Skip to comments.Are You Sitting Down? (Shortened Title
Posted on 01/11/2012 12:07:16 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me find this. This is from TheHill.com. You are not going to like this. Let me just read it to you. It is by an Jonathan Easley (I always like to put the journalist's name to the story), and we're gonna assume that it's true. We don't know if it is or not. It's in the mainstream media. "On the heels of his decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney took the attacks on his private sector record used by GOP rivals and turned them against President Obama. Romney's critics have accused him of destroying jobs in order to increase profits for his investment firm, Bain Capital, but speaking Wednesday on CBS, Romney said..." Are you sitting down? "Romney said that what he did" running Bain Capital was...
Are you sitting down? If you're driving, you might want to pull off to the side of the road here. "[S]peaking Wednesday on CBS, Romney said that what he did [with Bain Capital] was no different..." Are you sitting down? Are you paying very close attention? Look at me. Do I have you here? According to TheHill.com and Jonathan Easley. Today on CBS, "Romney said that what he did [with Bain Capital] was no different" Dadelut dadelut dadelut! from what Barack Obama did bailing out the auto industry. Thud! Kerplunk! You've got to be kidding me. The next paragraph is a quote from Romney. Are you still sitting down?
"In the general election I'll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler -- closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers -- he did it to try to save the business." So TheHill.com is reporting that Romney on CBS today said that what he did with Bain Capital is no different than what Obama did in taking over the auto companies. Obama had to lay people off; Obama had to streamline the place to make them profitable. So he's accepting the premise that Newt and Perry have put out there, apparently, that he has gone into these companies with a chainsaw -- and now he is using Obama and what he did at General Motors and Chrysler as: Hey, the president did it! Now, General Motors and Chrysler are not profitable, and... (sigh)
You just don't, if you are the leader in the race for the Republican nomination, come out and give tacit approval to the government takeover of General Motors and Chrysler and then compound that by saying: Hey, what I did is no different. I was trying to save the businesses. (interruption) I did leave the possibility that this is not accurate. Yes. It's in TheHill.com. I've not seen it anywhere else. So, yes, I've held out the possibility that this is inaccurate. For example, there was a story all day yesterday on Drudge that Newt is gonna go into South Carolina and meet with the former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucasians (Clyburn, James Clyburn, whose daughter is named Mignon Clyburn) and gonna have a joint press conference, appearance about the housing industry, that Newt is gonna meet with a Democrat -- a ranking Democrat -- member of the Congressional Black Caucasians. So I fired that off to some people I know who are dyed-in-the-wool, Newt-can't-do-anything-wrong supporters, and I said, "Can you explain this to me?" and a few hours later I had a reply. "Newt says this isn't true. He thinks Romney people are spreading this rumor. He's not got a meeting with Clyburn," but it's in The State newspaper in South Carolina. So I share with you this Hill.com story with the proviso that it might not be true, but there it is. Okay.
RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, to be clear, Romney has said this before. He was on Bill O'Reilly's show (that's on the Fox News Channel, eight o'clock) on December the 20th and Romney said on that show, "'The president has had one experience overseeing an enterprise, a couple of enterprises: General Motors and Chrysler. What did he do? He closed factories and he laid off people. He didn't do it personally but his people did. Why did he do it? Because he wanted to save the enterprise. He wants to make it profitable so it can survive.' Romney's comments came as scrutiny intensified over company's controlled by based upon the company." That's back on December 20th.
So he said this and his point is, obviously: Well, look, Obama's taxpayer dollars; I was using private sector dollars and so forth. The problem with it is (and the AP, by the way, is saying that the new line of defense "is part of an effort by Romney to shield himself against criticism that as a partner in the equity firm Bain Capital, that they slashed tens of thousands of jobs." So I know what the thinking is. The thinking is, "Hey, look at me! I'm no different than what Obama did, and you love Obama. You don't criticize Obama for doing this, so you can't criticize me for doing it. We did the same thing." Uh, sorry. That... I'm not a politician, and I don't measure things I say in a political context. I just don't. That's why I don't run for office: I couldn't do it what these people do.
I don't know how you say this. You've just accepted the premise of the Newt and Perry criticism! You just accepted the premise with this comment to CBS today, and you're trying to blunt the criticism and saying, 'Well, I'm no different than Obama." Mitt, would you take over General Motors and Chrysler if you're president, is that what you're saying? And, by the way, who the hell says that Obama's trying to save the companies? Who the hell says that Obama cares about profitability? That's not why Obama took over those companies! If anybody remembers, it was the Romneys that owned those companies that got the shaft: The bondholders.
The bondholders -- who had the first dibs on any bankruptcy or payoff or payback, anything that was made whole to General Motors -- who have more say so than stocking were told by Obama (summarized): "Get the hell outta here! You're greedy! It's people like you that have caused this country to end up being so unfair. I'm giving this company to the unions, and the reason that I'm saving this company is to save pensions and health care benefits -- and so I can market a stupid-ass car that nobody wants. I don't care about profit!" Folks, I do not understand what is so hard to understand about this. Why in the world would anybody seeking the Republican presidential nomination try to shield themselves from criticism by hiding behind Obama?
Now, this is where I don't get it politically -- and maybe the political experts have looked at this and said, "Okay, this is the best way to handle it," and maybe the consultants are saying, "They love Obama. They've not ripped Obama for taking over General Motors. They've not ripped Obama for people lost their jobs they've not ripped President Obama for people who lost their investments so they're not gonna rip you." Really? Ooookay. Anyway, the idea that Barack Obama took over General Motors and Chrysler for any benevolent reasons or any capitalistic reasons is simply absurd, ladies and gentlemen. Obama wanted to save the UAW's pension fund! I'll tell you what else he wanted to do -- and let us never forget this.
Barack Obama thinks this country has been inherently unfair since its founding. Barack Obama thinks that this is a country that was assembled by and governed by the 1% white power brokers from the get-go, and they have had stewardship over this country and they have slanted everything. They have built everything, they have scheduled everything, they have arranged everything so that they are the primary financial beneficiaries of the United States of America. The 1%! Barack Obama believes that the Founders and the white majority of this country, since its founding, have been inherently unfair, have screwed everybody else, have taken everything for themselves -- and then sent our own sons and daughters around the world to war to protect their own personal spoils.
This is what he believes. So when General Motors is going belly up, he looks at General Motors as not something to save profitability. "Saving" General Motors and Chrysler is not saving General Motors and Chrysler. It's turning it over to the people who should rightly have it because they made it. It's Elizabeth Warren (summarized): "The workers should own General Motors. They're the ones that made it, the people who have been fired and laid off and subject to puny little union contracts." No, Obama, it's exactly what he did at General Motors (summarized): "I'm gonna see to it that the rightful owners -- the 99%, the schlubs who have been raped and taking advantage of -- that this their company now! I'm giving it to 'em. I'm bailing 'em out! I don't care about profitability," and to run around and to compare your own private sector business to that? Lord help us!
RUSH: Romney gave what may be the best speech ever last night, his acceptance speech, victory speech. It may have been the best speech he's ever given. Somebody needs to put a pair of comforting hands on the shoulders, and a gentle shake, and say, "Let me remind you who Obama is. Let me tell you who your opponent is and what he's doing and how you are nothing like him, and you don't want to be seen as anything like him."
But that's not my job, man. (interruption) Yeah, I know. Obama's not just a nice guy who's in over his head. Obama has a plan. Obama's plan is based on his inherent belief that this country was immorally and illegitimately founded by a very small minority of white Europeans who screwed everybody else since the founding to get all the money and all the goodies, and it's about time that the scales were made even. That's what's going on here, and that's why the president is lawless, and that's why there is no prosecution of the Black Panthers for voter intimidation because it's not possible for a minority to intimidate the white majority. It's not possible.
It's always been the other way around. This is just payback. This is just "how does it feel?" time. That's how he sees himself, pure and simple. He doesn't see himself as a capitalist reformer saving a stupid automobile company. He sees an opportunity to take it away from the people who founded it and give it to the people he thinks have a moral right to it because somehow they have been taken advantage of, used, exploited, paid unfairly, what have you.
