Image 01 Image 03

To the victor of South Carolina goes …

To the victor of South Carolina goes …

I’ll wait for some more polling before drawing any conclusions, but the most recent South Carolina poll by Insider Advantage has Romney ahead of Newt by 2 percentage points, via The Hill:

Despite a historic sweep of the first two nominating contests in the GOP field, Mitt Romney holds just a two percentage point lead in South Carolina, his smallest lead of 2012.

Romney is the favorite of 23 percent of South Carolina voters, narrowly edging Newt Gingrich’s 21 percent, according to the latest poll from Insider Advantage. Rick Santorum pulls 14 percent of Palmetto state voters, while Ron Paul rounds out the top four with 13 percent. Jon Huntsman’s seven percent and Rick Perry’s five percent trail the pack.

The numbers could indicate that Gingrich’s aggressive strategy – which has included controversial attacks on Mitt Romney’s business and abortion records – is gaining him traction by hurting the GOP frontrunner.

Other South Carolina polls are several days old and varied from Romney 3 points ahead to 18 points ahead.

Romney’s SuperPAC is spending heavily in SC, which may be a sign its internal polling is telling the same story.

(added) If you have not yet read Dan McLaughlin’s post, On Romney, Bain and Keeping Your Integrity, you need to.  It lays out a lot of what I have been saying about nominating someone whose primary claim to the presidency is his business experience without a full appreciation  of the political implications of that experience:

But just because the role of red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalists is a crucial and necessary one does not mean that they are likely to be popular candidates in today’s general election environment.  Criminal defense lawyers, for example may be crucially necessary to our system of justice, but if they have represented a lot of unpopular clients, they are not likely to be politically viable.  I continue to think that Romney’s business record is an under-explored political vulnerability (one Ted Kennedy used against Romney in 1994, but didn’t even use all the ads he cut) that the Democrats will exploit ruthlessly.  And Romney’s existing defenses of that record are fairly weak.  We should not be caught unawares by this in the summer and fall when it’s too late to pick another candidate.  In many ways, it’s like the swift boat story.

Update: Corrected, here’s PPP SC polling, not yet completed:

The prior PPP poll had Romney up by 7.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 12, 2012 at 9:24 am

Like the tactics or not… I think the ‘Non Romney’s’ have finally figured out that the only way to be THE Non-Romney is to knock out Romney instead of each other.

Took them long enough to cop that clue……

I live in upstate SC and I can tell you a couple of things about the locale:

– Nikki Haley’s endorsement is worth VERY little.
– John McCain’s endorsement goes over like a lead balloon.
– Newt is well liked for his tough talk and the enthusiasm for his candidacy is still alive for that reason.
– Most in SC are NOT comfortable with Mormonism.
– Some of the evangelicals here will bite on Rick Santorum’s religious message, but the big government conservative data is going to take its toll on him too, and he has no way to break out to the upside here.

    senttocoventryri in reply to TJSC. | January 12, 2012 at 10:31 am

    – Most in SC are NOT comfortable with Mormonism.

    I lived a few years in NC and I wanted to second this point. There seems to be some sort of low grade distrust between the Southern Baptists and the Mormons, though I don’t know why. I also see this alot in Scouting, the Mormons have a presence in BSA and (some) Southern Baptist orgs will avoid BSA for that reason.

    I’ve been a lurker here for a while, BTW, and just signed up. Just a fellow Rhody reading your blog, Professor.

      Tha Mormon/Evangelical stuff still amazes me. Seems like I can vaguely recall how huffy some evangelicals got when people dissed Huckabee for the religion issue and lookie, lookie, they’re doing the same.

      WarEagle82 in reply to senttocoventryri. | January 12, 2012 at 1:11 pm

      Mormons claim to be Christians. They aren’t. This bothers most actual Christians.

      Hope that clears up the Baptist v. Mormon issue…

I’m in SC, and I’m telling you Romney’s numbers are inflated. Romney has been running ads like crazy because he has been the only candidate with money to burn.

But now that everyone is actively campaigning in SC, and the attacks on Mitt are just beginning, Mitt’s numbers WILL go down. This primary makes it hard to predict anything, but I don’t think Romney will win SC.

Oh, and if you haven’t seen this clip already, you should. I guess Romney is anti-capitalism, too:

    I don’t see this video as saying much more than I personally already believe already, but that doesn’t say too much.

    Too much support for corporations has lead to crony capitalism within the Republican Party, which can be clearly shown during the not too recent period of Republican control of both houses of Congress .. the debt kept going up while corporations did well, many large corporations on the government’s largesse. Unlimited support for corporations can only be worse, but we haven’t seen anything approaching unlimited support in well over a century.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, merely have a different set of benefactors to target the government’s largesse and they aren’t afraid to tax to add to that largesse, while they throw scraps to the “working man.”

    Both parties need to get past the view that government is merely for the “splitting up of the spoils” before we inescapably fall into a sovereign debt armageddon.

    While the video may map out that Mitt isn’t on the extremes, it really does tell us much more than that.

      Astroman in reply to Neo. | January 12, 2012 at 10:09 am

      Neo, the video shows Romney mocking the Republican position while being sympathetic to the Democrat position.

      Romney wasn’t saying government ought to support corporations. Romney was saying he doesn’t believe in getting government out of businesses’ way.

      Romney then goes on to offer his Democrat-lite approach, which is to “invest in people.” So the government’s role isn’t to get out of the way of business, but to give money to certain people.

      That was Romney’s position in 2003. The point is, Mr. Capitalist ain’t so capitalist after all. In fact, he is a consistent “progressive.” (Progressive = a liberal who is afraid of calling themselves a liberal.)

You really ought to give up the pretense that this is about vetting Romney. You want him defeated (which is fine with me, by the way), but let’s call it what it is. And I think you should acknowledge that it’s more than a little visceral.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Ryan. | January 12, 2012 at 10:00 am

    “more than a little visceral” — okay, so which card are you going to play on me? And it’s about winning the general election and not nominating someone whose electability is doubtful, it’s a point I have been making for months long before Romney went negative and decided to turn a referendum on his business experience into a referendum on capitalism and free markets.

      You started that way, yes. But sometime around December you went from not-Romney to full anti-Romney. Someone else described it as “caustic” which I think is about right.

      I’ve followed you since Scott Brown, and continue to do so because you make great points, including about Romney’s problems. But it’s been hard these last few weeks to believe you’ve maintained a sense of balance. Just my minority opinion.

    dmacleo in reply to Ryan. | January 12, 2012 at 10:10 am

    boy if people consider these opinions,etc to be visceral maybe I ought to unload and show them what visceral is…..
    lets start.
    only an idiot would vote for someone who has no problems forcing people to buy a product, lies about how that legislation saved state money, lies about how much fraud was involved in it and how ALL taxpayers in the US covered his state.
    only an idiot would vote for romney.

Excellent article.

“An understanding of private business is a valuable thing for public officials, but it’s no substitute for experience pursuing good public policies.”

I hope that South Carolina will put a crimp in the idea that Republicans should run a mego-flip-flopper (although Obama is one, too), a “liberal” (meaning big-government) governor who “lost” his state, and a corporate raider, the bulk of whose businesses (and most of Bain’s offices) are in other countries.

These corporate raiders of the 1980s and 1990s hollowed out much of the good businesses of the U.S. and sent the assets packing. The rules, American laws, that permitted this raiding as “tough-love” capitalism are brutally wrong. Even “vulture capitalism” does not capture the carnage. Businesses were not protected by our “free-enterprise” government to fight and compete with each other and other global businesses, learning how to survive on their own or go bankrupt. Instead they were bought up by international big money and “slaughtered”, the best loaded with debt for a long time in the future — the wealthy profiteers jet-setting off into the sunrise.

Much of Obama’s big funding in 2008 came from outside the country or from these “financial-types” who appear to be American. Obama was elected and the (corporate-owned) media silenced by them. They have had a heyday under his administration (authoritarian rule). We are much poorer.

If either Obama or Romney is elected in the fall, we will continue to be poorer. Obama’s administration is attempting to stop as much “native” development as possible; Romney’s corporate raider style (in his words his work is like that of the GM bailout) will sell off those natural resources to his funders — global (some of them our enemies) buyers who have siphoned off the good, hard work of both Americans and citizens of other countries.

