Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Pre-Ican’tbelievethere’sanotherdebate

Pre-Ican’tbelievethere’sanotherdebate

Yessir, there is tonight:

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Mitt is the prime example of

“Rich”

“greedy”

“Silver-spoon”

“Wall-street”

“empty catchphrase having”

“politics as usual”

politician that Obama has been running against since day one – and I’m sorry to have to say it, but both sides generally despise this type!

What in the world has people like Coulter believing this person can ever win the election despite only 25% of Republicans even being able to stomach him?

Like Newt said – why would we nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?

The only answers I can come up with are 1) they flat out want to lose 2) they are more fearful of losing their power then losing to Obama

Either way, its past time the Establishment was brought down…

“I can’t believe there’s another debate,” he said.

… and the other TV commercial replied,

“Try it. You’ll like it!!”

Professor thanks for that link to Newtonian Capitalists. It is now bookmarked and will be read carefully, but just a quick look at the first article was an eye-opener well worth more time, when I have it.

This will cause a lot of howling and outrage:

Sarah Palin on Chris Christie’s “Newt Embarrassment”: He Made a Rookie Mistake, Got His Panties In a Wad —

she is good!!!

Henry Hawkins | January 23, 2012 at 4:57 pm

I’m watching the Red Wings/Blues game tonight and missing a debate for the first time this year. Of course, this means there will be a fistfight or something….

As regards Mitt, I’m now constantly calling him Rino Romney on my own blog. I also go as far as to call him, because of his so-called inevitability and (non-)electability, the best pal of the Democrats. I suppose I should add the establishment Washington Republicans to that as well because they all want to ensure that anyone not Rino Romney doesn’t have a chance of getting the nomination. Fortunately, it looks like the voters are paying more attention this year than in previous election years – in South Carolina, anyway. Hopefully we’ll see the same attitude among voters in other states as well.

1. With fingers crossed, I accept Bill’s endorsement of Gingrich.

2. UCLA Political Scientist says Newt Gingrich is Biggest Threat to Obama.

It’s been said and said again that when Republicans establish a clear distinction between themselves and Democrats, they win. When they don’t draw a distinction, they lose.

(Every time it’s been pointed out, it has been wilfully ignored by the Republican Establishment whose disagreements with the Democrats is matters of degree rather than kind.)

Newt makes the distinction. Romney doesn’t.

    gs in reply to gs. | January 23, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    (*expletive deleted*):

    …the Republican Establishment whose disagreements with the Democrats are matters of degree rather than kind.)

I think I’m done watching debates. If something earth shattering happens tell me.

theduchessofkitty | January 23, 2012 at 6:11 pm

Professor,

I think you’d better link to this call Rush received today, from a truck driver who voted for Obama (guess his race, for bonus points): he’s regretting his vote for Obama because of the Keystone XL pipeline decision – and because of Newt Gingrich.

The juicier parts of the call:

“The tipping point for me was Newt Gingrich, what he said a few days ago, something I would have really been very angry with and almost insulted by. He said that Obama’s decision regarding this pipeline was stunningly stupid. And I could not disagree with that, because this pipeline, in addition to the fact that it’s automatically gonna bring a lot of jobs, without a doubt help the economy, it’s gonna have an immediate impact on the price of things. Impact on the price of gas, which in my industry is enormous. People don’t understand how the price of fuel affects everything that they pay for, from food to any good that they get. But the bottom line is that this man, because of what I can clearly see as politics to support these environmental people, he is willing to destroy this country, destroy the economy, it’s a no-brainer in terms of getting away from dependence on the foreigners, foreign oil. And I just cannot in good conscience continue to hurt my family in the amount that I’m paying for fuel, groceries, and everything else. I cannot in good conscience support this man when this is obviously political because it would have helped this country and the economy. So I want to say that I’m finally seeing the light and I’m done with him.

RUSH: This is major, Dennis. I mean, the Keystone pipeline, you are one of the biggest 180-degree changes of mind that we’ve ever had on this program. And you just changed your mind three weeks ago after a lifetime of thinking something else.”

This is a stunning interview, to say the least.

Oh, and he got an iPad 3G from Rush, just for his 180! Cool!

