E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
SPARTANBURG, SC -- Mitt Romney's campaign launched a barrage of attacks against Newt Gingrich just three days before South Carolina's primary amid signs the former House speaker could threaten Romney's bid for his third straight win in the primary cycle.
The former Massachusetts governor led his campaign in opening a fusillade against Gingrich, who's persisted at or near the top of the polls in tests of Saturday's first-in-the-South primary.
In a sign of how seriously his campaign is taking Gingrich as a threat, Romney broke from his usual form on the campaign trail -- which usually involves attacking only President Obama -- to instead deliver a rebuke of Gingrich's claims on his record on job creation.
"The speaker the other day at the debate was talking about how he created millions of jobs when he was working with the Reagan administration. Well, he'd been in Congress two years when Ronald Reagan came into office, " Romney said. "That'd be like saying 435 congressmen were all responsible for those jobs. Government doesn't create jobs. It's the private sector that creates jobs. Congressmen taking responsibility or taking credit for helping create jobs is like Al Gore taking credit for the Internet."
Romney's words were just one part of an offensive that extended to his surrogates, who hosted a conference call and launched web videos questioning Gingrich's leadership abilities.
First Thoughts: Newt-mentum returns?
The assault began earlier this morning with a web video released by the Romney campaign entitled "Undisciplined Leader," in which former New York Rep. Susan Molinari, who served with Gingrich in the 1990s, delivered the first blow.
"I served with Newt Gingrich in Congress. Newt Gingrich had a leadership style that can only be described as leadership by chaos,” Molinari said in the video. "I worry about the Republican Party’s chances to defeat President Obama if Newt Gingrich is the nominee."
On a conference call with reporters later in the morning, former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent, another Romney supporter, continued the attack, and warned that if Gingrich were to become the Republican nominee it would hurt the party.
"Each one of us [who served with Gingrich] has personal stories we can tell about going home and having to clean up after our speaker," Talent said. "It had an impact on the 1996 presidential election and, if he's the nominee, it will have an impact on the 2012 election and the impact's not going to be good for the conservative movement and the Republican Party."
If this all sounds familiar, it might be because the Romney campaign employed the exact same tactics following the first surge in the polls Gingrich had enjoyed in Iowa in early December. At that time, Talent and Former New Hampshire Gov. John H. Sununu lanced Gingrich for "off-the-cuff thinking" and "irrational behavior" on a similar conference call, with Sununu continuing to voice the attacks for days in interviews on television and in print.
Related: Santorum targets Gingrich in S.C. stumping
It now appears those attacks may continue. Today, the Romney campaign confirmed reports that Sununu will travel to South Carolina on Thursday to campaign for Romney.
This afternoon, the Gingrich campaign responded to Romney's comments on job creation.
""I fully expect the Romney campaign to be unendingly dirty and dishonest for the next 4 days because they are desperate, they thought they could buy this. They discovered that they can't buy this. I think they have internal polling that shows them loosing. I think they will do anything to try at any level and I need your help. People power will be money power. And I need your help," the candidate said at a town hall meeting.
"If your curious of what kind of leadership style Romney would use as president, today we are seeing what panic looks like," Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond told NBC News.
NBC'S Alex Moe contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
All of this reminds me of a catfight. Thank You! The best part is, its free!
That is insulting to cats, Smitty!
What kind of fish are those who eat each other? It's like watching them! Except, this is fun!!!!
Romney's problem is that he is constantly saying that the president has not created jobs, and in this article he states that the government cannot create jobs.
Flip
Flop
You can have all of the blame but none of the glory. So that is how it works huh.
SeekingSanity, those are donkey blow fish, found in the finest Democratic ponds of Washington DC.
justicefleeting - nice try - I'm sure they're found in the far right's ponds - wherever they are!
Isn't it? lmao!
*waves to seeking sanity*
Back at ya Feisty!
and corporate america wins again...4 more years...of obama try'n to spend us out of debt...the rich get richer...
Although I'm not normally a Gingrich fan, I am now. Gingrich is too erratic to be much of a threat to President Obama, whereas Romney has the Big Money behind him and has proven to be a nasty player - every bit as nasty as Gingrich.
Romney's recent comments regarding his tax rate and speaker fees shows him to be totally out of touch with ordinary people. Add to that his proposal to shrink the Bush tax cuts even more for the coddled rich (like he himself) while increasing taxes on the lower income demographic. He is absolutely disgusting. If he winds up getting elected by the hoards of low-information voters infesting this country, we will see rioting in the streets, as he will totally screw this country up. Mark my words!
let's just say Blingrich has a wealth of baggage to work with here ...... lol
Let em have it...... again...Mitt
I can't imagine why ANY working American would even consider voting for any of these Republicans. They all want to do the same thing: More Tax Cuts for the rich, more Pay Cuts for Working Americans.
We need solutions, but all Republicans have planned is creating more problems.
Obama / Biden 2012
i ain't gon'a vote for obama he has done nothing...
Low income and working families here in Mormon country dont even support Romney, American Girl. I am trapped behind enemy lines in "Gods" country and I dont see much enthusiasm for Romney from anybody that makes less than $100,000 a year, even other Mormons.
well, that's you sweetie! get outta god's country if you don't like the heat! you think that pig gingbitch is going to win this one?!?!? think again, if you know how to think.
go romney!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Both of these guys have enough baggage to fill a freighter.
.
Al, did you just call me "Sweetie"? Are you of the homosexual persausion? I mean not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just, well, you seem to be a Romney supporter and Romney has done a flip flop on his original stance on Gay rights. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, I know a few other gay men besides you and they all have horrible crushs on him too, he's so dreamy, but they were heartbroken when he sided with the wingnuts just to get the nomination. They know he will flip back to their, I mean, your side if he gets elected. But they were hoping he would come out and be the Nations first OPENLY Gay President, instead he is hiding in the closet just like Bush did.
Homophobic much, Doug?
To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Doug doth protest too much, methinks."
You libs are going to be thinking "fun" when Obama is not re-elected 2012. You libs stay on these liberal chatrooms and think everybody but extreme rightwingers won't vote for him, hahahahaha! You keep that head buried in the sand, libs. You need to hear what the "normal" folks out here really think. They can't stand this anti-American socialist POTUS, and they want him GONE!
Yikes! Obama's a one quack wonder, but the board of The Fed deciding it's okay to replace him with Romney or Santorum, just proves to us all how out of touch with reality they really are. Gingrich might not be letting on (he knows the system backwards) but he's got plenty up his sleeve. Having Sarah as a fluffer is good as it gets.
Romney strapped his dog to the roof of his car and drove to Canada. Enough said.
Actually what you said didnt make sense, scaly one. Your reading comprehension is on par with the rest of the Republican brain trust and your comedic timing is horribly off, that was not the time for that particular quote because I was not actually protesting anything. Only when someone like Rev. Ted Haggard condemns gays after having a gay hookers fist in his ass do you say "Me thinks the lady doth protest to much." Obviously anyone with half a brain would read that and see that I have absolutly no problems with people of any sexual persausion. I was simply pointing out to Al that his heartthrob Mitt has flip flopped on the gay issue to get the nomination. I think I even mentions having gay friends which no self respecting homophobic conservative would admit to having.
Robiscoole, I thought the same thing when I read the article. There's another soundbite for Obama to use. I used to think Romney was the biggest threat, but his true colors are coming out. He can't say the President thwarted job creation without his own words coming out.
And now he says he will release his tax docs, but only after the nomination is a sure thing, so you know it will not be good for him. And that is only this year's form which he can fudge a bit to make it look like he pays more. They demanded a birth certificate, we need to demand the last couple years worth of taxes.
In other words "Ron Paul".
Maybe they should show their bank account statement and whomever's is higher is the Republican candidate. The greed vs the greediest. Come together, over me!
Romney goes on the offensive?
Romney is offensive.
After what Mutt Romney did to his dog Seamus he should be voted baggage handler.
Romney on offensive towards Gingrich. Gingrich on offensive toward Romney. Santorum on offensive towards Romney and Gingrich. Paul on offensive against everyone and everything.
Perry is wandering around someplace ...
Palin likes Newt. Bachman does not want her name associated with Newt. DeMint thinks the show is wonderful. Christie is supporting Romney by telling Romney to do what Gingrich wants. Romney thinks he paid taxes but probably does not know how much a loaf of bread costs.
If offensive is the only thing you are good at - then, by all means, be offensive ...
Obama's best defense is to have an offensive opponent ...
I have watched soap operas for years but this As The Republicans Yearn, beats those any day. I used to, at the very least, respect the Republicans, before Reagan but now, they are not any better than mud wrestlers wearing G-strings!
I feel sorry for old-time Republicans, who are responsible voters. Oh wait a minute, after Bush/Cheney, I take that back. Lastly, I think an endorsement from Palin is like, getting an endorsement from an under taker. When she was talking about improper vetting, I thought she was talking about herself, did you?
The media has a lot to answer for. "Justice" Leveson included.
Yeah, lets all forget about Ron Paul. The only man running right now that actually cares about the opinions of ordinary citizens..not to mention he wants to cut his own salary. He basically IS an ordinary citizen. Isn't that what we the people want?
*smh smh..*
All you people voting for the rich advertising campaign players are ridiculous. HEY, I can buy presidency too with the millions and millions of dollars I have!!
Screw Romney, screw santorum, screw gingrich. I've heard them talk, and the only thing they have any intelligence about is how to run a company as a CEO. Yeah, lets turn America into one giant corporation for all the kiddies to feed into, and outsource even more jobs to other countries to feed THEM even more and more money so we lose allllll our money. Then when we the citizens lose all our money, the big companies go byebyeeee and move to other countries in the world to feast on other hungry souls.
+1 for Ron Paul..our only hope left.
Everyone should just get behind Ron Paul. Enough with this Dempublicrap already.
HELP! We need more Super Pacs!
Before this election year is over, there are going to be a lot of politicians against Super Pacs!
Haaaaaaaaaaaa, Let them eat themselves alive.
So Romney admits that government does not create jobs. So how can he claim that he created jobs, while governor of Massachusetts?
Romney barely has his head above water and can't swim because he has that foot constantly in his mouth. Gingrich has been bottom feeding for so long that the mud up his nostrils and between his teeth can never be washed away. Santorum walks on water despite the fact that he has mud squishing between his toes and nobody but him believes he ever walked on water. There's crazy old Ron Paul that believes the presidency will enable him to turn the world upside down all by himself ( many of us have a distant relative that is almost as senile and embarrassing).
Y'all must have privately produced a reality show where the biggest losers would be declared the winners. I have to admit your show is full of laughs and very entertaining. I can only hope that your bumbling contestants realize the grand prize was never the oval office. Their only reward will be an audition as commentator on Fox News. Bachmann will win that contest easily (unless Santorum follows through with his promise of a film at 11:00). Her wild, bulging eyes have hypnotized many zombies in much smaller venues.
Jordan,
There is much to admire about Ron Paul, but he's a 76-year old doddering old fool with weird ideas. For example, He thinks we have a Christian nation that has been secularized and should not have been, relying on our our "Founding Fathers.". The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the the chairman of the group drafting the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson, had clearly articulated the view the the purpose of the First Amendment's religion clauses were to erect or create a "wall separating Church and State." That wall established this religiously pluralistic country, government shall neither do anything to promote any religion nor to prevent worshipers from practicing their faith. Paul thinks that non-Christians should just get used to being the minority, as if Blacks who'd prefer Kwaanza or Jews whod' prefer Chanukah don't already have to take time off for Christmas only.
Dr. Paul, who claims to have delivered 4000 babies, asserts that that experience allows him to know that life begins at conception. When life begins is a philosophical question that is not informed by delivering babies. He's just a small-minded Christian dolt who, as with most conservatives, believes everybody else should share his opinions on such important questions. The only twist Dr. Paul brings is his personal ignorance of the 9th and 10th Amendment. He thinks the federal government has no power to ban abortions, but that states must ban such abortions. I guess he hasn't factored into his thinking the interests of those forced to carry to term, preferring to champion the cause of a conglomeration of cells.
Ron Paul is a global warming denier, a perfect tool of Big Oil. He changed his mind on this one, but is now no different than the rest of the yahoo wing of the Republican Party who would prefer to listen to paid shills with science degrees hired by Big Oil than 95% of the world's legitimate climatologists with no ax to grind.
But, don't worry, Jordan, you'll have another chance to become enthusiastic for Ron Paul again in 2016, when he runs for President for the fourth time. That is, if he's still alive.
In other words, he's trying to condemn Obama for not doing what he says can't be done. Typical Teapublican logic.
But Romney is wrong on both accounts. The Government can create jobs simply by hiring people to do useful work, and the Obama administration has done that.
Nerm
NOT EXACTLY. Palin stopped short of endorsing Gingrich. Why?
Let's look at her statement closer - she is a lot smarter than you give her credit for. Newt, Perry and Santorum are conservatives she could support. Here words say so. Can't be Ron Paul because of his legalize drugs and confoundedly naive foreign policy IS NOT conservative OR tea party.
She has unbelievable political smarts. She can let her favorite emerge and if they don't emerge, she can still endorse Gingrich OR Endorse a Trump run OR Jump in the race herself can't rule this lady our, she's jumped in late before - and won.
The first problem is stop the Romney winning streak at North Carolina. Based on some rumblings 1/4th the way through the certification, that win streak might only be ONE! Stopping Romney at North Carolina, would give one of the three conservatives (hopefully her choice) to emerge.
Romney's strategy is similar approach as Obama, be a gentler good looking fellow who smiles nice and speaks well, while practicing a gentlemanly vicious scorched earth policy. If he doesn't bag this nomination quickly, he will lose to either Newt, Perry, or Santorum.
Perry wasted his early good will by jumping in without being fully prepared making him look bad. I don't think the conservatives are willing to wait for him to rally. He probably will drop out after South Carolina. He is low on funds and although improving with the debates, I think he should retire and support Santorum or Gingrich who are clearly better prepared.
If not Gingrich then that leaves Santorum. Six weeks ago, Santorum was well below the MLB Mendoza line in popularity. I left Pennsylvania about the time he started in the house. My impression of him was too conservative. Since I too didn't strongly like the choices, I like many other republicans looked lower in the pile of volunteers. I've taken the time to research the objections raised by people and found they have less real facts to support them than guilt by association and assertions by people with few rather skewed facts to support them.
I've looked at most of the polls. His numbers have rocket quickly from nothing to possible contender. He has had no bad performances in any of the debates. His rise is costing Gingrich leaving a rather tepid support of Romney seem stronger than he really is. If time is afforded to Santorum, his rise will pass Romney in another month.
I cannot fully guage Trump, but I think that he will run as an independent against Romney, provided Trump think he will win OR If he sees Romney be uncertain of beating - and not conservative enough.
The king pin is Palin. She will feel the pressure to jump in if Romney wins both South Carolina and Florida. She has more pull with people than Gingrich and Romney combined. She would beat Romney. Not only that, but Palin entering the fray would eliminate the possibility of Trump runing as an Independent.
The people on here make me chuckle. They are so worried about the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist. They are nothing. Should the Republicans unite under one conservative, Obama will not win, especially if it it the right one.
Go Newtie, go! The hiss from the Republican presidential candidate vacuum is getting deafening. Isn't there somebody out there better than Mickey Mouse?
@Marowitz
You are confused, Rick Santorum is the 'evangelical' Christian candidate of choice.
Rick Perry is the wannabe Christian candidate.
Ron Paul is the 'defend the constitution' & 'balance the budget' guy.
Remember to wear your tinfoil hat when watching the debates, you must be hearing voices no one else is.
R estore
O ur
N ation
P rotect
A merica
U nderstand
L iberty
DB Akron, unbelievable political skills? The same political skills that demanded she resign as Governor of Alaska? Palin's greatest skill is counting her money. She will hold the Newt up until she gets a better offer from Mittens. Much like a high-priced hooker.
I agree with DB. Truth be told, I like Sarah Palin a lot more on Fox than I did running for VP. Sarah does not always agree with the other schmucks on Fox.
It makes her seem half-intelligent.
@DB Akron -- Well thought out but I disagree. It appears that the struggle in the GOP is between establishment - party of Reagan - Republicans and 'new' Republicans. I do agree that the real struggle is behind the scenes - not really between the candidates. Palin is too schizophrenic to play that large a role. Is she a 'new' Republican or is she a Reagan Republican? I believe she is working to give the 'new' Republicans some respectability within the party - trying to play a moderating role. If that is the case, she cannot be that large a force in this cycle. She will have to play nice with everyone.
The 2012 election is not really about the presidential race - I think the establishment Republicans have written that off. Why would the Republicans want one of their guys in the White House before the economy has really tanked? I doubt the establishment Republicans want one of their own to take 'credit' for what's coming out of Europe and the coming recession in China. I imagine that Chris Christie was advised to wait for the next train.
The real race is for the Senate. The GOP want to regain control of both the House and the Senate. The 'new' Republicans in the House have made that more difficult. That is why Romney has always been the nominee. Romney is about attracting independents to vote for Reagan Republican Senators and Romney can lose gracefully. The 'new' Republicans have hurt the GOP brand - its like having to explain Goldwater all over again.
The way I see it - nominate Santorum or Gingrich - give up the Senate aspirations and possibly lose the House. Nominate Romney - possibly regain the Senate and keep the House. From my perspective, the White House is the unimportant race during this cycle.
It is really surprising how much damage the TEA Party has done to the Republicans.
Thanks for the reply Micheal, but the only cons you stated about Ron Paul, don't even come close to the cons that the other candidates have. You have to remember this is American politics you are discussing..We don't look for the best candidate, we look for the lesser of all evils. Ron Paul is the most trusworthy candidate out of any of the rest. The others are just rich snobs that are extremely money hungry. Look no further than their bank accounts. They want us to all think they're supermen. And they are smart I'll give them that, but they are smart at gaining money for the big companies they run, and themselves. They don't even seem to trust us citizens and look at themselves as more than just a regular citizen, which in turn means less power to the people. People like Romney think the feds need to completely take over and babysit all of us and take all our rights away in order to restore the economy (that, or for their own self-centered power).
So you can talk bad of Ron Paul, but think about the other candidates..And think again. Do you REALLY want someone like Mitt Romney in office? Gingrich? any of the rest? I'm sorry but to me this is just a no brainer.
Michael when life begins is a scientific question. When life is far enough developed to be regarded as a person is philosophical. You cannot deny that a fetus is alive. How is it you can complain about Ron Paul's religious views when the frontrunner is an even more extreme Christian? You also complain that he wants states to ban abortions. When Paul says he wants states to decide things for themselves, he means it. The result being that personally he doesn't agree with abortion, but that he understands it is not his decision. Is it so hard to understand that there are people who respect the rights of those they disagree with? He is the opposite of someone who wishes to have his will imposed on others. This is the foundation of libertarianism.
The leading Republican by a large margin Mitt the chit has an approval rating nation wide of 35% and a disapproval rating of 53%. 99% of this country is not rich and it shows in thesew figures. You could take the best of this lot and not be able to make a good candidate. This is what you get when the entire party is just a bunch of yes men for one segment of our society.
The talk of Palin entering late and potentially winning has nothing to do with reality. You first have to have your name on the ballot - ask Santorum, Gingrich, Perry about that as they will not be on the Viriginia ballot. While the rules for getting on the ballot vary from state to state a majority of them have already closed their ballots for additional candidates. At best she could compete in the caucus states where Ron Paul is placing his bets and has strong grass root organizations in place.
I think the latest news on Romney is potentially going to be the most problematic, how much money does he have outside the country, and has he paid taxes on it. I don't think large portions of the working class are going to support a candidate who pays a tax rate much below their rate, and has potentially avoided paying tax on significant amounts of money earned here in the US.
Perry's campaign is dead after South Carolina. Santorum will continue to siphon off the religious wing nuts, Gingrich will do well with both economic and social conservatives, Paul will continue getting the "libertarian" vote (although his religious conservatism, makes him not a true libertarian), a true libertarian would not want the government in our doctors offices or in our wombs). Romney's money will continue to get him the votes of those who see him as the least objectional, given the smears his money is able to pour into attack ads against his competitors. Even if Romney wins South Carolina, it will be a squeaker. That will leave open the possibility that the Republicans won't have a candidate with sufficient delegates to win a first ballot nomination at the convention, then all bets are off.
I need to correct my previous post, I meant to write, I have NOT watch soap operas. I rarely watch TV in the daytime. Honest, I don't watch soaps. I don't even use soap. Well, that's not true but it IS true, about soap operas. Actually, I could probably watch a soap today and it would be still about some subject, that I saw when I did watch soaps. It worked days for years. I am too computer illiterate to have TeVo or what ever they call it. I don't know how to tape things on my VCR. Well actually, there are no more tapes. I really bothers me, my fellow liberals and Democratic colleagues, would think I watch soaps. So please, if you read my above post, put a 'not' in between have and watch.
Romney says: Government doesn't create jobs. It's the private sector that creates jobs.
Isn't the government (state, local and federal) the largest employer in America by a long shot?
Romney's problem is not just that he pays taxes at 15% and has proposed changing the tax system to cut his already low tax rate in half, his problem is that he is a compulsive liar that is NOT LIKABLE.
"Government doesn't create jobs."
This is one talking point that has outworn it's truthiness....It's a LIE!
Since when is the Presidency, a private sector job? Since when is the entire Congress, private sector?
So why can't Governors collect Unemployment insurance while in office?
With about 2.0 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service, and the Military, is the Nation's largest employer.
followed by...
1. Wal-Mart 1,800,000
2. McDonald's 447,000
3. United Parcel Service 407,000
4. Sears Holdings 355,000
5. Home Depot 345,000
6. Target 337,000
7. IBM 329,373
8. General Motors 327,000
9. General Electric 316,000
10. Citigroup 303,000
So if you factor in state governments, Government is the largest Employer in America By FAR!!!
With about 2.0 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service, and the Military, is the Nation's largest employer.
Why exclude the Postal Service and the Military? I guess the Postal Service is it's own entity, sort of, but it is subject to the whims of Congress. But the Military?
Military spending, even if you don't count the cost of the actual military service member's pay, creates thousands of jobs in all fifty states. That is one of the reasons cutting military spending is so difficult.
The government doesn't create jobs talking point has me really confused. Whenever I point out all those civil service positions, the response is deafening silence. I have yet to have someone explain to me why that talking point is valid.
The government creates jobs?
Moonbats have the same view of their all powerful Nanny State Government, that an infant has when nursing...the government teat is endless and free...
Why not become Marxist, where the government creates all jobs? Good idea, right, clueless moonbats?
I have yet to have someone explain to me why that talking point is valid.
And you won't, because it is not.
Another talking point that needs closer scrutiny: Regulation kill jobs. No they don't, at least, not always. In fact, they tend to create jobs in many cases.
nisl, I'm a critic of Obama, so according to Newsweek I'm dumb.
Could you explain how regulations create jobs? Then tell me who pays for those jobs?
Leave it to the left wing nut jobs to say the government creates jobs because they are the biggest employer. The phrase "Government doesn't create jobs", refers to, and always has, the creation of jobs in the private economy. I don't know why that is so hard for the left to figure out.
nisl - please tell me how regulations tend to create jobs, other than political government jobs such as this joke just created by Obama for more oversight on financial institutions?
I'm a critic of Obama, so according to Newsweek I'm dumb
Actually that is not what the Newsweek article said. I know you will never read the article though, it might pierce the epistemic closure bubble you live in. I'm not saying you aren't dumb, I've seen no evidence of that. I'm just saying that that is not what the article said. You do know headlines aren't written by the author's of the pieces they are attached to, right?
Could you explain how regulations create jobs?
Sure, when a new regulation goes in place people need to be hired to fulfill the obligation the regulation addresses. This, sometimes, requires additional staffing on behalf of both regulators and the regulated.
Then tell me who pays for those jobs?
Well that depends. But the LACK of regulation can end up costing a great deal more than the cost of implementing and enforcing a new regulation. For an example see the year 2008.
I should have said deafening silence or just plain idiotic responses that mean absolutely nothing.
That's why spending cuts cost jobs. Every time government spending is cut, many workers lose their jobs. That's one of the reasons spending cuts are not the solution for the economy. Any real solution needs to include both spending cuts and revenue increases. No Republican is suggesting anything that includes revenue increases.
I knew you would wimp out on who pays.
WE PAY nisl. If I by a product that requires extra cost to manufacture with more people to implement that regulation, the cost is passed on to us.
If the governemnt hires more people to enforce those regulations OUR taxes pay for those jobs
Over regulation Bankrupts the Private Sector.
You guys will never EVER get it.
WE PAY nisl. If I by a product that requires extra cost to manufacture with more people to implement that regulation, the cost is passed on to us.
And we pay when the lack of regulation means we have to spend trillions bailing out our banking system because of a lack of regulation. For an example see 2008 and also too the Savings and Loan crisis of the eighties.
Hi Sarge,
I thought that Government created jobs in the private sector by passing legislation that was favorable for business to expand and by engaging in trade agreements that expanded businesses and jobs in the US.
Not all work out as planned as they are weighted against many other factors including lobbyists.
Let me get this straight - the government is the biggest employer and creates jobs.
So then we should be able to fix this pesky little unemployment problem real quick - have the government simply hire all the unemployed.
I mean it has already 'created' all those existing jobs, a few more ought to be easy.
Plus the whole broken window analogy is great. Vandals break a window, store owner has to hire company to fix - BAM win, win.
Sure it is, except the store owner was scrapping by, to to get the money to fix the windo he had to lay off an employee.
Shoot, maybe the Fire departments can just go out and set some fires, or maybe a big natural disaster is what we need.
The government takes money from one source and gives it to another. That's really all it does.
At least I got somewhat of a response. Now what do you call it when the government elects to build a fighter plane and hires Boeing to design and build it? Is that government creating private sector jobs or something else?
Get this WCA - Cali, got love it, and regulations in general.
My motor home generator had a gummed up carb. Low speed jet clogged. Was in shop for other work so I told them to fix. The fix of course takes about 1/2 hour, pulling jet and running a wire through it. Total cost - about $50.
But the big brains in Cali have made it against the law to take apart a carb. So the only fix is to replace it - $490, plus labor.
Thank god I can do it myself, but WTF?
The government takes money from one source and gives it to another. That's really all it does.
The government makes sure our food is not poisonous
The government makes sure our cars don't explode when rear ended
The government makes sure we aren't at the whims of criminals
The government takes care of the infrastructure we use to make a living
The government protects us from foreign threats
The government stops airplanes from colliding in the air
The government gives us justice when we have been wronged
The government does so many things and makes our lives better in so many ways it is impossible to list them all.
There are countries with little to no regulations. Somalia comes to mind. If you want to move to one of those countries I doubt America will miss you.
That's awesome Spanky.
Re-building a carb was a right of passage for most of the guys I grew up with.
I lived in Irvine for about 7 months last year and was shocked at all the reg's.
Found out that if I wanted to register my less than 1 year old car in California, I would have to pay California Sales tax on a car that I bought in Michigan 9 months earlier!
Decided not to register it.
Yep, it's an absolute Liberal Utopia out there.
spanky - what you failed to understand is this. In an economy, government, the masses and coporations makes up the tripod stand for economy thrive.
Presently, the masses and corporation are both coming short in spending hence the govt. must spends. Imagine a scenario where there's nobody spending no commerce activities enough to create demand........that's a recipe for economic collapse.
You guys fall in line with politicians, who govt. created their jobs, to detest govt. without actually thinking. These politicians financiers on WS got bailed out by who.....GOVERNMENT. I guess government is good for some people.
nisl let me just pull one of those statements:
the government makes sure our cars don't explode when they are rear ended.
Now I know you are talking about Pinto's from the 70's, but hey it's 2012 dude (dudette?).
If ford had continued to build cars that exploded when hit in the rear, the market would have taken care of it without any regulation.
See people won't buy cars when they think they might get blowed up.
Think about Toyota and sticky accelerators. It didn't take any extra regulations to get them to fix that problem, because people stopped buying their cars.
They fixed it VERY PUBLICLY, so everyone knew it had been fixed and now they are back to selling cars.
That is how it is suppose to work.
If ford had continued to build cars that exploded when hit in the rear, the market would have taken care of it without any regulation.
And yet for decades health insurance companies have killed (ok, that is a bit hyperbolic, but not much) people by claiming they have pre-existing conditions once they got sick and cutting off their insurance. The market did nothing.
The invisible hand of the market routinely gives Americans the middle finger.
You forgot to mention that he's a rich plastic flip-flopper.
I loved your comment, nisl.
Those who think the absence of government is utopia are wrong.
The absence of government is anarchy.
kaybeetoys - I love your name, are you one of Mitt's victims?
nisl - Regulation means GOP and their lazy cheap cronies have to actually think of how to make things better. Regulation brings about innovation. If they hate regulation this much, why don't they all move China.
So then we should be able to fix this pesky little unemployment problem real quick - have the government simply hire all the unemployed.
Haven't you heard that's exactly what Jessie jackson Jr. proposed this past week. And he thinks they should get paid 40K per year.
Brilliant!
Gee, that's tough, Spank... but you do still believe in state's rights don't you? Or would it be better if the Federal government dictated the laws for every state?
The beauty of America is that if you don't like the way things are in your state, you can do one of two things: work to change the legislation or move to another state.
What the heck are you doing in California???
Goodness gracious, yes, indeed ....
Those teat-sucking army, navy, airforce, marines, coast guard, police, highway patrol, sheriffs, firefighters, EMTs, public health nurses, doctors, highway engineers, road crews, scientists, astronauts, disease-fighting scumsuckers, teachers, college professors, and librarians.
Just to name a few.
Have you sucked your teat today, bobby? And how does FAUX milk taste, anyway?
Pen - I'm no expert on China, but I'd bet they regulate many things.
Somalia is a better fit for our right wing brethren. Actually I seem to recall the Northern Marianas Islands being held out by Republicans as a "Free Market Dream." I'd pull up some quotes but quotes are a tad hard to get with so many websites offline today.
The "Free Market Dream" that is the Northern Marianas Islands is marked by forced abortions and sexual slavery. I guess that is the free market at work.
I am nobody's victim, least of all Mitt's... but thanks for asking.
Interesting comment on the Northern Marianas. I have lived there and it is as you say.
Guess who they're saying hasn't been "vetted" now?
Why is Mitt Romney Still the Least Vetted GOP Candidate?
Through it all, he has left few fingerprints and kept his own record largely unexamined. It’s now apparently up to ABC’s Jake Tapper to do the oppo research that all of the other GOP candidacies should have done a long time ago. Tapper comes up with three strong arguments to launch at Romney, which to date none of his opponents have launched: That as governor he offered free cars to welfare recipients, that early releases for inmates serving life terms peaked under his governorship, and that RomneyCare offered free abortions. Tapper also tosses in an argument that Romney made it more expensive to own a gun in his state. Add that up plus Romney’s tax hike and RomneyCare you have a very vulnerable record.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/18/why-is-mitt-romney-still-the-least-vetted-gop-candidate/
@sfret who says......"The phrase "Government doesn't create jobs", refers to, and always has, the creation of jobs in the private economy. I don't know why that is so hard for the left to figure out."
Gee whiz!.....Maybe you should ask all the big Government Contractors (Private Companies on the take). Yup, private economy financed by Federal dollars. You can start with Dick Cheneys Halliburton.
dangerfield - Consider the source.
That as governor he offered free cars to welfare recipients
Wait, what? That can't be right, that doesn't pass the sniff test. I'm no fan of Romney, robots freak me out and I'm always worried he will start screeching like a Dalek, but there is no way he offered free cars to welfare recipients, is there?
Okay, so I looked it up and this is what it said:
In 2006, Romney started a program to provide welfare recipients without access to public transportation with free cars. The idea was to provide them with a way to get to work so they could eventually get off welfare.
The cars were donated by charities, while Massachusetts taxpayers funded — as the Boston Herald reported in 2009 — “repairs, registration, insurance, excise tax, the title and AAA membership for one year.”
Romney’s Department of Transitional Assistance started the program, officially called “Transportation Support,” and nicknamed “Welfare Wheels” by the Boston Herald.
Could someone please tell me how Romney is a viable candidate for today's GOP? Because this sure sounds like something Republicans would make up about Democrats in an effort to make them look bad.
@Dangerfield - I will also take one right out the republican handbook of asinine politics: "Show me the birth certificate". I mean after all, he looks, I dunno .. a bit English.
@Chilled - be vewy, vewy, quwiet. Some conservatives posters scream to high-heaven when you touch their private talking parts, er I mean points.
@ Nisl I can't believe you said that with a straight face that China regulates things given all the safety recalls. The only thing they regulate is what comes into their country not what goes out.
While we seem to do it exactly the other way around.
Must have been a typo in the trade agreements.
ksw62118 - China is, sort of, a communist country. I'm no expert on China, like I said, but my guess is communist countries do quite a bit of regulation. They may not regulate the things other countries regulate, but they do regulate. For instance, speech is regulated in China. That is a pretty big one, don't you think?
Or are you saying communist countries are safe haven for free enterprise? Because I don't think you are right on that one.
Or maybe you are saying China is more of a dictatorship than a communist country?