We should work to get the laws right for a free-enterprise economy and society. We should use this opportunity to put forward laws that put limits on corporate raiders and prevent any governtment bailouts of any part of their deals. Romney is not the nominee we need, if we are to get clarity for a prosperous future. But healthy criticism of him might help us get the new laws we need.

By the way, is Rush’s station owned by Romney? Shame on him for not articulating these very important issues. Shame on him for dumping on those who are making a beginning critique. You don’t have to be completely tone-deaf to citizens on “the left”.

    Yes, re Rush’s station.

    When I worked for a certain group in the 80s, among other things, we looked for creative ways to break contracts, free up those reserves to be pocketed. (“So sue us. If you have the money to go that distance.”) The fallout extended not just to the company being gutted, and its discarded employees, but also to other companies, customers, suppliers and landlords.

Romney clearly doesn’t want his record as governor to be front and center, but his business experience, fine as it is, elevates him no higher than a Ross Perot or Steve Forbes. Beyond words, Romney shows little evidence of conservatism, and even if you allow that his stated conversion to conservatism is sincere, he has shown repeatedly a willingness to abandon positions for political expediency. Factor in an absolute dirth of personal charisma and we’ve got ourselves a winner?

I am happy to see that the Romney-juggernaut is finally being dented. If all it took, was Perry and Gingrich bringing up Bain, then think how Obama would have crushed him with it. This needed to be out there now. If Romney can make a case for himself with the voters, let him do so now, rather than in November. Either way, it reduces the impact of any ater attack by the Left, if we all deal with it now.

Richard A. Viguerie wrote:

Mitt Romney Would be Mr. Potter’s Candidate for President
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s cringeworthy comment that he likes having the option of “firing people” seems to make him Mr. Potter’s candidate for President.

And Romney’s opponents in the Republican presidential primary were quick to hit Romney for the comment — but only former Speaker Newt Gingrich really got it right in his criticism of investment banker Romney’s attitude.

Gingrich asked the fundamental question that is at the heart of the economic meltdown of 2008, and the subsequent bailouts and crony capitalism of Obamanomics:

“Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money? Or is that, in fact, somehow, a little bit of a flawed system.”

I see that the Gingrich campaign has gotten tired of turning the other cheek and they are finally changing their tactics to any eye-for-an-eye.

I say, what took so long.

My visceral reaction to Romney is – meh. And that’s the problem.

Bain may actually be his STRENGTH, IF what it shows is that he is actually tough (enough to fire people, yes, like closing down those three entities of Perry’s, and more), if he actually IS able to show some backbone and fire and do what what we all know needs to be done.

His negative ads were not quite as dishonest as Paul’s, but they were close – and going negative, creating the circular firing squad, is killing us in the long-term. He brought it on, he better be able to take it.

Gingrich who has a plan for what he’s going to do AFTER the election, Romney’s is to GET the election. But – he’s – meh. Nonetheless, he’s better than Obama. But it’s IMO. Glad to see that it’s not over after two tiny states vote.

Not all of the Bain story is being told; for obvious reasons.
Bain Capital can’t be discussed without including Smith Corona and Ampad, Randy Johnson and the DNC.

We don’t need a circular firing squad with the DNC supplying the ammunition.

    TJSC in reply to Marv. | January 12, 2012 at 11:02 am

    I don’t see Smith Corona mentioned in the material, but wasn’t that a South Carolina plant? Maybe I’m wrong but if it was, that’s a part of the story that needs more attention here in SC.

I almost always enjoy Sean Delonas’ cartoons on Page Six, but not today’s. Why the gun?

I just saw the Film from King of Bain, and it is devastating. Romney is a pump and dumper. A con artist. Now running for President.

These things may or may not be legal, because many of things seem to contain Fraud and Misrepresentation as well as Insider Trading — but they DEFINITELY show he is an ass. If you are going to around blowing up small town factories, why not just invest a little bit in new businesses to soften the blow. If they are abandoning the factories you can always make something else and sell that to get out. Unless of course you are okay in just walking over people.

BTW Awing, According to Bain’s own filings, Romney remained on the Management Committee while KB Toys was being raided. You are right, Life’s real difficult for me not being so naive.

Game. Set. Match.

For a little perspective, here’s Rudy Giuliani. And keep in mind Rudy is no friend of Romney’s. He savaged Romney back in December while talking up Gingrich.

“What the hell are you doing, Newt? I expect this from Saul Alinsky. This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama, and what you’re saying is part of the reason we’re in so much trouble right now.”

“I’m outraged about what [Newt] and Rick [Perry], who is a very close friend of mine, I’m shocked what they’re doing. It’s ignorant, dumb. It’s building something we should be fighting in America, ignorance of the economic system, playing on the dumbest, most ridiculous ideas about how you grow jobs.”

“What they’re doing to Mitt right now is totally unfair, and bad for the Republican Party.”

This constant yammering about the Mass. ex-governor and the former speaker of the house. Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania, is a GREAT candidate, saying all the right things, without the hair of the ex-guv, and without the “I’ve been injured, so now I’m mad, and I’m going to lash out” ex-speaker.

Santorum is right on the issues, he’s working EXTREMELY hard, doing it on shoe leather instead of cash from rich friends. He knows how to WORK congress to get things accomplished, such as welfare reform, partial birth abortion ban. He knows international issues and is prepared to deal with him. He has a great tax plan to reduce taxes to increase employment.

Wake up. This constant talk about Romney and Gingrich just elevates two self-absorbed “moderates.” I find them liberal, I prefer a genuine conservative, and Rick Santorum is one. His answers in the debates and at his townhall meetings have been consistent, conservative, and superb. And he didn’t pile on about Bain. He said, “That’s capitalism.”

Mr. Jacobson, please give it up with Gingrich. He’s all about whatever ideas pop in his head, good or bad. We can’t afford a self-absorbed president. It’s Obama II.

    “He [Santorum] knows how to WORK Congress to get things accomplished.”

    If, as you say, Santorum was such an effective legislator, then explain how his Border Security bill could not even make it out of committee and died a gasping death. Ironic, considering that Santorum bashed Perry on his border security philosphy considering that Perry’s plan basically mirrors Santorum’s own bill.

    And let’s ignore that Santorum, who now decries the federal debt, voted to raise that very debt FOUR TIMES. And voted for No Child Left Behind, a disaster, as well as Medicare Part D, which has added to our national debt more than was ever possibly imagined.

    Sorry, but don’t ask me to get behind a man who actually bashed the TEA Party and who defended his own ear marks as actually being a good thing (while now bashing everyone else’s earmarks as being a bad thing).

Also, I forgot:




    William A. Jacobson in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 12, 2012 at 10:55 am

    I think you are right, I should give Santorum more coverage. Readers are encouraged to post comments about him. Either he or Newt will emerge as the last standing not-Romney not-Paul.

    I think you are misinformed about the situation in South Carolina. People of Libertarian persuasion generally will run as fast as they can from Santorum’s religious-based arguments, and if not from that, from his big-government history (see the Redstate list of his prior votes). He may not be warm and fuzzy but Newt’s the only one currently in the race who can stop Romney. I’d rather have a Thomas Jefferson Anti-Federalist than an Alexander Hamilton Federalist, but at the present moment I’ll take the Federalist who can explain his position and has a chance to win.

Visceral! Visceral!

Let’s face it: Mitt Romney is the 2012 GOP’s John Kerry candidate. Like Kerry, Romney has decided to stake his flag on his business acumen (whereas Kerry was “reporting for duty”), not his record as the governor of a northeastern state and his conservative accomplishments during that tenure. So it is Romney, himself, who has invited scrutiny of his Bain days, not anyone else, by making it the focal point of his experience and qualification.

But like Kerry, Romney possesses a certain amount of arrogance, thinking that Republicans who are strong supporters of the free market would never point to that 10% of the free market that is not all that honorable. Romney, like Kerry, seems to have adopted the attitude that he is above all criticism, and seems offended to learn that politics are not played by Marquis of Queensbury rules. But he should have known better.

We all remember when Meg Whitman was running for governor of California, running on her business acumen. Her strongest competitor in the primaries was Poizner, and Poizner ran a devestating ad that started with flying vultures. The ad went on to say “With Goldman Sachs, Whitman invested heavily in VULTURE funds profiting from California foreclosures.” The ad was devestating to the Whitman campaign as California was bleeding jobs and businesses.