“I have long thought that Romney would be the best candidate to beat Obama, and I still believe that…”
Jonah Goldberg

Too bad for you and those who pay attention to you.

When I hear comments like this, I question the meaning of expertness. How can one live in the world of politics, especially as a conservative (presuming by this that one has studied the Left and Leftism, and Goldberg obviously has) and come to the objectively unsupportable and even absurd contention (using any measurement you choose) that Romney is “the best candidate to beat Obama.”

Now we’re seeing article after article hinting that the SC results may have exposed hitherto unknown “weaknesses” in Romney.

Really? Now they’re being “exposed”?

How can one call political commentary a profession if most everyone involved is an amateur.

Midwest Rhino | January 23, 2012 at 7:04 pm

Hey WOW … the Newtonian blog quoted part of one of my rants from this joint. I’m “some blogger”. lol I feel like Steve Martin in “The Jerk” when the new phone books came out. “Things are going to start happening to me now.” 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOTDn2A7hcY

Good blog idea … the Great society is expensive … Nixon had to take us off the gold standard to keep the money rolling. Reagan at the end of his term said he regretted all the debt, but he did give us the magic of deficit spending. After that it was just a matter of time.

Greenspan said we were irrationally exuberant in ’94 or so, but he recanted and continued the easy money policy. The late 90’s we had Russia problem so we bailed them out … we bailed out LTCM where the rich people played with 300:1 leverage and a magic formula, but wanted and got their losses backstopped by the taxpayer when they lost. “Too big to fail” was the excuse.

Of course we had to finance the wars after 2001, even as rumors swirled that OBL wanted to defeat us by bankrupting us. Smart guys were warning us, but the game was afoot. Then we get TARP and stimulus and trillion a year deficits, with mutterings about a global currency from the likes of Geithner.

Quantitative easing was never an option … except we are doing it big time, even as Benrnanke denied it. Bernanke is the guy Jim Rogers says has always been wrong about everything, so I guess that makes him perfect as the fed chairman.

Europe is on edge, and they have their own version of money printing for now. The US is like Greece, except we can print money and are for now the reserve currency. Bubbles are being blown to capacity to get us through the next election.

It is not an easy topic for a campaign, as we see when the debt ceiling has to be raised and an ounce of austerity brings out ads of granny being brutally rolled off the cliff.

But still, in Romney’s boasts about how much he made in the easy money era … I see only cognitive dissonance when it comes to financial dilemma we are facing.

Newt seems more adroit at adapting to the situation, and has real accomplishments in government. He seems to have a history of being his own man. I don’t know who is running Mitt, but it doesn’t seem to be Mitt. If we can keep Newt from going too manic … he might just be awesome.

Subotai Bahadur | January 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm

Darkstar58 | January 23, 2012 at 4:05 pm said:

1) they flat out want to lose 2) they are more fearful of losing their power then losing to Obama

The first is a subset of the second. As I look at it, the Institutional Republicans are terrified. It was the TEA Party that took back the House, and it has taken all of the efforts of the Institutionals to be able to keep losing to the Democrats. If they were not short circuiting any TEA Party/Patriot attempts to fight back, we would be winning on at least some issues, instead of losing everything. And the demand would build for more resistance to the Enemy.

Impotence maintains their power, so long as there is no alternative. The Institutionals use the excuse that they can do nothing and fight for nothing so long as the Enemy holds the Senate and the presidency. The way that the Senate races are falling this year, it is as close to a political certainty as can be that the Republicans will gain at least the 4 seats necessary to take the majority in the Senate. They will not all [or a majority] be Patriots and many will be turncoats; but that excuse will be gone.

Their fallback will be that they will not be able to get anything past an Obama veto. If there is a Republican president, then the last excuse will be gone. They will still dig in their heels and fight to maintain the status quo and keep their rice bowls intact. But after a little bit of that; the TEA Party and Patriots will abandon the Republicans and they will end up like the Whigs.

So their obvious and only tactic to defend the status quo is to deliberately lose the presidency. They have a track record of doing that, and Willard Mitt Romney is the ideal candidate for that, offending the base. If by some accident he wins, he can be depended upon to do nothing to save the country. And the Institutionals have their best chance to hold on to personal power; which is their real goal.

Subotai Bahadur

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend