Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The Great Panic of 2012

The Great Panic of 2012

Did you hear what Andrea Mitchell said last night after the debate?  I did, and so did David Limbaugh.

If true, abject panic is just below the surface:

(video added, via Greg Hengler)

We may be at Kübler-Ross Stage 4 over the prospect of a Romney nomination, but they are about to move from anger to bargaining at the prospect of a Newt nomination.

The difference is that we eventually could get to Stage 5.  They never will.

Update:  The Scooter/Buick/Early-Bird-Special/Still-Use-AOL Brigade reporting for duty:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Andrea Mitchel has a big nose.

Henry Hawkins | January 24, 2012 at 3:12 pm

I couldn’t find one, but this would be a great spot for a clip of Rush’s nasally Andrea Mitchell impersonation.

It is not possible to overstate the panic. Not possible. These people see the end of their power and control. We have to make sure they experience it.

Mitt Romney’s campaign is being run by Charlie Crist’s former campaign advisors. Crist lost to Marco Rubio by 19 points. If you would like some positive coverage of Newt’s campaign, go to NewsMax.

Another example of panic with Romney…hauling out the Jeb Bush possibility. Cant you just hear the discussions over bloody Mary’s or vodka martini’s at some DC or NYC watering hole with Jim Bacus accents and intonations?
“That Newt fellow just doesnt cut the mustard…we need to stop the rogue element in our party and if Mittens isnt up to the task..then why not that Bush fellow? At least well know what well get…but mercy not that brutish Gingrich who wasnt educated properly”

raven | January 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm
We have to make sure they experience it.
————-
Oh yes. It is up to us to keep them from foisting their “anointed one” on us. The only way to do it is by voting. Hopefully it will be enough. I laugh whenever “our betters” insinuate that all who live outside the Northeast are “rubes”. How very elitist of them.

Romney & his crew are going to not only make himself unattractive/unlikeable to many voters but he will extend that feeling to whomever the GOP turns to if they abandon him. Desperation is not what I look for in a nominee.

I do not want RINO Romney. Okay? I want a real conservative, and he isn’t. The problem is if Gingrich is better, he’s only marginally better. And Gingrich has copious baggage which we all know about. And Gingrich has a tendency to self-destruct which we all know about. So what this all adds up to is both Romney and Gingrich are both non-starters as nominees. The leftard media will tear either one of them a new one in the run up to the general election. So, while Gingrich is good as a anybody-but-Romney foil, I’m not seeing him as really a viable nominee. The real question is, why is the Republican field so thin? We are so screwed.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to G Joubert. | January 25, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    I see many differences between Gingrich and Romney, starting with the fact that Gingrich uses a calcium spinal structure to carry himself upright as oppsed to Mittens who uses jello frozen in an intestinal casing instead. What I’m getting at is that there is a meaningful difference in the way each man would approach dismantling The Won, as in Gingrich will, Mittens won’t. And by “meaningful”, I mean winning versus losing.

    I think the ultimate dissing of Newt is to claim he and Mittens are morphable into each other. Is that what you’re attempting?

RexGrossmanSpiral | January 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm

Seeing Jen Rubin’s tweets the past couple weeks has been hilarious.

holmes tuttle | January 24, 2012 at 3:56 pm

Just who would they recruit?

Lets look at the contenders:

Christie: Because all the people who can’t stand Romney will of course immediately go for his biggest cheerleader.

Rubio: Too new. Would be a total joke. They back a guy who just showed up in the Senate last year, come on. ALso FL was a natural state for him to enter in as the favorite son and future states aren’t as favorable. Don’t see him doing it anyway, I think he wants to preserve his options for 2016 and 2020.

Daniels: No one knows who he is. He could knock on the door of any conservative or republican outside IN and they’d go “can I help you?”. When they floated him back in Apr/May conservatives were largely unimpressed and Rush Limbaugh in particular went out of his way to go after him. the social truce comment will be harmful. If possible, he’s even more boring and uninspiring than Romney is. Has that weird marital background, may as well stick with Newt on that score. Has an arab background that I doubt will go over well with conservatives. And, lets face it he’s 5’5″ and very slender/effete looking. I don’t think that will go over well or fly. He won’t be able to get on any ballots until late Apr by which point Newt will have racked up tons of delegates. He may fly in the northeast states like DE, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA. But look at these state KY, AR, WV, NC, TX. I just don’t see Daniels. People will see how boring and milquetoast he is tonight after the SOTU.

Jindal: No, for many of the same reasons above. I just don’t see him as Presidential.

Ryan: Has said no many times. Also rather uncharismatic and uninspiring on the stump. Largely unknown outisde WI. No executive/leadership experience of any kind. Also, after Romney and the establishment touting his private sector and business exp and bashing Newt as an insider and career politician they’re honestly going to go with an actual career politician who has been in Congress since 1999 and has no real private sector exp? Yeah, that’ll go over well.

After attacking Newt over Medicare part D they’re going to go with a guy who actually voted for Medicare Part D? Again, I don’t see that ending well. In a year when the tea party is fed up with DC, they’re savior will be a guy who voted for the CR that Boehner bent over on, the debt ceiling hike that he caved on? A guy who voted for the auto bailout and TARP? Who voted for No Child Left Behind, the farm bill, and other Bush-era compassionate conservative policies? Who voted for the Iraq War(that’ll go over well vs Obama). A guy whose budget doesn’t actually balance the budget until around 2040 and keeps spending at around 20% of GDP until 2022? A guy with no foreign policy or natl security experience to speak of.

Jeb Bush: Yeah, Obama vs Bush, sure. Besides, it’s beyond obvious jeb’s plan is to wait for 2016 when he can ride to the rescue when the party is hungry after 8 yrs of a dem, just like his brother did.

The real problem any of these guys will face is that if Romney loses FL and Newt is ahead it is because the voters and conservatives are rejecting the establishment. Voting for Newt is on eof the ways they’re doing that. A lot of people are voting for Newt not so much because of him but because he’s the guy who’s fighting the establishment and he’s the candidate of the base right now.

So, if they dump Romney and put a new guy in, it will be incredibly obvious what the goal is. Why would the same people who are against the establishment all of a sudden embrace their obvious ploy and hand them a late victory? Doens’t make any sense.

It isn’t just about Romney. If Romney loses FL one the main reasons will be that he is so asscoaited wit and is the candidate of the establishment. Whover they’d get to replace him would face the same problem.

As much of a long shot as I think all this is, the only type of late enry candidate who’d have a chance would have to be an anti-establishment choice to oppose Newt from the right, to be even more tea party than he is. And of course the establishment would never pick someone like that and someone like that would never do their bidding in any case.

Only a few names come to mind as even possiblities.

Huckabee. He could peel off the evangelicals and southerners from Newt. Has the natl ID and exp of running a campaign. Popular with the party and base. doens’t have the baggage Newt has. An outsider. Very personable and great on the stump and in debate. I think he’d be acceptable to the establishment and Romney backers but still ableto peel enough current Newt folks.

Santorum. Romney drops out and endorses Santorum. Could work. Santorum would be a much more effective anti-Newt than Romney is.

She who must not be named.

Other than those three I can’t think of anyone.

But it sure sounds like things could get very interesting.

    Don’t forget Rudy Giuliani or former New York governor George Pataki. They’ll never allow Palin step in save this for them; in the end, they stand to be marginalized the most by Palin if she becomes the next President. She’s more a threat to the establishment than Newt.

    Frankly, outside of the up-and-comers of Haley, Rubio, and Jindal, and Palin, the Republican bench was decimated by the 2006 and 2008 elections.

    Mike Pence is a future candidate to possibly be able to bridge the grassroots and establishment, but the earliest he’ll be running is 2016, with 2020 the more likely year.

    The only current-or-former governor that the establishment can push that would truly have a viable candidacy is Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

    You hear it here first. Bob McDonnell.

      holmes tuttle in reply to McCoy2k. | January 24, 2012 at 4:39 pm

      I don’t see how they pick anyone who has endorsed Romney. It’ll need to be someone who isn’t tainted.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to McCoy2k. | January 25, 2012 at 2:30 pm

      Well, they may hear it HERE from you first, but I’ve been saying it since McDonnell was elected guv. HE was the guy. But he said NO sometime back.

JimMtnViewCaUSA | January 24, 2012 at 4:00 pm

More commentary on the subject of “panic sets in”.
Even those repulsed by Romney will readily admit that Newt is a mixed bag (DeDe S support, Global Warming/Nancy Pelosi, Fannie paychecks, this list goes on….). So, there is renewed thought on the topic of “who else”?
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/01/panic-sets-in.html

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 24, 2012 at 4:08 pm

I kinda feel sorry for Willard. The guy has probably spent a small fortune hiring the “best and brightest” campaign consultants and strategists, who all apparently convinced him the path to victory against Newt was to go negative on him.

