January 12, 2012

The state of things: GOP presidential nominee edition

In light of our very heated (but very useful, I feel) recent discussion on the role of the voter — does he owe allegiance to himself of to a Party? should his vote be affirmative or act as a corrective by canceling out the impact of a negative? — I’d like to put into perspective what it is we’re debating over. And the best way to do that is to simplify things. To wit:

1. GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, by way of Bain Capital, in the past engaged in capitalism.
2. GOP presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have criticized this capitalism; creative destruction can hurt the folks, you see, and therefore needs to be more tightly regulated by the state. That is, the markets acting freely don’t always make everyone a winner, and so the government has to step in and fix that. What we need is less capitalism and more centralized planning. That is, more corporatism.
3. GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, in defending his past engagement in capitalism, explains defensively that his capitalism isn’t the icky kind of free-market capitalism that creates winners and losers (and that because it sometimes rewards risk must necessarily allow for failure), but rather that it is the kind capitalism that, by way of Bain Capital, is akin to Obama’s bailouts of the auto industry: administrative and executive usages of capital to save or create jobs, not simply to make money — and so the good kind of capitalism, the kind built on altruism and the health and vitality of a managed common weal, not self-interest or greed. Presumably like TARP. Or state-run health care!
4. GOP presidential Mitt Romney, the man who gave us socialized state health care, is therefore given an opening to position himself to the right of Gingrich and Perry, and his response is to deny he’s there, and to immediately retreat left.
5. GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum defends capitalism, defends Mitt Romney’s earlier engagement of capitalism on capitalist grounds (as opposed to Romney himself, who appealed for a defense to progressive corporatism), and yet the GOP establishment and its attendant media — as well as an increasing number of sober, pragmatic, “it’s time to rally behind a single candidate” members of the conservative base — tell us that it is Santorum who is unelectable, and throw their support behind the candidate who enacted state-run health care, and who can’t even defend his own engagement in capitalism without retreating to a progressive defense.
6. People in the comments here tell me that my insistence on not lending my positive allegiance to a progressive corporatist, should he win the GOP coronation, is tantamount to voting for the destruction of the country. Because, while Romney may be a progressive corporatist, at least he’s our progressive corporatist. And frankly, he’s the only electable Republican, Santorum being part of the extremist fringe who won’t appeal to moderates and independents. Who evidently are big on corporatism, and who mistrust capitalism.
7. Really. What the fuck?

You’re welcome.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:16am
76 comments | Trackback

Comments (76)

  1. look mittens has 12 delegates of the 1144 needed. face it its over.

  2. Re: #1, I heard Rush say that but it doesn’t quite compute, got a link?

  3. And Ron Paul! has 10. We’re doubly fucked.

  4. See yesterday’s Pethokoukis article, geoff. I blogged on it here.

  5. Hey Jeff, don’t you think it’s still kind of early in the day for that kind of

    Melodrama?

  6. That about sums it up for me, too, Jeff. Thanks much for the extra dose of depression this morning! ;)

  7. It’s not as depressing for me anymore, I’m starting to find it liberating. We’re still screwed but at least all the masks are coming off.

  8. Ok, Romney 20, Santorum 12, makes more sense. He had 12 just from Iowa and Santorum got 11 there.

  9. like a vulture he hunted

  10. Sorry 13 from Iowa.

  11. Hey, could someone in marketing explain this to me? It’s just not possible. He’s not the electable type. Too weird.

  12. Vulture Capitalism. It’s not for the faint of heart.

  13. My sis sent this, so I assume it’s going around, hence, apologies for the redirection:

    TOM BRADY, GOD, AND TEBOW

    Tom Brady, after living a full life, died. When he got to heaven, God was showing him around. They came to a modest little house with a faded Patriots flag in the window. “This house is yours for eternity Tom, said God. “This is very special; not everyone gets a house up here.” Tom felt special, indeed, and walked up to his house.

    On his way up the porch, he noticed another house just around the corner. It was a huge 3-story mansion with Orange and Blue sidewalks and drive ways, a 50 foot tall flagpole with an enormous Broncos logo flag waving, a swimming pool in shape of a horse, a Broncos logo in every window, and a Tim Tebow jersey on the front door.

    Tom looked at God and said “God, I’m not trying to be ungrateful, but I have a question. I was an all-pro QB, I won 3 Super Bowls, and I even went to the Hall of Fame.”