[nisl, I'm a critic of Obama...]
WhiteCollarCriminal, I'm shocked...after all President Obama has done for you?
You should be thanking him for bailing out "your" industry...and possibly "your" job.
...OK, now...say it with me, WCA:
THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA!
There, that's a good boy...that wasn't so hard, now was it...
Actually, RedevPS, a week or so ago, I recall seeing an article about Mitt's family moving to Mexico to practice polygamy. I believe it mentioned that Mitt's father was born there. I think that is enough doubt that I won't feel comfortable with him until I see a birth certificate (not that I'd be comfortable with him in any respect).
By that same (lack of) logic, one could claim that "private enterprise doesn't create jobs" because those jobs are not in the public sector.
When someone hires a person to do useful work, that is "creating a job". It doesn't matter whether that "someone" is an individual, part of a corporation, or part of the Government, it's still "creating a job", it still provides a paycheck, and it still produces useful work.
That's one of those theories that sounds great, but doesn't quite work in practice. The key is to put people to work doing useful things, and there is a limit to how much useful work the Government can do without intruding onto businesses. Government may be the biggest employer, but it does have it's limits! It would be so much better if we could persuade business executives to hire more people to do useful work, but all too often they just "offshore" the jobs instead.
Speaking as a Democrat, this is beyond enjoyable!
Enjoy it while you can Amy.
It's gonna get ugly for Obama come summer time.
The media may actually have to start looking at his record and the state of his economy..
White Collar,
By summer time, the state run media will go off in a frenzy on Mitt Romney's wealth. All envy and class hatrred, all the time. And Mormonism will be a hot topic for the anti-religion bigoted Left.
The media will do contortions to avoid mentioning the obvious Obama radicalism and economic disaster.
Nonetheless, the voters will properly punish the failed President by voting him out on his arse.
Is it ever Amy, and the latest I heard, the big dogs have been called in, the former Gov. Sununu is on his way to S.C. with instructions to make Newt's life miserable. Guess the Romney crew are getting a little nervous about ol' Newt.
As Feisty would say, bring on the popcorn.
More strange talking points. One minute, media is corporate owned, now it is state run. The left is anti-religion? Odd considering almost all liberal posters have clearly stated they are religious.
I thought I smelled *popcorn*... lol
I could use some while listening to Boehner blubber on with his lies...
White Collar Auto
Enjoy it while you can Amy.
It's gonna get ugly for Obama come summer time.
The media may actually have to start looking at his record and the state of his economy..
====
I'm sorry, this is dumb. He is the President of the United States. No matter who that person is, everything they and the WH do is covered 24/7/365.
The only thing the President has to look forward to this summer is new ways to say the same ol things:
'He hates America. I love America.'
'He thinks America is weak. I think America is strong.'
'He is a Neo-fascist Kenyan anti-Chiliean colonial marxist angler fisherman elitist. I am normal.'
Same ol, same ol.
don't forget he will continue to say this....
I won't allow half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren't paying their fair share.
Rob,
The half of Americans pay NO Federal income tax – not, NO taxes
When times were better just a few years ago, when more people had jobs and unemployment was close to 5% there were nearly one-third of Americans that did not pay any Federal income tax.
If you want to fix that then we need not only more but better paying jobs like we had before the outsourcing started 30 years ago.
started 30 years ago
seems to me that the only time unemployment stayed above 8.5% for three straight years is like now --- the obama years
If you want to fix that get rid of the real problem.....OBAMA
Dear WCA,
A large part of the problem with conservatives is that they want to divide the world and the country into US and THEM.
If you live in America, this is YOUR economy too. We all need to work together to restore health to our economy. The conservative strategy of going against everything Obama has tried to do has not helped anyone much, has it?
Join in helping. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Rob,
30 years ago manufacturing and exports were 3 times greater than they are today. That is one reason why it was much easier for President Reagan to reduce the unemployment – the world needed our products.
Now we are in a place where we need the product produced by other countries. I worked in manufacturing as a manager in the 80’s and 90's. I saw close up how jobs were being outsourced – I watched as our imports began to exceed our exports.
Our Government allowed tax credits to companies that expanded in other countries – stripping away our jobs and tax base.
Dennis - as Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men (regarding Rob) "You can't handle the truth!!! Rob will continue to believe the lies the far right spews. It's all he has!
Raab...
Ohhhh, you little lying piece of @!$%#...give it up, loser...you're not getting any more mileage out of this lie that Spanky, NoJo or Smiffy is...
...now go wash your mouth out with soap....
I would venture to guess that the Romney campaign's internal polls put Gingrich within striking distance. The difference between now and Iowa is the fact Newt is mad and is willing to fight back.
And as we have seen in the last debate, Mitts does have a weakness that the Grinch is angling to use....
It's gonna get nasty.....
It's gonna get nasty
I find it amusing that Republicans are shocked by how nasty Newt can be. Anybody who was paying attention during the 90s shouldn't be surprised. Nasty is what Newt does.
I'm not shocked at all, I'm old enough to remember the vicious fights over him as Speaker....
Nasty is what Newt does BEST!
He also has had a big infusion of cash Phine through his SuperPac and Mr. Adelson the casino mogul.
Indeed, the former Speaker not only wanted to beat the other side, he would go to great lengths to try and DESTROY whoever (no matter the party) was against him. Probably why he had little of his own party support during his ethics trials.
He is definitely a take no prisoners campaigner, AND Mitts is in his crosshairs!
This is the best thing in the campaign for Dr Paul.... (just like I predicted after Iowa, let the grinch destroy Mitts)
Newt's tactics towards the Clintons was the beginning of the descent into incivility that we have seen increasingly over the last 20 years.
the Clintonistas were the dirtiest, most incivil and crooked group of the 90's.
Man, just the way they treated all the women he sexually molested and/or harassed!
Chesty=sick
...I wonder if these guys should have a beer summit as well. Mitt looks like the 'less filling' and Gingrich the 'great taste' type...cause Gingrich appears he might not be as conscious about when he gets full...an assumption of course, only an assumption.
The perfect ad to attack Romney should be Romney himself in his own words
Lead off with Romney making the reference about himself being unemployed.
.Then Corporations are people too. (The people laughing HAHAHAHA)
Then the $10,000.00 bet
Then I like firing people
Then I was worried about getting a pink slip myself
Then I pay around 15% taxes
Then I received a small amount in speaking fees (with the total of $374,327.62 going across the screen)
Then If things aren't better in 3 years, I will be a one term President.
ooops, that was Obama.
How did you do on your Algebra test Job1?
He didn't say he shouldn't be President if things weren't done in 3 years. He stated if they weren't he'd be looking at the prospect of a 1 term Presidency in which he is. What had not happened yet when that statement was made was the process or lack of pending your perspective between the Congress and the WH.