But Newt has been able to turn those negatives into positives on a shoe-string budget. The “pros” advising Willard have got to be scratching their heads wondering how they could have been so wrong — and how they can devise a “Plan B” to take Florida.

What would Plan B even look like? Is Willard more competent than Newt? No. Is Willard’s vision more attractive than Newt’s? No. Is Willard more likeable than Newt? Maybe. I just don’t know how Willard competes now that the “attack” strategy has not only failed, but has actually BENEFITTED Newt.

    Windy City Commentary in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | January 24, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    The going rate for political consultants should be cut in half. Those bozos should get a real job for once, as now it just goes to show how worthless 95% of them are.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | January 25, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    It takes the best and brightest to recognize the best and brightest. Maybe Mitt hiring Charlie Crist’s people wasn’t the best and brightest idea. Think about what it says about somebody who would hire the weaseliest people working for one of the weaseliest candidates to ever come down the weasels’ pike. The only guy I can think of who was worse than Crist was John Edwards. Not even ol’ Bubba was as bad as Edwards…or Crist.

    Mitt has been running for over 4 years and he still can’t get more than 30% support. A man has got to know his limitations. Stick a fork in him. This day was bound to come.

    The media wants Mitt to be the candidate so they can skewer him for being wealthy. They’re just biding their time, waiting for the ‘pubs to step on their genitalia again. The media and this administration have been grooming the America people intensely over the last three years to hate the wealthy. Sure, rolling in dough was fine when the candidate was their John Kerry, but now wealth is evil. So, the media help get Mitt elected so the Obama campaign can demonize his wealth in the general election and make that the issue rather than Obama’s record. And it will work because Obama and his congressional handmaidens have made sure there are plenty of angry poor or becoming-poor people in this country to hate Mitt when the Obama campaign pulls the trigger on Romney’s wealth should he be the nominee. THAT is the only reason why Mitt has gotten as far as he has.

StrangernFiction | January 24, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Must. buy. more. popcorn.

Windy City Commentary | January 24, 2012 at 4:13 pm

The Pro-Newt Sunami is moving faster than the establishment could ever hope to keep up with. I love it. Those slow moving piranhas at National Review, Weekly Standard, et al. have no idea what just hit them. Suddenly, their chipping away and nibbling at the edges has become completely ineffective.

They can no longer post things like “Against Gingrich” in big red letters for 24 hours and have one little piranha pundit after another nibble away to sway voter opinion. The so-called “conservative” pundits are becoming as unconvincing to conservative voters and they are to liberal voters. Their monopoly on political thought is being broken up.

holmes tuttle | January 24, 2012 at 4:13 pm

If Christie gets in they could use this video to announce his entry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bXsTyMxSzc

“Cannonball!”

According to Jonah Goldberg, the true rebels in our society are the early-bird-special old geezers.

According to Greg Gutfeld, the true rebels are the university students with bad back acne majoring in engineering.

I think they’re both right. There can be more than one group of rebels.

The Che t-shirt, OWS crowd types … not rebels … just poseurs.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 24, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    “…the true rebels in our society are the early-bird-special old geezers.”

    Dadgum rot ah am, an’ doan yew fergit it, young feller.

The thing I like most about this primary, its like owner of a store gently tapping on the GM on the shoulder and saying “You don’t own this place, I do”.

holmes tuttle | January 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm

It’s interesting that the 2012 GOP Primary seems to be following the script of the 2008 Dem primary to a degree.

The long inevitable establishment choice is facing a serious threat from the ideological and passionate base candidate and a huge upset appears to possibly be in the making.

Now, it was understandable that a young Barack Obama would play the role of insurgent candidate and guy to rally the base and take on the establishment. You can understand that.

But Newt Gingrich? That the conservative base and tea party would rally behind a 70 yr old guy whose been out of office since 1998 and has no real personal charisma or amazing story and who spent 20 years in Congress including many years at the highest levels as one of the leaders of the very establishment he’s now fighting.

Politically speaking it’s just an amazing story.

    Windy City Commentary in reply to holmes tuttle. | January 24, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    The Newt Strikes Back. Newt has as much charisma as anyone else in the GOP. The 2010 Election was about cutting back on spending and putting Obamacare on life support. John Boehner and the establishment perpetual campaigners in Congress didn’t get that done, they did the opposite, so now the voters are going to plan B.

    We don’t need a “amazing” story or greek columns, we want the guy who got the job done last time he had the chance. That guy is running for President; that guy is Newt.

      I love the ironic twists and blasted expectations of history. Who would have thought our fight against the establishment would come down to Newt Gingrich? This is not to say Gingrich is unworthy as an exemplar, only that most of us had other expectations and didn’t see such a turn of events. But this is what history does, and the fight is now down to this. There are many examples of such unlikely figures emerging out of the past into a moment, men who’ve weathered storms, defeats and even humiliations. We’ve got Newt; he is the man for this moment. I think he’s the right man.

        Windy City Commentary in reply to raven. | January 24, 2012 at 6:04 pm

        I didn’t come around to Newt until mid-December. Yesterday, I was in DC at the March for Life, and a lady gave me a Newt sticker which I displayed on my coat. As the day went on and I went to some social functions, I had a few people say they liked the sticker and they liked Newt. A few girls I know had some misgivings about him; namely, that they believe the hype that he is not electable, and they don’t like his marital history. This makes sense given that these girls are practicing Catholics looking for a good husband.

        When I got to the airport to leave town, I stopped at a lounge to get a sandwich. As I left, I guy in his late 40s who was sitting behind me said Newt was the only guy who could beat Obama.

    He does have his own kind of charisma.

    http://youtu.be/a8p9xAbcosM

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to holmes tuttle. | January 25, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Newt’s got more charisma than Obama because he can quip without a teleprompter and he can think on his feet. All Obama has to run on is that he’s black and he deominzes rich white Wall Street guys, even though his administration is teeming with them – and teaming with them. But his skin color is wearing thin with the white-guilt crowd who have slowly – as in “snail’s pace” – come to realize how deeply their pockets are being picked, plus now having their unemployed son, his unemployed wife and their three kids living in their basements may not be working out all that well, either.

We have to remember that the Republican Party is to this debacle incited by the Democrat Party as the enabler is to the alcoholic. They are culpable as well.

So then it should not surprise anyone that when the will of the people is being expressed (such as it is with support mounting for a very-flawed but very-talented Gingrich) that great convulsions will occur within the Republican establishment. They do not want to willingly give up power any more than the Democrats.

But we must not be thwarted by the meme coming from the media. It is self-serving and false. And it is utterly biased toward the reelection of the president.

Make no mistake, though, if Obama is reelected the America that you grew up in will be gone. So much damage has been done to the fiscal stability of our government that unless we do a complete about face and a force march to the rear the house of cards will collapse. The numbers do not lie.

So I hope that Gingrich continues to fight like hell for the nomination and goes after Obama like he promises. Our future depends upon it.

If he really wanted to fire up the conservative base and bring some passion to his campaign, he would sign on the housewife from Wasilla as his running mate – and this time tell her to fire at will and do not stop until election day

Those two would sell out venues from coast to coast of any size with very energized patriots.

The truth about Bain Capital and Staples

An interesting take by Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rich-really-are-different_617667.html?nopager=1

Excerpt (but read the whole thing):
Yet ultimately, it seems a little strange to credit Romney with being much more than a smart early investor. That’s not nothing. Investment and capital are a very large part of entrepreneurial success—which is why investors reap large rewards when a business pans out. But still. A group of investors ponied up the $2.7 million needed to buy a group of restaurants from Richard and Maurice McDonald. Banker Ken Langone led a group of 40 investors to raise $2 million to start the Home Depot. And Mike Markkula gave Apple Computers the $250,000 it needed when it incorporated in 1977.

We don’t credit the jobs created by McDonald’s, Home Depot, and Apple to the money men. We credit them to Ray Kroc, Bernard Marcus, Arthur Blank, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak. Because those men had the ideas, ran the operations, and assumed most of the risk. It’s unclear why we should regard Romney’s role with Staples any differently.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to OCBill. | January 25, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Well, is recognizing a good investment inherently lame? Big companies started with investors who didn’t have the creative genius but were able to see it in someone else. Commerce needs capital. It is the lifeblood. I detest Romney, always have, but not because he made money. I detest him because he’s spineless and will not attack Obama when push comes to shove, and it will. He’s just another McCain, only with money, which in and of itself makes him a target. If that wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t be having these discussions. Nobody said boo about where and how Kerry got his money.

    I think the only relevant aspect of Romney’s wealth and Bain Capital is that they make Romney the prime target for the Obama campaign and the media should Romney be the nominee. The left has been grooming Americans to hate the successful and the wealthy with intensity for the last 3 years in particular. That’s why the Dhims have embraced the OWS goons, who are essentially operatives to train Americans to think they (Americans) are downtrodden by the wealthy rather than by government. Wealth was fine when John Kerry was their candidate. But Obama’s abysmal record leaves him with only two things to run on – claimed racism against him and hatred for rich, white, Wall Street types which is what Mitt gives the appearance of. Fair or not, there it is.

There is zero reason to believe Mitchell. Why would a Romney aide talk to a known DNC mouthpiece like Mitchell? I think she said that to incite GOP infighting.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Justin. | January 24, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    But..but..but that would imply she has a hidden agenda and as I understand it, journalists are supposed to remain neutral.

    I don’t know who has less credibility with me: Andrea Mitchell or her husband, Alan Greenspan.

Comrade Terry | January 24, 2012 at 4:41 pm

I wondered what all that traffic was here in Sarasota today.

Andrea Mitchell? She has credibility because…?

Uhm, why is the Romney camp even talking to Andrea Mitchell about such things anyway? I mean, are they going to her for advice or something?

…we really need to bury this Democrat/Establishment “bipartisan” plant Romney candidacy, and fast!

Because, really, doesn’t it almost feels like he’s Ford all over again? That is, the Establishment sides coming together agreeing we need to get rid of the current president, so they find the most “compromise(d)”/in-the-middle guy you can imagine and prop him up as somehow being a perfect fit. Feeling like that more and more to me; especially since they all must know Obama has almost no shot for re-election based off all polling (outside personal feelings)

All of this is wildly entertaining. I love that the Republican establishment is peeing themselves over their lack of control over the election. They better snap on their diapers!

Hey, a friend sent me this piece about Newt from American Thinker. Me likey.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/m-gingrich_v_leftism.html

    Great piece. Thanks. It reminds us that this is not complicated.

    “There was a reason why union goons entered Gingrich’s offices and why House Democrats filed 84 ethics charges (one of which stuck, and most of which were absurd) against Gingrich when he was speaker and why Nancy Pelosi threatened to raise these ancient charges yet again. Not only was Gingrich liberals’ enemy, but he defeated them.”

    Romney couldn’t even identity the Left let alone take them on or defeat them. And here he is carrying their water.

There is a lot of postulating about the “GOP establishment” and the irony of Newt being the anti-establishment candidate. The U.S. Constitution is itself an “establishment” and recognizes government as a necessary evil intended primarily to protect individualism from the majority and from government itself. I don’t care if a candidate has spent their entire career in politics if they truly understand the role of “limited” government. I believe Newt will reduce taxes, the national debt and emphasize individual responsibility and liberty. Ronald Reagan was a politician from the early 60’s until his retirement. Newt may at times have been a master insider politician, but as long as he’s “inside” fighting for what I believe then I will laud his political experience.

With a net worth of approx $250 million and as the architect of Romneycare, it’s possible that the unelectable candidate is actually Mitt. He’s got a wealth problem – too much of it!

Henry Hawkins | January 24, 2012 at 7:13 pm

Newt ought to hold up a dry erase board, a la Karl Rove on FOX News, on which he’s written two sets of figures.

“Here’s what Mitt Romney has spent running for the White House since 2007 and here’s his current polling. (20 kazillion / 33%)”

“Now here’s what I’ve spent since last summer and my current polling. (20 bucks / 33%)”

“So, America – who do you suppose will get you the most bang for your tax dollar, me or Mitt?”

Hence, the dismantling of the Republican party…

Right before your eyes…
If…, you’ve had eyes on the republican party since 1992.

It’s been a good run.

So it ends….as all things do.

StrangernFiction | January 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm

It’s unclear why we should regard Romney’s role with Staples any differently.

It’s actually quite clear.

RexGrossmanSpiral | January 24, 2012 at 8:50 pm

The fact that this is being talked about means it’s game over.
Newt hook, line, and sinker.

Please don’t shoot the messenger.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a Romney insider did say this to Mitchell. DC is one big happy family. Besides, this piece of garbage will only say she didn’t say this just like she said she didn’t say on TV that the media knew about Plame and had for years in the Scooter Libby case. We all saw and heard it but her denial stuck.

Mitchell, along with Nora O’Donell, showed her unbiased and impartial attitude at a book signing Palin held and she accosted Palin with a face of stony dilike. No need to say it but, of course, Palin handled it with good manners and and a smile. It must chap them raw when she does not reach for the bait. What they don’t understand is that they are showing their true selves in these encounters.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend