Powered by TypePad

« Christopher Hitchens, RIP | Main | Keystone Cops President »

December 16, 2011

Comments

Rick Ballard

"People who have a problem with Romney on that basis might wonder whether Newt is better positioned to make the no-mandate case against Obama."

Has Newtcare been legislated and put into effect somewhere? If not, then I would still give a slight advantage to Newt.

I'm rather curious as to the actual tally on Romneycare. Are the savings totaled somewhere so that they can be compared to the promises made at the time the legislation was enacted?

Porchlight

People who have a problem with Romney on that basis might wonder whether Newt is better positioned to make the no-mandate case against Obama.

Could anyone on the GOP side be in a worse position than Romney?

Not that I particularly like Newt's position(s), but at least he acknowledges that the mandate "it is an acceptable option only when the larger healthcare system has been fundamentally changed. It is unjust to require an individual to buy into a broken and dysfunctional system."

Romney acknowledged no such thing and neither did Obama.

Ignatz

--“We believe there should be must-carry; that is, everybody should have health insurance, or if you’re an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond.”--

Gee that's gracious of His Newtness; he'd allow citizens to post a bond in lieu of being coerced into buying insurance they don't want.
Is there any candidate besides the useless and hopeless crank Ron Paul who is not looking to forge a people of the government, by the government and for the government that shall not perish from the earth?

Old Lurker

Therein lies Newt in a nutshell.

He speaks and writes with total clarity and in great detail on an issue. If we happen to agree, then we see him as the perfect advocate for conservative causes and think "he's my guy and boy does he have a way with words!" But then he speaks and writes with equal clarity and certitude on issues that are polar opposite to a conservative point of view.

So the key phrase in TM's post is "for 2.5 years I have thought X and said so"...but 2.6 years ago I thought the opposite and also said so.

That's how he can sit on a couch with Pelosi or write praising Andy Stern.

So for sure he is my guy. Except when he's not.

boris

This

"such as allowing individuals to deduct health insurance expenses similar to corporations, among other solutions"
And ...
"it is an acceptable option only when the larger healthcare system has been fundamentally changed. It is unjust to require an individual to buy into a broken and dysfunctional system".
Looks significantly different from RomneyCare/ObamaCare. For one thing I have read it accepted HSA + catastrophic among other solutions.

At the beginning of discourse on the issue that does not seem like bafflegab to me. The issue has clearly evolved since then.

narciso

He has that infinite flexibility of mind, that recalls Syme, Winston's Minitrue colleague from 1984, and remember what happened to him.

Rick Ballard

OL,

It's going to come down to style points on how they hit the landing after performing a quadruple Salchow on whatever issue is being discussed.

We need a neologism combining flip-flop, waffle and spin.

Captain Hate

We need a neologism combining flip-flop, waffle and spin.

Flin-floffle?

Jim Ryan

Show of hands, how many think Newt's service to FM was something innocent, rather than assistance in pumping up the bubble and laughing all the way to the bank? Anybody?

At least Romney's vices don't reach all the way down to the Johnson/Raines depth.

What about that one guy, Alan Simpson. Can someone wheel him out? Maybe he'll agree to run. He still alive? Anybody. What about Quayle? Quayle's a decent guy with a good head on his shoulders. Run him. Oh, and that fellow, name's on the tip of my tongue. No wait, he's passed away. Aw, nuts. Quayle. Can someone get Quayle on the phone?

Old Lurker

It's not as if we have not seen the movie before:

"I've never worked harder in my life but just cannot find the tax cut I promised you saps" OWTTE, or

"the sound you hear is concrete breaking around my feet. Enjoy your tax increase."

"sorry, but I really must impose wage and price controls and who needs a solid currency anyway?" (I made up Nixon there)

So when President Newt flips on us, the one thing you know for sure is he will speak of it very very convincingly.

But if he is the nominee he still gets my vote happily since on any imaginative issue he is and will be infinitely better than Obama...and when he does flip, it will be the prettiest quadruple Salchow flip flop we have ever seen.

Threadkiller

I think you will find it in a Ronco product, Rick.


Add "O-Matic" and presto!

Flip-flop-O-Matic, Waffle-O-Matic, Spin-O-Matic...


Or stick to the tried and true Mr. Microphone.

"Hey dumb voter, I'll be back for you later!"

narciso

'It's a floor wax and a desert topping'

Threadkiller

GOPa Pet.

Cover with conservative seed mix*, add tea, and watch a wore out lump of clay transform before your very eyes!

*(mixture expires Nov 2012)

Ignatz

Unlikely story (with pictures); baby seal breaks into New Zealand house, takes nap on couch.
House not owned by three bears.

bgates

Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.

