Santorum lost because Romney said he spent too much and was for earmarks.
Newt lost because Romney pointed out that he was against capitalism and was associated with Freddie Mac.
Perry lost because Romney pointed out that he was in favor of tuition for illegals.
Moral of the story is we can’t beat RINOs by being more liberal.
... which was a lying, deceitful tactic, as Newt is obviously PRO capitalism. Romney is bad news, FRiend. He is ruthless, deceitful, and arrogant. As illustrated above, and YOU and RUSH dove right into it with lust, loving the chance to block your ears to what Newt was really saying about Romney's crap-"capitalism" at Bain and chortling like flocked hens about how Newt was "anti-capitalist."
Romney EATS people like you and Rush and you don't even know it because you're enjoying yourselves too much "attacking" a non-enemy.
Newt lost because Romney pointed out that he was against capitalism....
True story, Rush and Ari: During WWII when Japanese Americans were interned, many long-time Japanese farmers were put in the position of having to let their farmland go.
Unsung, unheralded generally by their own preference because they were modest, humble GOOD men and capitalists all doing this because IT WAS THE RIGHT AND MORAL THING TO DO, took responsibility for those Japanese farmers' operations, though they were their direct competitiors; these GOOD capitalists kept those farms running for the duration of the war so when those Japanese farmer friends and neighbors returned, they had their land and farming operations intact and waiting for them. I know this is true and that it happened because I personally know people -- Japanese-American and non-Japanese American -- who lived it.
In fact, when the niece of one of those now-gone farmers was in the hospital not so long ago with a very dangerous medical condition and a Japanese-American doctor at that hospital saw her chart and discussed it with his brother, another doctor, he quitely inquired: "Do you know who this is?" And that woman received even better special care and treatment than normal because those two knew that a major reason their parents had been able to send them to medical school, was because of the GOODNESS of her ENTIRELY CAPTALIST uncle, and indeed that uncle was only one of MANY excellent, principled CAPITALISTS who understood so well that pursuing capitalism doesn't justify doing immoral things.
A ROMNEY "capitalist" farmer at that time would have done (and sad to say, many did) what would have been perfectly acceptable in a capitalist system: bought the land at cut-rate prices and kept it for their own profit. It would have been perfect practice of capitalism, totally legal. BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG. Having read somewhat in-depth elsewhere about real mechanisms of what some have called "vulture capitalism" of the type Romney practiced at Bain, when Rush very stupidly and destructively criticized Newt's criticism of Romney at Bain as being "anti-capitalist," was very much in spirit THE SAME THING as criticizing those GOOD farmers for doing the right thing and accusing them of being "anti-capitalist" when those GOOD farmers disdained and ostracized their MAMMON-WORSHIPPING "capitalist" colleagues who took stinking "legal" advantage of their interned Japanese-American competitors.
When Rush so totally and disturbingly jumped on the "Newt's an anti-capitalist because he criticized Romney" bandwagon, he burned a bridge that he will have a hard time rebuilding with me. He proved himself shallow to the point of being amoral (as opposed to immoral).
The next time you think about accusing Newt of being an "anti-capitalist," you HAD BETTER REMEMBER that you will be in spirit also criticizing as "anti-capitalist" those GOOD CAPITALIST CALIFORNIA FARMERS who held in righteous contempt other farmers who practiced a particular, legal, and very low form of capitalism and destroyed some excellent Japanese-American farms.
It's still, as you can see, a real sore spot with me about Rush. Rush is mostly right, but when he's wrong -- as he was about the "anti-capitalist Newt" charge, he's REALLY REALLY AND DESTRUCTIVELY wrong.
“Santorum lost because Romney said he spent too much and was for earmarks.
Newt lost because Romney pointed out that he was against capitalism and was associated with Freddie Mac.
Perry lost because Romney pointed out that he was in favor of tuition for illegals.
Moral of the story is we can’t beat RINOs by being more liberal.”
Perhaps.
the moral of the story is that political campaigns are ugly, and we shouldnt fall for the ol’ song-and-dance attacks and buy into attacks on the more conservative candidates.
The other moral is that by rejecting flawed yet-more-conservative guys we end up with the LEAST conservative candidate.
We would repeat that mistake by rejecting Romney and letting Obama get relected