Mitt supporters ... here's an example of the Mitt/Bain attacks he will see from the Left ... in these cases Think Progress:
" ... Bain managers said their mission was clear. “I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation,” said Marc B. Walpow, a former managing partner at Bain who worked closely with Romney for nine years before forming his own firm. “The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors ... ”
" ... 22 percent of the money Bain Capital raised from 1987 to 1995 was invested in five businesses — Stage Stores, American Pad & Paper, GS Indusries, Dade, and Details. These five made Bain $578 million in profit, even as all five eventually went bankrupt. As the New York Post’s Josh Koshman wrote, “there’s little question [Romney] made a fortune from businesses he helped destroy.” Travis Waldron noted today that Romney’s company also boosted its profits — and thus enriched Romney — by abusing offshore tax havens."
I understand the source ... no friends of the GOP ... but are the facts true? In the business world sandbox that Bain played in there's a certain degree of transparency, the facts should be easy to refute ... or not.
If perception is reality, can Romney survive this Job Killer onslaught from a well funded Obama machine?
If the GOP can't win the Job Creation battle, THE CRITICAL ISSUE IN 2012, how can the GOP supplant POTUS?
Mr. El Rushbo
Newt is NOT attacking Capitalism, Free Markets, limited Entrepreneurial Regulation etc … Newt IS attacking Mitt's assertion that Mitt is the pro job growth candidate based on his record as CEO at Bain Capital.
Bain served a purpose ... to its shareholders ... using undervalued companies as investments and hoping its Asset Management policies would return a positive ROI on the investment. As a result some companies were saved; some companies were scrapped/sold off. I think Conservatives, Newt included, are all for letting companies, in almost all instances, decide how they want to pursue revenue and shareholder ROI.
Just because the Left/OWS makes a Mitt/Bain anti job growth argument doesn't change the facts any more then when Newt makes the same case ... facts are a stubborn thing!!!
When the well funded Obama machine comes after the GOP nominee, if its Mitt you can be sure he will be attacked over and over again ... but in that instance there won't be Conservative flag-bearer like yourself who is simply uncomfortable with the message and henceforth splitting the GOP base ... the MSNBC crew will paint a "Gordon Gekko predatory capitalism" picture that won't be pretty and their base will be 100% behind the message.
If you can’t win the pro job growth argument in 2012 how will the GOP nominee supplant POTUS?
At the end of the day ...
--> Newt > Mitt IMO and most importantly
--> GOP Nominee > POTUS
I have noticed that in many RP supporters, like me, posts, they tend to use many facts and numbers, so I’d better do the same. Did you know in our savior Dr. Ron Paul’s last speech there were 2,634 words in the speech. Of those 2, 634 words the Left wing conservative media machine used all but 46 of them! And of those 46, the most common word they took from his holiness’s speech was the word “the” they chose the word “The” to clearly demonize him and an out of touch racist who used the “the” word several times in his speeches!! And you thought us Ron Paulites were just conspiracy nut jobs!! I think not. The proof is right there. You can even find it on YouTube (we like to post a ton of YouTube video’s too).
AH HAHAHA!!! YES!! Very good!
The mighty Boa suggested you may be an occupier because of your criticism of "people with billions", not your opinion of Romney. If you aren't an occupier, then that's great. Don't sound so envious.
Many write the mighty Boa, expressing the fact the the wisdom of the mighty Boa borders on something they consider God-like. While the mighty Boa does derive all wisdom through the Lord, he is not the Lord. Do not make the mistake of confusing the two.
How was that for awesome?
The mighty Boa says it was....
People can make money in anyway that is legal as far as I am concerned. But the businessman who I would vote for as president I would want to be a builder, the creator of business, and and not a predator and a raider. Romney is simply not a builder. The businessman (or woman) who I would want for president is the one who has built up a business, has sweated blood, sweat, and tears to keep it viable, who understands what it takes to keep a business running, who realizes hat many people, not just the investors, depend on his business for their livlihood, and for the goods and/or services his business produces, and takes that responsibility to heart; indeed he wants the people of his city, his country, to thrive. I want a businessman president who does not like to fire people, and finds the fact that he occasionally must fire someone the most difficult part of being a businessman.
Indeed, the businessman presidential candidate does not have to be that sort of person, and may indeed make a lot of money for the investors, and his only care is to make money for himself and his investors -- that is not necessarily immoral, that is what he was hired to do. But this businessman is not a hero and that is just not the sort of businessman I want in the White House. He is not good for business.
And by the way, that corporate-raiding predatory "businessman" who make a lot of money for the investor and himself by finding and destroying a profitable business does so by sucking out a company's retained earnings (undistributed profits) that it needs to stay viable during an economic downtown, and that is not the business model that is going to save the American economy. (Indeed the one thing every viable profitable corporation fears is the raider, the raider destroys the business. Once upon a time not so long ago, business 101 taught you they were not heroes, business 101 taught you that retained earnings (undistributed profits) were important, and one of the most important reasons was so that the business did not have to lay off its highly trained reliable work force during an economic downturn; business 101 also taught you that there is an unavoidable cyclical nature to the economy, and there will be recessions, the important thing for the business is to position itself to weather those downturns. corporate raiding makes that impossible to do so; a successful business that has been raided most likely will fail.
One of the problems that a profitable thriving business must deal with is to find the right balance, to not distribute so much income to the stockholder that it threatens the viabibility of the business making it unattractive to raiders, but also to make sure it has enough liquidity to keep the doors open when the economy is not so good (which also protects the investors.) Corporate raiding has always been a threat to profitable businesses, but it has never been a good thing for anyone except the guy who has plundered the business.
Again, perhaps there is not too much that can be done about it, legally, but the smart CEO who cares about staying in business, cares about his employees, his customers, his stockholders, is aware of it, and tries to prevent that from happening. Again let me reiterate this, so you get it, the raiders are not heroes, they are not saviors of economies; they are wolves and they are pirates. And that is who Mitt Romney really is. He is not going to turn the economy around, he does not know how.
It is the Main Street businessman we need, not Wall Street, and Romney is most definitely not Main Street! (Cain on the other hand really is Main Street, the guy who saved a business and made it a profitable going concern that employs lots of people, I'm sorry that Cain was pushed out, he does understand.)
Sometimes the best way to address an issue just might be leftist rhetoric! And in this case, it is. Romney's way of making money, the crony capitalist, the Wall Street wonderboy, the corporate raider, is not good for the economic viability of this country and, by golly, whatever language takes to make peple take notice and realize this is okay. Old Rush shouldn't be bothered by this.
Newt is a big crybaby. He's out to destroy whomever the Republican nominee might be, even, inadvertently, himself. He's a disgrace and we here in Georgia know he couldn't even win the governorship if he ran. There's a reason why he doesn't have one Republican in Congress or the Senante supporting him. Romney is the only decent chance to beat Obama.
" ... There's a reason why he doesn't have one Republican in Congress or the Senante supporting him" ... Not true ...
Mitt Romney – 61
Rick Perry – 14
Newt Gingrich – 8
Ron Paul – 3
Rick Santorum – 0
With Congressional approval rating almost as low as LSU's offensive output last night I wonder what to make of these numbers.
Good, let the voters hear now what the left will say about Romney, just as they have heard the smears Romney used against Gingrich. I am certain that Romney is not electable for many reasons, many of which have not been gone into at all, but should be.
Don’t listen to the media...Ron Paul is the ONLY chance America has from becoming a future extra terrestrial type, cyborg ruling, communist dictatorship!
* If you vote for anyone other than Paul the government will show up to your house demand your first, third, and sixth child, turn them into zombies and then have them take over the world.
* Vote for Ron Paul because he is the only one on the trail that speaks the truth!!! Ancient aliens that once inhabited South America once prophesied about the "Truth Prophet" who would come, he would be an old man spewing out truths no one in their right mind believed. He would save us from the inevitable inhabitation of the Zoldiphiotes from the far planet Zoltron who planned an attack on the country’s Constitution....Ron Paul is that MAN!!!
*If you value your children from being eaten by government bureaucrats, if you want to save this country from being overtaken by aliens from a far away planet, if you believe the prophecies from ancient South American aliens you have better vote Ron Paul 2012 or Die!!!!
I suppose Newt would have wanted Romney to have kept inefficient and or redundant and idle employees on the dole. Sounds like some government employees.
ACK ... that's fair ... if that someone does pop up perhaps my choice might be different. And then again perhaps not :)
Newt sounds like Oblamer.
I just voted for Mitt in NH!
Go Mitt -- bring us some more CAPITALISM!! Long live CAPITALISM!
Actually, i agree that Mitt hasn't been vetted well. For a conservative or conservative moderate, vetting would be detail around his record in MA. While i've seen some of that, the MSM (for the moderates, in particular), don't consider being strong on gun control, or raising taxes, as a bad thing, so they don't "dwell" on it, as they do Perry, for example (strong AGAINST gun control, and lower taxes).
So, a lot of people really don't know that Mitt is a social liberal (as far as history seems to indicate). Or worse, someone who concedes their values to their opponents because "it's a liberal state, after all."
No, Mitt has not been well vetted, IMHO, and Obama will have dirt that we cannot yet imagine, especially dirt that can contribute to the class warfare.
Never said anything about your views disqualifying you from commenting ... your comments are helpful in this discourse, as are others, as long as there are no Ad Hominem attacks. Of course I or other may or not agree with you :)
You're still test driving ... fair enough ... you wish their were better candidates ... so do I. Why I think Newt is the right candidate is based on a compare and contrast with the other candidates. I might be wrong. And at the end of the day, GOP Nominee > POTUS.
" ... William I have already answered this question when you brought up" not sure which question you referring to ... still don't know who you are for, but maybe I missed it somewhere. Based on your answers I will assume you're a Ron Paul guy, at least in this race.
I have done my research ... and was working in DC in the 90s. I'm familiar with Newt and the political climate back then. It's discussions like these where I can hopefully argue in the court of blogosphere opinion and see how my beliefs stack up ... either someone points me in a better direction or my beliefs are hardered.
" ... If I choose NOT to support this sham then people like YOU accuse me of CONTRIBUTING to the political woes of the nation" ... What I have said is anyone who doesn't support one of the GOP candidate has basically made a choice for the current POTUS. I have not accused you of anything, so either I'm an exception wrt the people you associate me with or I shouldn't be associated with those people :)
I have no issues with a MEANINGFUL 3rd or 4th party ... I do have an issue with a ineffective "never going to win" 3rd party that only siphons off supporters from either the GOP or DEM side for the sake of getting their positions into their party plank, in effect handing the nomination to one particular side ... see 1968, 1992 etc.
I'm also in favor of term limits for Congress ... not so much for a low-paid part-time Congress ... we do need to attract the best and the brightest for public service, not life-time public service.
I am indeed a mere mortal :)
I will vote for an empty orange juice can over Obama. Stating you won't "ever vote for Romney" is saying you will prefer Obama to finish destroying us over having Romney be malleable in the way Clinton was ....to lead where we tell him to lead by voting in good House and Senate folks
Don't stay home, vote for ABO
Porchhound ... I have no problems distinguishing your war time service from his and my peace time service ... Why do I need to call attention to myself by thanking you for thanking me? As service vets I believe we respect each other.
My feelings are fine sir ... and I have read your posts. With all due respect, your comment on the gentlemen's service in the 80s did not come across as complimentary, even with your aside which I did not include. Of course his "high on yourself" comment probably started your comment :)
My motivation for responding to you and others here are clear, at least I think it is ... you and others are calling out Newt for his lack of service and have made that the basis (or one of the reasons) why he wouldn't be a good CinC ... did I get that right? I have simply retorted with why I think Newt would make a fine CinC and POTUS and then have asked you who you think would be a better candidate?
Don't want this to be personal ... if you care to respond with your candidate of preference, then we can hopefully add to this discussion with something concrete of hopefully of value, comparing and contrasting Newt with your choice ... otherwise we're cyber dancing around.
People can talk all they want about not "tearing each other up", but the thing is that Ron Paul is actually different than the other candidates, and it is important for him to highlight those differences. Ron Paul is someone who sticks to principles, even when those principles are unpopular. Quite frankly Romney, Gingrich, cannot say the same thing. I know that there are many people here for whom beating Obama is the only thing that matters, but if it just means putting Romney in his spot then I don't see the point. I'm quite familiar with Obama's record, but Romney would just be more of the same, just like Obama was more of the same for most of Bush's policies. It's easy to see coming because they're all sold out to Goldman Sachs.
There isn't a whole lot of point in having a second choice given the rest of the field, including Obama, all intends to take the US to war with Russia and China over Iran.
Doesn't bother me at all ... I thought blogs were a sounding board for discussing ideas and opinions, and in this case trying to shape the national discourse on who would make the best POTUS.
Sounds like you have quite a resume ... congrats.
Define STRONG Military POTUS? There's not a single rational person who would call Newt anything other than pro-military, which is different than discussing his lack of service during the war you proudly and capably served in.
Bottom line is we have the candidates who we have. We need to choose one. Who do you think besides Newt would make a better CinC? In the larger context who do you think will make the best POTUS?
I CAN'T STAND Romney! I much prefer Gingrich or Santorum, but with so many things to be able to go after Romney on, why do Gingrich and Perry want to capitulate to this anti-capitalism demagoguery?
First of all and most important, the candidates have to focus on Obamas failures, and not criticize each other. It is BAD for the party, this has to stop. Attack Obama, not each other. There is just too damn much dissension in the republican party.
You sound as hate filled as Limbaugh...dangerous. You want to completely destroy and defeat 'them'...so you are not going after ideas or agendas, you want to destroy fellow Americans...people like you are destroying this country with a lot of help from Obama and his thugs...you sound like Obama and his comrades...sorry, I will never help to destroy 'them' although I will fight their liberal agenda. However, not all Dems are liberal...there are socially conservative Dems and we meet them every year at the March for Life in Washington...hatred generates hatred...no one, no one, can have everything their way all the time...and hatred destroys...absolutely.
Porchhound ... probably missed it earlier ... who do you support?
As Geddy Lee from Rush sings ... "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice".
If we don't pick a GOP candidate Obama wins ... IMO disaster 2.0. There is no perfect GOP candidate. So If you are committed to helping defeat Obama who is your GOP choice? Once that is out in the open you can defend why you chose that candidate and his policies vs why others like myself choose Newt and his policies. Or if you'd rather go negative, you can point out the negatives you feel disqualify Newt vs the negatives of your candidate ... although I prefer to stay in the positive "ideas" side of the discussion. Simple, right?
newt is very hard to support now. he has forgotten the objective is to win, not destroy. he is not a fit representative of American candidacy and I don't see how anyone can seriously support him now. he has gone beyond the true objective and sought to WIN AT ALL COSTS". THE TRUE OBJECTIVE IS TO OVERTHROW NOBAMA. NOBAMA IS THE REAL DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES..
Ad Hominem Argument - any kind of argument that criticizes an idea by pointing something out about the people who hold the idea rather than directly addressing the merits of the idea. You're basically admitting you're losing the argument here with your "Newtie" comment.
We're looking to elect someone who can defeat the current POTUS, get the economy going, create jobs, lessen our foreign dependence on oil, mitigate the current gridlock in DC ... in addition to being the CinC.
State who you think would make a better POTUS than Newt and explain why, rather than express your displeasure for Newt's lack on military service during wartime. I'd be happy to state why I think Newt's experience in Miltary Competencies and Geopolitical expertise would make him the better CinC in addition to why I think his Economic, Energy, Healthcare, and Education ideas and experience getting results in DC make him a better POTUS ... of course I could be wrong but nobody has convinced me otherwise yet :)
Can we focus on defeating Øbama, people?
For one freakin' minute, can we stop being our own worst enemy?
Maybe you should address this to Rush, since he seems to feel the same way I do. I will say again: an attack against free market capitalism is not something I would expect to hear from people who supposedly believe in that system.
We do have a clue about what is really happening, but not as much as some people think.
But, yes, we do still watch and try to gather information to make educated guesses, in many cases.
You're spot-on about the assumptions made in technology. But if you dig deeper into everything -- government economic forecasts and stance on so-called catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, for example -- you see how politicized scientists and engineers have extrapolated spurious conclusions from some very weakly grounded data.
What's dangerous in that is that the once-mainstream news media has so few so-called journalists, including those who even know how to spell science or technology, that understand that conclusions have caveats attached to them.
Thus, they do not report them -- nor does a 10-second sound bite permit -- and the conclusion gains legs. And after a few iterations of presenting those conclusions, the conclusions become so detached from those caveats that the conclusions become scientific/technological gospel that politicians and policy makers preach and employ.
The so-called "green movement" is one prime example where non-reporting of the fine print has created an essentially non-productive, government -- taxpayer -- scam.
As for asking an engineer about the assumptions made in his or her work, speaking from 30+ years experience, I have continually been surprised and down right outraged about some of the assumptions I have seen in environmental science, technology and policy.
That outrage comes from knowing how some pointy-headed bureaucrat in EPA or even state regulatory agencies manipulate data without little, if any, attention paid to what data represent or the credibility of such data. Thus, the Obama's EPA's position on so-called catastrophic manmade global warming.
By the way, while you do need common sense and the ability to think outside the proverbial box in science and engineering, just as you need both attributes in any other endeavor, scientists and engineers need a healthy dose of skepticism and an even larger dose of professional ethics and commitment to finding the truth.
Again, an example of the lack of common sense, professional ethics and commitment to finding the truth -- not manipulating data to give a predetermined result -- is the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's assessments and the Obama EPA's zealous willingness to parrot things they never truth tested.
Of course you fail to refute anything but spew the talking points of the RINOs... The GOP will not and can not win without RP at the top of the ticket... get used to that fact.
Porchhound ... again thanks for serving, especially in a time of war.
You wrote: " ... You served in the mid eighties when NOTHING was going on...no war...no combat deaths..etc." First Google October 23, 1983. Then check the CRS report that concluded that there were more Military Deaths (4,700) in '80's Peacetime than during Portions of the War on Terror. I served in the 80s ... VOLUNTEERED ... never served in combat and I often wondered how I would have responded. I'd like to say I would have made my fellow soldiers proud, will never know. Denigrating fellow vets makes you sound like a cranky dude. We SERVED our country and war could have broken out at any time. Assuming your criteria for a CinC is having served during war time I guess you're either a Perry guy or a Paul guy, no.
Aren't we all trying to tell obama, "YOUR FIRED"? Wow Mitt, it really does feel good. And isn't everyone vying for the nomination trying to say the same thing to obama;"YOUR FIRED"? Man, I could get used to that.
Breaking new Gallp Poll
Romney leads all other Republican candidates with CONSERVATIVES.
You can check out the link on Drudge right now.......Go Mitt.....the Conservatives No.#1 Choice.
Support and vote for Mitt so he can FIRE Barack Obama in November.
Rush and the far-right need to stop attacking this smart clean Fiscal Conservative, Mitt Romney.....
If the far-right mucks this election up for the GOP there is going to be hell.......!
Porchhound ... first off, thanks for your service to your country. Unless I'm mistaken there are two GOP people left who served in the Military ... Ron Paul (Flight Surgeon - Medical Doctor) and Rick Perry (C130 Pilot). Kudos to them for their service!!! Having said this their service does NOT by itself qualify them to be Commander-in-Chief. CinC requires military competencies and geopolitical expertise that is not garnered in med school or even flight school. To flip the argument, you would think a Naval Academy grad (trained for years in leadership skills) and submariner would make a great CinC ... but then Jimmy Carter seems to be an argument against that route, wouldn't you agree? Finally take a survey of all the Wars the U.S has been in from the Civil War onwards ... which POTUS were CinCs and chances are they did NOT serve in the military (Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, Clinton) ... I'll leave it to you to decide whether each was a good CinC.
I guess I'm a "Newtie" to use a term here ... here's the Military Competencies and Geopolitical expertise that better qualifies Newt to be CinC ... at least the senior military leadership thinks so ... the following are facts, not any opinion:
Newt served on the Defense Policy Board under President George W. Bush, which provided strategic counsel to the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense on how to better address threats facing the United States. He is also the longest-serving teacher of the Joint War Fighting course for Major Generals at Air University and taught officers from all five services as an honorary Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at the National Defense University. In 1999, Gingrich was appointed to the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, the Hart/Rudman Commission to examine our national security challenges as far out as 2025. The Commission's report is the most profound rethinking of defense strategy since 1947.
As long as a candidate states that they will bomb Iran unprovoked, Rush is happy. He can't stand Ron Paul even though he's the only trust worthy fiscal conservative running. Rush would rather see your taxes go up then there be no new war.
Thank you Rush for essentially building up Romney and Gingrich, men much more liberal then Ron Paul.
The country has survived this long against attack with Obama at the helm..Does anyone believe it'd be any different under Ron Paul? (save the tin foil hat wearing Rush Limbaugh?
Were you capable of making a worse lie? First, Rush supports disarming Iran from being dangerous. Second, Rush does not want to see taxes go up. Third, Rush is tearing down Romney and Gingrich, right now! Fourth, Paul has made BILLIONS in earmarks for his district, then votes against them and pretends he's not part of the system!!! If you want to be seen as even remotely credible, stop being ignorant and stop lying. WAKE UP!
PS the mere fact you put Obama and Paul on the same page makes Paul look pretty freaking liberal.