"But if anybody does hold that unreasonable and unjust expectation, I guess we'll have to fundamentally reshape the American system of government to accommodate them. I mean, if somebody is irresponsible with his own money, but then he really really needs more money, there's a strong charitable impulse to take care of that person. It's not such a strong impulse that we could rely on actual charity to take care of things, of course. That's crazy talk. But enough people have enough of a charitable impulse that they'd assent to a law that coerces them into something that has a vague resemblance to charity so long as they were convinced the law was sticking it to everybody else the same way."

Rick Ballard

OL,

The choice is clear. We can pick "If I'da knowed it was loaded I wouldn't have pulled the trigger." or we can pick "Here, hold my beer, I wanna try something."

I think I'll lay down for a little while and hope Tex shows up.

Old Lurker

GOPa Pet is good, TK, but Cap'n gets the prize today for "Bammeroid" on the other thread.

Rick, my favorite is still "let me light this lighter so we can check out that gas smell".

Old Lurker

Are you his speechwriter, bgates? You could say you are not writing speeches...you just promised to organize the books on his shelf since that's what your job description required.

Seriously though, "Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it". So the hospital has no recourse to force payment from patients with money? Only payments from insurance companies are accepted? Who knew?

narciso

That's the Iranian air force fuel inspection team,OL, it's eerie how bgates, just mindmelds
with the progressive mind,

Ignatz

--Are you his speechwriter, bgates?--

He'd make a boffo speechwriter, wouldn't he OL?

Extraneus

Show of hands, how many think Newt's service to FM was something innocent, rather than assistance in pumping up the bubble and laughing all the way to the bank? Anybody?

Not me. I think JMH made a convincing argument in the last thread that Newt took advantage of the MeTooI'mInCongress exemption to parley his position into $7.5M net worth by the time he was drummed out of the place. Hard to claim that one would have resisted this on principle oneself, and I'm sure few do, but Newt apparently didn't.

JM Hanes

Rick:

"We need a neologism combining flip-flop, waffle and spin."

At NewtHQ, they call it "evolving."

Ignatz

I think I can make a statement most people here will agree with;

The GOP has had a uniformly pretty sorry crop of presidential candidates the last two cycles.

Anyone disagree?

JM Hanes

"Looks significantly different from RomneyCare/ ObamaCare. "

What, a disclaimer suddenly makes it constitutional?

Benjamin Franklin

Maguire's belt WITH suspenders is showing.

Gawd, you are so NOT a Molly Maguire.

Cecil Turner
in a May 2009 conference call — previously unreported — he told health care executives, “We believe there should be must-carry;
Personally, I'd like to see the transcript. Not that I'm accusing the Times of Dowifying a quote or anything . . . but . . . I'm always a bit suspicious when liberals try to tell me who is the real conservative in the race.

(Maybe that's why his "I never lobbied" claim stumps me, too).

The fact this keeps coming up stumps me. Doesn't "lobbying" have a definition? Like breaking out the ol' rolodex and calling up a congressman or two? The politifact "fact check" (whose expert is a former Mother Jones reporter, coincidentally) concludes he didn't, except:

Giving strategic advice is widely considered a way of using political influence without having to register.
Or, just maybe, it's not really what most people mean when they say "lobbying."

Jack is Back! (The Anti-Prick)

My Christmas List to Santa:

For Frederick - An America that will remind him of what our founding fathers intended.

For my Wife - A Black & Decker hand held vacuum for her Framing and Design studio

For Clarice Feldman - a matching pair of Ivory gripped pistolas fully loaded

For narciso - an autographed copy of "Eats, Shoots, Leaves".

For DoT - A Tim Tebow Super Bowl Victory

For daddy - A collection of the top 100 books of archaic literature

For Capt. Hate - Season tickets to the Cavs

For Jane - A Love Letter from Mark Steyn

For Janet - More Windmills for jousting

For CentralCal - A Bouquet of Flowers, signed "Love, Sara"

For Hit & Run - A Bottle of Tito's, A Lawn Chair and a WiFi connection

For henry - A Backhoe equipped with a Remington 700

For PD - Free Fish Fry Fridays in Door County

For Melinda Romanoff - Free from Financial Stress

For Rick Ballard - More Financial Stress

For Glasater - The Chairmanship of the MERS Audit Committee

For bgates - An applause meter

For PoFarmer - To wake up everyday after 8am

For Sue - Someone to replace Tony Romo and a Ron Washington Spitting doll

For GMAX - A copy of the book of Mormon (and a THE Michigan State University sweatshirt)

For TK - A Dinner with Jerome Corsi, Phd. in Limerick, Ireland

For Porchlight - All overdue books returned and every fine paid

For sbw - a tenfold increase in circulation and a Pulitzer

For rse - a phone call from Random House and a National Book Award

For Ignatz - A bountiful harvest of old growth and a new stand of new growth

For everyone else - a Merry, Merry Christmas and a Holiday Season full of Good Cheer!

narciso

'Dobyi, no Provyi' I think was the phrase that comes to mind, Cecil, where is the audio
or at least the trasncript as you say,

Extraneus

The mandate is a direct and logical result of the fact, also mandated to us by politicians, that nobody can ever be refused health care.

This is the root of the problem.

The heartless (conservative?) position would be to overturn this defacto rule, and only provide taxpayer-funded "free" treatment to the truly poor.

In that world of free people making their own decisions, those with the ability and a brain in their heads would either buy insurance, without a mandate to do so, or be ready to pay out of pocket. The few idiots of means who didn't would be turned away, just like those people whose homes burn to the ground while the firemen watch because they freely chose not to pay the $75/yr to guard against that. After a few well-publicized horror stories, normal people would do what they have to do to guard against that regarding health care, too.

As long as we accept the original idea -- that everyone gets treated no matter what, because we're a caring society -- then what's left besides mandating that people buy insurance or "post a bond"?

Old Lurker

Cecil, you know every lawyer on K St had a hand in the definition of that term. It is one of the most over lawyered words down there.

Cecil Turner

. . . to parley his position into $7.5M net worth . . .

Pelosi's worth almost ten times that (much of it earned in office).

Romney's worth more than twenty times as much.

Old Lurker

Pretty loose use of "earned" there Cecil.

boris

"how many think Newt's service to FM was something innocent"

Before 2007 the housing bubble was adding $20,000 to $50,000 to everyone's net worth who had one ... year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year. In hindsight "what can't go on forever won't" but until it crashes a folks are going to think "maybe it can". He cashed a check from the "yes we can" bubble heads back when they had money to burn.

Human nature. The people who woulda shoulda coulda didn't and Newt wasn't one of them.

I'd get the government out of a lot of things Newt appears to support. I'd get the government out things people like DrJ clearly support.

As to HC ... if government tries to come up with a solution that covers everybody ... it's either single payer or mandate. Looks like Newt's mandate was at least private sector oriented. Other than the mandate ISTM it would have been an improvement.

Cecil Turner

Cecil, you know every lawyer on K St had a hand in the definition of that term.

If it remotely resembles the one in Webster's, it doesn't include giving advice. (And considering the sums involved, suggesting a $1.6 mil price tag proves nefarious activity is more than a bit ridiculous.)

If he in fact provided nothing more than the spin and talking points previously reported, there's nothing terribly remarkable (or nefarious) about it. If he was calling congressmen and advising them not to regulate FM/FM, it was remarkably inappropriate. But so far there's precisely zero evidence AFAICT.

Gmax

JiB thanks for the sweatshirt, but you can skip the book I stayed in a Marriott once...

Merry Christmas to you, at least you did not give me an Eagle feather and a lecture...

Cecil Turner

Pretty loose use of "earned" there Cecil.

Well, her net worth went up in office. I didn't figure I could prove "stolen."

Gmax

1.6 MM over 8 years and the amounts were consulting fees for his firm, of which he most certainly was not the only employee. I dont think this is the smoking gun some others must think it is. $200K in consulting is probably less than 500 hours of work over 8 yeara, and he paid salaries benefits, heat light and rent out of that. Does not sound like a big deal to me, but having been a consultant with a national firm I saw $500 / HR consulting rates routinely...

Jack is Back! (The Anti-Prick)

Perhaps she can run for President of the 1% Party

Either that or she could go run AOL/Huffpo with that kind of stockholder success.

Barbara
"He speaks and writes with total clarity and in great detail on an issue. If we happen to agree, then we see him as the perfect advocate for conservative causes and think "he's my guy and boy does he have a way with words!" But then he speaks and writes with equal clarity and certitude on issues that are polar opposite to a conservative point of view."

OL,

That's a perfect description of Newt, and it should make voters very nervous.

"Bafflegab" is also a perfect term for Newt's inventive rhetoric. He tosses out expressions like "moral imperative" and "fundamentally wrong" like a pudgy Elmer Gantry. He's a charlatan and a snake oil salesman, and God help us if he becomes our candidate.

Old Lurker

Well to her and her friends, they probably do think that is how wealth is earned. Allowing them to trade on insider information is hard work, doncha know?

I could not care less about Newt's lobbying. Like the old parable said, "I'm a snake... that's what we do!"

Threadkiller

Thanks JiB!

Speaking of Freddie and Tammy:

" The measure that passed out of this House this week also does far more harm than good.

The House added $167 billion more to this year’s already crushing deficit, mostly to pay for the payroll tax cut, purporting to repay one year’s tax relief over the next ten years.

How does it do that? In part, it tacks on additional fees to mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This shifts the burden to home buyers, who will end up paying far more in new taxes (that will now be hidden in their mortgages) than they will get back from the tax cut.

True, under the House version, the average family will save $1,000 in payroll taxes, but if that family takes out a $150,000 mortgage in the next ten years backed by Fannie or Freddie, they’ll end up paying an extra $3,000 as a result of the House bill. That’s a $1,000 tax cut this year for $3,000 in additional mortgage payments.

The House version kicks the housing market when it’s already down, making it that much more expensive for home buyers to re-enter that market, and adding to the pressures that have chronically depressed home values.

At the same time, the House would turn Fannie and Freddie into tax collectors for the general fund. If this version is enacted, we will have constructed a cash machine for government with an adjustable knob. Given the insatiable appetite of this government, the odds are far greater that that knob will be turned up and not down in coming years.

Ironically, one of the reasons to continue the payroll tax cut is because of shrinking family assets – mainly the value of their homes. The House version adds to the downward pressure on their home values while telling them we’re doing them a favor. Some favor."

http://mcclintock.house.gov/2011/12/fixing-the-payroll-tax.shtml

Or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRY7QrB2pEc


Threadkiller

Fannie

RightKlik

Newt v. Romney in a nutshell...

Two moderate, big-government Republicans:

One from a extremely blue state who used his power as governor to implement an expensive, coercive health care program...

The other from a red state who used his power as Speaker of the House to implement welfare reform.

Jack is Back! (The Anti-Prick)

Huckabee is on Lou Dobbs (Fox Business) and just called Michelle Bachman, Michelle Obama and Lou or no one picked up on it.

RightKlik

Romney vs Newt in a nutshell...

Two moderate, big-government Republicans:

One from a extremely blue state who used his power as governor to implement an expensive, coercive health care program...

The other from a red state who used his power as Speaker of the House to implement welfare reform.

Danube of Thought

"Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it."

The only reason they are able to do so now is that our legislators have mandated--yes, that's the word--that the neighbors pick up the tab.

Why have everyone post a bond, including those who will never use the system? Why not let the providers, at the point of service, require the patient to pledge sufficient of his assets and income to cover the costs of the service?

Jane

I posted this in the other thread:

I have a question about the Fannie and Freddie actions by the SEC.

What is the government's role in deciding to bring the charges? And assuming this government always has an ulterior motive what is really going on?


Could the timing be to help destroy Newt because of his connections?

Jane

Show of hands, how many think Newt's service to FM was something innocent, rather than assistance in pumping up the bubble and laughing all the way to the bank? Anybody?

First of all, Newt is losing his luster for me. That being said, I have no issue with him working for F&F. He has every right to make his money there, the same way I have the "right" (bad word) to represent a rapist if I choose to. That certainly doesn't mean I condone rape it means I believe in the justice system. Newt capitalized on a good capitalist opportunity so I think it is nothing but a stupid smokescreen. SO I hope he laughed all the way to the bank.

Cecil Turner

Could the timing be to help destroy Newt because of his connections?

I doubt it. Newt's connection with FM hardly extends to decision-making and balance sheet monitoring (and making false statements about it, which is what these charges appear to cover).

RichatUF

I still recall the Dole/Gingrich ads and how those wicked bastards were going to roll grandma into the street.

Jane

Cecil,

My thought is that keeping it in the news now would wear on Newt.

boris

Suddenly the side that claimed "no no FM and FM were NOT the problem !!! it was W A L L S T R E E T ssssssssssss" ... have found some FM scapegoats to vilify and temporarily taint the brand. Could be intentional ... could be ...

Threadkiller

Jane, I have not read the links within this article, but they may answer your SEC questions.

http://abigailcfield.com/?p=617

" The SEC has sued former executives of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for repeatedly lying to investors about their companies’ subprime portfolios. The complaints are very detailed and strong, alleging multiple securities law violations and violations of Sarbanes-Oxley. The complaints try to force the executives to give up their ill-gotten gains, pay penalties, and ban them from being a director or officer of a public company. Interestingly, the complaints are backed by separate cooperation and nonprosecution agreements with each company.

Here’s Freddie Mac’s cooperation agreement and here’s Fannie Mae’s. Those agreements say, in essence: hey, we’ll help you convict our former executives, whatever you need, but don’t prosecute us and don’t force us to admit the allegations in the statement of “facts.” The use of cooperation agreements in these cases is striking for two reasons.

First, when Angelo Mozillo was similarly charged, Bank of America certainly didn’t agree to cooperate in his prosecution. Second, these agreements may help repair the SEC’s tarnished image of letting companies off the hook by allowing them to avoid admitting anything. The SEC’s agreement to the company playing games by neither admitting nor denying the “facts” plays a little differently when it’s attached to the demand that the company help convict its former executives, and when the company itself is not facing charges.

An interesting possible consequence of these suits may be an effort to revive the thoroughly debunked claim that Fannie & Freddie crashed the economy. The “logic” would be: see, they lied about their subprime exposure! Fannie and Freddie’s subprime exposure was much greater than they admitted, and thus F&F brought down the world! Part of the problem with that argument is the fact that–according to the complaints–F&F were driven to both purchase these loans and lie about them to regain the securitization market share they’d lost. That is, only because the wall street banks had issued so many of these securities did F&F feel the need to catch up. Not that the loss of market share/drive to make it up excuses anything; it just totally undercuts the idea that these suits show F&F really were to blame for the crisis after all."

Benjamin Franklin

Geez

Three hours of thread and barely a page.

Sara absent for two days. boris gone for one. Before DoT and
Clarice are done, this blog will have a dialogue for two. (But I will be here for the context)

NICE !!!

Ignatz

--it just totally undercuts the idea that these suits show F&F really were to blame for the crisis after all--

Indeed. I've tried every way I could to come up with some rationale how the two largest players by far in the mortgage market, who are now in gov receivership to the tune of $150-250 billion cost to the taxpayers, could have much of anything to do with the crash of the mortgage market. So far I'm stumped.
Obviously they were just innocent victims.

Cecil Turner

My thought is that keeping it in the news now would wear on Newt.

It might. Most of the accusations on that score are guilt-by-association, and this might well bolster them. I don't find it very persuasive, however, and I doubt the SEC would plan it that way. There is also the fact that the charges seem righteous to me, and the timeline is reasonable (2-3 years on).

JM Hanes

Lobbying, influence peddling, consulting, whatever. The question is whether he was hired on as a willing Freddie enabler, and whether he has honestly characterized his purpose/role there. The "evolution" of his own rhetoric on the latter would seem to speak for itself, but I'll take the liberty of reposting some of Bloomberg's November reporting from the end of the previous thread (emphasis mine):

If Gingrich concluded that the company’s business model was at risk and that the housing market was a “bubble,” as he said during the debate, he didn’t share those concerns with Richard Syron, Freddie Mac’s chief executive officer at the time, a person familiar with the company’s internal discussions said....

Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with the consulting work Gingrich was hired to perform for the company in 2006... say the former House speaker was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.....

In 2006, before subprime mortgage losses pushed the two firms toward insolvency, the companies were facing calls for stricter regulation and smaller portfolios as the Treasury Department warned about potential financial market instability if they failed to hedge their assets against interest rate shifts and other risks. The companies, which were private but had implicit government backing, also were reeling from a series of accounting scandals.

Although Freddie Mac had developed strong supporters in the Democratic caucus, the firm started a new campaign to win over allies in [establishment!] Republican circles. Hollis McLoughlin, a former Treasury Department chief of staff in President George H.W. Bush’s administration, was brought in to head the effort.

McLoughlin hired Gingrich and several other Republicans, including former Representative Vin Weber and political message expert Frank Luntz, to assist the cause.

A statement posted on the campaign website after the debate said Gingrich was hired to provide “strategic advice.” The former lawmaker told the company it could win over conservatives by stressing “the historical success of public-private partnerships in achieving public goods at a minimum of taxpayer money and bureaucracy.”

As I also noted in the previous thread, the public-private partnership model is the very predicate of Romneycare.

While I'm sure we've all developed a healthy skepticism about anonymous sources, it's also worth pointing out that both Freddie Mac and Newt are conveniently bound by the confidentiality clause in his contract.

Porchlight

Three hours of thread and barely a page.

It's a Friday night and Christmas is 9 days away. People have parties to go to, shopping and packing to do.

RichatUF

Suddenly the side that claimed "no no FM and FM were NOT the problem !!!

Has anyone gone over to taunt Ritholtz yet?

henry

Did W appoint these guys? F& F are run by politicos like Raines, Gorelik, Rahm etc. Is this to divert attention from Democratic Party of Wall Street / GS given Corzine's headline grabbing moves?

Captain Hate

Yes I just finished wrapping gift for the hatettes and Hater tot and have come to my annual conclusion: Mrs H spends *way* too much on Christmas. Bah.

Nice gift list JiB.

boris

it's also worth pointing out that both Freddie Mac and Newt are conveniently bound by the confidentiality clause in his contract

Not really. Were FM as sleazy as claimed and Newt had said "Bubble On Dudes" doncha think they'd leak it in a heart beat? I do.

Jane

I doubt the SEC would plan it that way.

Which brings me back to my question. Who tells the SEC what to do? The Justice department?

Thomas Collins

JiB, I don't whether a Tebow Super Bowl victory is a good gift for DOT, but it sure is a great gift for those JOMers who enjoy taking cellphone photos and posting them on Facebook!

Soylent Red

We need a neologism combining flip-flop, waffle and spin.

I'm going to stick with my tried and true anachro-logism: Bullshit.

Rick, my favorite is still "let me light this lighter so we can check out that gas smell".

More like...

"Be a dear and see if this tastes like Rohypnol..."

==
Just a little thinking out loud here tonight...

This morning I was wavering again on my candidate. I thought I had made a decision, but became unsure after thinking things over again last night. Again I am stuck with choosing the candidate I dislike the least.

With that in mind, I conducted a little experiment. I ordered all the candidates by what I perceive to be their conservatism, and then by what I perceive to be their electability. My center mass turned out to be the same candidate. I'd invite you all to do the same and see how it comes out for you. This is how I'm going to vote the primaries. Let the chips fall where they may. Once the general comes along, ABO.

But wait, says I. I don't really like this candidate. How is it possible that a candidate who I feel to be an acceptable mix of conservatism and electability is so distasteful to me?

So as a further experiment I did the same with the finalists (front runners going into Super Tuesday) for 2008 and 2000. I'd invite you to go back to do the same and see how those fields come out for you. How we wound up with McCain last time and this crop of bad choices is no mystery now. Same cross comparison for each set, same candidates emerge in the middle of the pack on each pairing.

Of the top three finalists (not counting Ronster) in 2008, there were exactly none who didn't demonstrate Big Gubment tendencies. Hunter and Thompson were eliminated early (**sigh**), and Giuliani (a small-er government fiscal conservative, but not a social conservative) was really never in contention. Against that competition, McCain (who I mistakenly supported) and Romney both appeared to be conservatives, with McCain being a more electable known quantity, but both being relatively equal overall. Huckabee-meh.

In 2000, the top three finalists were GWB, McCain, and Keyes. Keyes was really an anomaly because he was too stubborn or foolish to drop out. 2000 was really a battle between Bush and McCain during the whole primary. Now this was pre-9/11 Bush and pre-Mavericky McCain, but still, neither are exactly Barry Goldwater. From what we know now, GWB only marginally outweighed McCain on conservatism.

So retrospectively, we haven't had a really conservative field of finalists to choose from for at least the last two non-incumbent Presidential election cycles (remember how Steve Forbes and Gary Bauer did in 2000? Neither does anyone else), and we don't again this time. It's been two reasonably squishy Republicrats fighting a tight battle.

The lesson, I think, in all of this is that the pendulum has been swinging leftward for more than a decade because the evil mixture of being just conservative enough to get over with conservatives and yet squishy enough to get over with the Muddle tends to favor Big Gubment types who want to solve everyone's problems for them in return for a vote. We really should be blaming ourselves for the crappy candidates because we have not demanded more ideological purity.

Reagan was truly singular in that he changed the conversation altogether, brought voters to him, and pushed the pendulum back to the right again. There hasn't been another game changer like him, since him, except for maybe She Who Must Not Be Named. And She's not running. But the fact remains that if BHO continues on the Dao of Teh Carter, the time is right for a much more conservative candidate, as long as he/she is a game changer like Reagan who can bring the voters to them.

Or not. I don't know. Maybe we're not at the end of the cycle yet and aren't ready for the game changer (remember Nixon was a Big Gubment President). Unfortunately, without a game changer, we are constrained in how far we can push ideology vis the outstretched hand of the Muddle.

Later on tonight I'm going to go down and do 1980 just for laughs and see how it turns out. I don't really have a good memory of that one so it will require more research. I really need to follow this all the way back past Reagan to Eisenhower to see how it works.

Anyway, just some thoughts. I guess I've done my part to obscure things for you all even more.

Extraneus

I caught a few minutes of Rush today, and his thought was that this Fannie/Freddie thing is only fodder for the Republican primaries. In the general, Obama won't want to go anywhere near having people thinking and talking about Fannie or Freddie, regardless of whether Newt is the nominee.

narciso

Like Dennis Miller said about Germany reuniting, he liked it to a Martin/Lewis reunion;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Khuzami

RichatUF

Isn't it the SEC? I thought that the charges were civil?

henry-

Once the Dems were able to blunt the Bush Administration's efforts to bring them under heel he declined to appoint anyone. I'm interested in the timing of getting Gingrich' firm involved-by 2006 the FM were seeing the wheels come off and it looks to be they needed to dirty up all of DC. Should be interesting.

henry

Thanks Rich. Interesting indeed.

JM Hanes

boris:

"Were FM as sleazy as claimed and Newt had said "Bubble On Dudes" doncha think they'd leak it in a heart beat?"

It sure sounds like that's what the Freddie volken were, in fact, telling Bloomberg -- and not just saying bubble on, but helping them on selling recalcitrant Congressional Republicans on the benefits of public/private partnerships, a rhetorical concept which has since proven exceedingly popular in liberal quarters.

Rick Ballard

Field Marshal Tantawi must not be a TIME subscriber. If he were, he wouldn't have detweeted three POTYs today. Assad must not be a subscriber either. He detweeted ten POTYs today. No detweet count today for the Libyan civil war. It sounds as if the Ali Babbas are just too busy to count.

Those Mahometans sure know how to stretch out an Arab Spring.

Soylent Red

Via Weekly Standard...

two-month budget deal that includes a fully-funded extension of the payroll tax cut. The deal will also require the Obama administration to decide within 60 days on whether or not it will approve construction of the Keystone oil pipeline. President Obama has threatened to veto any deal that includes the Keystone pipeline provision.

Let me be the first to project that Barry will sign the bill, after 59 days of trying to figure out how to vote "Present".

Ignatz

That's quite enough of the POTY mouth, Rick.

narciso

Well McCain's vetting chief, Culvahouse, while at O'Melveny, the same firm as Natl Security Advisor, Donilon.worked for Fannie in 2005,

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=2711

Charlie Black, one of those newly minted Duke and Dukers, who had a nauseous feeling about Perry lobbied for Freddie

Gmax

Two months extension seems brilliant to me. Get something out of the Democrats for every two months extension. Brilliant.

Cecil Turner
If Gingrich concluded that the company’s business model was at risk and that the housing market was a “bubble,” as he said during the debate, he didn’t share those concerns with Richard Syron, Freddie Mac’s chief executive officer at the time, a person familiar with the company’s internal discussions said....
Yes, I'm sure we're all skeptical of anonymous informants. But this particular anonymous informant claims to have insider knowledge of discussions which are the current subject of an SEC complaint for fraud:
Between March 23,2007, and August 6,2008 (the "Relevant Period"), a period of heightened investor interest in the credit risks associated with subprime loans, Freddie Mac and defendants Richard F. Syron ("Syron"), Patricia L. Cook ("Cook"), and Donald· J. Bisenius ("Bisenius") misled investors into believing that the Company had far less exposure to these riskier mortgages than in fact existed. To that end, at various times, each made or substantially assisted Freddie Mac and each other in making materially false· and misleading statements that claimed in substance that Freddie Mac had little or no exposure to subprime loans in its Single Family Guarantee business.
I'm not sure how much it affects the credibility of a claim that "he never warned us" . . . but I'm pretty sure it doesn't make it more believable.
JM Hanes

Soylent:

I believe it was Ignatz who once pointed out that, contra conventional wisdom which says party "extremes" dominate the primaries, Republicans have not actually been nominating conservative candidates. I don't think the blame for that rests entirely on the establishment, given who is and is not willing to step up to bat.

I personally beleive the place that conservatives really can, and must, make the critical, substantive difference is in Congress. That is where the necessary legislation is written (and hopefully repealed), where rule-making authorities are granted to Executive Branch agencies, and where essential, rigorous, oversight can be conducted.

narciso

A more comprehensive view of who did what to whom, includes Richard Davis, and Wayne Berman, who is now one of Mitt's people


http://www.abelard.org/economics/fannie_mae_freddie_mac2.php

MoodyBlu

Gmax:

1.6 MM over 8 years and the amounts were consulting fees for his firm, of which he most certainly was not the only employee. I dont think this is the smoking gun some others must think it is. $200K in consulting is probably less than 500 hours of work over 8 yeara, and he paid salaries benefits, heat light and rent out of that. Does not sound like a big deal to me, but having been a consultant with a national firm I saw $500 / HR consulting rates routinely...

Gmax,

You stated clearly the answer to my question in a previous thread. 1.6million over 8 years to Newt's company, not him personally, is what I understood the facts to be. WTF is the big deal when one considers how much Obongo has pissed away in 3 years.

Not really a big Newt fan but this seems to be very, very small stuff. Of course I could be more than wrong.

windansea

Posted by: Soylent Red | December 16, 2011 at 08:21 PM

I like Ike :)

JM Hanes

Cecil:

Let me know when Newt settles on a final version of what he was doing to earn his keep.

Captain Hate

I personally beleive the place that conservatives really can, and must, make the critical, substantive difference is in Congress. That is where the necessary legislation is written (and hopefully repealed), where rule-making authorities are granted to Executive Branch agencies, and where essential, rigorous, oversight can be conducted.

That's an excellent point and if Mitt were the Pres-elect and there were a slough of conservatives in the 2013 Congress, I'd be a very satisfied person.

centralcal

Hello. Been away from the thread all afternoon, was gonna try and catch up, but whoo - some of you all have some really, really long comments.

So, have we chewed up and spit out all of our candidates (Romney, excluded of course) yet? okey dokey.

Now then, what is Plan B? Anybody got one?

Luckily, I am still strongly supporting Garden Gnome, and I haven't yet seen all the flaws, scandals, flip flops, ugly spouse hair or makeup, etc, etc, that he/she is guilty of, so I am feeling rather confident. ::grin::

Captain Hate

Is this wonderful software eating posts again or just using an unreasonably large delay before they show up?

Captain Hate

Obviously the latter....

Appalled

Making a decision about Newt based on Fmac makes as much sense as making a decision on Cain based on the initial Politico story. There is plenty of Newt past (and present) exists to make a judgement without fussing about this.

narciso

It's so hard to find a candidate, who wasn't on retainer from Freddie, who didn't invest
his state's funds in Countrywide and WM, and
who didn't create the RGGI and MassCare. If you think the technical truth is going to be
some saving grace, then you haven't been paying attention the last three years.

Gmax

Moodyblu great minds think alike!


Herman Cain on and seems to be smitten with Newt for what its worth.

narciso

You know it really feels, like they are playing a game on us, and not choosing to clue us in,

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/12/bachmann-spreading-rumors-of-gingrich-tea-party-payoffs-in-south-carolina/

Ignatz

--I believe it was Ignatz who once pointed out that, contra conventional wisdom which says party "extremes" dominate the primaries, Republicans have not actually been nominating conservative candidates.--

JMH,
My point was also that, contra conventional wisdom, the moderates had a rather worse track record of getting elected. I think it all began over the presumed Romney "electabilty" advantage, a discussion that thankfully finally died a natural death.
I'm with cc. This endless election is just getting started and it's already worn me out.
Garden gnome or bust.
Just someone please tell me I'm not going to have to look at that leering butthead Grayson from now til next November. If I am I'm going to get the duct tape out.

Ignatz

Kim Strassel nails the problem with crazy Uncle Ron and his Paulbots.

Soylent Red

Garden Gnome touched me inappropriately when I was eight. He did it because he was a lobbyist. And a flip flopper. Plus he's stupid, can't speak properly, didn't do well in the debates, and is insufficiently conservative. Not to mention he doesn't poll well in Iowa and is trailing Ron Paul! in straw polls. He cheated on his wife, cheated at cards, cheated death, and is a cheating cheater. Garden Gnome doesn't care about black people. Garden Gnome hates immigrants. Garden Gnome wants old people to starve, and uses crypto-fascist dog whistle linguistic cues. He owes back taxes. Once, at band camp, Garden Gnome was out of tune.

Un-E-lectable.

And by "some of you", you mean me don't you? Oh come on...just admit it.

I personally beleive the place that conservatives really can, and must, make the critical, substantive difference is in Congress.

Yes. Conservative-oriented application of the checks and balances. With as many Presidents as is necessary to swing SCOTUS.

DrJ

Try adblocker to get rid of Grayson if his advertisement gets too annoying. (I dislike it too).

narciso

He's almost at his million dollar goal, PT Barnum is embarrassed. As to the historical record, you really have to go back to Eisenhower, to see a real moderate winning the
nomination and the Presidency, and he was written in New Hampshire

narciso

OT, a good overview of Charles McCarry's work,
including his latest;


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203430404577094224110063742.html

Captain Hate

Re Grayson: Fools and their money, narc.

Regarding Crazy Uncle DR RON: You can contribute to his money bomb at 1-800-JEW-GOLD. Operators are standing by.

Captain Hate

According to AoS, the Senate donks have caved on the Keystone pipeline. Your move, El JEFe.

I love the smell of petroleum moving through a pipeline in the morning; it smells like victory.

narciso

So, guess who seems to behind the latest Bachmann allegations against Newt, hint, he makes Ed Rollins, seem honorable, in the LUN

Soylent Red

I wonder what would happen if we had a ticket of an ideological conservative at the top of the ticket with a squish to moderate the ticket as a whole, e.g. Santorum/Romney

This would go against what we traditionally have done, but who says the Veep has to be the ideological attack dog?

centralcal

Ah, Soylent, you just tried really, really hard to burst my bubble over Garden Gnome. But, I am very fond of you anyway. Almost as fond of Garden Gnome, but - hey - if ya wanna run for Presidente Extraordinare, I have a vote for you.

Yes, you are a YOU, and you are part of the SOME here, as I am. So, you nailed me, honey. xoxo

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame