Conservative Punditry’s Version of Barack Obama


“…“He has been an extraordinarily unreliable leader in the conservative world — not 16 or 17 years ago but in the last two to three years. And even during the campaign, the number of times he has moved from one spot to another has been remarkable. I think he’s shown a level of unreliability as a conservative leader today.”  Mitt Romney on Newt Gingrich

Mitt Romney is Barack Obama 2.0.


On FOX, Wed. morning, Mitt Romney said he had created tens of thousands of jobs. Does anyone fact check this man?

The strange part of this is that Mitt Romney is not all that conservative, not at all.

Why is the conservative punditry not asking the serious questions of Mitt Romney?  Why aren’t they discussing the fact that he can’t handle pressure.  If he were a boxer, he would have a glass jaw.  He has the veracity of Barack Obama.  His supporters are wearing proverbial blinders.  They like to say that Romney is more electable in a November.  He’s holding it by two points.  The punditry is so in bed with him, that they are becoming laughable.


Where is the intellectual honesty? They have none.  They refuse to tell the truth about Gingrich, the way Tony Blankley has done.  Team Romney has basically lied about what Lindsey has said about Newt.  Evidently they have also fudged about John Boehner.

“…However, what this doesn’t say is that the poll is from the Public Policy Polling group, which has been among the more unreliable over the years and, most importantly of all, this is a poll of all potential voters — Democrats, Independents and Republicans.   The Iowa caucus is open only to Republicans.  Within this poll is the result among potential caucus voters, the result:  Gingrich 25%, Ron Paul 17% (little changed from a week ago).  Further, and more importantly, when asked which candidate is more electable, among Republicans, Gingrich 30%, Romney 21% and Ron Paul 14%….”

George Will wrote:

“…Romney, while at Bain, performed the essential social function of connecting investment resources with opportunities. Firms such as Bain are indispensable for wealth creation, which often involves taking over badly run companies, shedding dead weight and thereby liberating remaining elements that add value. The process, like surgery, can be lifesaving. And like surgery, society would rather benefit from it than watch it…”

Legal Insurrection

Is anyone even going to hold Romney accountable for this?  Are they going to hold him accountable for the lack of candor about his business dealings and the fact that his conservative credentials are a bit like Obama’s moderate credentials – shaky at best.

“...But Romney also acknowledged that he hasn’t always been in step with conservatives and said that he was “wrong” not to sign Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America when he was running for a Senate seat in Massachusetts.

Romney’s effort to portray Gingrich as unreliably conservative signals a new and sharper strategy to blunt the former speaker’s momentum and to raise doubts about him in the eyes of voters who may be examining him closely for the first time in the campaign….”


It’s too bad Roger Simon is one of the few pundits who gets it.

“...Only Newt dances. Only Newt, on occasion, is original. Only Newt — and here is the important part — has the capacity to wake us up.

What attracts me about the man is the very thing that Romney criticized, the part that wants to explore the moon and stars, maybe even mine them.

Sure Gingrich has an idea a minute, many of which are bad, but at least he has ideas. At least he is thinking. And — guess what — he says what he thinks. Politicians aren’t supposed to do that.

But Gingrich reminds me more of a Steve Jobs or a Richard Branson than he does of a politician, and that is a good thing because politicians these days are the kind of people that make me want to bang my forehead against the desk.

And I would like to add — and perhaps this disqualifies me — that I don’t care who is more or less conservative, who is a RINO and who is not, or what kind of libertarian someone may or may not be. I think when your ideology has become rigid, you have checked your brains at the door. If you want proof of that, just look at today’s liberals. Their ideology has been extinct for years and they are walking around like the living dead, trying to preserve the welfare state and the vision of Lord Keynes while the whole world crumbles around them….”

Business Insider, a libertarian leaning publication discusses one of Romney’s deals.  They fail to tell the entire tale.  You might want to note, because of mishandling of the company – and Romney is said to have been the brains behind the operation, 2,100 AMERICAN workers lost their jobs.

“…DDI Corp.: When Romney touts his private-sector job record, his opponents are quick to point out Bain Capital’s 1997 acquisition of electronic circuit board manufacturer DDI Corp. According to Politico, Bain took the company public in 2000, reaping $36 million — but by 2003, DDI had filed for bankruptcy protection and laid off 2,100 workers….”

So, Romney one time claimed he’d created about 10,000 jobs.  Of those jobs, 1700 were low-paying third world workers, NOT Americans.  So, we’re down to 8300 jobs created.  Let’s deduct those 2100 people Bain Capital ruined because of mismanagement and greed.  We’re now down to 6100 jobs.

Legal Insurrection

About that mismanagement:

The Daily Beast

Why don’t they ask about Mitt making money off a federal bailout of a company he took-over?

“…According to former Kennedy advisers, the ad never ran because it turned out to be unnecessary: Kennedy had already broken Romney with a series of ads tying him to layoffs in Indiana.

The commercial — produced for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee by the firm Doak, Shrum, Harris, Carrier, Devine — highlights Romney’s role in turning around Bain & Co. during its financial distress.

“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”

The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.

Romney aides pushed back strongly on the Democratic charge that Bain & Co. received anything like a TARP-style “bailout.” While the FDIC is a government agency, it is funded by deposit insurance payments rather than taxes. The agency agreed to reduce Bain & Co.’s liability to the Bank of New England, but didn’t pump new funds into the flagging firm. Other Bain creditors also took a haircut in order to avert the company’s collapse….”

CNN Political Ticker

“...Well, we’re about a week into the all-out assault on Gingrich, punctuated by a performance in Saturday night’s debate that got generally good reviews…and while we don’t have definitive evidence yet, it’s looking bad for Goldberg, and more importantly for Newt. Yesterday’s PPP poll had Newt’s negatives up dramatically, and Politico’s Maggie Haberman reports that the same thing is showing up in the candidates’ internal polls (via Goddard). It’s still too early to know for sure the magnitude of the damage, or even for sure if it’s real, but what evidence there is shows Newt just as vulnerable to a massive multi-candidate attack as I’d have expected.

One factor? Here’s where Newt’s unpopularity among highly visible conservative opinion leaders matters. Because practically no one appears to be rallying to his side. Even if conservatives aren’t interested in defending him against the specific charges that are being made, they certainly could call foul on the attackers for going so harshly negative against another Republican. Ronald Reagan’s supposed 11th Commandment (against attacking within the GOP) could be invoked. Instead, we get either piling on, or crickets. That matters; it lowers the costs of going negative, which include the risk that the attacking candidate will be branded as divisive within his or her own party. Of course, it helps that practically the whole field is doing it (with Jon Huntsman going negative against Romney in New Hampshire to boot), and it’s certainly possible that those seeing the ads directly might punish the attackers. Still, however, if Republican party actors step back and watch the mugging, it certainly doesn’t help the victim….”