RUSH: Duluth, Minnesota. Chad, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, thanks, Rush. Mega dittos from the liberal bastion of northern Minnesota.
RUSH: Thank you very much.
CALLER: You know, I was listening, and, you know, you told me to pull over when Romney made his little comment about Obama bailing out GM, same thing he was doing with Bain. You know, I started thinking about it, and, you know, to read in between the lines, I think he already thinks he has the nomination. I think he is kind of doing a preemptive strike on Obama so he can't use that same angle on him.
RUSH: Well, let me see if I understand what you're saying. You think that Romney is doing a preemptive strike on Obama so he can't use that same angle on him?
RUSH: Okay. Pretty much what I said. Maybe the political advisers are saying, "Mitt, go ahead and say you're no different than Obama, because the press is not ripping Obama. The press is praising Obama for every aspect of General Motors, taking it over, laying people off, making it profitable. So how can they criticize you for doing exactly what they praised Obama for?" And the answer is they are the media, that's how they can do it.
CALLER: Makes sense.
RUSH: Since when did we ever neuter the media? And what the hell is this playing defense stuff? Sorry, don't get me started here. Here's the bite. Chad, I only hope you're right. I've got the bite now. The Hill got it right, TheHill.com. So here it is. Are you sitting down? CBS morning show, Charlie Rose interviewing Mitt Romney. Charlie Rose said, "Clearly, you know the outlines of what they want to say about your tenure at Bain Capital are clear. You were a destructive force. Will they be able to make that stick? Can you defend that, not only in the primaries but in the general election?" Can they make it stick that you're a destructive force?
ROMNEY: Well, of course, they tried the same line here in New Hampshire and it fell extraordinarily flat. People here in the state know that in the work that I had, we started a number of businesses, invested in many others and that overall, created tens of thousands of jobs. So I'm pretty proud of that record. By the way, in the general election, Ill be pointing out that the president took the reins of General Motors and Chrysler, closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers. He did it to try and save the business. We also have had on occasion to do things that are tough to try and save a business. Like, I'm going to go to Washington and cut it down to size. Washington is simply too big.
RUSH: Okay, so said it there. Going to do exactly what Obama did, taking over General Motors and Chrysler. I'm sure the thinking -- there's no doubt -- I think Chad here, Chadley from Duluth is exactly rightly. I think that they think they're inoculating themselves, this is how to blunt the criticism. Obama did it. See, it's based on the fact that the media loves Obama, will never criticize Obama for this, and to criticize Romney makes 'em hypocrites. That's obviously what the thinking here is.
RUSH: No, no, no, no, no. Just to clarify (sigh), my angst or my disquietedness here with Romney is not that he seeks to defend himself from getting rid of losing propositions at companies in order to save them. I know that's gotta happen. My concern here is that capitalism's under assault; Barack Obama's not a capitalist. Barack Obama and Romney did not do what they did for the same reasons -- for the same objective, same things -- and I just think if you're going to wade into this pool of defending the way you save a business, you're not government. I don't know. I just think there's a better way of doing this educationally, informatively than tying yourself to Obama. It's not that I think Romney's gonna take over car companies as president.
That's not what my fear here is. I just think in order to win this, Obama is gonna have to be properly defined as what he is and what he intends for this country, and his takeover of General Motors was not benevolent. There was nothing about the takeover of General Motors that was oriented toward saving it. He doesn't care whether it runs at a profit. Government does not have to make a profit running anything. I give you the Volt. They don't care! The Volt ends up costing $250,000 per car when you account for all the subsidies and everything else. They don't care. They don't have to show a profit.
RUSH: I'm still struggling with this here, folks. What Romney should have said is, "You call what I did layoffs? I was trying to save jobs! I was trying to save companies. Look at what Obama did with General Motors: Those jobs went overseas to the ChiComs. Look at how he's laying off 80,000 soldiers," and this is the point: Is Obama trying to save the Pentagon by laying off 80,000 soldiers? No, ladies and gentlemen. Quite the opposite. There's nothing -- there's not a single thing -- that is common between we as conservatives and Barack Obama.
Not a single thing. In the areas of economics and substance there's not a single thing. Now, the Democrats may talk about the fact, "Yeah, we need to streamline the Pentagon! Lean and mean. So we're gonna lay off 80,000 soldiers." That's not why they're laying off 80,000 soldiers. They are cutting that money to spend it elsewhere to buy more votes. They're doing it to cut the military down to size because they think the US military has been the focus of evil in this world. The colonialism and imperialism are rooted in the US military. And it's not just Obama; that's the Democrats from as long as I've been alive. Well, since JFK.
I dont think Rush wants Romney either...
The entire title is: Are You Sitting Down? Romney Compares His Career at Bain Capital to Obama's Takeover of the Auto Industry!Yes, so all of you who defend Romney's anti-capitalist tenure at Bain Capital by conflating it "capitalism" or "free enterprise" can now pour yourselves a tall cool glass of STFU--this includes Rush himself who earlier attacked Gingrich for issuing the same criticisms against the former corporate raider and the one-term former governor who delivered RomneyCare. Romney himself now admits that his private equity firm socialized the costs of his operations onto taxpayers in the form of e.g. bailouts to pension funds that his firm plundered or the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs in favour of low-wage retail jobs at Staples or Dominos.
Rush’s response is in the exact same spirit as mine. He compares his Bain action to something that us conservatives despise.
Not even close when it comes to making comparisons. One is capitalism and the other is fascism or marxism, if you like.
Oops, comes so naturally for Mitt to show his liberal side of things. The DNC is loving this along with the Mitt vs. Mitt video should keep a lot of the GOP voters away from the polls. I work with the grass roots. We are not seeing much excitement for Mitt. Some of the people who identify as moderates feel ok with him. I hope the convention is a knock down to get the party on the limited government track.
I wonderedhow Rush was going to ease his way out of the huge hole he dug for himself yesterday. tomney madei teasy for him.
AND Rush owes Gingrich an apology. I would compare romney much more to soros.
1. Actually, there’s a huge difference. Shareholders have a great deal more freedom in where they invest and who they support for a company CEO than taxpayers do. The difference between the two situations is enormous.
2. To say that what you did was no different than what Obama did when you’re trying to position yourself to run against him is just plain stupid.
AND Rush owes Gingrich an apology. I would compare romney much more to soros.ftw!
There is a reasonable probability that if the GOP nominates Romney, Traitorbama will be reelected.
This is so depressing. How did we get here.
Santorum’s my choice but I will crawl over broken glass to vote for Candidate ABO. Anyone But Obama. I would vote for Debbie Wasserman Shultz over Obama if I had to. Al Sharpton. Spongebob. Anyone.
You wrote: “I wonderedhow Rush was going to ease his way out of the huge hole he dug for himself yesterday. tomney madei teasy for him. AND Rush owes Gingrich an apology.”
You must have been listening to a different program than I was YESTERDAY. Tell me where the “huge hole” is that he supposedly dug:
....September 25th, 2008, Gingrich appeared on Fox News and said that the TARP legislation was socialism. He said that it should be defeated. Thats September 25th. On September 28th, Gingrich was on This Week on ABC. He said the question was not whether something needed to be done but whether needed to be TARP, whether needed to be done the next 48 hours. He then stated that he probably would reluctantly vote for it but... So everybody got captured by it. Then on October 1st of 2008 Gingrich wrote in Human Events that his solution would be to get rid of Secretary Paulson and to suspend the market to market rule, which would give Congress the breathing room to develop a plan to replace TARP and to reestablish trust with the American people.
So Gingrich was opposed to TARP.
Romney everybody was for it.
TARP is not capitalism! Romney, were being told, is the big capitalist. He supported the biggest bailout of banks and sovereign wealth funds.
So my point is all of these allegations going back and forth about whos a capitalist and who isnt and whos willing to defend it, the way its manifested itself now, is the establishments candidate is under assault for being a capitalist.
His opponents are running around using the language of the left to attack him as a capitalist, and what are they gonna do? Are they gonna defend capitalism? Somebody better.
Because whatevers happening to Romney now, whoever our nominee is, you can quadruple this in terms of the allegations, what a Republican is: A conservative is, mean-spirited, loves big profits, loves big business, takes money from the poor and gives it to the bankers! All of that crap, its gonna be magnified twice what it is in the Republican primary right now.
Meanwhile, in the Oval Office, we have a genuine redistributionist Marxist and our establishment will not get anywhere near properly characterizing him that way.
RUSH: I do not want to be misunderstood here. You know my job is to communicate, to make the complex understandable. I just want you to understand, Im not defending Bain. Im not defending Romney. Im not defending Newt. Im not defending Santorum.
I am defending capitalism and conservatism.
And we are seeing, because this has happened, we are seeing in microcosm form the Obama campaign against our nominee in one regard. This is going to be and its gonna be much more amplified than this is, for all the language Newts using and whoever the others are attacking Romney for profits and firing people, so forth, wait til the Democrats get hold of this. This is mild compared to what its gonna be, so its a good proving ground.
Now, why is this happening on the Republican side? Ill tell you exactly why its happening. This is how Romney hopes to win. This is the end result of a strategy.
Mitt Romney has spent a fortune in two election cycles attacking the records of people who are more conservative than he is, by claiming they are not conservative, and hes attacking them from the right.
Now, what outrages Newt and the others in the past, the people back in 2008, is that Romney is not Mr. Conservative, but hes positioning himself that way and attacking others for not being.
Newt, I guarantee you, if you ask him, Newt thinks hes twice the conservative Romney is. So heres Newt being hit up and ripped for not being conservative by a guy he doesnt think is anywhere as big a conservative as he is.
Imagine if you were on the end of millions of dollars of attack ads and opposition research, and you think all of its a bunch of lies, what are you gonna do? Youre gonna try to retaliate. So thats where we are.
This campaign is where it is because decisions were made by certain candidates to take it here. So it has to be dealt with as is.
RUSH: Now, speaking of TARP, Newt, he really nailed it in his Human Events piece 2008, October 1st.
Let me give you a brief excerpt of what Newt wrote then. He said, The TARP plan that relies on the former chairman of Goldman Sachs that would be Paulson presiding over disbursing hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street is a terrible concept and inevitably will lead to crony capitalism and the appearance of if not the actual existence of corruption.
Well, that happened. Thats exactly what TARP was.
Wait, I don’t get it - the phrase “(Shortened Title” is not in the full title?!
The GOP is dead....and just does not know it yet.
Romney's stupid analogy gave Rush the perfect distraction he needed to get out of the hole today that he dug himself into yesterday.
Gotta hand it to the Mahatma....he did it smoothly and seamlessly.
Well, almost. He walked back a little on both Newt and Mitt today...but I haven't forgotten his emotional outbursts yesterday....and he DOES owe Newt an apology. Rush did immeasurable harm to the Gingrich campaign yesterday...and the harm was not based on well-thought-out logic.
Yesterday was NOT one of Rush's better days.
(Disclaimer: I am not a Newt supporter....I'm a Rush supporter and have listened to him consistently for 22 years. But I'm also an equal-opportunity critiquer.)
Except today Gingrich succumbed to the pressure and apologized at a campaign event after being confronted by a veteran.
The media and RINO elites FU this nomination BAR and we are now headed to the worst case scenario. A Liberal Republican who approves of the communist tactics of the most hated president incumbent in modern history.
This slow motion train wreck was so predictable. We have been manipulated and are now totally screwed thanks to Glen Beck, Hannity, Anne Coulter, Rush et al.
Romney admitted what we’ve been saying all morning. His company took taxpayer money, he made off will 4 million dollars and left the taxpayer holding a $10 million bag. (Basically an early form of Solandra) and here’s Rush and Hannity defending it as “capitalisam”. It’s going to be really funny when we try to hang the Solandra people and they play back Rush and Hannity claiming it’s just free enterprise.
Silly me. Learned my lesson...
Ahhhh, that explains a lot.
In regards to this:
I did not hear Rush yesterday. So this was my first exposure to what Rush said about Newt attacking capitalism using class warfare like the left, which he wasn’t.
Had nothing to do with TARP.
FWIW, soros, when asked if he had any regrets or remorse about confiscating fellow Jews’ properties and belongings, replied that he had NO regrets and NO remorse because someone was going to do it anyway.
THAT is romney. Pure, simple.
Leni, I think you were on that thread yesterday. I have to reiterate. People need to research ROMNEY, not Bain Capital. romney ran a whole separate operation with money he raised himself, apart fom Bain, and targeted small companies that were floundering when the recession hit.
He recruited 7 other raiders. They made large offers to companies and when the offers were accepted over lower bidders and anyone else was out of the picture, they went in and told the company they didn’t rate the higher offer, lowered it to pennies on the dollar, forced these companies to borrow beyond their capacity, and into bankruptcy.
romney cleared a hundred million dollars on these deals.
You wrote: “In regards to this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831171/posts I did not hear Rush yesterday. So this was my first exposure to what Rush said about Newt attacking capitalism using class warfare like the left, which he wasnt.”
Since Rush played the soundbites of leftists and quoted leftists making the EXACT same points Newt was making, it PROVES that he, too, was using the class warfare rhetoric of the left.
Read it yourself:
Newt Sounds Just Like Obama
January 10, 2012
Let’s go to audio sound bites, let me illustrate some of what I’ve said. We’ll start with Newt. This was on Fox & Friends this morning. The co-host, the weather guy, Steve Doocy, said, “I was driving around yesterday my car,” and like every other American,
“I was listening to Rush, and he was talking about you and how you’ve gone after Romney and Bain Capital. He said you’re using the language of the left to beat up Romney over Bain. He said it makes him uncomfortable because that’s what the left is gonna do if Romney’s the nominee.”
GINGRICH: I don’t think I’m using the language of the left. I’m using the language of classic American populism. Main Street has always been suspicious of Wall Street. Small businesses have always worried about big businesses. People have a natural concern when they see financiers come in from out of town, take over a company, take all the profits, and then leave people unemployed behind. There’s a big difference between people who go out to create a company, even if they fail, if they try in the right direction, if they share in the hardships, if they’re out there with the workers doing it together, that’s one thing. But if somebody who’s very wealthy comes in, takes over your company, takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment, I think that’s not a model we want to advocate and I don’t think any conservative wants to get caught defending that kind of model.
RUSH: Well, but that’s not the model. That’s not what happens. See, this is why my old buddy Jay Nordlinger in Impromptus at National Review is pulling his hair out, because that is language of the left. You could say that Newt actually compounded this and made it worse with these comments on Fox this morning. Small business has always worried about big business. Main Street’s always been suspicious of Wall Street. People have a natural concern, they see financiers coming from out of town, take over a company, take all the profits and leave unemployment behind? My gosh, that’s what the people who indict capitalism say. So it continues to make me uncomfortable.
The next question came from Gretchen Carlson. She said, “Well, what constitutes acceptable capitalist behavior, then, in your mind?”
GINGRICH: To put in $30 million and get back $60 million would be a fabulous return. To put in $30 million and get back $90 million would be a fabulous return. Did they really need to take out $180 million if leaving $30 or $40 million behind the company would have survived, the people would have been employed, the jobs would have been there? I just say Romney’s gonna have to have a press conference and walk through case by case the places — these are not places where they lost money when a company went broke. These are places where they made money while a company went broke.
RUSH: How do you translate that? You want me to show you how you translate that? Here’s how you translate that. Audio sound bite number four, Mister Broadcast Engineer. Here’s how you translate what Newt just said.
: I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money, but, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service.
RUSH: (imitating Obama) “Yeah, but we don’t want that. At some point you’ve made enough, and we’re gonna be the ones to say so, and then we’re gonna have you appear at a press conference, defend yourself, making too much money. That’s what we’re gonna do. And after you defend yourself, we’re gonna take it, because you don’t need that much, we’re gonna decide how much you need.” The way Newt’s talking here — I never heard him speak this way before — I must tell you, and the way he’s speaking, this sounds like left-wing social engineering, does it not, when I have to play an audio sound bite from Barack Obama to translate what Newt said about Romney and Bain. What’s the number of companies that Bain took over? It was two out of a hundred and some odd. ...
....when you have to play Obama to translate what Newt just said, basically, “Romney, it’s okay they made that much, maybe it’s okay they made that much but at that point nobody needs to make that much, $180 million, no, you can leave some of that in there and not fire a bunch of people and what have you.” It’s none of his business. It’s none of the government’s business. This stuff, if you just leave it alone it will all shake out. You could have read this in an Occupy Wall Street flier. (interruption) I know, a lot of people don’t think Newt should have taken a million dollars or whatever it was from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, it was too much, he didn’t need that much. (interruption) Right, left the mortgages standing, I know. I know. Where does this stuff stop once you start going down this slope?
So here is an ad. Newt’s got some super PAC money now. Let’s put it this way, there is a super PAC now for Newt. We gotta be very careful, because the candidates are not allowed to have any contact with the super PAC, and I don’t want to be misunderstood saying that there has been between Newt and his. Newt’s super PAC has got an ad running out there on the YouTube channel called Winning Our Future, and we’ve got the audio. It’s about 21 seconds. Here it is.
ANNOUNCER: A story of greed, playing the system for a quick buck. A group of corporate raiders led by Mitt Romney. More ruthless than Wall Street. For tens of thousands of Americans, the suffering began... (dramatic pause) when Mitt Romney came to town.
RUSH: (laughing) It’s funny listening on the radio. (imitating voice) “The suffering began....” Music stops. “...when Mitt Romney came to town.” (laughing) The suffering began. A group of corporate raiders. The left could not improve on this. (laughing) Hey, you people at the Newt PAC, you need to add a line, you need to add Romney saying, “I love being able to fire people” at the end of this ad. “The suffering began when Mitt Romney came to town. ‘Hi, I’m Mitt Romney, and I love firing people.’” Why don’t you close the loop, make this ad really good? Now, then they brought forth — this is not all that’s in the ad. Then they brought forth a parade of victims, little old ladies whose lives were ruined by Mitt Romney.
ANNOUNCER: Mitt Romney became CEO of Bain Capital the day the company was formed. His mission? To reap massive rewards for himself and his investors.
MAN: Mitt Romney, them guys, they don’t care who I am.
WOMAN: He’s for small businesses. No, he isn’t. He’s not.
WOMAN: And that hurt so bad, to leave my home, because of one man that’s got 15 homes.
RUSH: David Axelrod’s shop, they’re listening to this stuff, they’re looking at these ads and saying, “Man, these Republicans are good. These Republicans are great at playing the class envy game.” Of course they can use it. Fair usage, take a ten second excerpt of it. At least I’ll say this. At least Romney knows how many homes he’s got. McCain didn’t, if you recall. ......”
Jeez Louise. Just hours after I viewed Romney’s victory speech last night and started softening my stance on Romney....he does this. What a loser. It is Scott Brown Deux.
Capitalism or not, who in the hell wants a man as president that put people out of work (ruining some of their lives, so he could put people to work, and make a fortune in the process, while the people whose lives he ruined aint got a pot to piss in. What kind of character does this show?
I agree with Perry. It’s about being greedy vultures and destroying peoples lives so you can can get richer. Nothing to do with being against capitalism.
“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? ~ Mark 8-36
PS: This is the Morman way folks.
People hear but they don't listen. People read but they don't absorb.
Now today, Newt backs off - “I crossed the line”
Newt: I crossed the line
By: Jonathan Allen
January 11, 2012 02:36 PM EST
SPARTANBURG, S.C. Newt Gingrich signaled Wednesday that he believes his criticism of Mitt Romneys record at Bain Capital is a mistake and that hes created an impression that he was echoing Democratic rhetoric.
Gingrich conceded the problem when pressed by a Rick Santorum supporter at a book-signing here Wednesday.
Im here to implore one thing of you. I think youve missed the target on the way youre addressing Romneys weaknesses. I want to beg you to redirect and go after his obvious disingenuous about his conservatism and lay off the corporatist versus the free market. I think its nuanced, Dean Glossop, an Army Reservist from Inman, S.C., said.
I agree with you, Gingrich said. Its an impossible theme to talk about with Obama in the background. Obama just makes it impossible to talk rationally in that area because he is so deeply into class warfare that automatically you get an echo effect. I agree with you entirely.
After ditching promises of a positive campaign, Gingrich had been leading a multi-candidate pile-on of candidates attacking Romneys Bain record, starting in Sundays debate and continuing in campaign events Tuesday. If he pulls back on the criticism now, it would be the latest abrupt shift in tactics from a candidate whose campaign has been full of them.
In addition to providing another example of Gingrichs erratic campaign style, the decision could put the former House speaker in a precarious spot: the pro-Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future is set to begin a $3.4 million airtime buy for a 27-minute long documentary showcasing people who lost their jobs when companies Bain was invested closed. Through Tuesday, Gingrich had expressed support for the film.
After the event, Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond argued the film was not actually about Bain specifically.
Its the decisions that Romney was making as CEO that are under review of public opinion, Hammond said. Were not bringing Bain up, were responding to questions prompted by the video.
Read my other post. This as not about capitalism. It was about mitt romney and every single word is TRUE. Rush was wrong and today he had to admit it. So why can’t you?
Like Leni, I am not a Newt supporter, but I would walk through fire to ensure that romney is NOT our nominee.
If he asked “are you sitting down?” or said “you might need to pull over to the side of the road” one more time, I was going to turn off the radio. :-)
politico is a CONSERVATIVE DESTROYER! This is their spin. I would suggest maybe you get the entire thing and either watch, listen, (or not) since you seem rather Newtaphobic.
Newt didn’t back off. He simply EXPLAINED that with all the obama rap buzzing in the background, it was too easy for him to be accused of using class warfare like obama does. And that is NOT what he was doing. GAH!
politico is not to be trusted and if this is your source for CONSERVATIVE truths, then I guess there is just no reason at all to continue this conversation.
It was not even part of his job. He was actually EAGER to do this. He raised the money to do this HIMSELF. Anyone who hasn’t seen the pic with him and his malevolent 7 needs to.
You’re not alone full.
They want to give us the choice of Crony A or Crony B. And if by chance we get a real Conservative through the primaries, the choice will be Crony A, Conservative B, or Independent Crony C. That will be done to draw independents away from Conservative B. So either way we will end up with a crony. We are at the point where DC has become so corrupt, that they cannot ever afford to return power to us citizens.
Rush should STFU.
He has no understanding of what America’s economic system is. Capitalism is a derisive word coined by Karl Marx, and Democracy, the word Rush constantly blubbers out over the air, is exactly the very decrepit system that the marxist globalists are working to drag us into.
America is all about Freedom under Christ, not about how much money one can accumulate.
>> “Newt owes all conservatives an apology for going down the Democrat road with his attacks against Mitt.” <<
This may be the first thing Newt has gotten right.
Vulture Capitalism is a good monikker for the crap that people like Mitt do, and this is not what the GOP is all about.
Most of his kind are democraps, like Warren Buffet, Karl Ichan, Bill Gates, and George Soros.
Rush has committed career suicide on this.
If you were an American, you would see how foolish your comment is.
You’re an outsider, and beyond understanding.
“you seem rather Newtaphobic”
“politico is a CONSERVATIVE DESTROYER! This is their spin.”
“...there is just no reason at all to continue this conversation”
Hysteria (and worse) is rampant on this thread. :)
do we like it?....no...not at all....but I'm going do what I'm got to do to vote bamey out....hope others come to realize that....