Republicans Join Occupy

I'm laughing my a** off. DemfromCt has the roundup. The choice bit is, of course, from Newt Gingrich:

"Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money?" Newt Gingrich asked Monday. "I do draw a distinction between looting a company, leaving behind broken families and broken neighborhoods and then leaving a factory that should be there."

This reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Michael Moore was secretly Rush Limbaugh. What also has me laughing is Erick Erickson's reaction:

We can disagree with the strident attacks against Romney as a greedy vulture capitalist, but the reactions of many on our side surprise me because many are premised on the idea that no person could agree with the attacks and the attacks are inherently wrong.

From the guy demanding conservative purity, this is rich. I like a commenter's response:

The desire to beat Romney exceeds the desire to stand for free market principals. Your acknowledgement that Perry’s line of attack is acceptable should be troubling for fiscal conservatives to say the least.

Everyone expects this attack in the general, and in a degree it may be better for him to get softened on it in the primary where it doesn’t have as much of an impact against Obama (see Rev. Wright). However, to have conservative leaders basically endorsing this method of attack is ludicrous and the clearest example that most people's conservative principles are predicated upon how well their candidate is doing in the polls.

(Emphasis supplied.) Indeed.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 10th Circuit Blocks Oklahama Ban on Sharia Law >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    ones a$$ it is difficult to not laugh off (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 11:33:39 AM EST
    but man ooh man
    there is some serious stuff going on here.  like the republican acknowledgement that this is a big issue and very likely THE big issue of this election.  on one level it very smart and for republicans very self aware to get that this, as I have said here before, is Romneys Achilles heel and biggest vulnerability.
    the hilarious part of course is not that they are doing it out of any real compassion but out of their own desperation to stop Mit.
    one thing for sure the job of the Obama campaign ad makers just got a lot easier.
    seriously did anyone believe months ago that these words:

    "Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money?"

    would be coming out of americas tv screens this fall from the mouth of Mr K street?

    I can believe it, considering that the public (none / 0) (#2)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    record of Gingrich's life shows that he will do or say anything to have his own way, from terrorizing his family as a child to trading wives to shutting down the gov't because of his seat on Air Force One to violating the GOP's 11th commandment.

    He's a real life SNL recurring sketch character: It's Newt!


    one interesting thing I think (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    is that so far Ricky is the only one to refuse to jump of the bash capitalism band wagon.  will this redound to his benefit in SC and beyond?

    Ah, but Perry did today (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:42:57 PM EST
    talk about Bain Capitial being a vulture waiting for its prey to die before swooping in and leaving only a carcass

    well dont forget (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:48:29 PM EST
    Perry is the one that put up the "I like being able to fire people!" ringtone last night.

    Plus (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:53:42 PM EST
    He's said and done some very non-republican things in regards to immigration.

    terrorizing his family as a child? (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    My gossip radar just got twitched big-time.  I had heard nothing of this.

    ditto (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:42:21 PM EST
    links please

    According to NPR (none / 0) (#38)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    As a child, "Newtie," as his mother called him, shared a bedroom with his grandmother and kept jars of snakes on his bedside table that scared the wits out of her,



    Newtie pfttt (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    that alone would scar someone deeply

    That's Terrorizing ? (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:41:35 PM EST
    Come on, snakes in a jar ?  

    I did find this interesting, he was born Newton Leroy McPherson.  Sorry to say, but that is a fricken cool name.


    it's certainly better than (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by CST on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    Blue Ivy.

    In other news, celebrities should be banned from naming their own kids.


    The public radio show where I first heard about (none / 0) (#49)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:02:44 PM EST
    it made it sound worse. Supposedly she'd beg him to get them out of their(!) bedroom and he'd deliberately surprise her with them.

    Of course, Shrub used to blow up small animals with firecrackers, so maybe that's just par for GOP presidential candidates.


    And don't forget (none / 0) (#66)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    Mitt Romney's callous disregard of the family dog.

    But, see Greenwald re Mr. Lew: (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 11:44:34 AM EST
    Greenwald left out a few things when he pulled (none / 0) (#7)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:37:09 PM EST
    out the hatchet. For example, he left out that along with Clinton Lew worked with Dems like Wellstone, Moakley, and Tip O'Neill over the course of his career.

    He also left out that the subprime hedge fund at Citigroup was run by a different Jack, namely Jack Paulson. From the Huff Post:

    That Multi-Adviser fund in particular had $407 million by the end of 2007, a week before Lew was named as Alternative Investments' chief operating officer, according to SEC filings.

    The most damning thing I see about Lew isn't that a person with monetary experience has been running the OMB - shock - it's that he accepted a huge bonus from Citigroup before leaving to join the Obama administration, at a time when folks were more than a little upset that our tax dollars were going in rich folks' pockets.


    There are several "big" (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:36:08 PM EST

    The main one is why we have remained in a deep rescission despite going $5 trillion dollars deeper in debt.


    tax cuts (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:37:13 PM EST
    don't create jobs.

    Of course tax cuts are bad (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:43:30 PM EST
    We all know that the government can spend our money in much better ways than we can.



    than we can? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CST on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    no.  There is nothing stopping anyone from hiring teachers or adopting a highway.

    Than lots of people do, yes.

    I didn't say tax cuts were "bad".  I said they don't create jobs but do increase the deficit.  I'll leave it to you to decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.


    Tax cuts only increase deficits (none / 0) (#22)
    by BTAL on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    when the bottom end spending is continued unabated.

    It is Business 101 - in reverse.


    tax cuts increase deficits (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CST on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:02:06 PM EST

    Spending cuts decrease deficits.  But that has nothing to do with tax cuts.  When you use them in tandem they may or may not cancel out, but that doesn't change the influence of tax cuts on that equation.

    Spending increases also increase deficits.  They just often happen to create jobs too.


    Well, its' not (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by eric on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:44:11 PM EST
    business because it is government.  Big difference.  One is designed to generate profit, the other is not.  Comparing business practices to government practices is worthless.

    There's nothing stopping anyone (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:43:27 PM EST
    from sending money (paying more "taxes") to the government. Look up the address you sent your last filing to, make a check out to the US Treasury..

    and Bingo! You've adopted a Solyndra executive!


    excuse me (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:46:30 PM EST
    this is an idiotic republican talking point.



    It also happens to be true (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:32:17 PM EST
    But don't let that stop you from demonstrating your great debating ability.

    Or, ... a retiree (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:52:19 PM EST
    Does this mean I have to call you "son"?

    Absolutely - think of all the straw ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:38:51 PM EST
    ... you could buy to keep making those arguments ...



    there may be several big issues (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:49:04 PM EST
    but this election will revolve around one.

    forgive me Captain (none / 0) (#32)
    by kmblue on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    but hit me with the obvious--which one?

    income (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:41:37 PM EST
    inequality.  you know the 99% thing you may have heard about?
    who protects the middle class, who exploits the middle class etc.

    sound reasonable?


    no (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    the big issue is and will continue to be unemployment

    maybe you lump unemployment in with "income inequality," but income inequality by itself will not be the big issue

    "income inequality" has mostly to do with unearned income - an increase in the capital gains tax from 15 to 35 percent will have little or no effect on Obama's re-election chances (not that he could get such an increase through Congress in an election year, if he even wanted to)

    if unemployment goes down, Obama's re-election chances go up

    if unemployment stays where it is or goes up, Obama's prospects suffer

    it's that simple


    I do lump it in (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:44:39 PM EST
    the economy is what I really meant

    that of course (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    providing that Iran doesnt nuke Israel or vice versa.

    Thanks Captain (none / 0) (#39)
    by kmblue on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    I sure hope you're right.  

    about income inequality being the main issue (none / 0) (#40)
    by kmblue on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    instead of a war.  

    same here (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:34:03 PM EST

    What's surprising or (none / 0) (#64)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:57:57 AM EST
    perhaps not is that no one is pointing out that our escapades in the mideast and even more so in Afghan-Pakistan is costing the country billions; a reduction in spending on a 'war' we cannot 'win' in Afghanistan might fund a lot of meaningful government expenditures for our country.  Geeze, 41% of our nation's children are living in poverty. If you don't believe this, check out the U.S. Census, Brookings Institute, among many others.

    Full force of Bush tax cuts (none / 0) (#67)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    continued unfunded wars and revenue greatly reduced by the recession.

    The GOP has steadfastly clung to the war(s) and want more, refuse to raise taxes or support dumping the Bush tax cuts and in fact want still more and have blocked job creation legislation.

    Deficits! The people you support are at fault.


    Welcome to the Class War Newt! (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    This is funny sh*t...ya shoulda seen the Fox & Friends propaganda team giving Newt sh*t over these comments this morning, it was like a mini-McCarthy hearing up in there.

    Bain, this silly season's 4 letter word.  Lets hope it sticks and becomes part of our vernacular.

    "Hey Joe, how's things?  How's the job?"

    "Not so good Bill, my outfit got Bain'ed."

    The new catch phrase (none / 0) (#9)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:41:19 PM EST
    You've been Bain. Or was your company Bained.
     Maybe tonight Romney may be Bained.

    there have been some great cable captions (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    it the last 48 hours.  "Bain of his existence" "bring the Bain" "House of Bain" "No Bain No Gain"

    Romney... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    better see Edwards' hairdresser and lose the Gordon Gekko doo asap before this spins out of his on-staff spinmeisters control.

    Lest he bain himself out of the nomination.


    supposedly Ronmey (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:23:46 PM EST
    says he has the hair because it make him look like his father (creepy? you decide) but I saw some video of the senior Romney this morning and it really really does.  they are almost interchangeable.  and the more surreal part is their Schick  is also almost interchangeable

    I Think it's Pretty Damn Sad... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:15:36 PM EST
     ...that republicans are showing far more... courage than the D's in regards to the 1%'ers and immigration.  

    Pretty sad day when Newt Gingrich's words ride to the left of a Democratic Party President's.

    But here's to hoping this trend continues...

    This ain't courage... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    it's mudslinging.  It's bullsh*t.  It is politics.

    Newt don't like Mitt, and this Bain baggage is simply the hammer at his disposal.  I don't think Newt really gives a hoot about vulture capitalism and the damage done and the systemic problems with our economic system.  President Newt would be singing a very different tune.


    Of course (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    You could also argue that after Rombey officially becomes the nominee, the Bain stuff won't be as effective for the Obama camp to use because by summer it will be old news and the Romney camp will have learned how to respond.

    Anyone remember how effective Tony Rezko was a s a campaign foil by the McCan team?


    I don't know... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:51:33 PM EST
    I still think it plays well as a mudsling all year long...most non-politics geeks never cared about Rezko, everybody knows Gordon Gekko and Mitt's a dead ringer.  It will still play well, even coming from a pro-Bain'ing president.

    you dont actually believe this? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    do you.  the better comparison is when Gore first pointed out the Willie Horton ad against Bush sr.

    try to imagine the commercials flowing from the last couple of days:

    "even conservatives like blah blah say blah blah about Romney and his tenure at Bain"

    its manna from heaven.  admit it.


    Anyone who cares (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    I.e truly independents will think it's old news.  Dems will keep pounding it, Republicans will downplay it, and everyone else will be over it.

    for the record (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:07:30 PM EST
    I not only think its manna from heaven for democrats but I think a lot of republicans will think so too and it will seriously damage Romneys "electability" argument.  

    it is swiftboat 2012.  it is destroying his primary reason for running and his best argument for being elected.


    ooooook (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    Who knows? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    If the voters are looking for a reason to get rid of Obama it won't matter. If the voters are looking for a reason to not vote for Mitt it will be effective.

    If the economist is right and UE is 9.8% in November then it really isn't going to matter. Obama can say whatever he wants but people are just going to want to kick him out of the WH and not see him again anytime soon.


    this is essentially an argument (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    that political campaigns are totally irrelevant.

    I'm not sure you're completely wrong, but they sure do spend an awful lot of money on it for it to not make any difference.

    I get that most people will not make their decision on this.  But with the generally accepted idea that some people can be swung by ads - these are the ads we want to run, because this is the argument that might sway someone.


    If unemployment (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:30:11 PM EST
    is 10% are ads going to matter? I don't think so. Campaigns aren't completely irrelevant but they aren't as important as a lot of other variables. When they matter the most is when an election is close. Obama never having run a campaign against a tough Republican and now having a record (largely not a positive in his case)it should be interesting.

    yep (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:33:16 PM EST
    and if the Vikings invade it wont matter either

    Well, with the Vikings' (none / 0) (#54)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    won-loss record, I don't think they'll be much of a threat if they do invade.    ;-)

    Hey Zorba (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:45:58 PM EST
    As resident Marylanders, Anne and I are talking about getting together for lunch.  Do you want to join us?  

    When? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    Email me with the details- click my name, my email is in my user info.

    You brave soul (none / 0) (#57)
    by sj on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 05:16:41 PM EST
    I never even thought to look there. :)

    It's an email (none / 0) (#58)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    I created just for Talk Left and other blogs I comment on.   ;-)

    Check your email (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 05:24:04 PM EST
    Later!  Gotta walk the dog.  She is telling me emphatically.

    Luckily (none / 0) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:22:51 PM EST
    Unemployment is not going to be 10% so this is irrelevant.

    How the (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:34:44 PM EST
    heck do you know? Roubini says it's going to be 9.8% which is pretty darn close to 10%. 8.5% where it is now probably isn't going to be good enough either though.

    What would you like to see. Happen, at thi point, (none / 0) (#70)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    In terms of numbers, GA6th?  The unemployment numbers are gradually improving--reaching the best level now since the Bush recession hit full force as Obama came into Office--and, the projections now look toward continual improvement.  etc. Etc.

    I'm not sure that there is any nice way to suggest this, so....IMO, your comments appear to stress the underbelly of any positive projection for the WH & argue for all the ways that this Administration can lose.  Am I mistaken or is that what you really would like to see happen, a Democratic loss? (BTW, if I've misread your position, my apologies.  Kindlly consider this only a request for clarification of intent so that I don't misread in future.)


    Agreed (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:01:34 PM EST
    But he had to know he was going to get hit over the head with it.  At this point I don't really care as to the why's, he's bashing the right people.

    And courage wasn't a good word, but it was that or kahonas, and I'd rather not go on record, even here, as saying Newt has kahonas.


    Understood... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    Baining Mitt's nomination must be worth the blowback to ol' Newt.

    I too am glad somebody is saying it, even for all the wrong Machevellian reasons.  


    In the seriously OT category: (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:29:24 PM EST
    Segue is disambiguation of "Bain":

    Bane and blessing, pain and pleasure,
    by the cross are sanctified;
    In peace is there that knows no measure,
    joys that through all time abide. [Italics added.]

    This is a verse from the gospel hymn "In the Cross of Christ I Glory."  

    Might Romney use this to his advantage in SC?  

    my advise (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    Bane and blessing, pain and pleasure,

    would be stay as far away from this as possible


    Pretty sure almost every lama has (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:42:35 AM EST
    said something like this too :)  Bain was under Romney what is now considered successful capitalism across the board.  We have all allowed and even nurtured Wall Street to become NOTHING BUT vulture capitalism.  Obama can be shown to specifically have protected vulture capitalism too.  He considers those guys to be savvy businessmen.

    More Bainage (none / 0) (#65)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    Jon Huntsman's father, Jon Huntsman Sr. is related to Bain in a way, according to his bio on Wikipedia:

    He then founded Huntsman Chemical and in his capacity as CEO and Chairman, grew the business into the multi-billion dollar company which became known in 1994 as Huntsman Corporation. In 2001, Huntsman announced that his companies could not make their interest payments on junk bonds.[2] Huntsman Corporation became publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange in 2005. In 2007 Huntsman co-founded a new private equity firm, Huntsman Gay Global Capital, joining former Bain Capital executive Robert C. Gay to focus on investments in middle market companies.