Double Standards (Thou Shalt Not Upset the Mittster)


 ‘In everything do to others as you would have them do to you. Matthew 7:12  12

I have found one good reason to vote for Mitt – downsizing government.  It is a lovely idea, but there is no reality to the situation.  Congress does the dirty work.  A POTUS can suggest they downsize, but that’s about all he can do, aside from vetoing funding bills.

There is this odd reason that Mitt Romney must not now be attacked.  We are hurting the poor widdle thing.  It will damage  him in November, which is the most pathetic of them all.  If we dare challenge his credentials we’re now being called Marxist.


Let’s talk about all that big money behind Romney.  Huge money.  Oh, yea, we’re talking capitalism all right – all the big business there is.  Forget the little moms and pops, they’re being sold down the drain.  This is about capitalism, all right.  I guess it is.  After all, big business is far more important than hot dogs, apple pie, baseball, and America. Just ask George Soros!

“...Few people were more elated at 2:20 a.m. Wednesday morning when Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the Republican caucuses in Iowa than a small group of lobbyists unknown outside of the Washington Beltway. All indications suggest that the New Hampshire primary this Tuesday will bring similar joy.

These 15 men are leaders of what might be called Romney’s K Street army. They are key players in the mobilization of Washington’s $3.5 billion lobbying industry in support of his candidacy. Romney, more than anyone else who is running, is the favorite of the capital’s influence-wielding establishment.

All 15 are active fundraisers for Romney. Patrick J. Durkin, who lobbies for Barclays, for example, raised $254,825, according to reports filed by the Romney campaign. Robert Grand, of the lobbying firm Barnes & Thornberg, raised $110,050; William Mark Simmons and David Beightol, both of the Dutko Group, raised $69,260 and $54,200 respectively; Wayne Berman and Drew Maloney, both in the Ogilvy Government Affairs firm, raised $101,600 and $56,750, respectively. The list goes on.

The presence of these and other prominent Washington players supporting the Romney campaign signals that the establishment, at least its Republican wing, has concluded that the former Massachusetts governor is a safe bet.

The open participation of lobbyists in the current campaign is one more element in the collapse of campaign-finance reform. Two waves of reform — the first in the post-Watergate era of the mid-1970s and the second culminating in 2002 with the passage of the McCain-Feingold act, which sought to end the use of “soft money” in campaigns — are essentially moot.

But these reforms have been gutted by Supreme Court decisions, especially the Jan. 21, 2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and by a lax Federal Election Commission. Corporate donors, labor unions and individuals willing to write big checks are free to use their money to favor certain candidates. If they want to keep the contributions secret from public view, there are many opportunities for concealment.

In the current election, contributions that would not have been possible before Citizens United are flowing freely. In the first six months of 2011, for example, the Super PAC operating on Romney’s behalf, Restore Our Future, reported corporate contributions of $1 million each from Eli Publishing Inc. and F8 LLC, both based in Provo, Utah; $250,000 from The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. in The Villages, Fla.; and $100,000 from 2GIG Technologies in Lehi, Utah….”

National Journal

Evidently it is not good when Newt goes after Mitt, but it’s just fine and dandy for Mitt to go after Newt.

“…Gingrich replied, “Any Republican who gets the nomination is going to have [David] Axelrod and Obama figuring out every possible way- they are going to raise a billion dollars. They’re not raising- as the governor himself said in your quote, this ain’t bean bag. They aren’t going to raise a billion dollars for fun. They’re going to come after any Republican.”….”

If Mitt Romney cannot stand up under the vetting process and he is the nominee, we are going to go down like 1964.

“…A pro-Gingrich Super PAC released a trailer late last night for a project former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney cannot be pleased about: a half-hour documentary about Romney’s time running Bain Capital, a venture company that bankrupted nearly a quarter of the businesses it bought-up.

Produced by a former top Romney strategist, the film “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” focuses on people turned out of their jobs at four of the many companies Bain Capital essentially looted, tapping into the popular discontentment with Wall Street to label Romney a “corporate raider.”

The pro-Gingrich PAC Winning Our Future placed a top-dollar bid on the 27-minute film after pro-Romney PACs essentially destroyed Gingrich’s chances in Iowa with a flood of negative advertising that blanketed the airwaves…”

If conservatives were on their game, they would begin asking why the liberal press is so darn in love with Mitt. I think I know the answer. The Dems think they have the perfect candidate.

“…Lost in the weekend’s back-to-back debates in New Hampshire was this illuminating remark by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile after Saturday night’s soporific contest in Manchester: “Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him. And for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us . . . because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attacking. And that’s Mitt Romney.”

The remark drew guffaws from some of the other assembled party faithful and media commentators, but Brazile spoke the truth. Democrats do believe that Romney is eminently beatable, the perfect foil for President Obama, in fact….”

The Dems are already sharpening their game plan against Romney. It centers around Bain.

Think Progress

You’d better be able to counter this:


From the NRO:

“...As Rich notes below, Romney’s a formidably weak frontrunner, and one can only hope that Maggie is right that Santorum and Gingrich have been keeping their powder dry for South Carolina. Because I just don’t see any evidence that either Mitt or Team Romney will be able to go toe-to-toe with Barry & Co. in the fall. The Dems have already telegraphed a good deal of their playbook — they’ll paint him as a nervous, grinning, stuttering, heartless capitalist who’s also a “weird” social-issues nut — and hope to scare the hell out of the electorate, which by now has grown used to the dull pain of the Obama administration….”

Mitt’s conservative followers have their panties in a wad because Rick Perry is at Mama Penn’s (an institution in Anderson for Republicans) going after Mitt’s record in SC.  Sorry, but it is fair game.

“…“Now I have no doubt that Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips — whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out because his company Bain Capital with all the jobs that they killed, I’m sure he was worried that he’d run out of pink slips,” Perry told the crowd at Mama Penn’s restaurant.

Perry laid into Romney for heading a company which Perry alleged eliminated hundreds of South Carolina jobs.

“There is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business and I happen to think that’s indefensible,” said Perry. “If you’re a victim of Bain Capital’s downsizing, it’s the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain, because he caused it.”

Perry cited two South Carolina companies impacted by Bain Capital’s downsizing. Holson Burnes, a company controlled by Bain Capital in Gafney, shut down a photo album plant, causing 150 workers to lose their jobs after Bain Capital charged them $20 million in management fees. Perry also cited GS Industries in Georgetown, S.C., which Bain Capital merged with a company in Kansas City, resulting in the dismissal of 700 steelworkers in the two cities and the payment of $65 million in management fees….”

For some strange reason it is just plain evil for Newt Gingrich to defend himself.  The question that comes to my mind is – why the heck to the Dems want Mitt to be nominated?  I suspect conservatives are furious because Mitt has snagged one of GWB’s major donors.

The Daily Beast

Evidently it is wrong for a SuperPAC to run ads for Newt, but it is find and dandy to do the same for Mitt.

“...The unchallenged march of the formerly pro-choice, self-described “progressive” father of national health insurance to the Republican nomination is one of the most bizarre political spectacles of my life. I am running out of explanations for it, including explanations that require party-wide conspiracies or science fiction. (Perhaps Romney has a force field that turns to mush the brain of anybody who threatens him.) The latest inexplicable event was Saturday night’s debate in New Hampshire….”

Hot Air
Crooks and Liars

But – this is fine for Mitt:

Tom Dispatch

Conservative pundits have lost their minds. They are back-peddling (?) on Mitt as quickly as they can pander toward Rick Santorum. Now, any normal Republican laughs in your face when you suggest Santorum might be the nominee. He is a joke. Well, the pundits are now making jokes of themselves.

Don Surber

“…That could be a problem, according to Washington Post columnist George Will. On Sunday’s “This Week,” Will chalked that deficiency up to the tea party not being passionate about Republican politics.

“That’s right, because Iowa is on everyone’s list of 12 to 14 swing states that you have to carry to win the presidency, the Republicans should be alarmed at the — I want to call it depression, but the absence of passion,” Will said. “We all know that the passion and the Republican Party is in the tea party — the tea party just isn’t an important part of the Republican base, it is the base at this point. And there is no one on the stage … the fact is, someone has to find the voice of the tea party.”

Will’s solution: Go after the policies of former President George W. Bush and so-called big-government conservatism instead of attacking President Barack Obama.

“And the way you start that is by saying, what got us into trouble isn’t Barack Obama — what got the tea party enkindled, so dry and flammable in February 2009 was the policies of the Bush administration,” Will said. “What you have to have now is an argument against big-government conservatism and tea party limited government, 10th amendment conservatism.”…”


Too bad more conservative pundits are not as honest as Thomas Sewell.

“…Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics’ claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.

Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.

Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.

While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich’s candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it “the Clinton surplus” but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.

Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results….”

On FOX, the fix is in for Mitt. Case in point, even Chris Wallace is defending Bain Capital.

“…On Sunday, Republicans tried to fend off Democratic attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital, by drawing the following analogy: Romney is to Bain Capital as President Obama is to Solyndra.

It began on Fox News Sunday, when host Chris Wallace turned to his guest, DNC Chairwoman and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) with a question comparing Romney’s work at Bain to President Obama’s relationship to the failed solar energy company Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. “You go after Romney for laying off people, correct?” Wallace said. “Let me ask you about that. Is the President responsible for laying off the people of Solyndra?”

The comparison is misguided on many levels and only makes sense if you fundamentally misrepresent both what private equity at Bain meant in practice, and what happened at Solyndra. As a private equity firm, Bain Capital invested in companies and came up with a plan for making them profitable, or more profitable than they previously were. It wasn’t merely a loan — that’s venture capitalism — because it included a business strategy. Sometimes the plan was to lay off workers and cut wages and benefits. Sometimes the strategy failed and the company went under. But Romney, as CEO of Bain, was in charge of strategies that called for laying off workers while benefiting shareholders. None of that is true of Solyndra, where the company was loaned money to follow through on its own projects but ultimately failed anyway….”


“...In sum, there was never any fine levied against Speaker Gingrich as a result of the findings of the House Ethics Committee Report referenced in the subject advertisements. Any statement to the contrary in any broadcast communication produced on behalf of Governor Romney, any other presidential candidate, or any SuperPAC is all at once false, misleading, and defamatory. And, given the fact that both the Report itself and the associated Congressional Record are clear matters of public record, we are left with no other conclusion but to assume that such communications are made with either knowledge or reckless disregard of their inherent falsity….”


Why did Mitt say he hadn’t seen the “ads” then his people said he did?