    God said “So what’s your point Tom?”

    “Well, why does Tim Tebow get a better house than me?”

    God chuckled, and said “Tom, that’s not Tim’s house, it’s mine.”

  14. Hey, could someone in marketing explain this to me? It’s just not possible. He’s not the electable type. Too weird.

    I don’t really get 5the premise. The fucker is a flat out baller. Even Lady Gaga said so, and she’s from the happyfeet galaxy.

  15. Pingback: Rick Santorum Distances Himself From Newt’s Lefty ‘Hit Job’ on Mitt Romney : The Other McCain

  16. #14:
    I’ve heard that same joke, only with Favre in his GB jersey and God is a Vikings fan.

    This was Favre pre-Vikings, pre-self-beclowing, obviously.

  17. Our press and pundits can with much effort both make things up out of whole cloth and completely cover things up but both of these are hard to do and harder to sustain as time goes on. The much easier path is to be very selective in what is reported in a major way and how it is reported.

    Every candidate makes mistakes, mis-statements, gaffs, flubs, has things done in their past that can be spun in ways to hurt them and their campaign. No candidate is perfect, but selective reporting can make any of them close to perfect if desired or make them a pariah.

    In the previous thread I linked a piece at Slate which saw the Republican primary of 2012 as a repeat of 2008. Because he is a member of the class which drives the similarities the author doesn’t perceive that what he is writing on is a not happenstance, not a coincidence, but the result of a conscientiously followed strategy. One which went back, in the run-up to 2008, to 2006 and “macaca” which took out George Allen who was at that time considered to be a serious conservative candidate for the 2008 presidential run.

    It is not just the left leaning media who work this strategy. The establishment elite of the Republicans caught on to it and use the selectivity also. they weren’t as active in 2008 but are fully engaged this time around.

    The “George Allens” of 2012 were Palin and Daniels. The Slate piece details the rest of the “Groundhog Day” scene. Until the press power to do this selective reporting and flood the media with the same story spun the same way on each candidate is broken we will always have this message come up each election. “It is happening again.”

  18. Pingback: God Bless Jeff Goldstein « The Cranky Conservative

  19. good analysis geoff. I agree with Palin being the Allen of this cycle; not so sure about Daniels who I think took himself out in an unforced error.

  20. Oh. Just remembered as I hit “submit” the media telegraphed that they were going to go after his wife, their divorce and remarriage. Never mind. You’re right.

  21. Breaking: Andrew Sullivan does NOT approve of the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.
    http://twitter.com/sullydish

    So, well, the GOP is on notice.

    Maybe.

  22. Ernst that and and saw the “truce” and how it was spun as another “macaca” moment.

  23. Well, the good news is that we’ve moved up from visigoths to haters. Williamson had a great article recently and to see him miss the mail on this so completely is a shame.

    It is between those Republicans who disagree with Barack Obama, believing his policies to be mistaken, and those who hate Barack Obama, believing him to be wicked. ….President Obama is not a revolutionary Bolshevik; he is a conventional liberal of a very familiar kind.

    BHO is not evil, and he’s not incompetent. He believes in a vision of America that looks like Europe. We believe in a vision of Exceptional America, the last best hope for liberty on Earth: a democratic republic, the rule of law, equality before the law, the Enlightment ideals of the American Revolution, free markets, free minds, all those hateful concepts.
    Can we at least have an honest argument from our putative allies?

  24. i’m pretty sure he’s evil

  25. You and I disagree about the “truce” as a “macaca” moment. Except perhaps in that both Daniels and Allen proved unable to explain themselves and what they meant. But again I think we would interpret that inability in different ways.

    For what it’s worth, I’d probably vote for Daniels, had he run and were he the last man standing.

  26. Evil or incompetent? I prefer to think of leftists as an infestation of cockroaches in a house where the residents are too cheap to call an exterminator.

  27. If Obama were a socialist activist instead of a socialist idealist, Williamson might have more than a partial point.

    And Obama “revolutionary Bolshevik” or “conventional Liberal of a very familiar kind”? is a false dichotomy.

  28. Pingback: Santorum Defends Mitt’s Work At Bain / Mitt Does Not Defend Mitt’s Work At Bain « The Camp Of The Saints

  29. Meet the three billionaires who could drag out the GOP presidential primary, bloody up front-runner Mitt Romney and weaken the odds of defeating President Barack Obama: Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess and Jon Huntsman, Sr.

    Do you think Politico is really worried about weakening the challenger to Obama? Or is it that they have Romney set up for the Geek role and they don’t want to re-write the script?
    Plus, weaken the odds?

  30. The funniest part of the joke at #14 was Tom Brady getting in to heaven. srsly, I lol’d

  31. The only “electable” candidate forced people to buy insurance, even if they didn’t want or need it.

    Remember, thanks to Mittens, anyone earning over 150% of the federal poverty level and not eligible for Medicaid MUST purchase a STATE MANDATED minimum level of health insurance.

    Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was DEEMED AFFORDABLE FOR THEM lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, penalties increased by monthly increments.

    Still electable? Still want me to vote for this shithead? Take One For The Team?

    Fuck You.

  32. A warning to the GOP: “I heard those words, ‘cradle of leadership.’ Well, when the bough breaks, the cradle will fall. And it has fallen here, it has fallen! Makers of men, creators of leaders — be careful what kind of leaders you’re producing here”

  33. According to Benjamin Wiker, in The Servile State Hilaire Belloc posited that there were “two fundamental kinds of socialist reformers, what we might call the activist and the dreamer.”

    The activist “regards the public ownership of the means of production (and the consequent compulsion of all citizens to work under the direction of the state) as the only feasible solution of our modern social ills,” [Belloc wrote] so that he will “begin by demanding the confiscation of the means of production from the hands of their present owners, and the vesting of them in the state” (140-41). General Motors can’t handle it’s own affairs [Wiker observes]. The banks can’t handle their own affairs. The government must buy them out and do things right. But the activist at least works from a kind of charity. “He is out to substitute for capitalist society a society in which men shall all be fed, clothed, housed, and in which men shall not live in perpetual jeopardy of the housing clothing and food” (142).
    The dreamer on the other hand, “loves the collectivist ideal in itself,” and “does not pursue it so much because it is a solution of modern capitalism, as because it is an ordered and regular form of society which appeals to him in itself. He loves to consider the ideal of the state in which land and capital shall be held by public officials who shall order other men about and so preserve them from the consequences of their vice, ignorance and folly” (144). [ital. orig., bold emph. add., the implication here being that there's no one to save other men from the "vice, ignorance and folly" of public officials —E.S.] He is not truly moved by injustice and human suffering. Rather, he hates the messiness of actual people, the inefficiency of real liberty, and the genuine complexity of human social life. The local yokels should, for their own good, submit to the bureaucratic experts [emph. added]. “Tables, statistics, an exact framework for life—these afford him the food that satisfies his moral appetite; the occupation most congenial to him is the ‘running’ of men: as a machine is run.” Such a man loves abstract order, not real human beings.

    All that human and organic complexity which is the color of any vital society offends him by its infinite differentiation. He is disturbed by multitudinous things; and the prospect of a vast bureaucracy wherein the whole of life shall be scheduled and appointed to certain simple schemes deriving from the coordinate work of public clerks and marshaled by powerful heads of departments gives his stomach a final satisfaction (145).

    (Wiker, 10 Books, 187-88) Quotations within the blockquoted passage are from Belloc, Servile State. Wiker’s footnotes indicated by parenthetical page numbers.

    If that doesn’t describe Obama, I don’t know what does.

    Somebody ought to ask Santorum if he’s read Belloc’s Servile State and if so, how it informs his understanding of capitalism. His answers would be interesting with regard to the whole market regulatin’ social engineerin’ Big Government conservative charge. Hopefully that’ll be taken for the observation it was meant to be instead of for special pleading on behalf of Santorum,

    but I’m a realist.

  34. Aw, c’mon, I didn’t say Santorum was part of the “extremist fringe” – I said he was a god-bothering, dorky-looking policy dweeb. Bill Clinton in a sweater vest. Totally different.

  35. What the GOP has done with Romney is basically dusted a turd with sugar. When we turn up our noses at their offered confection, the GOP says, “What’s wrong with you Tea Party types?!? You said you wanted sugar, and now you won’t eat the sugar! You’re unreasonable and extreme!”

    (Thanks to R. S. McCain for the blatently stolen imagery)

  36. I think an under-appreciated part of this argument is that everyone gets to vote in private without peer repercussions for that choice. If you weigh your options and then personally find that Obama is a sui generis threat above and beyond all other considerations… you get to vote that way. Further, you’d be safe to assume that a large number of the right will do likewise with little external prompting.

    However, waving that like a flag and arguing it vocally when we’re still selecting his opponent hinders the effort to select someone better than the standard lesser evil to oppose him.*

    (Jeff has stated this more explicitly lately, but I think it’s worth mentioning again.)

    *Yes, we need better than a lesser evil pretty damn quickly or none of this matters one bit but that’s already been stated in a variety of ways.

  37. Those are the candidates that will show up in the primaries. You are all more than capable of choosing who you want without needing the guidance of some pundit. Make your choice. Or don’t. (Which is a choice in itself.)*

    Do not forget the races for the smaller offices; those offices are where people get training for the bigger offices. Choose good people. Hold them accountable.

    *I’m still holding out for Zeeba the syphilitic camel to jump into the race.

  38. It’s not as depressing for me anymore, I’m starting to find it liberating. We’re still screwed but at least all the masks are coming off.

    I tend to agree, but I’m still depressed because even with the masks off not enough people are paying attention to the ugliness those masks were hiding.

  39. I gotta say – this place has always been gold, but it’s double-gold dipped in a thick layer of dark chocolate today. Outstanding reading.

  40. Somewhere along the line, probably back with Aaron Burr and the foundation of Tamany Hall, the parties forgot that they work for us, we don’t work for them. Sometime around FDR, this apparently became SOP.

    Need to fix that.

  41. If “None Of The Above” were a choice for POTUS on the ballot, I think it would get more votes than Obama or the inevitable candidate.

    It would get mine, at least.

  42. “…or none of this matters one bit…”

    There is a distinct possibility that this is already the case. But why? Because as to any particular politician, lousy, middling, slightly better or outstanding, the significance to the whole polity is as the mass of the grain of sand to the mass of ol’ Sol. In a word, it’s the people that matter. And here, the people may be found wanting.

  43. That’s entirely possible, sdferr. (Probable?)

    However, one holds out hope for some great communicators who could plant some seeds of revival. Or, as it’s sometimes said, help people help themselves. (Educate people to educate themselves?)

    Under our form of government, yes, it is always us. But, us has always included leaders and catalysts who can stir greater numbers. Still does, hopefully.

  44. There is, I agree (I must agree) the certain possibility to change ourselves, to educate ourselves, and along with ourselves others.

    Too, leaders (like Mark Levin, for one — I’m still depressed by Instapundit’s remark this morning) will be a part of any such change. But my sense is simply this: that in the main, we tend to be focused on the wrong questions, where it comes to making our politics better. We tend to focus on politicians, when it’s ourselves (and our educations) that are in need of repair.

  45. Yeah, I can’t argue that point against you as I agree, sdferr. It’s sound and fundamental.

    I’m just reminded that the colonialists, each and every one of them, are not referred to as our founding fathers. Likewise, now, we’re all tiny bits of sand and we’re all at fault but some small bits are less like sand and more like viruses, seeds, or that tiny first bit of crystal that gives the template for a continuing pattern.

  46. Regardless, I think we’re in agreement. I’m just a bit wistful during the primary season when that’s the thing to do: gawk at the politicians.

  47. “Likewise, now, we’re all tiny bits of sand and we’re all at fault but some small bits are less like sand and more like viruses, seeds, or that tiny first bit of crystal that gives the template for a continuing pattern.”

    You do see my problem though, reflected from your true statement there, back upon the politicians over whom we quarrel, I hope? That is to say, I don’t perceive a one of them — not a one — acting as I’ve suggested Levin is acting, not only not with respect to us, the polity, but more particularly with respect to themselves as political thinkers and actors.

  48. And bh, by “we quarrel”, I intend the “everybody” we, not the you and I “we”.

  49. Heh, every time they try, we hit them for it, sdferr.

    Think about an issue out loud or ponder a question rather than rattle off the agreed upon sound bite? Unpolished, unprepared, possibly retarded. Which would again point a finger back at us.

    (Similar caveat regarding the pronouns in my comment.)

  50. #45 That pre-supposes that most actually want to be revived. My paternal great-grandfather farmed with a pair of mules and when he would go to harness them to the wagon or plow, he took along a 18″ piece of cordwood and would rap each one between the ears. He claimed that to get them to do anything you, you first needed their full attention. Some people are similar to those mules.
    I have been to many places that don’t recognise the fundamental inherent rights of Man, and yes it IS always us; thank the Lord its always us. What many object to is the them of the party that have made electability an issue at all.

  51. “That pre-supposes that most actually want to be revived.”

    To be sure. However, if we’re of the belief that such fundamental truths as our posited natural rights happen to be the case, how would we then suppose those conditions would ever be expunged from the human being? Even were they cowed by terror into submissive and stifled failure of expression, aren’t we in fact committed to the position that these human qualities yet exist? Hearkening back, even, to the sense of the “still small voice, crying in the wilderness”, so to speak?

  52. I think there are some great communicators out there who, having seen what happend to Ms. Palin and others, have decided that it just ain’t worth it to run. The Left has honed its skills in personal destruction and sees that as the key to retaining power, since it can’t win the principled reasoning debate.
    Or maybe Sarah decided that she didn’t want to be at the helm when it hits the reef.

  53. #53 Maybe we, (as a society haven’t reached to point that a pluality of peopleI needed the cordwood only once. For some the lesson has to be learned and re-learned.
    “Even were they cowed by terror into submiss(ion) and stifled (by the) failure of (that) expression, aren’t we, in fact, committed to the (pro)position that these human qualities yet exist?” FTFY. Goobledegook is just that

  54. there’s emptiness in an unused mitten

  55. Why the “goobledegook” comment? That’s needlessly abrasive.

    It’s hard to have a useful discussion when everyone is throwing elbows for no good reason.

    (The sentence read just find, btw.)

  56. The Left has honed its skills in personal destruction and sees that as the key to retaining power, since it can’t win the principled reasoning debate.

    There’s a great deal of truth to that, RI Red. Further, I think we’ve internalized this to an unfortunate degree.

  57. “Maybe we, (as a society haven’t reached to point that a pluality of peopleI needed the cordwood only once. For some the lesson has to be learned and re-learned. “Even were they cowed by terror into submiss(ion) and stifled (by the) failure of (that) expression, aren’t we, in fact, committed to the (pro)position that these human qualities yet exist?” FTFY. Goobledegook is just that”

    I’m sorry to say I’m at a loss as to what you’re trying to say there Gulermo? It’s most likely my fault, I hasten to add, but maybe help me out, by expressing your meaning in other words?

  58. The Left has honed its skills in personal destruction and sees that as the key to retaining power

    I don’t think so. We’re every bit as devoted to pursuing this means of winning as they are. What the left has somewhat perfected is their various means of minimizing the damage we can do to them.

  59. Three years old but timely:

    Is It Time For Conservatives To Sit Down In The Snow?

    Found via link here.

  60. There sure are a lot of familiar points being made here:

    Why “Electability” Is No Reason to Cast a Vote

  61. if its about electability are not rickys, rickyp, huntsman and newt more “electable” having each won more elections than mittens?

  62. #59 Sorry about the scrambled post. This morning was the new babys first series of innoculations, (he turned two months at 10:10 this am.),and he got both of them, at once, one in each thigh. Bubba was PISSED! He woke, stretched and remembered that his legs HURT!! and I hit submit without finishing what I was doing.
    My point was that maybe we haven’t had enough punishment, (as a society), if we are unwilling to honestly assess how we have reached this juncture. I have been smacked by the cordwood and I am unwilling to support an idea just because. Ideas SHOULD have intrinsic merit, other than by insistance.
    The FTFY was me trying visualize what you were trying to say. Are we committed to those ideas? Who knows. Some more than others, maybe, but it has always been thus. The problem we are facing as a nation and culture is that more than half of the polity actively chose the current President and his policies, because he wasn’t shy about what he wanted to do.

  63. “What the left has somewhat perfected is their various means of minimizing the damage we can do to them”

    Ably assistes by the LSM there, Abester

  64. oop should have been assisted. Stupid phone

  65. I see Gulermo, and thanks too.

    As to whether “we” are committed to those ideas, or propositions, as you correctly put it up thread, I’d say little question, so far as you and I in particular are concerned.

    But, beyond our particular beliefs, what if, apart from our beliefs, the propositions themselves happen to be true of human beings, as true of human nature? Supposing that, I meant to say upthread, those human conditions, dispositions of nature, will rise to the fore, whether some tyrant intends to suppress them or not.

