wrong. Lots of businesses do such things.

The issue is whether Bain under Romney’s leadership did. So far, I have to say that I have heard nothing that makes such a case. The most that can be said is that some Bain investments failed and shuttered plants and laid off employees (which likely would have happened without Bain’s intervention).

It goes without saying that Obama and the left will bash Romney with anything handy and have no scruples about it.

But does that obvious fact make it OK for Rick Perry to call Romney a “vulture capitalist” who “looted” companies and left workers holding the bag? Really? That’s a Republican talking about one of the biggest, most successful private equity investment firms in the country?