Nomination Excitations: The Day After New Hampshire
Thoughts on the status of the race for the GOP Nomination and the candidates the day after the New Hampshire Primary…
-Regarding Gingrich, Hunstman, and Perry [The Three Stooges of the GOP], El Rushbo is spot-on:
All right, we’re now facing, where we are is the final push, final push now to get Romney the nomination. You have to say that Newt and Perry blew it the last two days. I don’t care what you think, folks, the attacks that they mounted on Romney are not defensible. You just can’t put your name to ‘em. All you can do is remember Bill Clinton. He was confronted at one point about some crazy attack ads that he was running. I don’t remember specifically which ones, and supporters in the media, “Do you really mean this?” Clinton said, (imitating Clinton) “Well, you know, you gotta do what you gotta do. I mean, I’m faced here with a problem and I gotta do what I gotta do.” So, hopefully, Perry and Newt are just doing what they think they’ve gotta do, last straw, do everything. Maybe there’s some hidden reason we don’t know that they’re trying to demonstrate Romney’s un-electability. All I do know is you can’t put your name to defending it, just can’t do it.
So now we’ve got all this talk about corporate raiders, vulture capitalists plundering companies and greed. All this talk about sucking the blood out of companies and leaving corpses? Limiting how much somebody can make in profits? This is the language of leftists like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone. They popularized this. This is the way Fidel Castro thinks, or says he thinks. You know, today more than at any time in recent history, capitalism — which is nothing more than economic liberty; that’s all it is — capitalism, economic liberty, is being assaulted on every front. The current occupant of the White House is a sworn enemy of capitalism. It’s abundantly clear that Obama intends to run for reelection by running against capitalism. He’s already on that path.
Barack Obama’s running against economic freedom. That’s what capitalism is — nothing more, nothing less — and our so-called conservative standard-bearers ought to be the last people on earth making these kind of charges and attacks! They’re giving aid and comfort to the worst enemies of our country and our liberty and our economic freedom. They’re using the language of people who believe, like Barack Obama said, “This country has always been wrong.” That’s what he said in Osawatomie, Kansas: We’ve always been wrong, from the days of its founding. I just think that this is over the top, and I’m beginning to wonder. I know what the politics of it are.
The front-runner, you take him out any way you can, but, for crying out loud! This sounds like people who don’t understand it. Maybe it’s time to ask just how much can lifetime politicians understand economic liberty? A lifetime politician is still somebody who uses government to achieve their aims. I’m just appalled by this. It’s like cartoons! There must be plenty of other things to go after Romney over instead of picking on the one thing he’s actually pretty clearly conservative about, his private sector business experience….
The comparison to Clinton is telling because it seems to fit in so well with the logic of Newton Leroy Gingrich, James Richard Perry, and Jon Meade Hunstman Jr. in their attacks on Willard Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital.
Bill Clinton was a man of the Left. Therefore, he was someone who rejected Absolute Truth and Morality and Honor — the Left either believes that such things do not exist or such standards are not unchanging and perpetual, but relative, subject to whim. Their motto is: ‘By any means necessary’. For the Leftist, every act is permissible as long as it serves to further the ultimate end of Leftism: bringing about Heaven On Earth, Immanentizing The Eschaton. Bill Clinton was willing to do whatever it took to maintain his power in order that he might further his Progressive goals.
By employing Leftist language and playing along with the Progressive corruption of terms within English, these GOP candidates are signalling that they are willing to obtain the Nomination by any means at their disposal. They are rejecting Truth and spitting on Morality. There is no excuse for such behavior by supposed conservatives.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
— Mark, 8:36
Look, I’m still examining Mitt’s work at Bain — haven’t made up my mind yet, what Mitt did at Bain may be God-awful — but, if you’re going to attack his work there, do it, dammit, from a conservative perspective and not by following the Leftist Playbook.
-In a very good posting over at The Weekly Standard, Jonathan Last puts the whole issue in perspective. It’s well-worth a full read. A highlight:
Yet because the free market has been under constant assault from the left for most of the last 80 years, Republicans often mount an automatic defense of it, or any of the businesses that operate within it, at the first sign of criticism. And that’s what has happened over the last few days with Newt Gingrich’s attempt to bring Mitt Romney’s days at Bain Capital to public light. There has been, in many Republican circles, something of a freak-out that anyone would dare try to paint an operation such as Bain in an unflattering light. To do so, they argue, constitutes an indictment of the free market itself.
For Republicans who are boosters of Romney, this is a perfectly understandable reaction. But I would argue that for more disinterested conservatives, there is no positive duty to mount the barricades and defend Bain from being looked at critically….
If you read the post, Mr. Last makes the case that one’s view of the free market will determine one’s opinion of whether Mitt’s reign at Bain deserves praise, out-right condemnation, or a mixed reaction. His post is successful because he lays out the facts from a conservative prospective. As Russell Kirk wrote:
The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.
This is most certainly the case here.
ROMNEY DELENDA EST!
-Willard is not helping his case out by defending his work at Bain the way he is doing. From Rush again [worth quoting at length because his dissection of Willard's remarks is dead-on-balls-accurate]:
Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me find this. This is from TheHill.com. You are not going to like this. Let me just read it to you. It is by a Jonathan Easley (I always like to put the journalist’s name to the story), and we’re gonna assume that it’s true. We don’t know if it is or not. It’s in the mainstream media. “On the heels of his decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney took the attacks on his private sector record used by GOP rivals and turned them against President Obama. Romney’s critics have accused him of destroying jobs in order to increase profits for his investment firm, Bain Capital, but speaking Wednesday on CBS, Romney said…” Are you sitting down? “Romney said that what he did” running Bain Capital was…Are you sitting down? If you’re driving, you might want to pull off to the side of the road here. “[S]peaking Wednesday on CBS, Romney said that what he did [with Bain Capital] was no different…” Are you sitting down? Are you paying very close attention? Look at me. Do I have you here? According to TheHill.com and Jonathan Easley. Today on CBS, “Romney said that what he did [with Bain Capital] was no different…” Dadelut dadelut dadelut! from what Barack Obama did bailing out the auto industry. Thud! Kerplunk! You’ve got to be kidding me. The next paragraph is a quote from Romney. Are you still sitting down?
“In the general election I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler — closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers — he did it to try to save the business.” So TheHill.com is reporting that Romney on CBS today said that what he did with Bain Capital is no different than what Obama did in taking over the auto companies. Obama had to lay people off; Obama had to streamline the place to make them profitable. So he’s accepting the premise that Newt and Perry have put out there, apparently, that he has gone into these companies with a chainsaw — and now he is using Obama and what he did at General Motors and Chrysler as: Hey, the president did it! Now, General Motors and Chrysler are not profitable, and… (sigh)
You just don’t, if you are the leader in the race for the Republican nomination, come out and give tacit approval to the government takeover of General Motors and Chrysler and then compound that by saying: Hey, what I did is no different. I was trying to save the businesses. (interruption) I did leave the possibility that this is not accurate. Yes. It’s in TheHill.com. I’ve not seen it anywhere else. So, yes, I’ve held out the possibility that this is inaccurate…. [Rush later said: 'I've got the bite now. The Hill got it right, TheHill.com'.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, to be clear, Romney has said this before. He was on Bill O'Reilly's show (that's on the Fox News Channel, eight o'clock) on December the 20th and Romney said on that show, "'The president has had one experience overseeing an enterprise, a couple of enterprises: General Motors and Chrysler. What did he do? He closed factories and he laid off people. He didn't do it personally but his people did. Why did he do it? Because he wanted to save the enterprise. He wants to make it profitable so it can survive.' Romney's comments came as scrutiny intensified over company's controlled by based upon the company." That's back on December 20th.
So he said this and his point is, obviously: Well, look, Obama's taxpayer dollars; I was using private sector dollars and so forth. The problem with it is (and the AP, by the way, is saying that the new line of defense "is part of an effort by Romney to shield himself against criticism that as a partner in the equity firm Bain Capital, that they slashed tens of thousands of jobs." So I know what the thinking is. The thinking is, "Hey, look at me! I'm no different than what Obama did, and you love Obama. You don't criticize Obama for doing this, so you can't criticize me for doing it. We did the same thing." Uh, sorry. That... I'm not a politician, and I don't measure things I say in a political context. I just don't. That's why I don't run for office: I couldn't do it what these people do.
