January 28-29, 2012
Jan 28 06:02 John McCain: Military hero, political failure Jan 28 07:35 Newt News 1.28.12 Jan 28 08:43 Is this what we want from our presidential candidate? Jan 28 09:10 If this is right, Mitt's in trouble Jan 28 12:11 Mitt will lose Florida Jan 29 01:13 Cain endorses Newt Jan 29 06:59 Newt News 1.29.12 Jan 29 07:54 Is Jennifer Rubin this year's Hugh Hewitt? Jan 29 11:14 Team Romney hack redistricting Alan West out of Congress
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
John McCain: Military hero, political failure
Anyone thinking that John McCain's dig at Newt was clever or funny doesn't set the bar high for clever or funny.
John McCain just couldn't resist.
"I think we ought to send Newt Gingrich to the moon and Mitt Romney to the White House," the 2008 GOP presidential nominee is quoted as saying by ABC News and CBS News.
McCain's remarks came today at a town hall meeting in Lakeland, Fla., ahead of Tuesday's primary in the Sunshine State. Romney now has a nine-point lead over Gingrich.
John McCain used to be a man of integrity. By backing the backstabbing Mitt Romney, his integrity is questionable at best. Put another way, Sen. McCain's integrity is situation-based. It isn't a constant anymore.
Sen. McCain's heroism during the Vietnam War is inspirational. His conduct as a politician falls substantially short of inspirational.
Let's remember that McCain authored the bill that attempted to shred the First Amendment. Formally known as McCain-Feingold, it's nickname was 'The Incumbents Protection Act' because it strangled free speech during campaigns.
It's important that we realize that Sen. McCain said some nasty things about Mitt during the 2008 campaign. People will say 'But that's what all politicians do before endorsing them'. That's true. Unfortunately, that isn't what people living in the real world do.
Let's remember, too that Sen. McCain talked about the inevitability of internet voting in the context of the HAVA debate. With ACORN's prevalence, doesn't internet voting seem highly questionable? What thinking person would justify such awful public policy because "it's inevitable"?
More imporantly, let's question Sen. McCain's judgment on Mitt. Mitt's run a scorched earth campaign in his win-at-all-costs bid for the nomination. Just like his own campaign, Mitt's support amongst the GOP base is marginal at best.
The only thing inevitable about Mitt is his embarassing defeat this November. If he thinks he can win this election without enthusiastic support from the GOP base, he's an idiot.
Tags: Mitt Romney , John McCain , RINOs , Newt Gingrich , Ronald Reagan , Conservatives , Visionaries , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:37 AM
No comments.
Newt News 1.28.12
Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left Sarah Palin- must reading
How Can We Trust Romney On Anything?
Newt Gingrich thrills supporters while visiting West Delray
Elliott Abrams Caught Misleading on Newt
Gingrich, Romney continue to spar over Reagan ties
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:35 AM
No comments.
Is this what we want from our presidential candidate?
I'll readily admit that I'm late to comment on Sarah Palin's Facebook post . A couple things she said need additional highlighting because this is bigger than Newt vs. Mitt.
We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out , Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn't have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan's administration 'from the right' to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future.
Mitt won't hesitate to mangle his opponents because winning this nomination is all that matters to him. If making America better was his goal, he'd never employ these tactics.
And make no mistake about this: these are being done by the GOP Establishment on Mitt's behalf because they aren't conservatives. These aren't limited government, TEA Party conservatives. They don't hate spending. They just want the money to go to their cronies, not to the Democrats' cronies.
To add insult to injury, this 'anti-Reagan' claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn't want to go back to the Reagan days. You can't change history.
What proof do we have that Mitt isn't the liberal-loving man he was in the 90s and during his administration? More importantly, do we have proof that he's changed? Let's stipulate that talk isn't proof.
One of the last things he did as governor was impose expensive CO2 emission regulations on power plants . What's worse is that Mitt once claimed that power plants had killed people :
Romney dramatically limited emissions on six power plants, even going so far as to claim, with radical environmentalists at his side, that one power plant had killed 59 people. It was a myth perpetrated by the environmentalists since no one had died, but Romney had no problem adopting the hysterical language of the left.