    So, merely to say, even though folks may not be cognizant that they desire for the Republic to be “revived”, yet something like it will recur to them (people as people, I mean) when the urge not to be slaves or serfs re-arises in their hearts. People have never, I think, cottoned to being bossed about, and most particularly when they know damned well the bosses don’t have a better grasp of the truths those people see before them than they have themselves.

  66. Abe, where the Left beats us is in its delivery of the destructive message to the low-information voter, e.g., via pop culture. Since we have ceded education to the Left, it also has first crack at laying the groundwork for the messaging to the utes.

  67. I noticed in the “Latest News and Headlines” part of My Yahoo page the other day all of these articles on how the GOP was “coming to terms” with the inevitability of Romney, etc. What struck me was the number of them and the fact that they are more or less baseless, since we’ve only had two lousy states vote. I mean, it may turn out that way, but at this point it’s special pleading, isn’t it? And I was left wondering: Who’s pushing these stories so hard? Why is it so important for them to report this story in this way? The answer of course is that it’s important that ROMNEY is the nominee and not either of the two guys who finished second.

  68. 6. People in the comments here tell me that my insistence on not lending my positive allegiance to a progressive corporatist, should he win the GOP coronation, is tantamount to voting for the destruction of the country. Because, while Romney may be a progressive corporatist, at least he’s our progressive corporatist. And frankly, he’s the only electable Republican, Santorum being part of the extremist fringe who won’t appeal to moderates and independents. Who evidently are big on corporatism, and who mistrust capitalism.
    7. Really. What the fuck?

    C’mon, man.

    I brought up the Cloward-Piven comparisons in response to what others, including myself, have said in moments of extreme cynicism. My main beef has been allowing the race to be framed as between Santorum and Romney. I refuse to believe those are my only two alternatives, and don’t want to argue from that position, so my criticisms of Santorum aren’t implicit endorsements of Romney. And finally, I am certainly not advocating that anyone has an obligation to toe any party line or instructing anyone how to vote. I am simply trying to make a case for the way I see things.

    T

  69. We still have plenty of time, what we don’t have is a voice. The press, which I don’t see as an agent of the GOP at all, is once again picking our candidates. I personally think Santorum or Romney either one are the preferred targets of the Axelrod machine. Romney and Bain Capital are obvious, and everyone of those Santorum quotes about shit like it being morally wrong to have sex for any reason but to have a baby? Axelrod is going to saddle those up and ride them like fucking Secretariat. Whether Santorum wants to outlaw contraceptives or not, just saying things like that make people question his judgement.

    I mean seriously, it is immoral to have sex for fun? And I am supposed to vote for someone who has promised to hector me about if he gets elected?

  70. sugar coated turd cont.

    Report: Bain Advised Obama Administration on Auto Company Bailout
    By Andrew C. McCarthy
    January 13, 2012 8:56 A.M.
    Comments
    7

    The Romney camp better be ready for this one, because it dovetails with the damaging revelations that Romneycare architects were consulted on Obamacare. CNBC reports that the Obama administration consulted Mitt Romney’s former firm, Bain Capital, on the controversial government bailout of GM and Chrysler.

    According to CNBC, which draws from a TARP inspector general report, Bain’s recommendation was that the government-run auto companies should cut car dealerships. It should be pointed out that Gov. Romney had left active participation in Bain about 10 years before this happened — although he still had financial ties after he left. It is noteworthy, though, that when negative criticism arose during the last week about Bain’s business practices, Romney chose to compare its firings of employees and shuttering of some businesses to President Obama’s forcing the auto companies to shed employees, factories and dealerships.

    Many conservatives winced at the comparison since, for us, the issue with the auto bailouts is the principle of government taking over private industry. It will not help conservative anxiety levels, then, that Bain abetted that process.

    link

  71. And I am supposed to vote for someone who has promised to hector me about if he gets elected?

    Does presidential hectoring affect your life in any way?

    Obama told me not to cling bitterly to my guns and religion, and I laughed at him.

    Laugh at Santorum. I’ll join you. HA HA!

  72. Pingback: Right Wing Extremists: January 13, 2012 | REPUBLICAN REDEFINED

  73. Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: The Boston Molasses Disaster : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply