Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 There's something that bothers me about Mitt that no one talks about: the quality of his financial backers.Big silent money generally likes big government and big wars for big contracts.I ain't sayin' this definitely is Mitt's case, but I'm just sayin'.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Michael wrote:Big silent money generally likes big government and big wars for big contracts. I ain't sayin' this definitely is Mitt's case, but I'm just sayin'.end quoteI don’t think Mitt has ever been aligned with big contract government, though he gave bigger government to Massachusetts’s just as they wanted: health care for everyone with no free ride for the poor or young adults who are willing to cast their fates to the winds. But industries like builders of airplanes, tanks or, or armaments are not Mitt’s forte. Office products, yes and I suppose the military needs those, but Mitt is more in the construction, not the destruction business. We on the libertarian right have are qualms about Mitt but the trick is to look for the lying “spin” as you have suggested. I am watching to see how the liberal media discredits those who they least want to run against Barrack Hussein Obama or BHO (pronounced, Boo!).The following is from liberal Yahoo!Peter7 reasons voters are souring on Mitt RomneyThe number of Americans who have negative views of the longtime GOP presidential frontrunner skyrockets in January. What gives?"The main reason the Republican establishment overwhelmingly favors Mitt Romney over Newt Gingrich is that Romney stands a better chance of beating Barack Obama," says Jonathan Chait at New York. So it's a problem for Romney that "as the campaign goes on, this seems to be growing less true." A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that negative views of Romney have "spiked" over the past two weeks, from a net +4 favorability rating (39 positive/34 negative) to a -18 rating (31 positive/49 negative) — very similar to Gingrich's -22 rating (29/51). The shift is most notable among independents, who went from generally liking Romney (41/34) to disliking him by a 2-to-1 margin (23/51). Democrats (21/62) and Republicans (58/32) have soured on Mitt, too. What's behind Romney's newfound unpopularity? Here, seven theories: 1. Voters are turned off by his wealth 2. And he's cagey about his fortune 3. Romney has alienated Reagan Democrats Romney's support has dropped among all voters, but it has plummeted among "blue-collar whites," says Greg Sargent at The Washington Post. 4. Being a venture capitalist turned out to be a 5. The inevitability gambit backfired If I had to sum up Romney's growing unpopularity in one word, I'd pick "entitlement," says The American Prospect's Bouie. "From his refusal to engage his opponents for much of the primary, to his transparent pandering on virtually every issue under the sun, this sense of entitlement has carried over to every inch of his presidential campaign6. He can't handle his rivals' attacks 7. Going negative hurt him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I don’t think Mitt has ever been aligned with big contract government...Peter,I agree about Mitt not being directly involved. But...(drum roll...)I bet if you follow the money trail, you will find he is aligned with banking and financial people whose institutions are aligned with big contract government. Or whose institutions are intimately involved with institutions that are aligned with big contract government. Or whose institutions are intimately involved with institutions that are intimately involved with institutions that are... you get the picture...Rush said something the other day I agree with. He said the elite establishment Republicans don't care about balancing the budget or cutting spending. The do care about getting control of the Presidency, the Senate and the House, though, because they want to be in control of government spending.In my understanding, this means they want the government money to be spent on their stuff and go into their pockets, including ways to milk opportunities that arise from government protections.And these are the folks behind Mitt.It would take some digging to find the ties, but I bet it's all there and not even hidden all that well.I smell crony capitalism with Mitt. Republican crony capitalism. And that has always meant guns and butter.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 There's something that bothers me about Mitt that no one talks about: the quality of his financial backers.Big silent money generally likes big government and big wars for big contracts.Michael:Here is what is "out there:"1) Swiss banks back Romney and Obama http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Swiss_banks_back_Romney_and_Obama.html?cid=319169682) Mel Sembler - Chairman of the Board of the Sembler Company, which develops and manages shopping centers, and co-founder of Straight, Inc., a controversial drug-treatment center3) Goldman Sachs $367,200 Credit Suisse Group $203,750 Morgan Stanley $199,800 HIG Capital $186,500 Barclays $157,750 Kirkland & Ellis $132,100 Bank of America $126,500 PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250 EMC Corp $117,300 JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250 The Villages $97,500 Vivint Inc $80,750 Marriott International $79,837 Sullivan & Cromwell $79,250 Bain Capital $74,500 UBS AG $73,750 Wells Fargo $61,500 Blackstone Group $59,800 Citigroup Inc $57,050 Bain & Co $52,5004) Billionaire venture capitalist and Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, who aggressively pushed Chris Christie to enter the presidential race, has decided to throw his support behind Mitt Romney, CBS News has confirmed.++++++++++++++++++++++++++This is just a quick search - more later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 Michael wrote:I smell crony capitalism with Mitt. Republican crony capitalism. And that has always meant guns and butter.end quoteAdam listed some of Mitt’s donors including Goldman Sachs $367,200, Credit Suisse Group $203,750, Morgan Stanley $199,800, HIG Capital $186,500, Barclays $157,750, Kirkland & Ellis $132,100, Bank of America $126,500, PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250, EMC Corp $117,300, JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250, The Villages $97,500Vivint Inc $80,750, Marriott International $79,837, Sullivan & Cromwell $79,250, Bain Capital $74,500, UBS AG $73,750, Wells Fargo $61,500, Blackstone Group $59,800, Citigroup Inc $57,050Bain & Co $52,500. end quote My wife gave Mitt $25, twice. Me zero, so far. I want to see how it goes in The Sunshine State. I will divulge that Mitt thanked me today in my email for advice I gave him before South Carolina, even though he did not follow it. And he lost. I suppose you could find one degree of separation between an Influence Seeker and any candidate. I suppose you could find three degrees of separation between any candidate and a defense contractor. With Mitt, it is just supposition.However, with Newtron Gingrich there is no degree of separation between his influence and Newt peddling his influence. That is how he makes his money. Have you ever seen Newt say, “I am so sorry, sob. I should not have been such a crony capitalist.”? Naw. Newt defends his actions, as normal, and honorable historical analysis. And when signed Senate and House compromised bills reached his desk the Speaker added more pork than no one had voted on. In his opinion, is that so bad? If you could lie and cheat for profit, wouldn’t you have to? That is the norm for Newt. He is not sorry, only sorry he was caught.That does not make Newt not worthy of my vote between him and Obama, but I would vote for Mitt over Newt.Peter Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Ok - it is handwriting on the wall time...The Republican establishment and the conservative establishment is taking Mr. Newt out.Should be an interesting debate tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Santorum had an excellent debate. Dr. Paul did well. Romney also performed well. Gingrich was awful.http://www.mittsbloodmoney.com/ "Debating in Tampa, Florida in late-January, while falsely characterizing Newt Gingrich’s income from his government consulting work, Mitt Romney denied that Bain did “any work with the government like Medicaid and Medicare”. Now we learn that Bain, under Romney’s “supervision”, purchased and ran the Damon Corporation, who pled guilty to Federal conspiracy charges as a result of tens of millions of dollars in systemic Medicare fraud committed under Romney’s and Bain’s control. Damon was fined over $119-million which was, at the time, the largest criminal healthcare fine in Massachusetts history and Mr. Romney’s participation was characterized in 1996 by Corporate Crime Reporter thusly: “As manager and board member of Damon Corp, Mitt Romney sits at the center of one of the top 15 corporate crimes of the 1990’s." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 This is kinda cute.I don't know how accurate it is. And the editing by something called Red Pill Philosophy is a bit irritating.But this seems to be a legitimate recording of a man who says he is being paid to look like he's a Romney supporter, but he actually prefers Newt.Dayaamm!<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MYRZrS60eZQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Like I said, this could be set up. The editing sure makes it feel that way. But the unemployed Hispanic dude just doesn't sound like he is coached at all, nor does he sound like he would respond and sound natural under coaching.It sure is funny to think about. I'm sure this is going on all over the place. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Michael:I can tell you for a fact that this is business as usual. This is the "walking around money" that every well financed field campaign has in abundance. Virtually similar to hired petition campaign workers @ 10.00/hour cash, with bonuses for exceeding your daily quota which of course gets the anybody who can breath signatures on nominating petitions.Remember the Gingrich campaign in Virginia this year claiming that the paid signature collector produced falsely signed petitions...no shit!ACORN has also been nailed for this. It is a standard practice.The way I was taught is that you hire folks who are notaries and pay them a premium because when they sign the bottom of a page with twenty (20) signatures, it usually means that that page is pure gold. Now the person could have lied to the notary as to being a registered Democrat for example, but at least you know that the person produced an ID and exists.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 This is not a smart move by the Romney campaign...According to Sabato, who I have doubts about,:"As of Wednesday morning Romney’s Super PACs had not yet disclosed their donors as required. Sabato declares: 'They’re supposed to. I certainly intend to press that and I think a lot of other people do as well.''Disclosure ought to be automatic. It should be instantaneous. There’s really no excuse for not disclosing one’s donors in this day and age.'"Read more on Newsmax.com: Sabato: Florida Primary Not a 'Game-Ender' for Gingrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 Adam wrote:This is not a smart move by the Romney campaign...According to Sabato, who I have doubts aboutend quoteMe too. The guy is usually reliable but I have seen some errors in his projections, recently. The Libs are already worried about a Pac trouncing of Obama my Mitt's minions.I had a hard time cutting and pasting the following. They make it tough to do. Peter From Reuters.Whenever Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been down and in need of an enforcer, one has been there.Restore Our Future, the independent "Super PAC" that supports Romney's campaign, has been a machine of destruction in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, swamping Republican rival Newt Gingrich with attack ads each time he has seemed to threaten Romney's frontrunner status. Until late on Tuesday, the engines behind the PAC—its donors—were largely secret. But the group's financial reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) reveal that private equity executives, hedge fund managers and other financial heavyweights are key contributors to the fundraising juggernaut that Restore Our Future has become. Political action committees (PACs) are groups with great clout in U.S. politics that are legally separate from candidates. In this campaign, they have unleashed negative advertising against the rival of the candidate they favor. The filings reveal that Restore Our Future had $23.6 million in the bank as of Dec. 31 - more than the Romney campaign itself. The PAC has spent $17.4 million in support of Romney, including nearly $11 million in Florida before Romney's decisive victory in the Republican primary there on Tuesday. The group's filings reveal a broad base of donors who have given $100,000 or more, taking advantage of the lack of limits on donations to such groups. Campaigns are limited to $2,500 donations per donor. Among the most generous contributors to Romney's cause have been people who share Romney's investment background. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, co-founded Bain Capital, a private equity firm, and has emphasized his business experience in touting his ability to create jobs and improve the economy. Three hedge fund managers pitched in $1 million to the pro-Romney PAC: Tiger Management's Julian Robertson, Elliot Management's Paul Singer and Renaissance Technology's Robert Mercer. Miguel Fernandez, chairman of a healthcare private equity firm, gave $500,000. MBF Family Investments, which shares an address with Fernandez's investment company, gave another $500,000. The list of major donors to Restore Our Future is studded with other veterans of Wall Street and the investment community. Tudor Investment founder Paul Tudor Jones contributed $200,000. Goldman Sachs cnbc_quoteComponent_init_getData("gs","WSODQ_COMPONENT_GS_ID0EYEAC15839609","WSODQ","true","ID0EYEAC15839609","off","false","inLineQuote"); executive Edward Forst forked over $95,000. Four other Goldman employees gave at least $50,000. Lewis Eisenberg, a leader at private equity firm KKR, gave $25,000. Romney, mocked by Gingrich as a "Massachusetts moderate," has received the support of conservative money men such as Bob Perry, a Texas home builder, and William Koch, a billionaire investor whose family is active in conservative politics. "You would think they would be backing much more conservative candidates," said Fred Zeidel, a Houston fundraiser for Romney. "It seems to me what they are saying, 'Hey we've got to beat Barack Obama, and this is the way we are going to do it.'" Restore Our Future also has drawn contributors from Reebok founder Paul Fireman and philanthropist David Mugar from Boston, Romney's longtime home. A Broad Base of Support Fourteen individuals contributed at least $250,000 to Restore Our Future. That is far more than the number of such donors who have given to competing Super PACs. Winning Our Future, the group allied with Gingrich, has depended largely on one couple: casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who each chipped in $5 million in January, a month after their two daughters had given a total of $750,000. Our Destiny, a Super PAC that backed former Utah governor Jon Huntsman when he was in the race, raised $2.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2011— $1.9 million of it from Huntsman's father, industrialist Jon Huntsman Sr. Wyoming billionaire Foster Friess contributed nearly half the $729,935 raised by the Red White and Blue Fund, which supports another Republican, former Pennsylvania U.S. senator Rick Santorum. The financial gap between Romney's PAC and the rest of the field is likely to widen, said campaign finance analyst Anthony Corrado. "I expect it would be much easier for the Romney Super PAC to go out and solicit big contributions after a win in Florida, and the other Super PACs will be even more dependent on the largesse of a few wealthy individuals to continue to be willing to write large checks," said Corrado, a government professor at Colby College in Maine. Restore Our Future is based in Washington and is run from the law firm Clark Hill by treasurer Charles Spies. It has no offices in any of the 50 states and no staff presence on the campaign trail. Rivals describe it as a monolithic campaigning machine, with tight-lipped members, lots of money and a favorite target: Gingrich. "That's a compliment as long as it's an effective machine," said Spies, former counsel for Romney's 2008 campaign. The group has outspent its rival PACs by far, dumping millions of dollars into TV, Internet, direct-mail and other types of advertisements—nearly all of them attacking Gingrich. The ads casting Gingrich as an erratic Washington insider with questionable ethics helped send Gingrich's campaign into a dive just before the Iowa caucuses, the first contest in the race to pick a Republican nominee to face Democratic President Barack Obama in the Nov. 6 election. Restore Our Future's anti-Gingrich ads appear to have had a similar effect in advance of Tuesday's vote in Florida, where the PAC had spent nearly $11 million. In keeping with Restore Our Future's low profile, spokeswoman Brittany Gross, who fields media requests, declined to comment on the group's scope and strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 And it is still early!The presidential candidates have raised more than $186 million for their campaigns to date, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Mitt Romney leads among Republicans, but Rick Perry had an aggressive entry. However, President Obama easily outpaced his rivalshttp://elections.nyt...dlines&emc=tha2 <<<<astounding NY Times link Who’s Financing the ‘Super PACs’The Times tracked donors to “super PACs” as they filed reports on Tuesday detailing their activities in the final three months of 2011. Unlike candidates, who can raise a maximum of $2,500 per person for each election, super PACs are independent from candidates and can raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and labor unions, and spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose a candidate.http://www.nytimes.c...dlines&emc=tha2 Secrecy Shrouds ‘Super PAC’ Funds in Latest Filings By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL LUONewly disclosed details of the millions of dollars flowing into political groups are highlighting not just the scale of donations from corporation and unions but also the secrecy surrounding “super PACs” seeking to influence the presidential race.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/us/politics/super-pac-filings-show-power-and-secrecy.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2&pagewanted=print Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Trump endorsed Romney.February 2, 2012 2:46pm ? Comments Jay Carney mocks Trump's hair with reportersbyCharlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer"I am not going to comb over that question." joked Carney when asked about Donald Trump's endorsement of Mitt Romney. Other reporters in the room piped up with additional jokes about Trumps hair, asking him not to, "brush this over.""I need you guys up here," laughed Carney before adding that President Obama gave his views on Trump at the White House Correspondence Dinner.During his dinner speech, Obama ripped on Trump for questioning his birth certificate. Trump was among the attendees in the dinner last Spring.“Now, I know that he’s taken some flak lately, but no one is prouder to put this birth certificate to rest than The Donald." Obama said, "Now he can get to focusing on the issues that matter. Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened at Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Here's what I worry about with Romney:<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4LhLzeHNTZg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Levin was really on his game with this video.There's a momentary flaw in his philosophical overstatement of conservatism toward the end, but within the context of his brilliant principles-based analysis, I can forgive that.His distinction between corporatism and capitalism was spot on.This primary is not over until it's over, but if we are going to have Romney rammed down out throats by the big money Republican machine, I don't know how we are going to get Romney to understand what capitalism is, but we have to try.Some folks may think corporatism is better than Obama. And it actually is short-term--even as it grows government powers. But medium-term to long-term is where it's worse.Corporatists piss off a lot of people with hamhanded crony capitalist corruption while mouthing the standard Republican anti-social program cliches. And those pissed off people organize and vote. And there's more. You can count on corporatists to screw up something big time. They always do.So guess who gets elected in their aftermath?A brand new Obama. And if this plays out as I fear, the new Obama will make the present one look like Calvin Coolidge by comparison.He will look at his corporatist predecessor and say, "Hey! Thanks for getting my power together so well and getting rid of all those damn checks and balances. And look at all that borrowed money and credit! You made my job of killing off American freedom a hell of a lot easier."Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Here is Romney's main problem.This guy isn't polished or anything. But I do believe he is representative of how many people in the Tea Party think.<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IBvAjqtYM0?version=3&feature=player_profilepage"><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IBvAjqtYM0?version=3&feature=player_profilepage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IBvAjqtYM0?version=3&feature=player_profilepage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>I only know about this guy because he keeps up a steady stream of videos of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc. Once in a while I listen to them and even listen to one of his own rants or other.This one stood out to me. The specific words aren't important. Listen to general message and the emotion. If this guy is representative (and I believe he is), I don't think Romney is going to overcome that. And, depending on how things go, that might mean 4 more years of Obama in the end.Man, do I hope I'm wrong...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 Tim Donovan on Michael’s tape called Mitt: “A white man’s Obama, a carbon copy of Obama.” And he emotionally orated, “My rights come from Almighty God. My soul does not belong to the Government.”He is representative of some of the Tea Party people around here EXCEPT the locals have stopped viewing Mitt as, “Walking hand in hand with the devil,” which Huckabee said in 2008 and then recanted in 2010. Our local right-wing radio guy is Bill Colley. His show’s advertisement states, “The Big Dog Barks and The Big Dog Bites.” (you can get that slogan on a T shirt.) I remember Mr. Colley stating over and over again in 2008. “America will NEVER elect a man named Barrack Hussein Obama.” He drew each word out to emphasize its Arabic sound. He must have heard that from God himself, because he repeated it a hundred times. Bill is a Catholic Tea Party man.Religious Conservatives are very emotional. They proudly say they are not reasonable, and Newt is a philandering weasel. Bachmann was their darlin’ but Santorum is now their guy. I like another religious conservative Michelle Maulkin because I agree with her much of the time but if pressed, she will openly say her opinions are based on Christian Faith and not reason. So they may represent a lot of Tea Party people but they are NOT representative of the Tea Party which put social issues on the back burner in 2010. I accept their support but I look upon them like Mitt looks upon The Donald.Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Another reason why Mitt Romney should not be the nominee.Skipping over his incompetent gaff on the poor, yesterday he announces that he:"...renewed his support Wednesday for automatic increases in the federal minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, a position sharply at odds with traditional GOP business allies, conservatives and the party's senior lawmakers.'I haven't changed my thoughts on that,' the former Massachusetts governor told reporters aboard his chartered campaign plane, referring to a stand he has held for a decade."Read more: http://www.seattlepi...p#ixzz1lQjXbXIK As Milton Friedman made quite clear that position is morally, economically and philosophically wrong: Romney's ability to make gaffs should ensure him the Vice Presidential spot on the Republican ticket. He would be a perfect counterweight to Joe "the dumbest Vice President ever" Biden. Can you imagine that debate? A parody writers wet dream! Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Peggy Noonan on Romney, his non-message and his campaign explains in the WSJ that The Romney campaign is better at dismantling than mantling. They're better at taking opponents apart than building a compelling candidate of their own. They do not seem capable of deepening his meaning, making his stands and statements more textured and interesting. He comes across like a businessman who studied the data and came up with the formula that will make the deal. A particular problem is that he betrays little indignation at any of our problems and their causes. He's always sunny, pleasant, untouched by anger. This leaves people thinking, "Excuse me, but we are in crisis. Financially and culturally we fear our country is going down the drain. This guy doesn't seem to be feeling it. So why's he running? Maybe he thinks it's his personal destiny to be president. But if the animating passion of his candidacy is about him, not us, who needs him?" Mitt Romney's aides are making the classic mistake of thinking the voters want maturity, serenity and a jolly spirit. What they want is a man who knows what time it is, who has a passion to reform our country, and who yet holds these qualities within a temperament that is mature, serene and jolly. Newt Gingrich has half the package: He has a passion to reform, but it exists inside a crazy suit. Mitt has no particular passion within an obviously sane suit. Which leads to Rick Santorum. Nobody in the conservative base hates Rick. Newt is hated by many and Mitt by some. Mr. Santorum is liked. He has real indignation about what's happened to America, and he brings passion to his ideas about reform.He's got little money, little organization—there's no broad assumption he can pull it off. And by the time the Romney campaign is done dismantling him, he may have some people who hate him. But this will only underscore the Romney campaign's reputation for destroying, not creating. And nobody loves a Death Star. Newt's not done and could rise again. I keep thinking of what a sage old pol, a veteran former GOP governor, said two weeks ago. He turned to me in conversation and said, "By the way, don't call it a brokered convention. That's what the media and the Democrats will call it because it implies there are brokers. Call it a contested convention because that's what it will be, contested." Could it really come to that? The odds, he said, are still way against it. "But they're probably the best in my lifetime." *** Let's turn to low turnout in the Republican races. Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri this week were all down, Iowa and New Hampshire were flat, Florida, that Little America, was down almost 15%. All this in a volatile race, in a time of crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 With friends like this, who needs enemies?<object width="416" height="374" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed_edition&videoId=politics/2012/02/11/gps-soros-republicans.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed_edition&videoId=politics/2012/02/11/gps-soros-republicans.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object>Here's a partial transcript:George Soros: After the elections, if the Republicans win, actually they’ll undergo a miraculous transformation where they discover that actually it wouldn’t be so bad if maybe we can afford to have some stimulus.Fareed Zakaria: So you think Mitt Romney, if elected would pursue a stimulus bill?George Soros: I’m pretty sure that would happen.I wonder if Soros is contributing money to Romney's campaign. He sure is stumping for him. In his own way, that is.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 Michael wrote about George Soros concerning candidate Mitt Romney: He sure is stumping for him. In his own way, that is.end quoteSoros’ support would be because, to his Progressive sensibilities, Romney would be the least worse of the four Republican candidates. Claiming that he has some insider information or a “special understanding” that Romney would call for a stimulus does not help Romney get nominated. CNN really is a bad place to be, but they are interesting in a negative way, when Fox gets boring. There is a lot of conjecture leading up to the following excerpt from Real Clear Politics. The author admits it is a bit premature considering the uncertainties of Super Tuesday. Path to a Brokered GOP Convention EmergesBy Sean Trende - February 9, 2012. . . In the end, we could end up in California in early June with no clear nominee. While that state is nominally winner-take-all for a whopping 172 delegates, in fact it allocates the overwhelming majority of those delegates by Congressional District. Who is voting in a Republican primary in Nancy Pelosi’s or Maxine Waters’ district? I honestly have no idea, but if they’re different from the voters in the Latino central valley districts, and if they’re different than the voters in Orange County, and if they’re different from the voters in the Sierra districts, we really could have a situation where the state doesn’t produce a winner for the GOP.If this occurs, and Ron Paul wins around 100 delegates along the way, we have a situation where no candidate has more than 900 delegates, and three have more than 400. In that situation, no one would be able to lay claim to the mantle of presumptive nominee. The convention would eventually deadlock, and an outside candidate could emerge.This would not be without its difficulties. We’ve seen the problem with sudden, late entrants before. The nominee would have to be able to put together a platform, a fundraising organization, prepare for debates, select a running mate, and hit the campaign trail, all in a manner of weeks.And the candidate would not be fully vetted. There might be some skeleton in his closet, or his family’s. One wing of the party might not be satisfied. Chris Christie’s name is frequently mentioned, but he believes in climate change and favors civil unions. How will the religious right react when that is in the spotlight? Mitch Daniels may bore Tea Partiers looking for a fighter, and his past as Bush’s budget director is a black mark waiting to be exploited by his opponent. Jeb Bush is a Bush. And so forth. While I think some of the choices that have been mentioned are better than others, they all come with risks. The path to this outcome is still a very narrow, precarious one. But for the first time, I can see it. end quote Robert Tracinski in TIA Daily responded today:Talk of an outside nominee is a bit fanciful. It would hard to suddenly build support within the party for a candidate who hasn't spent the better part of a year introducing himself to Republican voters and building a base of support, and it would be even harder to get the current nominees to step out of the way.The far more likely outcome of a brokered convention would be an old-fashioned deal in which one of the major candidates agrees to back the other in exchange for the vice-presidential nomination. Assuming that Ron Paul doesn't get enough votes to tip the balance on his own, the most likely tickets are Romney-Santorum or some combination of Gingrich and Santorum.I have to admit, the prospect kind of makes my skin crawl.end quoteA brokered convention may not be a good idea. What about Mitt and Santorum? It seems, ho hum, like we did that before, yet it could be a winning ticket. The flashy VP didn’t work with McCain, but like Robert, I still think the most viable tickets that are almost guaranteed to beat Obama are Mitt and Ryan or Mitt and Rubio. Trancinski wrote:Rubio is such an obvious choice because he offers a perfect trifecta of ideology (the Tea Party), demography (the Hispanic vote), and geography (the swing state of Florida). Rubio is a good example of what political parties usually try to do with the vice-presidential nomination: use it to diversify the ticket to appeal to new groups of voters that the presidential nominee cannot reach as effectively.end quote That is spot on but can you imagine VP candidate Paul Ryan debating Vice President Joe Biden? It would be like an expert and author in a certain subject debating a high school kid who skimmed the book. I might just record that for future amusement.Peter Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 From NEWSMAX WIRES: Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum has vaulted into a front-runner’s position with Mitt Romney in two national polls that show the race for the GOP nomination becoming a two-man statistical tie. Romney and Santorum are tied for the lead among Republican voters 32 to 30 percent, respectively in a Gallup Poll. And the Pew Research Center has the leaders flipped, with Santorum leading Romney 30 percent to 28 percent. Because of the polls' margin of error the two are in a statistical dead heat. In the Gallup poll, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has dropped to 16 percent, Ron Paul is at 8 percent, the lowest number he's had during the 2012 contest. From the Washington Examiner by Gene Healy Columnist:In a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg last summer, Santorum declared, "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement." In that regard, Santorum has a pretty impressive record. By voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, he helped give President Obama the power to micromanage the nation's schools from Washington; and by supporting a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare, he helped saddle the taxpayers with a $16 trillion unfunded liability. Santorum voted for the 2005 "bridge to nowhere" highway bill, has backed an expanded national service program, and his compassionate conservatism has the Bono seal of approval: "On our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable." Rick Santorum: He's from the government, and he's here to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Santorum now trounces Romney 55% to 34% in a one-on-one matchuphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3ySIGPAvCM&feature=player_embedded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Adam wrote:Santorum now trounces Romney 55% to 34% in a one-on-one matchupend quoteI will stop wishful thinking if you stop wishful thinking. Though the Michigan polls are surprising. My advice to Mitt.Santorum dislikes Libertarianism, and pontificated, "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement."end quoteSantorum’s statement is not from a Tea Party supporter. Ronald Reagan most assuredly would be. Ronald Reagan, in 1975, said in the libertarian magazine “Reason”:“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”end quote Continue to praise the man and the libertarian streaks of Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul in Michigan. Magnify for the fanatic Tea Party folks like me that Rick Santorum is not for them. Separation of church and state is Jeffersonian and as American as apple pie. Emphasize that to represent all of America, social issues should not be forgotten, but they must be put on the back burner to stop divisiveness. That decision would not define your morality but it would define your strategy. If Obama will take on the Catholic Church he will crucify Rick Santorum. The Romney campaign must define itself as “THE” Tea Party choice. Semper cogitans fidele,Peter Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Campaign MemoFROM: The Maryland MisanthropesTO: Mitt "The Dog Abuser" RomneyRE: The Michigan CampaignDATED: Till the cows come home ======================================What the hell are you doing. You have been campaigning for four (4) freakin years! You have more money than all the other candidates combined! Even that other Mormon nobody knows!Now you are losing your damn Daddy's State! You can't even get more than 28% of the damn Republican base!Listen you loser, you know how you won in Massachusetts - you lied and just made up whatever you needed to getthe commoners votes. Are you not smart enough to even lie well now.Emphasize that to represent all of America, social issues should not be forgotten, but they must be put on the back burner to stop divisivenessMake up stuff. Read the Tea Party talking points you idiot. Lie. Tell these dolts that you will do what they want.When they ask you about Romneycare, just say that you changed your mind. At least you are good at that! Are you going to let that religious fanatic from that blue collar part of America beat you! You know you do not care about the poor,or the workers, or pretty much anything but power. So get with.The Taylor Brigade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now