2012 republican presidential nominee III: can romney get santorum out of his hair?

occupy newt street

meanwhile, Michele Bachmann is off on the side shouting "I TOLD YOU THEY WERE ALL SOCIALISTS"

omfg @ "I like firing people"

Obama will kick this guy around like a fucking tin can

Mitt Romney. Was he a job creator or a corporate raider?

That's the question this film answers.

And it’s not pretty.

Mitt Romney was not a capitalist during his reign at Bain. He was a predatory corporate raider. His firm didn't seek to create value. Instead, like a scavenger, Romney looked for businesses he could pick apart. Indeed, he represented the worst possible kind of predator, operating within the law but well outside the bounds of what most real capitalists consider ethical.

He is exhibit number one the left wants to use in the coming election to give capitalism a bad name.

He and his friends at Bain were bad guys. Any real capitalists should disavow Romney's ‘creative destruction’ model that made him wealthy at the expense of thousands of American jobs.

Mitt Romney and his cronies pioneered ‘deindustrialization,’ a process by which they searched out vulnerable companies, took them over, loaded them with debt, and collected obscene fees while doing so. He sent jobs overseas or killed them altogether, and then picked apart the remains - including pension funds - before the companies went bankrupt.

Some might call that the free market. Most of us think its just plain wrong.

If you wonder why America has lost so many manufacturing jobs overseas, look no further than Mitt Romney – the King of Bain.

Think you know Mitt?

Think again . . .

Any real capitalists should disavow Romney's ‘creative destruction’ model

lol

omfg @ "I like firing people"

I am not at all surprised that Mitt thinks that, but what a colossally stupid thing to say out loud in an election year.

Also I am waiting for someone to photoshop Mitt with Bane from The Dark Knight Rises.

lol Larison on Huntsman:

Huntsman is much more like McCain than I originally thought in that he tends to be “centrist” on certain issues when it will put him at odds with most of the country, and then stubbornly hard-line on issues when a more accommodating, flexible position would be both popular and wise.

described that way huntsman sounds like hed make a good ilm poster

Huntsman has also revealed himself to be a third-rate politician.

"I like firing people" is Mitt's bitterly-clinging-to-guns-and-religion moment. As someone who has always received service, but never worked in a service job, this thought is so unchallengeable, he literally couldn't see the rake he was stepping on.

Maybe he is trying for the Trump voting block?

only illuminating thing is that romney was trying to connect with a NH constituency by casting household health finance in terms of being some kind of management big shot.

as if dropping one kind of insurance coverage in favor of another is some kind of "clear out your desk, we're done here!" kind of moment.

or, polyphonic otm

it's tone deaf, but y'know he's talkin bout Bam dere.

so half the country feel the same way.

(also, whittled-down and out of context, but hey it's not Your Guy)

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

not v damning imo

"by the way, when I say 'insurance company' I really mean 'Obama'"

tone deaf counts, because it means he never learned the words or music you want to dance to.

gifs of Morbs dancing plz

when I say 'insurance company' I really mean 'Obama'

but he does!

the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

hmmmmmmmmmm

Wha? That's precisely the 'theory' behind HMOs, which, as we all know, has produced a phenomenally healthy nation, doing well by doing good as we like to say, and if by your ill-luck you actually DO need some health care, they cheerfully pay up... and THAT's the rest of the fairy story.

Interesting. Why just Todd and not Sarah?

Found this to be a very interesting conversation about Ron Paul between John McWhorter and Glenn Loury:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/eavesdrop-on-the-webs-most-interesting-ron-paul-debate/250725/

Mitt Romney was not a capitalist during his reign at Bain. He was a predatory corporate raider. His firm didn't seek to create value. Instead, like a scavenger, Romney looked for businesses he could pick apart. Indeed, he represented the worst possible kind of predator, operating within the law but well outside the bounds of what most real capitalists consider ethical.

hi welcome to american business since 1978

"real capitalists"

i'd have thought that newt, of all people, would respect the creativity of destruction

that todd endoreses newt thing is transparent isn't it - todd endorses newt, palinistas get the batsignal to vote newt, newt gives the veep to palin. he's the only candidate cynical enough to want her in the race.

I didn't think it out that far aero but it makes a lot of sense... at least I think we can expect Newt to at least *float her name* and suggest she's on the shortlist.

I don't think it'll get Newt to the nomination but I think that's the idea

http://www.homevideos.com/movies-covers/bobandcarol.jpg

not a comment on the likelihood of that scenario but I have a VERY difficult time looking at a Gingrich/Palin '12 ticket and thinking "well that makes sense"

Why just Todd and not Sarah?
xp
To paraphrase Blagoevich, she thinks her endorsement is pure gold and it's too soon to tell how to cash it in the most profitably. Keeping her powder dry, fer sure.

does palin really still have any draw? i'd think it would pale beside that of rubio, etc.

hell of a difference between whether she has any draw and whether she thinks she has any draw

You don't want to piss off Palin, though. It's just that Florida is more important and a good showing amongst Latinos is more important than firing up the Palinista base

does palin really still have any draw? i'd think it would pale beside that of rubio, etc.

i think aero's suggestion makes a lot of sense, and there's no way that Rubio would ever get involved with a Newt shit show

(surely?)

i'd have thought that newt, of all people, would respect the creativity of destruction

― mookieproof, Monday, January 9, 2012 5:01 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yes exactly, republicans tying themselves in knots attemping to demonize the v behavior theyve spent their careers cheerfully promoting is a lol for sure

She doesn't want the veep this time around, I don't think. Her other gigs are raking in too much money. My guess is she knows the wrong endorsement at this time could hurt her among her followers, who haven't coalesced around any single candidate, yet. That's why Todd is acting as the surrogate right now. It retains her deniability.

I predict she won't put her own name to an endorsement until the fog clears and whatever she does looks like a safe bet. If she can use the endorsement to boost herself, she will. Otherwise, she'll fall in line behind Willard after the convention, while sending all sorts of signals to her posse that she knows how pathetic he is.

not a comment on the likelihood of that scenario but I have a VERY difficult time looking at a Gingrich/Palin '12 ticket and thinking "well that makes sense"

from a lol perspective it's the only sensible choice

from a lol standpoint, nothing will beat Gingrich/Gibson with a beaver hand puppet '12

must resist joek

but it's just sitting there, waiting for you

Also I am waiting for someone to photoshop Mitt with Bane from The Dark Knight Rises.

I'm thinking more that he's going to get special-effected into a certain television show.

http://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/donald-trump-youre-fired.jpg?w=500

In the context in which he said it, it seems as silly to me as guns-and-religion in '08. But that did linger with Obama, and this may linger with Romney.

that this is legal is fairly insane

money on gingrich is wasted money

But for Mr. Gingrich, the donation could be both boon and burden: Mr. Adelson comes with potential liabilities. His main source of income, casinos, could upset some social conservatives. That he operates in China could rankle isolationist voters, while some of his views on Israel are hawkish by mainstream Republican standards.

sometimes i can kinda see why right-wingers complain about the Times. this is all speculative concern-trolling on behalf of imagined conservatives. (plus i doubt sheldon adelson's "views on israel are hawkish by mainstream republican standards." i mean, what would that even be.)

anyway it's funny to see the anti-newt people circling the wagons and start caring about the finer points of campaign finance:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287652/gingrich-and-his-super-pac-video-deroy-murdock

Gingrich may be in hotter water, however, for his super PAC’s video slamming Romney for his Bain years. As the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin and my old friend Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator wrote today, at Sunday’s Meet the Press debate, Gingrich seemed very familiar with that upcoming video and its contents and sources — perhaps excessively so. Candidates and their super PACs are not supposed to coordinate their activities. If Gingrich were not in touch with his super PAC, how did he know so many apparent details about this video?

Money dirtying Romney is not wasted money!

^^^