But it gets even more interesting. While Romney expresses shock that his opponents would go after his VULTURE capitalist tactics, that too, seems a bit hypocritical on Mitt’s part. It was Romney’s top strategist, Stuart Stevens, who designed and created the “Vulture” ad against Meg Whitman, using her business acumen against her. To feign surprise that someone would use the same tactic against Romney by those who employed that tactic against another candidate just four short years ago, confirms the “above it all” attitude adopted not only by the candidate, but his campaign staff as well.

Yesterday, the arrogant candidate said that his days with Bain could be compared to what Obama did with GM/Chrysler, trying to save companies and jobs. Hardly a reference that I think voters want to hear who solidly rejected the GM/Chrysler bail outs using taxpayer dollars that will never completely be paid back. And instead of building confidence that GM/Chrysler deserves to have our business, they are still struggling having lost credibility with the consumer. Just yesterday, Yahoo! Finance reported on the 10 brands with the best reputations. Ford, who did not take a bailout, ranked #7. Nuf said.

And while those at NR will defend Romney to the bitter end, and others will demand that we ignore his history (both as governor and as a corporate raider) and go after Obama only, they seem to want to cover their eyes and refuse to accept the process; that a candidate has to win the nomination to go after Obama in the general, which after all, it the ultimate fourth quarter. And there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that David Axelrod, the most vicious campaign manager in modern history, will be more than happy to use Mitt’s “vulturism” against him with large screen shots of closed factories and unemployment lines. The number of Americans currently on unemployment and food stamps will be turned into Mitt Romney’s sole responsibility as Alexrod shows that it is people like Romney who are responsibile for high unemployment numbers and only Obama can save us from all starving to death. Considering the number of people who voted for a man with NO record, save voting present, and with a hidden past deemed racist to bring up, it is not unimaginable to think that those same people will relate those shuttered factories to Mitt Romney during the general election season.

If, (and that is a strong IF) the so-called conservative media were doing their job, they would report the Bain days in the way it should be reported on. Instead, they have decided that the only way to defend free market capitalism is to defend it totally, good and bad. Like I said before, it is equivalant to saying that we cannot complain about ACORN because the voting system in the U.S. is 90% good. Bunk!!!!

I am not in Newt Gingrich’s camp, but to see how those who we thought were in the conservative camp to rail on Gingrich, and Perry somewhat, for showing Mitt Romney’s true colors should tell you that Romney has been chosen and we, the little people, should just go along with their superior intellect when it comes to what/who is best to represent us. I salute Professor Jacobson for not falling into that trap and being honest about the reality on the ground.

    imfine in reply to retire05. | January 12, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Right on the money

    Henry Hawkins in reply to retire05. | January 12, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    In a nutshell, the establishment GOP picks the candidate from a defensive posture, someone who might win but won’t hurt them with independents (by their reckoning, such as it was with ‘safe’ Bob Dole and ‘safe’ John McCain).

      Seems like its usually the safe choice for the down ballot senior Senators…so as not to make them have to make much of an effort even have to pretend like they are reformers.

    Hope Change in reply to retire05. | January 12, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    retire05 – TOUR DE FORCE! Thank you. Great comment. Loved it. So comprehensive.

    … but you don’t like Newt? Je ne comprends pas. I don’t understand it. Plus, it feels so visceral to me. (smiles) But seriously, this is perplexing. You agree with him. He agrees with you. If I could just persuade you to consider taking a look at some of Newt’s speeches….?

    You must choose for yourself, I know — but If you ever want to watch a speech—

    “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH” – George Washington crossing the Delaware

    “MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE” – the title says it all

    “STRONG AMERICA NOW” – Lean Six Sigma and the future of America

    — all on YouTube, search by title.

    Doesn’t it say something positive about Newt that the very best thing I offer to persuade you to support Newt is to ask you to consider his ideas? Newt’s ideas fit together to give us a fighting chance to restore our country, that we love. If you give Newt a chance, you may be pleasantly surprised.

    retire05, Newt’s speeches agree with your analysis above.

I guess after 2008 the GOP just wants to nominate the most feeble candidate as quickly as possible.

This gives the MSM much more time to mock the GOP nominee and that has to be the main goal of the GOP after McCain and now Romney…

StrangernFiction | January 12, 2012 at 12:22 pm

“The classical Republican approach is to say you know what makes America so great is our great corporations, and if we just clear the decks so the corporations can be more successful, and give them more money, and make it easier for them to succeed, why we’ll do even better on the world stage. I don’t happen to subscribe to that traditional sort of Republican caricature.”

Making it easier for American corporations to succeed. How horrible!

Newt’s (counter) attack ads are working!

Give ’em hell, doughboy

Here’s another good piece busting the laughable myth of “electability” (this one by Quin Hillyer). He makes clear that Santorum has stronger claims to electability than Romney.

Midwest Rhino | January 12, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Mitt escaped his “I like to fire people” comment with the “out of context” line. And sure … it sorta was …

But when you change insurance companies, you aren’t firing people. No people get fired. I like to be able to choose my insurance provider and terms and selected coverage and deductible. But I don’t like to fire people.

So why would he phrase it that odd way? I suppose it was off script, and he will now say he likes freedom to choose who to hire. But it seems to me there is a greater context to his “liking to fire people” than just liking to change insurance companies. (and his mandate would only allow you to “fire people” if you hired someone else)

    Very good point. It goes to his congenital need to act like the Alpha male executive, to over-compensate for some basic insecurity. He does this in a thousand ways and mannerisms from body language to asinine comments.

    Hope Change in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 12, 2012 at 11:05 pm

    Wow. Midwest Rhino. I hadn’t thought of that. You are right. I changed insurance companies lately, and it never occurred to me to think that I was firing someone. And if I ever had had to fire someone, I would’ve felt terrible, even if it were necessary.

    There is something very strange about that choice of words.

    I resent the attempt by the Establishment to drive out the conservative choices from this election. And I am genuinely shocked at some of the people who are trying to destroy Newt’s candidacy, and the underhanded way they are operating – e.g. the NRO meltdown article from a couple of weeks ago. And in all honestly, Rush. I’ve never heard Rush to incoherent. I wonder if Bain being Rush’s syndication partner is affecting Rush.

      Hope Change in reply to Hope Change. | January 12, 2012 at 11:13 pm

      raven, I agree. And then the deer-in-the-headlights frozen look when Romney’s challenged and has no response, which is often. And when Romney is challenged and does respond, he says things like, “Do you hear what I’m saying? Do you hear what I’m saying?” That’s how Romney sounded in the video from, I think, 2008, when the ABC,I think, reporter was insisting that a certain guy was “running” Romney’s campaign. And I guess the answer “no” hinged on the idea that someone else was actually “running” the campaign, and that this controversial guy only was in on high-level meetings, and rode on the campaign bus. What? And Romney was petulant. Like saying it twice, louder, means it must be true and the other person must agree. This is SO not what we need.

“It’s like fingernails on the chalkboard.”

This line of attack by Newt and Perry is grating on me too. They (and yes, you Professor) are veering off in the wrong direction. I’m holding my nose and jumping ship.

If I get tired of dog-paddling, will you throw me a life line?

Do Republicans realize that they are supporting the candidate that could not defeat McCain who couldn’t defeat Obama in 2008? Are we asking for a repeat performance in 2012 ?????? Romney is a huge problem. PLEASE, review the 2010 election in California to see how the evisceration of Carly and Meg was perfected by the Dim machine and the media. The negative ads were ruthless and nonstop. Victims were in the ads crying how Carly had destroyed their job and relocated the jobs offshore and destroyed the company they had worked for. Gloria Allred trotted out her “illegal alien victim” that super rich Meg had “cheated out of wages” and virtually took out Meg. Add in the voter fraud and the Dims took everything. This is the playbook the unprepared Republicans will be up against in 2012.

conservativecho | January 12, 2012 at 4:45 pm

“You must be STUPID STUPID STUPID” – some movie with Danny Devito in it

There’s a saying, IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO. The idea that Newt/Perry have started this revolution against capitalism, well, is just plain silly. The people who are behind the Newt/Perry accusations are perpetuating the argument because we raised the issue. Is it smart? Of course not! The funny thing is they are drawing more attention to the legitimacy of the OWS movement by calling us all socialists and marxists. It’s as if we should all blindly believe Wall Street NEVER got their hands dirty and how dare we even go there(which is not even remotely close to where we went)with Mitt Romney. Does anyone realize how much Wall Street is in bed with the government? They were the BIGGEST donors to Obama’s election and now they have donated to Romney. Who actually thinks Romney would say no to the next bailout? I have come to the realization that this argument that I am a socialist, because I choose to question the tactfulness of a potential POTUS in past investment deals, is keenly outrageous. So, I have but one or two conclusions.

1) All the bull shit rhetoric is just a decoy for what is really behind Mitt Romney’s ‘bainful’ existence, his very liberal record as MA gov. which will be more of a thorn in his side than Bain ever was. As a Wall Street trader in my previous life, I have seen the good, the bad and everything in between. Nobody wants to put every private equity firm on trial, including me, thus the strong “socialist” rhetoric. I get that. So this notion of anti-capitalism is being produced into this mini-revolution to hide the fact that Mitt Romney never was, is, or ever will be a conservative. The establishment, not that they are conservative, knows full well he isn’t but they know he has always been a “company man” and he will continue doing what they tell him to do. They asked him to bow out in 2008 and he did provided they back him in 2012. This is the real reason why they will not support anyone else. Just look at the records of just Romney and Gingrich. Newt was the last person involved with a balanced budget while lowering taxes. The economy is still the biggest issue last I checked. Actually, as a republican, he is the ONLY one to have had ANY success attached to the party even during the Bush years when we held majorities in both chambers and the presidency. So what do they want to use as an excuse? His baggage. It’s funny how the reason for wanting to save the country is to overlook how Mitt Romney has governed in the past because no matter how moderate to liberal he is, it’s so much better than Obama. And I also love the argument that in the past few years, he is “leaning” conservative? What?! You can become president just by saying something? Well, if that’s the case, wouldn’t we use that same argument for Newt’s baggage and that he is sorry but at least get SOME conservative policies enacted? But No! That’s just too much common sense. You are stupid stupid stupid! The case against Mitt Romney:

2) Maybe this is all just a nightmare and that this was the only way we could vet Mitt Romney so that he would lose. I know. This one’s wishful thinking. No, seriously, conservatism is dying a slow death and unfortunately, we won’t get a second chance. Then you can really call me a socialist.

    This is 100% true. Not liking what someone did, had nothing to do with being anti-capitalist. Not liking someone using slimy sales tactics at a used car dealership doesn’t mean your against used car dealerships, it just means your opposed to the tactics and maybe the people who employ them. Newt is right, if we fail to condemn the sleaze balls ripping people off we will lose the larger fight over capitalism.

Karen Sacandy | January 12, 2012 at 6:24 pm

Dear Professor Jacobson,
Thank you for mentioning Ron Paul and Rick Santorum again.

As for libertarians running from Santorum, I myself ran as a Libertarian for a Georgia house seat in 1990. Religiously, I’m agnostic but I do NOT run from Santorum.

I’d prefer Paul, but I look at what each has DONE, and what each BELIEVES.

Rick Santorum helped get a Partial Birth Abortion ban passed. The immense human suffering that helps prevent makes him a very good man in my book, regardless. As far as his social positions, Santorum is right: marriage is for CHILDREN. We in our adult-centered, instant gratification world, forget that. We pretend marriage is to make adults “happy.” When parents divorce to be “happy,” what happens to the children? They lose the daily presence of their mother or their father. The custodial parent may try (and succeed, unjustly) to poison the child against a parent who truly loved them and cared for them. They may gain a stepparent who doesn’t care or who abuses them. I’m a member of a group for men abused as children, known as Go read what happens to boys when they don’t have a parent protecting them and nurturing them. It is hell on earth.

I admire Rick Santorum. He is RIGHT. Children deserve to have a mother and a father. Those married tend not to be impoverished. And yet we’d rather be superior and snobbish, and pretend marriage is a quaint, antiquated institution.

It’s not.

[…] money for a longer fight, but getting dragged down by Paul in South Carolina (which appears to be working) may damage Santorum even worse than Iowa damaged […]

[…] Spare Me Posted on January 12, 2012 9:30 pm by Bill Quick » To the victor of South Carolina goes … – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion I’ll wait for some more polling before drawing any conclusions, but the most recent South […]