Mitt Romney Hit Piece

[sugarkang]

I love capitalism, but this guy is screwed. When Mitt Romney Came to Town. 30 minutes of heartbreak.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I love capitalism, but this guy is screwed. When Mitt Romney Came to Town. 30 minutes of heartbreak.

Screwed how? Because he did what he did or because people are going to use it against him?

UniMac would still be around as Unimac.
It is! OK so what's wrong with teachers in Canada?

This is business. Why didn't the original owners of UniMac do a better job? Why did they need Bain? Why is Bain at fault?

And don't forget! Many lost their jobs at Solyndra!

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Screwed how? Because he did what he did or because people are going to use it against him?

UniMac would still be around as Unimac.
It is! OK so what's wrong with teachers in Canada?

This is business. Why didn't the original owners of UniMac do a better job? Why did they need Bain? Why is Bain at fault?

And don't forget! Many lost their jobs at Solyndra!

Don't get me wrong. The advert doesn't tell you that Mitt did anything unethical. But Palin, Gingrich and Perry (somewhat softly) have been hitting him hard like they were Democrats. You don't think blue collars in SC will change their minds about Romney after watching this?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Don't get me wrong. The advert doesn't tell you that Mitt did anything unethical. But Palin, Gingrich and Perry (somewhat softly) have been hitting him hard like they were Democrats. You don't think blue collars in SC will change their minds about Romney after watching this?

Well, I do because a lot of people are easily manipulated by propaganda. BTW Simon Willard thinks this won't be a big deal in the end.

I'm such a news junkie that all of this stands out in bold relief. I think this is actually a very teachable moment and I think Romney has started to do that.

Maybe America needs to learn that jobs aren't jobs for life. Maybe people need to have a more realistic grasp of their worth in the economy.

And maybe Romney is saving his powder for when the Obama machine starts attacking.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

And maybe Romney is saving his powder for when the Obama machine starts attacking.

I do agree that this is good debate practice for him early on and softens the impending Obama attacks come summer. Have you resigned yourself to Romney yet?

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Maybe America needs to learn that jobs aren't jobs for life. Maybe people need to have a more realistic grasp of their worth in the economy.

And BH throws the American worker and the American economy under the bus. All in just two sentences.

Since you always ask for clarification, here's all you should need, if you have a logical bone in your head that is:
When there's little actual work (not flipping companies or trading stock) in this country, and those that do work are paid squat, the American economy collapses. No work = no pay = broke consumers = no buying = no companies = no economic activity, rinse and repeat.
Even people like you would be lining up for a government check.
Don't believe me? You're to proud? You'd be surprised just how close you are, since you insist you are not part of the 1%.

The good news is "patriots" like you and mitters won't get to take it that far, IMO. There are still people in this country who are interested in real economic sustainability, and not just paying lip service to the "job creation" bullshit. Even the Paulites recognize there is a problem, but seem to readily dismiss the Margaret Thatcher chapter of another collapsing economic empire.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I do agree that this is good debate practice for him early on and softens the impending Obama attacks come summer. Have you resigned yourself to Romney yet?

I consider myself a realist. And as you know my vote doesn't count except in the primary. I'm sure by then the die will be cast. And I did register.

PS. Whaddaya think of Obama making things easier for business? Making the SBA a cabinet position and all. He's working every day for us!

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I consider myself a realist. And as you know my vote doesn't count except in the primary. I'm sure by then the die will be cast. And I did register.

I may have prematurely called it for Romney. This situation reminds me of the quote, "quantity is its own quality." South Carolina has gotten much closer. Perry and Huntsman are dead and Santorum is dying, which leaves a maximum two for the evangelical vote. If Romney is successfully pinned as a job destroyer, at least temporarily, that leaves Gingrich and Paul vying for the top slot. Romney would bounce back from the 1% charges, but his biggest advantage, his presumptive nominee status, would be gone.

PS. Whaddaya think of Obama making things easier for business? Making the SBA a cabinet position and all. He's working every day for us!

I haven't fully evaluated it yet.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I may have prematurely called it for Romney.

No you didn't.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

And BH throws the American worker and the American economy under the bus. All in just two sentences.

OK. Since there's nothing else going on around here...I'll respond. You're right I do hate the American worker and the American economy. And please don't forget, I hate women, too. Who does that leave? Rich men!!!! That's who I really love so I post stuff on bhTV, hoping someday that one of those rich men will read my stuff about how I hate the American worker and seek me out by perhaps bribing Bob Wright to give them my email address. Then I'll be all set. Brilliant plan, eh?

Since you always ask for clarification, here's all you should need, if you have a logical bone in your head that is:
When there's little actual work (not flipping companies or trading stock) in this country, and those that do work are paid squat, the American economy collapses. No work = no pay = broke consumers = no buying = no companies = no economic activity, rinse and repeat.
Even people like you would be lining up for a government check.
Don't believe me? You're to proud? You'd be surprised just how close you are, since you insist you are not part of the 1%.

Wow! the economy in five seconds! and it turns out you're right again. Those traders and flippers have almost accomplished their evil plot of transforming the country into a bunch of mindless drones for them. I sure hope they have good guns and fences because when people figure out what happened they might get sorta pissed.

The good news is "patriots" like you and mitters won't get to take it that far, IMO. There are still people in this country who are interested in real economic sustainability, and not just paying lip service to the "job creation" bullshit. Even the Paulites recognize there is a problem, but seem to readily dismiss the Margaret Thatcher chapter of another collapsing economic empire

Oh yeah, that's the ticket. Economic sustainability...sounds good. What is it?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

OK. Since there's nothing else going on around here...I'll respond. You're right I do hate the American worker and the American economy. And please don't forget, I hate women, too. Who does that leave? Rich men!!!! That's who I really love so I post stuff on bhTV, hoping someday that one of those rich men will read my stuff about how I hate the American worker and seek me out by perhaps bribing Bob Wright to give them my email address. Then I'll be all set. Brilliant plan, eh?

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

OK. Since there's nothing else going on around here...I'll respond. You're right I do hate the American worker and the American economy. And please don't forget, I hate women, too. Who does that leave? Rich men!!!! That's who I really love so I post stuff on bhTV, hoping someday that one of those rich men will read my stuff about how I hate the American worker and seek me out by perhaps bribing Bob Wright to give them my email address. Then I'll be all set. Brilliant plan, eh?



Wow! the economy in five seconds! and it turns out you're right again. Those traders and flippers have almost accomplished their evil plot of transforming the country into a bunch of mindless drones for them. I sure hope they have good guns and fences because when people figure out what happened they might get sorta pissed.




Oh yeah, that's the ticket. Economic sustainability...sounds good. What is it?

Welcome back badhat! That was sarcasm, huh?
I was hoping for a response, if you've been reading my posts lately you'd know I point the finger at everyone for the economy, but I figured the far left view, now ironically deployed by the anti-mitt (priceless), was my best shot.
You missed an excellent opportunity to call BS on me.
Plain language: I was pulling your leg 'cause you tend to assume everyone who argues with you is a lefty anti-capitalist.

Economic sustainability is, however, actually very interesting, and it involves private entities, that are focused on steady profits, and realistic growth goals not usually driven by the public trading of stocks, and short term gains for the private jet set. Not that I really blame them (the romneys) or hate them, because everyone went to sleep and left the cookie jar right out in the open. While I screamed bloody murder about this (during the 80s and 90's, gave up during the reign of bush), my bourgeois co-workers stared at me as if I had bugs crawling out of my ears.
There is an emerging trend toward cooperatively run companies, employee owned companies, and just plain sustainable capitalist run companies, because it's now down to our survival as a country. I won't mention the Union run companies so as not to raise any partisan hackles.

The next paragraph contains my personal attempt at optimism:
The traders and flippers, while lining their pockets, have actually left the door open for competition, because when they merge and absorb various entities, and "streamline" what's left of them, customer service, product support, and product quality, and productivity usually suffer (and as the "hit piece" showed, some of them just plain disappear). As the economy spirals downward these things, will become more important, and consumers will be more inclined to shy away from the more cheap unsupported and disposable products because they cost more in the long run.

Pessimistic disclaimer: Could be too late though.

Off topic, let's start a pool as to how long before we stick a fork in Vbulletin.
I saw tons of posters wander through last night, with little or no activity.
Welcome to my ghost town everybody!

