Dr. C: Boston and the End to the Endless War
Maiello's Book-Almost Hits the Metaphorical Stands
Miami Fans Mistakenly Chant "Let's Go Eat" During Playoff Game
|
Dr. C: Boston and the End to the Endless War Maiello's Book-Almost Hits the Metaphorical Stands Miami Fans Mistakenly Chant "Let's Go Eat" During Playoff Game |
Shouts & |
By Nicholas Confessore, Peter Lattman and Kevin Rouse, New York Times, Jan. 27/28, 2011
When Bain Capital sought to raise money in 1989 for a fast-growing office-supply company named Staples, Mitt Romney, Bain’s founder, called upon a trusted business partner: Goldman Sachs, whose bankers led the company’s initial public offering. When Mr. Romney became governor of Massachusetts, his blind trust gave Goldman much of his wealth to manage, a fortune now estimated to be as much as $250 million. And as Mr. Romney mounts his second bid for the presidency, Goldman is coming through again: Its employees have contributed at least $367,000 to his campaign, making the firm Mr. Romney’s largest single source of campaign money through the end of September.
No other company is so closely intertwined with Mr. Romney’s public and private lives except Bain itself [....]
Also see:
Gingrich Predicts ‘Wild and Woolly’ Campaign
By Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times, Jan. 28/29, 2012
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. — Despite recent setbacks, Newt Gingrich pledged on Saturday to stay in the nominating fight until the end, vowing to a group in central Florida, “We’re going to the convention.” Mr. Gingrich made the remarks in Brooksville as he has faced a torrent of criticism from establishment Republicans and a recent decline in the polls [....]
These attacks have prompted Sarah Palin, among others, to rush to Mr. Gingrich’s defense [....] Ms. Palin also excoriated conservative writers who have denigrated Mr. Gingrich, including George Will and Peggy Noonan, who called Mr. Gingrich an “angry little attack muffin.” Ms. Palin’s comments followed those of the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh [....]
By Karl Vick, Time Magazine, May 22, 2013
For the cleric who runs Iran, there’s no such thing as a pleasant surprise, especially on election day. Ayatullah Ali Khamenei was not pleased when a librarian named Mohammed Khatami was swept into the President’s office in 1997, leading a wave of reformists who challenged the status quo in which Khamenei, as the unelected Supreme Leader of the Revolution, was most heavily invested. In every election cycle since, the self-appointed portion of Iran’s government has done all it can to winnow the choices placed before Iranian voters. On Tuesday, that system tightened the screen once more, ...
By Eric Lipton & Ben Protess, New York Times, May 23/24, 2013
WASHINGTON — Bank lobbyists are not leaving it to lawmakers to draft legislation that softens financial regulations. Instead, the lobbyists are helping to write it themselves.
One bill that sailed through the House Financial Services Committee this month — over the objections of...
By Jane Perlez, New York Times, May 24-25, 2013
BEIJING — The Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, bluntly told a North Korean envoy Friday that his country should return to diplomatic talks designed to rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons, according to a state-run Chinese news agency.
“The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and lasting peace on the peninsula is what the people want and also the trend of the times,” Mr. Xi said in a meeting at the Great Hall of the People with Vice Marshal Choe Ryong-hae, a personal envoy of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, the China News Service reported.
Vice Marshal Choe, who has been in Beijing for three days on a mission to...
A bridge collapsed over Skagit River tonight near Mount Vernon. This was on Interstate 5 both north bound and south bound, four lanes total. No word yet on how many cars went into the water. This is so sad. How many of these will we have to have before we start financing infrastructure? Most of our bridges are in sad shape.
"Goldwater vs Rockefeller":
also of note:
I looked up the latest Palin spin, because of the mention in the second Times' article; it's a doozie:
When she writes
It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on
I was immediately reminded of these paragraphs in the handy historical review of Newt's Congressional career by Sheryl Gay Stolberg in Friday's New York Times which remind us that Newt basically was the inventor and popularizer of what she's complaining about:
Sarah is right for the first line above that you quote in itals. It is precisely the GOP establishment against the Tea Party and independent-thinking conservative folks who care about the GOP primary. This is precisely how Erickson frames it. Historical parallels, pejorative language, and ironies aside, it's quite true. Romney's shills in the Establishment and media and PACs are vicious to Newt, and he is inherently vicious. This is far from over, because Tea will not go quietly into that dark night of Romneyism.
Gallup still has him up 6 nationally. Looks like that is his level in a given state until the Romney super pacs come to town and unload on him.
One way to look at the numbers though, is that nationally Newt is just above 30%, and in Florida, even in those that show behind Romney, he is usually just above 30%. The difference right now in Florida is that Romney has been able to surge up to the high 30%, even touching 40%. But overall Newt really hasn't shown any significant erosion of support. He just isn't getting any of the undecideds moving over to him - which is where the attacks are having their biggest effect it seems.
That's so weird, I read that piece about a half hour ago. Despite the harangue about the Left, not a bad description of the internal war.
Anyway,can you imagine her actually writing something like that? Nope.
can you imagine her actually writing something like that?
My impression was that the writer hasn't even bothered to sound like her.
Except at one place where "aw heck" is inserted.
Campaign burnout by the citizens has been a common theme so far it seems. I've seen a number of quotes in the reports from the trail that is just a rewording of your comment. This is where Romney's lukewarm support is a huge liability. In a race that could be decided by 3 or 4 percentage points, it matters if your supporters feel strongly motivated to go out and vote for their candidate.
In this sense, one can see the attacks on Newt as an attempt in creating a corresponding anti-Newt candidate to face off against the anti-Romney candidate. If the people are significantly motivated to go vote for Romney, at least they'll get off the couch to go vote against Newt.
Older Florida voters do remember his days in Congress
I would imagine that is the case in most states. I should say I haven't checked polls by age on that front. But I suspect, from general polls about how disgusted everyone is with Congress, that if they remember those times, they wouldn't think he's going to offer much of a solution to the country's ills as president because of his behavioral bent, even if they like his ideology.
It's also good to keep in mind that older voters are usually the ones that come out in force to vote in primaries, and it's in the general that all the other generations jump in, watering down the older voter effect, whatever it happens to be.
I may be off base on this one, but just as the older generation thought Obama being black was a big deal (whether they supported or not), the older voters are probably going to think Romney being a Mormon is a big deal, and usually not in a positive way.
The way I think about it is the look on their face if years earlier the moment one of their kids told them their new boyfriend or girlfriend was a Mormon.
I tend to think just the opposite, that in general, the older people get, the more tolerant they are of things like religion in others, just because of "wisdom of age," the experience of dealing with more people. Yes, of course, they are still prey to trusting their own kind more, but don't fall for the demonization bit as much. Extremism is what they mistrust, they are "conservative" in that way.
Romney is just flat out buying this election. He's got the $$$$$$$ (from some we'll never know who they are until it's too late) to sustain the bully brigade and brags about it. The SCOTUS really screwed the pooch and the rest of us.
The truth is, that if Santorum would drop out, Newt would have it. Makes me have all kinds of conspiracy theory hallucinations.
I think both Gingrich and Santorum have billionaire benefactors. It's just a money-led campaign cycle.
It's the fact that Myth has so much more $$$$$ and for whatever reason, his shadow bully brigade seems the most threatening (?).
I have to admit, his rhetoric infused with lies, snide misdirection and the other negatives he is exhibiting, that is touted to be contrary to his religious ideology (I know they all do it, but he does it with such smugness and glee), has totally canceled out any respect or positive qualities I had attributed to him.
It's horrific, as stated before, that our electoral processes have become even more perverted due to SCOTUS's citizens united ruling.
Since I haven't listened to him, I don't really know how snide and misdirecting he is.
However, re: $$$$$, it's not Mitt's fault that Gingrich got in late and didn't raise cash - though his billionaire friend has put in, apparently he didn't tithe early for Florida, so no TV spots. And oops, Newt forgot to get on the ballot in Virginia.
Santorum's in similar shape. As for the other candidates, say buh-bye.
Actually, without Citizen's United, Gingrich & Santorum would have been in worse shape.
And you certainly can't blame Citizen's United for the plight of Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Perry. Incompetence is its own master.
Point well made and acknowledged.
However, I don't believe that most (especially within the 99%) think that the citizens united ruling is a positive for our already shoddy electoral processes.
It's the Romney campaign team executing a new plan that got to Drudge, according to Jim Rutenberg & Jeff Zeleny at the New York Times:
I tend to suspect in the case of Drudge, it's a case of smart P.R, knowing what kind of juicy inflammatory stuff Drudge likes (i.e, "food fight!") rather than Drudge being won over to support Romney. It's no guarantee he will support him in the future. Even though Rutenberg & Zeleny say Rhoades "has close ties" with him.
Nate Silver has updated with two posts today, (as well as changing his projection for Florida to Romney's chance of winning at 95%):