I don't know how you say this. You've just accepted the premise of the Newt and Perry criticism! You just accepted the premise with this comment to CBS today, and you're trying to blunt the criticism and saying, 'Well, I'm no different than Obama." Mitt, would you take over General Motors and Chrysler if you're president, is that what you're saying? And, by the way, who the hell says that Obama's trying to save the companies? Who the hell says that Obama cares about profitability? That's not why Obama took over those companies! If anybody remembers, it was the Romneys that owned those companies that got the shaft: The bondholders.
The bondholders -- who had the first dibs on any bankruptcy or payoff or payback, anything that was made whole to General Motors -- who have more say so than stocking were told by Obama (summarized): "Get the hell outta here! You're greedy! It's people like you that have caused this country to end up being so unfair. I'm giving this company to the unions, and the reason that I'm saving this company is to save pensions and health care benefits -- and so I can market a stupid-ass car that nobody wants. I don't care about profit!" Folks, I do not understand what is so hard to understand about this. Why in the world would anybody seeking the Republican presidential nomination try to shield themselves from criticism by hiding behind Obama?
I'm still struggling with this here, folks. What Romney should have said is, "You call what I did layoffs? I was trying to save jobs! I was trying to save companies. Look at what Obama did with General Motors: Those jobs went overseas to the ChiComs. Look at how he's laying off 80,000 soldiers," and this is the point: Is Obama trying to save the Pentagon by laying off 80,000 soldiers? No, ladies and gentlemen. Quite the opposite. There's nothing -- there's not a single thing -- that is common between we as conservatives and Barack Obama.
Willard will never say such things — his expert consultants wouldn't let him even if he wanted to...and he doesn't want to because he doesn't get it [he never has].
-I hate to say it, but Stacy McCain’s gloom is effecting me:
… Last night at the Radisson Hotel, I came to the conclusion that Republicans are on the verge of nominating their own John Kerry: A candidate whose supposed strength — for Kerry, his military service; for Romney, his business background — proves to be a dangerous weakness.
Willard is a danger to himself and should be confined to the boardroom of a sanitarium.
-Over at the Center For Individual Freedom, Quin Hillyer asks the question: Why Is Romney Seen As Electable? Damn good question, Quin, and it’s a damn good analysis by him.
NEWT DESTRUCTA EST!
-Being a Southern Gentleman, Quin calls Newton Leroy [who is not one by any means] out [I'll gladly be your second, QH]:
…if Newt Gingrich really is so convinced that Mitt Romney would be an awful nominee, why doesn’t he pull out, endorse Santorum, and ask the pro-Gingrich superPac to continue criticizing Romney — but this time, from the right, not from the left? (Once he is no longer a candidate, I think there are no restrictions on him saying in public what he hopes the superPac will do.)
By remaining in the race, Gingrich merely splits the non-Romney vote, which is playing right into Romney’s hands.
Of course, if you are a Romney fan, you now are thrilled with Gingrich. He’s your best buddy, no matter how much he attacks you.
It’s over Newton. Look, you’ve ensured your high lecture fees and a Fox contract, so why not take plastic Callista and relax on a nice, long cruise. And while you’re soaking in the sun on the balcony of your first-class cabin, why don’t you read a little Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk?
It would be wrong of me not to at least leave you with one flash of wit, courtesy of my Friend In The Ether Adjoran, who commented over at The Other McCain last night:
He’s walked the line pretty close a couple of times – but won my respect by refusing to mischaracterize the “I like being able to fire people” remark.
His attempt to reach out to the gay community through sweater vests is weak, though.
I still have hope that tactic will work with the Gaylians.
DAMN THE TORPEDOS!
In his round-up report of the New Hampshire results, Stacy McCain writes:
What little hope remains of stopping Romney at this point would appear to rest with South Carolina voters, and even there the most recent polls show Romney leading. Members of the national press corps who have been ensconced here in Manchester the past week seem now nearly unanimously agreed that the Republican campaign is now all over but the shouting. One network news analyst, getting into a cab outside the Radisson Hotel near midnight, paused long enough to ask a nearby reporter, “Who do you think he’ll pick for his running mate?” And there was no need to explain who “he” is.
Are we going to let the MSM and the GOP Establishment win this one?