[americanophile]

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

- Newt Gingrich

Not the language of the left? Sure Newt.

[9YearLurker]

Bain did engage in some ugly vulture capitalism back in Romney’s day, but what does Newt want—European style limits on when a company can lay off employees? The government deciding who business owners can and cannot sell their enterprises to?

[elpadre]

I understand one of the companies that was deep sixed was in deep trouble when Bain took it over. Their Steelworker union was a major player in the downfall.The mill was built in the late 1800’s and the union played hard ball and wouldn't let the company modernize or even try to become more efficient. Typical union stuff.

All of those old steel mills have expired, unable to compete with the newer mills established after WWII in the US and Europe.

What Bain did is how you describe Capitalism.

I do not favor Romney, but conservatives cannot fault him on this,

Go Perry!!!!

[SaraJohnson]

I think the state of capitalism has to be addressed for a number of reasons.

First, the ones manipulating and walking away with other people’s money hit the US Treasury when their mortgage scam blew up. Second, a new cleaning crew hit the treasury in the name of alternative energy. It seems they are above the rule of law and can get away with pulling off economy busting loan scam in cahoots with corrupt politicans.

This is not US capitalism and these elitist mistake themselves as being above the constiution and rule of law. It is something out of the third world.

[independent in tx]

The Republican establishment is making a big mistake pushing Romney. He will not appeal to independents. I’m an independent - liberal on some issues, conservative on others - but looking for an alternative to Obama. And I WILL NOT vote for Romney, even if he’s the nominee. I’m sure there are others like me who can not stand robot-head.

[CASchack]

Rush jumped the shark today. Newt took it on the chin from Mitt’s SuperPAC without responding, and it killed him in IA. He called on Willard to put an end to it, and smarmy Romney went into his “if you can’t stand the heat” response.

Newt is asking Willard to provide some explanation for his less-stellar Bain acquisitions. Romney can ignore it, but it won’t go away. Remember Willie Horton and Dukakis? Al Gore used it in the primary, and Dukakis couldn’t come up with an answer. GHW Bush took advantage of Willie Horton, and Obama will take advantage of Bain.

Romney should consider this a favor and come up a way of handling his Bain past, or he will have big trouble ahead...not that I care in the Primaries, but I won’t be happy if Willard is the nominee and Obama wins again.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

I'm using the language of classic American populism.

Ugh. What the heck is he thinking??? "Classic American populism." Like William Jennings Bryan and Huey Long? Like the old Southern Dem racist politicians? Like George Wallace? Once again, Newt speaks before he thinks.

[wilco200]

I’ll stick with Newt on this. Whatever it takes to take down Romney is fine by me.

[BunnySlippers]

Hmmm ... waffling. Not a good answer.

[Yaelle]

I told you all.

Newt can’t be trusted. He debates well. But he is scary unpredictable and he is not dedicated to conservative principles or the constitution. Newt is very insecure and dedicated only to newt.

Be afraid of a gingrich presidency.

[Yaelle]

I told you all.

Newt can’t be trusted. He debates well. But he is scary unpredictable and he is not dedicated to conservative principles or the constitution. Newt is very insecure and dedicated only to newt.

Be afraid of a gingrich presidency.

[blasater1960]

I can not believe how this campaign is going. The most important election in American History and the best the GOP can offer is a liberal mormon and a statist georgian?

Perry hearts illegals and Santorum is getting Borked by the MSM. Huntsman is ajoke. I cant believe this field....

[Praxeologue]

Populist anger is as strong or stronger today than it was in either 1908 or 1933. It was expressed by Gov. Palin as opposition to crony capitalism, as being anti-free enterprise. Gov. Palin recently cautioned against alienating Paul supporters. These voters think in terms of a Wall Street/Main Street dichotomy. Obama will ride out this year on the Occupy, statist, version of this sentiment. The free enterprise side is what Gov. Palin and Speaker Gingrich want to address.

All the Republican candidates except Paul agree that the 2008 credit crisis was caused by government intervention, the CRA etc., and not by Wall Street. There is a distinction, however, between responsibility for the crisis and crony capitalism which gives inordinate power and advantage to those with access to government influence and large capital pools. This is not scapegoating. A large segment of those who believe in and practice free enterprise on a smaller scale, registered Republicans, will respond to Gov. Palin's and Speaker Gringrich's populist positions.

That said, I think that Newt should have produced his own commercial, rather than buying something obviously produced by the dark side.

[NonValueAdded]

GINGRICH: Well, I don't think I'm using the language of the Left. I'm using the language of classic American populism.

Sounds to me like a contradiction in one pair of sentences. Newt, you are everything we thought you were. Prayers for Santorum as our choices narrow :(

[Yosemitest]

If I have to chose between Newt and Rush, I'll chose Rush>
Hello Santorum.


"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice, but she dropped out.
Bachmann became my first choice,and she dropped out.
Cain was my second choice, but he dropped our.
Now ... Newt was my second choice, but he challenged Rush.
So now ... Rick Santorum, who use to be my third choice, is now my first choice.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[jmaroneps37]

For all his talk about the Republican establishment trying to force Romney on us, Rush turned out to be just another huckster. He has put his wet finger in the air and decided he will back Willard. This guy is full of shiite.

It will now probably be Willard and those of us who want to save what's left of America will have to fight, Obama the media Karl Rove Ann Coulter the phonies at Faux and now Rush. How sad that last part it is, but it is what it is. Rush has joined THEM.

[RetSignman]

I started to make plans for what I'll do from noon to three after Rush said that.

[upsdriver]

Rush is a Romney supporter. He’s still cheesed off at Huckabee for his part in taking out Romney last time and getting McCain the nomination.

[hellbender]

I am warning you. There are not enough “true believers” in what some consider “capitalism” to win an election. What’s more, what we often have in America is not free competition, any more than what we have internationally is free trade. We have (respectively) crony capitalism and one-sided mercantilism. Let the Left have its abstract doctrines, devoid of real-world testing. There are honorable, patriotic, independent Americans whose votes must be won, and they do not buy the idea that what is going on is “free” or “fair.” It isn’t. When executives “earn” multimillion-$ bonuses while their companies lose money, that is not defensible.

[vortigern]

"Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money?" --

That is the best description of the US Congress that I've heard in a long time. Go Newt!!

[vortigern]

"Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money?" --

That is the best description of the US Congress that I've heard in a long time. Go Newt!!