In my opinion, if the American public strictly looks at 'results' he may well not be re-elected. But if they look at process/effort, my opinion is that the playing field is far more level, if not potentially, slightly in his favor.
The real question I have for a Romney Administration is what 'event' outside of the control of the US that derails the Romney economic growth plan and doesn't hit its job growth predicitions will and/or should be acceptable to the American public?
Once of the common talking points is consistently belittlling all of the events both domestic and abroad that have had significant impacts on the US that have happened during the President's tenure. Listening to the GOP, you'd think none of them should have had 1 iota of impact on the economic progress of the US.
I want to know what the Romney Administration would tell me when they leveled their first "excuse" as to why what they planned did not work out and why I should accept it from them, when they don't accept anything from this President?
How about the statement on the Senate floor in 2007: Increasing the debt ceiling shows a lack of leadership and burdens our children, therefore I can not vote to increase the debt ceiling. (or words to that effect by then Senator Barrack Obama.)
Allen:
[He didn't say he shouldn't be President if things weren't done in 3 years. He stated if they weren't he'd be looking at the prospect of a 1 term Presidency in which he is.]
You mean the WhiteCollarCriminal is...*GASP*...lying?
...of course he is...he's desperate...desperate people do desperate things...the bus is leaving the terminal and he forgot his bus pass...
Oh, and ask him why the U.S. auto industry can't put out a decent car...after all, he rails against the Volt and other fuel alternative vehicles, but, see, he's White Collar Auto...management, he is...or so he says.
sfcret, If you'll recall, that was before the economy tanked in 2008. When times are good, they shouldn't raise the debt ceiling (although they did every year Bush was President). When times are bad, it's a necessity. It would help, though, if the Repubs would allow a tax increase so we wouldn't have to increase it as much.
LA99999, Why is it a necessity to raise the debt ceiling when times are bad, why not reduce spending like most people and states have to? All you democrats want tax increases which would only go to more government spending. I have said several times that I am not against increasing revenue but only after cutting out unnecessary spending on failed projects, duplicate programs, fraud and waste. (You might want to refer to the GAO Report of Mar 2011).
BTW, you do know that the democrats controlled both houses of congress since 2007 - 2009, and it is congress that writes the tax and spending bills, not the President.
Mitt is on the run. On his Taxes, on his Bain days, on his Conservative street-cred, and now in the SC primary.
Newt will surge and SHOCK in SC, though he still probably won't win, but his SURGE will be spun as a win and he will have BIG MO' (and a couple less competitors) going into Florida...
Game on!
(Rick-Rick both drop out after Saturday)
The 2nd resurrection of the Newton (in two MONTHS!) is just another improbable occurrence in an unpredictable election year...
dangerfield,
Heard an interesting point from a pundit last night about Romney. The only time he stays cool and on message is when is fully prepped (like a debate) or giving his stump speech. If he is forced to go off the cuff, he always gets himself into trouble. I think this is what Newt is trying to do.
And many Republicans these days know Newt mostly from his job as a talking head on Fox News. That gives him conservative cred his record would deny him.
But the establishment will never allow Newt'r the win. Unless they become spooked by Romney's gaffes and panic, in which case there really is no telling what will happen.
We're in essence talking about 2 primaries in his back yard. If Gingrich has anything he'd better make his move soon. RCP average is Romney +17.2 in Florida.
Phine,
Absolutely girl, that is his modus, rapid fire until he sees the weakness and nails you till he breaks you wide open.
You ever wonder why he doesn't do this to Dr Paul?, Dr Paul stood on the side of Ronald, Newt only managed to stand in his shadow.
Egilman,
Dr. Paul, no matter what anyone thinks of his political views, has the "moxy" and temperament not to put up with Newt Gingrich.
Remember Merle Jeter (Dabney Coleman)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMgyfcG3J18
------------------------------------------------------------------
I dare anyone to watch this and not crack up!...
Yep, and he wouldn't want to be viewed as beating up on a little an old man, he's screwed whichever way he turns.
Egilman-
It's because Dr. Paul is on a crusade, more than a campaign, and Newton isn't after his supporters, not that he could sway them if he tried.
If Newton gets his 2 Republicans and one Libertarian race, and Mitt is FORCED to continue to debate, it could get a little wild and unpredictable, and we know who would be totally out of their element then....
yep once out of prepared statements Mitts is lost, just like in the last debate...
Like a little lost puppy....
Newt would survive without any problems in Dr Paul's world, he has enough brains to make the switch.
That sounds like the plot of a horror movie that would scare the Republican establishment into the next century.
The Puppet Masters will never allow mere voters to decide who wins the GOP nomination.
Can't wait to hear the right's reply to Mitt's teleprompter. I imagine there will be silence.
After weathering the shock from hearing Lawrence O'Donnell comment on Romney's speaking fees $374,000+ for nine speeches. I started to think very seriously about the worth of a speech. I mean honestly, most bank-robbers don't make that on a heist. I'm sure he is an intelligent man, but a blue-collar union worker would, and I'm sure of this, consider that pretty good pay for a five year period. What intelligent person or group would pay that kind of money for an hour long speech?
The answer; absolutely know no one. It is a chit, legal baksheesh, for future considerations for someone that could have great amount of power in the not-to-distant future. A gentleman's bribe; no written contract, just the familiar handshake with a gracious wink and a nod. All the power-brokers do it, and there is no law against pre-bribery. Another example; buying a piece of property for twice its true value from a sitting congressman. The legal problem there; a legitimate real value exists. Can you imagine what would happen to a politician that received 25 times the real value for his property? The backlash would be legal, ferocious, and immediate! I'll bet one could purchase documents having once belonged to Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln for less than $374,000. Think about that!
Good point Michael.
President Clinton is making Millions on his speaking tours.
What, exactly, do you think Obama will make when he leaves office per speech?
You sound jealous to me.
Are you insinuating that "our" elected officials can be bought? Shocking! Simply shocking I must say.
Nice points Michael. They are like pigs at the trough.
What does a one term, former Massachusetts governor have to say to a group that's worth paying him $374,000? I think you're onto something, Mr. McManus. "Legal baksheesh," indeed!
WCA,
Michaels point was that Mit and many others are getting those fees prior to being elected. We all know that even GW gets paid for speaking as shocking as that is.
The left really cracks me up with all this talk about Romney being rich and not paying his fair share of taxes and not holding a real job. I don't remember the left wing nuts talking about how much Senator Kerry was worth when running for President, or how he got his money (he married it), and he never did release his wife's tax returns.
President Obama never released his tax returns until Apr 2008, Romney said he would release his in April this year, so what's the big deal.
Amy, I believe the $374,000 was for 9 speeches not one. The money didn't come out of your pocket so why should you care how much he got? Just more left wing BS deflecting.
sfcret observes via one blind eye:
"The left really cracks me up with all this talk about Romney being rich and not paying his fair share of taxes and not holding a real job."
Last I checked, "this talk" originated and continues to be promulgated at an expansive rate largely by this group called Republicans. Republicans are commonly considered "the right", not the left.
You crack me up, sfcret.
Bill Clinton gets more for his boring speeches...even though he doesnt talk about his legendray sex life.
So cut the partisan faux outrage.
Gyortillicus - The republicans have every right to ask for his tax returns since it is a republican primary. The left I am referring to are the ones posting on MSNBC. You know, those that wouldn't vote for Romney for any reason, I guess they, like you, want to get their 2 cents in.
BTW, what do you feel is a fair share for anyone to pay in federal taxes? I keep asking the liberals what is a fair share and yet to receive an answer.
Smitty, it is not a cat fight, it is a duel. One person must go, no surrender, it is just a death duel, l am loving it to death, Our POTUS should not come in between, let no one come between the freight train and the next stop.
There he goes! Romney executing the kill money machine to garner another win to go up against president Obama. Romney, the multi-millionaire running for the presidency, said he pays 15% in taxes. The rich get richer, at the expense of the working class. Here' a multi-billionaire paying less(15%) than the average Joe who pay as much as 33%. It's legal, but the elitist TEA-GOP-Republican party will not raise taxes for any reason, but will raise taxes on every other Joe and say these rich guys will generate jobs. The Big Banks who have been saved by Joe are hoarding millions and millions and they haven't generated any jobs. This current Congress holds the economy hostage while the rich get richer. The concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people and the concentration of power in stricter, less compassionate hands of local, state and the federal government has colored the TEA-GOP-Republicans as the tormentors of the American dream. If you are tired of the extremist tactics and their confrontational attitude, Vote Democratic this year. That compensation is called "carried interest." Rather than being taxed as regular income -- rates on which go as high as 35% - carried interest is taxed at the much lower capital gains rate of 15%. The current and all previous Congress' are culpable for this in-equity in tax distribution favoring the wealthy. If you are tired of this, register and vote Democratic in November. Your vote does count!
And Romney's tax plan will benefit the rich and hurt the poor. And he wants to get rid of capital gains taxes altogether. Guess that 15% he has to pay is too much of a burden. And yet, although this is all public knowledge, people are still supporting him, and not just wealthy people. I can't understand how, with all the info that is out there on him, the only thing that is worrying the right is that he's a Mormon? I just don't get it.
Look out America! It is the "Clash Of The Clowns!" The "Romulian" is calling out his Political Birds Of Prey. Well what GOP Clowns are on "Nutty Newt's side?? Well it is "Nutty Newt" has "Puppet Palin," and "Darth Rove." AKA. Karl Rove. The "Romulian" has his Wall Street Banker/Investors friends ready to increase their donations. The Koch Brothers are ready to go with money to donate to the "Romulian." Sit back America, and watch these GOP "Cosmic Clowns" go at it poltically, economically, and culturally.
If Romney is scared of Gingrich, that does say much for President Romney.
Willard Romney is so full of hate, I don't see how he can sleep at night.
he count's sheeple that he hates...til he's fast a sleep...gives me the wooly's...think'n bout it...
Romney Launches attack on Gingrich, Gingrich Launches attack on Romney, Santorum launches attack on Romney, Romney launches attack on Santorum.... who the f u c k cares
Got to love conswervatives, first they love to yell that "government doesn't create jobs." When they finally stop, they condemn Obama because "he hasn't created jobs." Finally they say we should elect a conservative, because as president, they will "create more jobs." Too funny!
Dave great post, it's always the same, they want a smaller Government, just not when a Republican is President. Rewriting history is also a GOP game! And with a 24/7 faux noise, many people believe the tripe, it is mind boggling!
Good! About time he went after this jerk.
they're all jerk's...
Romney campaign launches offensive against Gingrich
Romney's already smug and offensive. Looks like a tie.
*sigh* So it's between these two? I don't like Gingrich because of his track record on relationships. I don't like Romney because he seems like a big phony. Really wish Huntsman would have had a bigger showing. Maybe next presidential election cycle.
sorry Aimee, but until the primary voters increase their intelligence, someone like Huntsman doesn't stand a chance. They have to vote for whomever they hear they are supposed to vote for. "Can't stand the guy, but the guy I like doesn't have a chance so I won't vote my conscience and will vote for the guy that stinks".
Feel the same way about Huntsman though. but it makes my November decision easy now.
If you don't give a damn about a candidate's moral ethos then by all means vote for Gingrich. I for one can NEVER vote for someone who serves divorce papers on his dying wife, I put that "family value" right up there with pedophile priests!
It boggles my mind how such a low life as Gingrich can even stand in front of a mirror much less a camera offering himself as our next President. That in itself vividly displays the total absence of moral fiber. This man is the lowest of the lowest, and actually should be serving a long stretch in a prison.
Are these guys the best that America has to offer as the next potential President? If so, I'm ready to puke! I have heard nothing of what they will do to straighten out this country's' problems, all they do is throw crap at each other like children. How in God's name can they stand to be in the same room with each other when the election is over....are they as phony as they appear. What a sad state of affairs.
Offensive? How about how he treats people less fortunate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEveeouWJ_Y
The Government can't hire EVERYBODY !!........only the minorities.
Remind us again JW ... how many Congressional & State & City & Local neocons and tea baggers are employed by Govt. ... especially those who were fired and / or couldn't make it in the private sector ... like Palin ?
She doesn't have to make it anywhere with people like you giving her all the attention she wants$. Good or bad publicity doesn't matter as long as it keeps her in the spotlight.
So now the right-wing mobs have a choice of which one is more offensive.
Answer: all right-wing candidates are offensive. One look at their "values" will tell you that.
Again Romney goes off.
When will people realize that when the politicians are against someone its a good thing.
The current establishment does not want someone in the oval office that would change the cush they have currently. The more they support Romney and critisize Newt, the more I lean towards newt. I would like to see a Newt and Paul ticket if it could happen.
The people need to choose the leader of this country not the current politicians. The first primaries should not choose who will be there rather all the states should have a say.
The system is fouled and we all just sit there and let it happen. Just say Baaaah!!!!
A group of children in a park can gather , pick teams and settle on the rules in order to play a game of football. Our Government cant stop making the rules. We havd a set called the constitution. Its time we started living by the rules and move on. Dont brag to me about how many laws you wrote this year. That just means your changing the rules again.
Our congress cant match the abilities of a bunch of kids.
Yet, I hear so much criticism of OWS. I'm not out there protesting, but I sure respect them for at least trying to change things. Unless you consider complaining to a bunch of other people who won't do a thing except complain back trying to change things, they're doing a lot more than the rest of us. Nothing's going to change until we make it happen.