1 week
2 weeks
more?

Added: Everyone knows your married. But there are better sites for meeting millionaires. Let me know if you need links.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

I point the finger at everyone for the economy, but I figured the far left view, now ironically deployed by the anti-mitt (priceless), was my best shot.

I agree that there's a lot of blame to go around and the anti-mitt, vulture capitalist stuff is pretty creepy but unfortunately will persuade a lot of uneducated people.

You missed an excellent opportunity to call BS on me.
Plain language: I was pulling your leg 'cause you tend to assume everyone who argues with you is a lefty anti-capitalist.

There you go again. Just a tip...I think you should avoid telling people what they think and what they assume or what they tend to assume. It's off-putting. So much better to say...It seems to me that you assume...And then be ready to hear that what you thought isn't correct.

Economic sustainability is, however, actually very interesting, and it involves private entities, that are focused on steady profits, and realistic growth goals not usually driven by the public trading of stocks, and short term gains for the private jet set

.

Thanks for the definition. I think that's a worthy model and certainly one that a majority of the firms in the US follow. But of course then you have questions about what exactly are realistic growth goals. I'm sure there are lots of opinions about that amongst the people who run companies. Sometimes when growth is pursued at the wrong time, things can go awry. Or if growth is avoided at the wrong time competitors can get a leg up.

Not that I really blame them (the romneys) or hate them, because everyone went to sleep and left the cookie jar right out in the open. While I screamed bloody murder about this (during the 80s and 90's, gave up during the reign of bush), my bourgeois co-workers stared at me as if I had bugs crawling out of my ears.

I need to do more research and Romney needs to do more explaining but from what I understand the owners of the companies Bain took over pretty much asked Bain to take care of the cookie jar. And about 66% of the time there were more cookies to go around after that.

I don't know what you're talking about here: While I screamed bloody murder about this (during the 80s and 90's, gave up during the reign of bush),

There is an emerging trend toward cooperatively run companies, employee owned companies, and just plain sustainable capitalist run companies, because it's now down to our survival as a country. I won't mention the Union run companies so as not to raise any partisan hackles.

Cool! and if they are successful, more companies will join in.

Pessimistic disclaimer: Could be too late though.

I don't think so.

Off topic, let's start a pool as to how long before we stick a fork in Vbulletin.
I saw tons of posters wander through last night, with little or no activity.
Welcome to my ghost town everybody!

1 week
2 weeks
more?

Yeah it's definitely going downhill. Whoda thunk? 2 weeks

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I agree that there's a lot of blame to go around and the anti-mitt, vulture capitalist stuff is pretty creepy but unfortunately will persuade a lot of uneducated people.

I doubt it, that stuff only plays on the left IMO.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

There you go again. Just a tip...I think you should avoid telling people what they think and what they assume or what they tend to assume. It's off-putting. So much better to say...It seems to me that you assume...And then be ready to hear that what you thought isn't correct.

Nice Reagan.
Yeah, just like you (used to?) sugar-coat your attacks on the lefties here. Sarcasm ain't real polite either. I personally find it very amusing though.
I'm ready to hear anything, but denial is probably at the top of the list.
You didn't even check my previous posts on the subject, so I don't think my assumption was that far off. So there, denial-denial

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Thanks for the definition. I think that's a worthy model and certainly one that a majority of the firms in the US follow. But of course then you have questions about what exactly are realistic growth goals. I'm sure there are lots of opinions about that amongst the people who run companies. Sometimes when growth is pursued at the wrong time, things can go awry. Or if growth is avoided at the wrong time competitors can get a leg up.

I feel unrealistic growth expectations are often generated by the stock market, the price of jets, bentleys and bonuses. On that front, I do take the leftist view. But I concede it could be almost anything, as businesses are as varied as those who run them.
I disagree that the majority of US firms follow anything close to this, as evidenced by disproportionate compensation structures, and priorities.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I need to do more research and Romney needs to do more explaining but from what I understand the owners of the companies Bain took over pretty much asked Bain to take care of the cookie jar. And about 66% of the time there were more cookies to go around after that.

Yeah, the overcompensated and over extended owners needed to cash out, and as usual, let the workers twist. But hey 66% is good if your salary goes up 1000%. If my success rate was that low I'd be in a bread line, but different strokes for different socio-economic strata right?

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I don't know what you're talking about here: While I screamed bloody murder about this (during the 80s and 90's, gave up during the reign of bush),

Just what I said. The owners of the businesses would talk glowingly about the employees being like a family, while rolling back the odometer on everything to make the company look sweet on paper for an eventual sale that benefitted only them. Most people bought the warm and fuzzy and ended up out in the cold. Me, not so much.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Cool! and if they are successful, more companies will join in.

This is my hope.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I don't think so.

Me either, but sometimes the dim view can expedite the process. Sorry Oprah.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Yeah it's definitely going downhill. Whoda thunk? 2 weeks

I got you down for 2, how many quatloos will you wager?

Added: This is doomed because of the no link from the new site rule. They didn't kill it, just turned off the air (as you alluded to in the main forum).
Since you set the quote president precedent for this thread here goes:
They won't have handle to kick around anymore.

[badhatharry]

[QUOTE=handle;236818]
I feel unrealistic growth expectations are often generated by the stock market, the price of jets, bentleys and bonuses. On that front, I do take the leftist view. But I concede it could be almost anything, as businesses are as varied as those who run them.
[QUOTE]

I'm sure that unrealistic growth expectations are varied.

I disagree that the majority of US firms follow anything close to this, as evidenced by disproportionate compensation structures, and priorities.

Since you haven't offered any evidence of disproportionate compensation structures, and priorities I guess that's just a bunch of ungrounded supposition. Kinda like your mindreading activities.

Yeah, the overcompensated and over extended owners needed to cash out, and as usual, let the workers twist. But hey 66% is good if your salary goes up 1000%. If my success rate was that low I'd be in a bread line, but different strokes for different socio-economic strata right?

Well, I suppose that owners have a variety of options since they have the responsibility. If a company closes well that's too bad for the workers. They had no legal guarantee that the company would exist in perpetuity.

Just what I said. The owners of the businesses would talk glowingly about the employees being like a family, while rolling back the odometer on everything to make the company look sweet on paper for an eventual sale that benefitted only them. Most people bought the warm and fuzzy and ended up out in the cold. Me, not so much.

I guess this is the answer to the Bush reference. Again, what obligation did the company owners have other than to pay the employees what was owed them? I have never worked for a company that said their employess were like family.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

No you didn't.

Oh well, it looks like it really is over. The evangelicals just endorsed Rick Santorum who doesn't have a chance. If they had endorsed Ron Paul, they might have had a shot at returning moral questions to the states. Oh well. At least Christians and Progressives can agree that they hate Ron Paul on abortion.

[look]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Oh well, it looks like it really is over. The evangelicals just endorsed Rick Santorum who doesn't have a chance. If they had endorsed Ron Paul, they might have had a shot at returning moral questions to the states. Oh well. At least Christians and Progressives can agree that they hate Ron Paul on abortion.

Here's a piece suggesting if Newt outlasts Santorum and Perry he could quash Romney. But it would be at the cost of taking a chance on helping ruin Romney while falling short of the nomination. I think Newt is the consummate bullshitter and has the best chance of convincing independents and others to vote for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/201...ey_271132.html

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by look

Here's a piece suggesting if Newt outlasts Santorum and Perry he could quash Romney. But it would be at the cost of taking a chance on helping ruin Romney while falling short of the nomination. I think Newt is the consummate bullshitter and has the best chance of convincing independents and others to vote for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/201...ey_271132.html

If he keeps going, it's going to be a long slog, with many Republicans viewing him as a spoiler intent on damaging the party's likely nominee. Many other Republicans though, will look forward to casting an anti-Romney vote that can make a difference. Most won't be voting for Newt, they'll be voting against Romney.

Yeah, the difference they'll make is giving Obama another four years.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Since you haven't offered any evidence of disproportionate compensation structures, and priorities I guess that's just a bunch of ungrounded supposition. Kinda like your mindreading activities.

Look around badhat. You're the self proclaimed news junkie, If you haven't gleaned this from the analysis, you might do well to limit your intake, and step up your absorption rate. Or expand your channel list.
FYI, FOX and MSNBC are not on mine.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Well, I suppose that owners have a variety of options since they have the responsibility. If a company closes well that's too bad for the workers. They had no legal guarantee that the company would exist in perpetuity.

That's why co-ops are emerging. The stock market, and the lust for more has made scrapping, and corporate absorption of even profitable American companies the attractive option. This isn't American capitalism, it is the wages of corporate globalization. IMO!

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I guess this is the answer to the Bush reference. Again, what obligation did the company owners have other than to pay the employees what was owed them? I have never worked for a company that said their employess were like family.

I guess you're right, any tendency toward a patriotic moral imperative involving keeping our society as a whole in the black must seem absurd to those who cashed in on giving up or selling.
Just keep telling yourself it's tough shit for you when your income gets sold for scrap. You'll have the satisfaction of being technically correct. After all, they had no legal obligation to contribute to the economy that made them either, right?
But "morality" and "patriotism" is king on the right, isn't that the mantra?

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Yeah, the difference they'll make is giving Obama another four years.

Chin up Conservatives (libertarians? Conertarians?), don't forget the scrap for the Dem nomination in the last go-round.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

Chin up Conservatives (libertarians? Conertarians?), don't forget the scrap for the Dem nomination in the last go-round.

good point. I'll keep it in mind.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by look

Here's a piece suggesting if Newt outlasts Santorum and Perry he could quash Romney. But it would be at the cost of taking a chance on helping ruin Romney while falling short of the nomination. I think Newt is the consummate bullshitter and has the best chance of convincing independents and others to vote for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/201...ey_271132.html

Newt has no real human support. His super PAC got $5 million from a single warhawk. Paul takes the majority of independents followed by Romney. Huntsman just dropped out and Romney takes the largest share of those votes, with Paul in 2nd. The game is over.

Also, the writer of that piece was Ari Fleischer. Neo-cons support neo-cons.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Newt has no real human support. His super PAC got $5 million from a single warhawk. Paul takes the majority of independents followed by Romney. Huntsman just dropped out and Romney takes the largest share of those votes, with Paul in 2nd. The game is over.

Also, the writer of that piece was Ari Fleischer. Neo-cons support neo-cons.

Huntsman dropped out? I just saw him interviewed last night.

[look]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Newt has no real human support. His super PAC got $5 million from a single warhawk. Paul takes the majority of independents followed by Romney. Huntsman just dropped out and Romney takes the largest share of those votes, with Paul in 2nd. The game is over.

Also, the writer of that piece was Ari Fleischer. Neo-cons support neo-cons.

Yeah, I knew Fleischer was the author. My main point is that I think Newt has the best chance to beat Obama.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by look

Yeah, I knew Fleischer was the author. My main point is that I think Newt has the best chance to beat Obama.

Why? I'm very confused about what Gingrich's value as a general election candidate is supposed to be. Other party actors whose help he will need all hate and distrust him, he's got a list of gaffes, flip-flops and scandals as long as my arm, and he's genuinely, intensely, unlikable. Beyond that, in a year where Obama will be blaming obstinate, hyper-partisan Republicans for preventing him from doing more to help the economy, why on earth would the R's want to nominate the guy that impeached Bill Clinton and shut down the government? I'm not saying that Romney's a dream candidate or anything, but I don't see what's supposed to make Newt strong in the general.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Why? I'm very confused about what Gingrich's value as a general election candidate is supposed to be. Other party actors whose help he will need all hate and distrust him, he's got a list of gaffes, flip-flops and scandals as long as my arm, and he's genuinely, intensely, unlikable. Beyond that, in a year where Obama will be blaming obstinate, hyper-partisan Republicans for preventing him from doing more to help the economy, why on earth would the R's want to nominate the guy that impeached Bill Clinton and shut down the government? I'm not saying that Romney's a dream candidate or anything, but I don't see what's supposed to make Newt strong in the general.

Shhh.

Okay, more seriously, I'm curious about this too. I assume it's because Mitt is perceived to be weaker than I think he is, because Santorum is seen as someone who can't win the general (my view), and -- most importantly -- because a lot of what I think contributes to Newt's unlikeability, including to the average independent, translates to some as an ability to be a strong anti-Obama partisan. There's a fear that Mitt doesn't come across as sincere enough in his hate and, more convincingly, that the Republicans' ongoing effort to portray the Dems as the elitists who hate the regular guy, to replace the issues with the culture war, doesn't ultimately work well with Mitt. Mitt seems like an east coast elitist type.

[look]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Why? I'm very confused about what Gingrich's value as a general election candidate is supposed to be. Other party actors whose help he will need all hate and distrust him, he's got a list of gaffes, flip-flops and scandals as long as my arm, and he's genuinely, intensely, unlikable. Beyond that, in a year where Obama will be blaming obstinate, hyper-partisan Republicans for preventing him from doing more to help the economy, why on earth would the R's want to nominate the guy that impeached Bill Clinton and shut down the government? I'm not saying that Romney's a dream candidate or anything, but I don't see what's supposed to make Newt strong in the general.

As I said originally, he's the consummate bullshitter, and America is hungry for a narrative of getting back on the right path, and Newt's an ideas-man, hee hee. I just think he has the best chance, if he got the nomination.

Now, for a Mormon, Romney's doing okay in South Carolina, but in the General, I don't know how he'd do nation-wide, and especially in the South, with Christians. Single data point: my Catholic, Democrat uncle in Cleveland had a problem with, as he saw it, the possibility of Obama being Muslim.

But, of course, Romney has business experience, and will inspire hope that way. Personally, I find him comforting, assured, and likeable.

But it seems to be all over, anyway

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by look

Yeah, I knew Fleischer was the author. My main point is that I think Newt has the best chance to beat Obama.

We should turn this thing into fantasy football.

[look]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

We should turn this thing into fantasy football.

An old commenter here, garbagecowboy, wanted us to do fantasy football.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Shhh.

Okay, more seriously, I'm curious about this too. I assume it's because Mitt is perceived to be weaker than I think he is, because Santorum is seen as someone who can't win the general (my view), and -- most importantly -- because a lot of what I think contributes to Newt's unlikeability, including to the average independent, translates to some as an ability to be a strong anti-Obama partisan. There's a fear that Mitt doesn't come across as sincere enough in his hate and, more convincingly, that the Republicans' ongoing effort to portray the Dems as the elitists who hate the regular guy, to replace the issues with the culture war, doesn't ultimately work well with Mitt. Mitt seems like an east coast elitist type.

He lost this thing a long time ago. He's been forgiven many times, however. It started with his comments about the Ryan plan and the final straw was the attacks on Bain capital. In between there was sitting on the couch with Nancy (not that recent but it's being dredged up) and his activities with Freddie.

He'd be so great if he was different.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

He lost this thing a long time ago. He's been forgiven many times, however. It started with his comments about the Ryan plan and the final straw was the attacks on Bain capital. In between there was sitting on the couch with Nancy (not that recent but it's being dredged up) and his activities with Freddie.

He'd be so great if he was different.

This is his problem, by the way. He's come up with plenty of ways to deserve the RINO label over the years without actually doing anything to make lefties not hate him.

EDIT: one of his problems, not his only one. He has too many deficiencies as a candidate to sum up his problems in one sentence.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

He lost this thing a long time ago.

Yep.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

He'd be so great if he was different.

LOL (like?)

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

This is his problem, by the way. He's come up with plenty of ways to deserve the RINO label over the years without actually doing anything to make lefties not hate him.

EDIT: one of his problems, not his only one. He has too many deficiencies as a candidate to sum up his problems in one sentence.

A problem for voters on the right is the desire to see Obama beaten up. They see Gingrich as the one who could do the most damage. Unfortunately for them he comes off as someone who doesn't have a core, only a good punch. And the other problem for the right is that none of the strong candidates (read Romney) has a core they can relate to. It's a dilemma.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by look

An old commenter here, garbagecowboy, wanted us to do fantasy football.

Well, thanks to you, Ari Fleischer and garbagecowboy, Gingrich is now in the lead.

[look]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Well, thanks to you, Ari Fleischer and garbagecowboy, Gingrich is now in the lead.

wtf?

My fave down-and-dirty go-to poll info is the RCP graphic in the middle of the page. Before Iowa, Newt had commanding leads in NC and Florida, while Mitt had NH.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa