Posted on 01/10/2012 9:55:06 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
One of the big stories surrounding Tuesdays New Hampshire primary was the use of populist attacks against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Leading the charge against Romney and labeling him a vulture capitalist are former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Tuesday evening that Romneys win was not a real earth-shattering result.
I think Ron Pauls showing was a bit more of a surprise and then I think people are having tuned in to his speech about free markets and capitalism, she said. I think hes going to shift a little bit of the debate going forward in the next couple of days, away from sort of an anti-capitalist mantra that weve been hearing the last two days into what it is the GOP really represents with free markets.
However, the 2008 vice presidential nominee said she didnt blame Gingrich and others for critiquing Romneys leadership of Bain Capital, especially considering tough attacks launched by Romney against Gingrich in Iowa.
This isnt bean bag, she said. I dont blame Newt Gingrich and others who had come out on offense swinging against the front-runner because they had just faced millions and millions of dollars in attack ads in Iowa. And theyd just come off that there.
Watch:
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Palin added that she didnt see anyone dropping out after the New Hampshire results, and said it would be on to South Carolina and possibly Florida for all the candidates.
All of them have money in the coffers, she said. So, financially speaking none of them will be forced to drop out at this point, whereas Michele Bachmann was a different story when her money started drying up.
This isnt bean bag,
“Newts exact words about attacking Newt in Iowa.”
Finley Peter Dunne’s exact words a hundred years ago and repeated a bazillion times since. What’s your point? Politics ain’t bean bag is probably second to all politics is local in the pantheon of political quotes...remember, vote early and vote often.
“Judge Napolitano endorsed with bells on Ron Paul on Jon Stewart tonight.”
I saw it on the re-air while ago. Barf. I used to like the Judge, but he’s a TOTAL Libertarian and he’s always favored Paul, having him on his show often.
Of course, Stewart was lapping it all up, and I absolutely cringed when Napolitano was so scathing about “five of the six candidates” and so rapturous about RuPaul, pretty much insinuating that RP is the only candidate who loves America. That really, really rubbed me the wrong way.
I think thats why they were picked.
I think Ron Pauls showing was a bit more of a surprise and then I think people are having tuned in to his speech about free markets and capitalism, she said. I think hes going to shift a little bit of the debate going forward in the next couple of days, away from sort of an anti-capitalist mantra that weve been hearing the last two days into what it is the GOP really represents with free markets.
IMHO:
She’s saying what I believe is right on. The Grand Old Potty Imperial Court needs to hide all this talk about crony capitalism...”the corrupt bastards” as they should be known and Paul might keep it there. Put the focus back onto some of the fiscal ideas Paul is pushing...like abolishing the Fed after they fail their audit.
Seems pretty clear to me. If Paul stirs that pot hard, the others won’t have to, allowing them to be less aggressive, but keeping the pot bubbling by raising it re: CRONY style capitalism, as practiced by Obama and his new lackey taking over for Daley. The pr*ck was a hedge fund manager that made millions shorting mortgage bundles and other dubious stuff, which is why they didn’t want him vetted... as usual, SP Smart tactics. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend...bur not always.
He may do more than shift the debate. I watched his speech tonight and it's going to resonate with a lot of people. Mark my words, he is going to be a force to be reckoned with. I've been making that point for weeks if not months, contrary to popular wisdom. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul isn't capable of taking the Presidency, let alone the Republican nomination, isn't paying attention. As always though, that's not an endorsement, it's just an observation.
Hostile takeovers are bids for the shareholders of a public company to voluntarily - repeat, voluntarily - hand over their shares at a certain price. They're "hostile" from the standpoint of management and the board of directors, not from the standpoint of the shareholders. The shareholders own the company.
Since they're offers for shares, hostile takeovers are impossible for a single-shareholder corporation or a corporation where management and/or the board own the majority of shares. Any takeovers of those companies have to be friendly.
vaudine
The owners are selling. The board and current management don’t want the sale because in many cases they are not getting their golden parachutes. But the majority shares of the stock are sold so the board is forced out and managers are forced out.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there were some sort of game being played behind the scenes to checkmate the rats last minute...............I sometimes get hopfully delusional
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.