Mitt Romney's life is littered with his talking conservative and acting liberal. Here's what the American Conservative said about Mitt's regulations :
In other words, the Romney administration in 2005 essentially did what Barack Obama's EPA wants to do now. He imposed CO2 emission caps, the 'toughest in the nation', in an effort to curtail traditional energy production. Not only did Romney impose these costly new regulations, he then imposed price caps to keep power companies from passing the cost along to the consumer. The outcome of the cap was Massachusetts' electrical production it dropped 18% in four years, from over 46 billion megawatt hours to 38 billion. International imports, however, went from 697 million megawatt hours in 2006 to 4.177 billion megawatt hours two years later, and to almost 5 billion megawatt hours in 2009, more than twice the amount imported in any of the previous twenty years.
Remember that Mitt's the man that's sharpened his attacks on Newt by insisting that Newt Gingrich isn't a Reaganite conservative.
It isn't a stretch to argue that Mitt is just as adept at employing the nastiest of Alinsky's tactics to distract attention from his liberal record as governor.
I come armed with verifiable facts. President Obama will come with alot more than this if Mitt's the nominee. That's why it's vitally important to ask yourself this simple question: Why is the GOP Establishment willing to defend Mitt's liberal actions?
The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney's statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney's chief rival.
As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It's not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don't change the team and the game plan, we won't save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it's becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that.
Getting Mitt elected might put a smile on the rich fat cats' faces but it won't effect the changes that America desperately needs. If we replace a far left radical with a moderate lefty who still thinks climate change is real, what have we gained?
I'd argue that Mitt isn't the candidate we want going up against President Obama. In fact, I'd argue that it isn't that difficult to see that.
Tags: Sarah Palin , Ronald Reagan , Newt Gingrich , TEA Party , Conservatism , Mitt Romney , Establishment , Global Warming , CO2 Emissions , John Holdren , Alinsky , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:43 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 28-Jan-12 11:03 AM
Yeah, Palin and Rush are the definitive voices about everything. Newt's got all of those interlocked money holes, ostensibly distanced when he decided to be a candidate, but he DOES NOT have little offshore Caribbean haven or Swiss nest eggs stashed hither and yon; or am I wrong? You'd know better than I do, Gary, but I believe Newt has been critical of Romney that way; and while he in the past has thrown stones from a glass house [Clinton - interns] I don't think he is doing it this time.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 28-Jan-12 11:22 AM
Two things. I will put them here with one fitting your post more than the other, but the second is the one I am curious about and it fits other things you have said, this post, about Romney being driven to win at all cost.
First, have a look at Brad DeLong's "Grasping Reality with the Invisible Hand" blog, at the post on "The Romney Conundrum." It gets into a disconnect of what Romney tells the base in campaigning and what his economic advisors stand for and suggest as possible policy, if Romney reaches the White House.
Second, in a post about an hour old, "CAMPAIGN 2012 -
New Romney Ad Hits Gingrich for Ethics Violations" By Ethan Klapper, National Journal reports on a Romney attack ad. Do you, Gary, expect Gingrich to counter, with things going real ugly up to next Tuesday; or will he characterize attack pieces as water rolling off a duck's back. The ad gets into circumstances of Gingrich's leaving the GOP speaker role, and the $300,000 ethics fine.
As such, it is relevant to who Gingrich is - by who he has been - but it is reaching into the closet for old skeletons to rattle. Any idea what Gingrich should do in response, and/or what he might do?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Jan-12 01:38 PM
Eric, First, with the ethics "fine": According to Mark Levin, then a counsel for the Landmark Legal Foundation, Newt wasn't fined. He agreed to pay the cost of the investigation. At the time, again according to Levin, Newt was broke because of all the legal bills run up as a result of David Bonior's trumped up ethics complaints. Levin said that Landmark filed numerous ethics complaints against Bonior because the ethics violations he submitted were a violation of House rules.
In total, 84 complaints were filed against Newt, 83 were dismissed. The one that earned Newt a fine was interesting, too, because Newt was later cleared of the charges by Clinton's IRS. I'd characterize that as noteworthy or significant.
As for going nuclear, Newt's got a great defense in Sarah Palin's Facebook column, Rush's defense of Newt & Mark Levin's total destruction of Mitt's character. In addition to that, bloggers & other TEA Party activists are flocking to Newt's aid. Mitt's name is mud within the TEA Party. That's what happens when Mitt tried destroying Newt's campaign with total outright lies.
If this is right, Mitt's in trouble
If this poll is right, then Mitt's in trouble:
In the three days leading up to Thursday's debate at the University of North Florida, First Coast News and St. Augustine-based Dixie Strategies commissioned the Dixie Strategies/First Coast News Public Opinion Survey, a poll of Republicans throughout the state who described themselves as "likely" voters in the Jan. 31 primary.
When asked, "If the Republican Presidential Primary were held today, for whom would you vote?," 35.46 percent of the 2,567 likely voters polled selected former House speaker Gingrich, and 35.08 percent selected Romney.
I've never heard of this polling company but 2,500 likely voters are 2,500 likely GOP primary voters. That's a huge sample, one with a tiny MOE, possibly in the 2.5-3 range.
I think there's a decent chance it is true. Wednesday, Mitt Romney and the GOP Establishment took aim at Newt. Thursday and Friday, 4 of conservatism's biggest voices, Rush, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and Michael Reagan, blasted Mitt's team for their disgusting assault against Newt's Reaganite credentials. Bloggers dispersed that message far and wide Thursday and Friday.
Most importantly, the message that Newt was a steadfast supporter of President Reagan's policies and priorities, along with steadfast TEA Party support, certainly has the potential for being a game-changing force.
Mitt's Alinskyite attacks, coupled with Sarah Palin's and Mark Levin's harsh criticism of Mitt and the GOP Establishment might well be all that's needed to push Newt to victory in the Florida GOP Primary. If that happens, expect the Establishment's long knives to get longer and sharper.
In their mind, this is an existential fight. They're right about that. It's time to get rid of their corruption, cronyism and appeasement.
Tags: Polling , Newt Gingrich , Sarah Palin , Michael Reagan , Rush , Mark Levin , TEA Party , Mitt Romney , Establishment , Corruption , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:10 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Jan-12 09:59 AM
I might add that the establishment's central focus is to not rock the boat, even when the boat is headed over the falls. They don't want to actually have to work hard and make tough decisions, but that's what MUST happen ASAP.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 28-Jan-12 10:57 AM
Reading that, thirty percent must have simply held their noses.
GG/JE - Neither of you have been all over Romney's being the "establishment candidate" in terms of who is giving him money. Reporting is a few days old, but it is at www.mcclatchydc.com:
"Big banks have picked their candidate, and it's Romney
"By Andrew Dunn | Charlotte Observer
"CHARLOTTE, N.C. - The country's biggest banks are overwhelmingly supporting Mitt Romney's bid for the Republican presidential nomination, an analysis of federal campaign contributions shows.
"Employees at the five largest U.S. banks by assets, including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., had given Romney about $600,000 through the first three quarters of 2011, according to the most recent filings available from the Federal Election Commission.
"The second-largest recipient of bank employee contributions, President Barack Obama, had far less, about $200,000, the analysis showed. The Republican presidential hopeful with the second-highest total, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, dropped out of the race in mid-August."
Three of your GOP guys get less big-bank respect.
Make what you will of it, but if the five largest banking conglomerates, to failed to be big, are for Mitt - it seems "establishment" to me. Any disagreement?
Pawlenty's big score? Bill Cooper likes him.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 28-Jan-12 11:33 AM
JE/GG - Reading that Bob Dole stuff, and the other apocalyptic predictions of Romney supporters - if Newt is the candidate down-ticket GOP chances will die; my question is, I don't remember but I think the ending was the sky did not fall on Chicken Little; so, can either of you refresh my mind?
Comment 4 by LadyLogician at 28-Jan-12 03:49 PM
The only concern I have with that poll is that it was taken BEFORE Thursday's disastrous debate. As close as the numbers are, it won't take too many flaking off to change the outcome.
LL
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Jan-12 07:29 PM
Granted, the poll was taken before Thursday night's debate but let's remember this: Romney did ok but, if I had to pick a winner, it wouldn't be Romney. It'd be Santorum. I thought Santorum hurt Mitt badly on the health care exchange.
Let's also remember that Friday wasn't a good day for Mitt with Levin, Rush & especially Palin bitchslapping Mitt around over his coordinated attacks against Newt.
Comment 5 by LadyLogician at 29-Jan-12 04:28 PM
True enough. The fact that Limbaugh and Hannity virtually devoted 12 full broadcast hours over two days to slapping down the "Newt is anti-Reagan" meme is outright incredible...and will do a lot to help. But was the damage already done? We just don't know and won't know until Tuesday.
Meanwhile the Romney supporters are turning up the heat. I have had a couple take me to "task" for my post on the attacks - never mind that I defended their guy in the previous post.....
LL
Mitt will lose Florida
I've been suspicious of the Florida polling because it didn't reflect the big crowds that Newt was attracting. This morning, I wrote about a credible poll that showed Newt leading. Jim Hoft has just posted Greta's interview with Florida AG Pam Bondi . It's today's must reading. Here's the scary part of Greta's interview:
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who's fighting to repeal ObamaCare appeared on Greta, tonight, defending RomneyCare. She says Romney's health care plan is not the same as ObamaCare and, in fact, Romney's plan reduces costs. She goes on to say that Romney wants all states to impose similar laws (including mandates) and that she is all for it.
She went on to explain that she's going to be on Romney's Health Care Advisory Team when he's president!
It's clear that Romneycare is what AG Bondi was talking about. It's clear that she had her Romneycare chanting points. I didn't hear her say, though, that Mitt wants the 50 states to implement Romneycare.
That said, it's clear that Mitt's defense of Romneycare isn't just to save face. It's clear that he truly believes in it.
It's clear through this video, though, that Mitt isn't interested in moving us that far away from O'Care. If that's the case, we're in serious trouble.
I'm predicting now that, barring something totally unforeseen happening, Mitt won't win the Florida GOP primary. Romneycare is as unpopular as O'Care, meaning this interview will hurt Mitt's chances Tuesday. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that the Gingrich campaign and Florida's extensive TEA Party network will spread this information from the Panhandle to the Keys.
Couple this unexpected revelation with conservatives' reaction to Wednesday's attempt to destroy Newt's campaign and you've got a potent argument that Mitt shouldn't be our nominee.
Mitt's gone too far in attacking his opponents. Mitt's a Massachusetts liberal. Now he wants the states to implement Romneycare. Those aren't the things that add up to a Florida primary victory.
PS- It's worth noting that Ms. Bondi isn't the first Mitt surrogate to hint that Mitt isn't interested in getting rid of O'Care. Earlier this week, Norm Coleman said that they wouldn't repeal all of O'Care, a statement that Mitt quickly distanced himself from.
Tags: Pam Bondi , Mitt Romney , Romneycare , Greta van Susteren , FNC , Interview , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:23 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Jan-12 04:40 PM
And the FACTS seem to indicate that Romneycare INCREASED prices, just as it naturally would. Mitt even ADMITTED it in a speech a year ago, saying it should have been done differently, to hold costs down.
Cain endorses Newt
Tonight, Herman Cain, a TEA Party favorite, endorsed Newt Gingrich:
During his brief speech, Cain said that "Newt is going through the sausage grinder", something he knew a thing or two about. Cain then said that Newt's subjecting himself to these attacks "because he cares about the future of the United States."
While Mitt's in the process of tearing down each of his opponents with the fiercest, most dishonest attacks in GOP primary history, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry are standing up and fighting against Mitt's corrupt Establishmentarians.
Legal Insurrection calls Mitt's dishonest, vile attacks Scorched Earth II . The Lady Logician wrote about a NY Times article outlining Mitt's intentional attempt to destroy Newt Gingrich :
A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney's campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.
The size and enthusiasm of Mr. Gingrich's events scared supporters of Mr. Romney, who had struggled to build similar audiences. Local activists backing Mr. Romney complained that his Boston team was too regimented and slow to meet the challenge.
Here's the Lady Logician's timely observations on Mitt:
Mitt Romney saw Florida slipping away from him so he lashed out. These are not the actions of a confident candidate; these are the actions of a desperate, despicable campaign. The GOP deserves better than this.
Notice that Mitt's first instinct was to outclass Newt or present a more inspiring vision for America. Mitt's first instinct was to tear his opponent down to Mitt's size.
That's despicable and it's telling. Mitt's implicitly admitted that he's an inferior candidate, that he can't defeat Newt on the battlefield of ideas. Do the GOP's party faithful think we should attempt to defeat President Obama with a man who thinks he isn't the superior candidate?
I'm asking that question of the TEA Party activists, the get-things-done people, not the GOP Establishment. The GOP Establishment, aka the corrupt, DC-bound wing of the GOP, has already made their opinion known. They've endorsed Mitt's go-along-to-get-along agenda.
When the TEA Party was started, it was an act of defiance against the corrupt Obama administration. This year, the TEA Parties across the country need to rally against Mitt's corrupt practices. It'd be nice if they're for Newt but it's important that they're steadfastly against Mitt's hateful Alinskyite tactics.
Intellectually, America deserves better than Mitt's small ball agenda. Integritywise, America deserves far better than Mitt's despicable actions. TEA Party conservatives won't support a lying, Alinsky-following Massachusetts liberal as their nominee.
Mitt's burned his bridges in his I'll-say-anything-to-be-the-nominee quest. Independents won't vote for a backstabber like Mitt. That's because he's got sore loser written all over him.
Tags: Endorsements , Newt Gingrich , Herman Cain , Florida , TEA Party , Mitt Romney , Establishment , Matt Drudge , Alinsky , Politics of Personal Destruction , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 1:13 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 29-Jan-12 07:31 AM
"Intellectually, America deserves better than Mitt's small ball agenda."
I'll agree with you on both accounts against Mitt, but this is the one that would cause me to overlook Mr. Gingrich's personal and political faults. We don't need another agenda of nibbling around the edges of a Mt. Etna-sized problem.
And on the other matter, Mitt isn't equipped for the onslaught Obama will bring against HIM if he is the nominee. His is the big glass house. I keep asking the Mitt people to explain to my why they want a nominee that likely cannot win (against Obama), and wouldn't matter much (against the problem) if he did.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 29-Jan-12 07:55 AM
Jerry, you're spot on. Those are exactly the right questions to ask.
Newt News 1.29.12
Newt wows religious conservatives in Orlando
Sarah Palin Urges Newt Vote in Florida, Says Gingrich Will 'Clobber' Obama
Mitt's surrogates run into pit bull
Gingrich rattles GOP elites
Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 6:59 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Jan-12 01:27 PM
I noticed, Gary, for everbody else, March Madness will be the NCAA tournament. For you it will be Super Tuesday.
Or can GOP wonks multi-task?
Comment 2 by eric z. at 29-Jan-12 02:33 PM
News, 9-9-9 4 Newt.
Is Jennifer Rubin this year's Hugh Hewitt?
Does anyone think that Jennifer Rubin is a serious journalist? Do you think she's as big a Romney shill this cycle as Hugh Hewitt was in 2008? Do people think that she isn't Mitt Romney's shill at the Washington Post? If you answered yes to either question, you'd better read Jennifer Rubin's latest propaganda :
Romney has raised several substantial objections to Obamacare. In Michigan last May (page 11 of his presentation) and since then, he has vigorously argued against the tax burden that would be imposed on businesses and individuals to pay for a plan most Americans don't want. In op-eds and debates, he has made clear he wants to get rid of the Obamacare taxes and instead work on equalizing the tax treatment of employer-provided and individually purchased health care insurance.
Romneycare is fatally flawed. Mitt's admitted that it doesn't control costs. Mitt brags that he didn't raise taxes with Romneycare. What he actually means is that he didn't immediately raise taxes. They weren't included in the initial legislation.
It wasn't until costs skyrocketed, and huge deficits appeared as a direct result, that Gov. Patrick and the Massachusetts legislature were forced to raise taxes. Those tax increases belong to Gov. Patrick, the Massachusetts legislature and Mitt Romney. Don't think that President Obama isn't planning on using that in next fall's debates.
Romney has also argued that Obamacare adds to the deficit and doesn't 'bend the cost curve.' Unlike the worshipers at the altar of the CBO, he has argued that it will increase health care costs. His other arguments against Obamacare include the anti-jobs impact on business, the excessive federal bureaucracy and regulations needed to run the scheme and the cuts on Medicare. As to the latter, he has accused Obama of cutting $500 billion from Medicare. He, by contrast, has offered his endorsement of the market-based Medicare reform plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
First, if Mitt wants to argue that Obamacare has an anti-jobs impact, he'll have to argue that the tax increases in Massachusetts that area direct result of the spiraling costs of Romneycare aren't killing jobs in Massachusetts. Good luck fighting that argument.
Secondly, all the other verbiage is meaningless because Mitt's goal, like the legislature's goal, was to provide coverage, not to lower costs. He made the same fairness argument then that President Obama made in 2009-10. It isn't likely that voters will be able to tell the difference between Mitt's tax increases and President Obama's tax increases.
Could and will Romney expand on each of these points if he becomes the nominee? Certainly. (Understandably it's not a topic he wants to emphasize in the primary.) But the notion that he hasn't already outlined differences with Obama on health care or that he will lack arguments against it is a product of wishful thinking of Romney-haters.
Jennifer Rubin just admitted that people hate Mitt's plan. That's why he won't bring it up. He'll only defend it. Last Thursday, his defense was shot to smithereens by Rick Santorum. Mitt left that skirmish as the emporor with 'new clothes'.
Mitt won't bring up Romneycare just like President Obama wouldn't say more than a few words on Obamacare in his SOTU Address. Sound familiar? If their plans are so good, shouldn't Mitt and President Obama be touting their plans' virtues every possible minute?
Perhaps they aren't because 'the peasants' aren't smart enough to appreciate their brilliance. Most likely, it's because they're aware that their plans stink and they want to avoid talking about it at all costs.
Finally, there's this question about whether Mitt is committed to repealing Obamacare. Norm Coleman said that it's unlikely to totally repeal it. Friday night, Pam Bondi essentially said that Mitt wants Romneycare to be implemented in all 50 states.
We can't take the chance that Mitt isn't committed to repealing Obamacare. It's time to reject Mitt. It's time to reject Jennifer Rubin's propaganda.
Tags: Media Bias , Jennifer Rubin , Hugh Hewitt , Propaganda , Mitt Romney , Romneycare , Debates , Tax Increases , GOP , President Obama , Deval Patrick , Bureaucracy , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:54 AM
No comments.
Team Romney hack redistricting Alan West out of Congress
Florida State Rep. and Romney hack Will Weatherford has admitted that he's helping insure TEA Party favorite Alan West out of Congress :
Over the past several weeks, many Republicans have voiced their disappointment towards the Republican legislature after the release of the preliminary redistricting maps. Much of the ire concerns the proposed boundaries of Congressman Allen West's 22nd Congressional District that would be redrawn to include far more registered Democrats.
West's congressional district inexplicably sheds the most out support as compared to all other incumbent Republican and Democrat Congressman. A few weeks back we quoted an unnamed legislator saying that, 'Allen West was screwed', a statement which was originally made about made five months before the purposed maps were made public, leading insiders to believe that the fix was in against Allen West. But in light of Weatherford's comment, it is increasingly clear that this is a fait accompli.
According to Weatherford, those preliminary maps will not change- at the most, any additional changes would be minimal, and those changes would not make any appreciable difference from the preliminary maps. In addition, Weatherford stated that a deal was struck between him, Senate President Mike Haridopolos, and Senator Don Gaetz to finalize these maps and push them through as soon as possible. Weatherford also said that the proposed maps are in legal compliance with both the Voting Rights Act and Amendment 6.
Romney's disdain for the TEA Party is evident. He hasn't lifted a finger to court TEA Party voters, which is one of the dumbest decisions a political strategist could possibly make.
It's almost to the point that a third party needs to be created. It's painfully obvious that the GOP Establishment opposes the fundamental changes that need to be made as much as the corrupt Left. If there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them, then it's time to extricate ourselves from their halfhearted semi-conservatism and build a new party based on what's best for America, not what's best for Mitt Romney, President Obama and their Wall Street fat cat financiers.
During his time as corporate raider at Bain, the first question Mitt asked was "what's best for my shareholders"? It wasn't "what's best for America"? Bain had a history of leveraging the companies they bought. Legal Insurrection has a prime example of Bain's capitalism :
Domino's was not in need of rescue, nor was it a classic turnaround case ey by buying and selling businesses. Bain reaped a 500 percent return on its investment in the nation's largest pizza delivery chain over 12 years.
Domino's grew its revenues and earnings under Bain, but its debt also surged to $1.5 billion , leaving the chain with a higher debt ratio than most of its rivals, and interest payments that eat up half its profit each year: .
To buy Domino's, Bain put up a third of the money in cash and borrowed the rest. It took money out in several chunks including: a 2003 refinancing of the company's debt, a 2004 initial public stock offering, and an $897 million 'monster dividend" paid to Bain and other investors in 2007. In each instance, the company borrowed money or refinanced old debt to make the payouts.
That's what 'me-first capitalism' looks like. It's a disgusting sight. If being disgusted with that type of corporate raidership earns me the moniker of being anti-capitalist, I'm fine with that moniker. Intentionally ruining companies isn't my idea of capitalism. I'd best I'm far from alone in thinking that.
To those that'll accuse me of being anti-capitalist, isn't the goal of capitalism to strengthen companies for the longterm while making profits for the shareholders? If that's a key criteria for capitalism, then how does Bain's activities fit within the definition of capitalism?
Loading a company up with debt just to make sure Bain made a huge profit when it sold the company seems to be a habit. In fact, that's the common thread through the "When Mitt Romney came to town" was precisely that. Isn't it time we started criticizing corporate banditry when it's touted as capitalism?
Without question, it's time for Floridians to jettison Rep. Weatherford and his pro-Romney hacks. It's time to ensure that Alan West will return to Congress. Since Rep. West is a black man, the Voting Rights Act applies. Perhaps it's time to file a lawsuit.
Most importantly, if Mitt's the nominee, it's time for the TEA Party to torpedo Mitt's general election campaign. If Mitt Romney's machine won't hesitate in torpedoing a talented legislator who is the embodiment of integrity, then turnaround is fair play.
Tags: Will Weatherford , Mitt Romney , Redistricting , Corruption , Cronyism , Establishment , Alan West , Integrity , Reformer , TEA Party , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 29, 2012 11:14 AM
Comment 1 by ID_Neon at 29-Jan-12 01:13 PM
It is time Christians demand a political party that is under the Dominion and Lordship of Christ.
Any such action is clearly antiChrist and such a Christian Party is the inculcation of our founding father's dreams of a free but Christian by choice America.
Only then can such a Christian party set the standards of decency and middle case virtues!
Comment 2 by eric z. at 29-Jan-12 01:24 PM
It is an ugly picture, the leveraged equity skimming.
Is it just my impression, or does Mitt really comb and gel his hair the way Michael Douglas' character, Gordon Gecko, did in "Wall Street?"
That film script, surprisingly, was written by people who, as I understand it, never actually met Mitt Romney.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 29-Jan-12 06:45 PM
I didn't think your animus to Mitt would turn you suicidal on the nation's behalf. Electing Mitt may be undesirable, but electing Obama by "torpedoing" Romney ought to be unthinkable.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Jan-12 11:26 PM
What's the difference, Jerry? Mitt wouldn't change the trajectory of this country. A few more jobs might be created than what are being created now. The debt will still be unaccepably high & Romney's hinted all week & all weekend that he won't truly repeal O'Care.
A message must be sent to the DC GOP powers-that-be that assassinating a member of the family is totally unacceptable. What they've done is assist a marginal Republican destroy a giant in the conservative movement with the Alinskyite tactics we'd expect from a member of the Chicago machine.
If we go along to remain a member in good standing of a corrupt GOP, then we're part of the problem. NO THANKS.
