CNN sucks. No wonder they have NO viewers. John King is both disgusting and/or ridiculous.
Any viewers they get tonight is because we are down to 4 candidates and a lot happened today. No one would be watching otherwise. They would have all changed channels.
I'll support Romney if he is the nominee but wow does he sound like a stumbling, bumbling goofball at times.
And, get the darn tax return question behind you Mitt. Is it possible that Mitt is more wealthy than generally accepted and the whole 99% vs. 1% thing is hanging over his head.
Romney/Rick in a bit of a tiff over what Romney supposedly said earlier about immigration.
Rick is hard and fast about applying the current laws and don't give illegals a special break. Big applause.
Romney says he pretty much agrees. Wants legal immigration, stand in line.
Ron Paul: The Laws are misdirected. Says like all the others none of them are for Illegal Immigration, but says we have to look at the economics and see why they are coming. Says we a more generous Immigration policy, and we need more resources. I think he's saying he wants to bring the troops and money home from overseas and put it to border protection here. Big applause.
Newt: As Pres I will get rid of the Lawsuits suing Arizona and the other states.
Will it even do that DOT. If he only gets an unitemized total of his Blind Trust holdings for tax purposes, how would we know the sources any more than the person whose assets are in a blind trust. All we would have is the total and the tax liability. Romney has the assets, his cap gains interest and divident investment money, he has his personal tax return, and he has the his Tyler Foundation. Do we want them all, or just his personal return?
His tax attorneys and accountants aren't going to stop everything they are doing at this time of year, to prepare his returns for 2011. I think that is one reason he will wait until April. I doubt his 2011 return is even close to being finished.
Newt: Snark back at John King. Always an applause getter. Now off on Romney's RomneyCare and and if Romney is tryly Pro-Life.
Romney: Going thru Newt's charges 1 by one to dispute Newt's falsehoods even tho there is a scintilla of truth in there.
Doing a decent job of getting in the weeds about Judges, Planned Parenthood, etc. I don't have litmus tests for the judges I appointed. I am pro=life. I might have made mistakes, but as Pres you can count on me to be Pro Life and overturn Obama policies.
Santorum: Says Romney is taking a dodge. He knew the judges were going to alter some of the stuff in Romneycare, so Mitt's being a bit disingenuous in so many words. Hits Newt for being outwardly pro-life but in the back rooms being not pro=life for political advantage and expediency. I won't be that way as Pres.
Romney: Rebuts. Nothing memorable to me.
Newt: I voted with Henry Hyde. 98.6 pro life voting record. Twice I pushed a Bill to end partial birth abortion. My job as Speaker was to maximize the seats won by Pro-lifeers.
King tries to move on without asking Ron Paul. Crowd boo's.
Ron Paul makes a good saying "Hey, I'm a Doctor and we're talking about a medical issue." Now he's off talking about Laws and funding. He now indicts the funding to the Hispitals of Fed money. Sez get the Govt out of the hospitals.
Santorum: Paraphrases what he says Ron Paul has previously said and then somewhat hits him on that but I didn't follow his argument too well, sorry.
Paul: Responds to Rick. Overall point is Paul says he is for State's Rights, repeal Roe V Wade overnight and empower the States. Think I got that correct.
Something about South Carolina. make your case, either embrace Mitt or continue the nomination process
Paul: A riff on Liberty. We must convince folks that freedom is what made this country great. Our debt is awful. Cut a trillion in yea 1. The Debt Burden will kill us if we don't control debt.
Newt: Thanks CNN and the folks here. We have to defeat Obama. This is the most dangerous Prez of our lifetime. The level of radicalism in his 2nd term will be truly frightening. We must have very deep, very dramatic change. We must defeat him and so please vote for me as the person who can defeat this Saul Alinsky radical.
Romney: I agree with the 2 previous guys. Life Liberty Pursuit of Happiness. Our Founders made us the greatest power in the world and this President is making this an entitlement country. We have to return to our founding principles. Pres wants to fundamentally change America. he is wrong we have to re-instill the values of Founders gave us.
Santorum: I agree with what Mitt said. Who is the best person to take on Obama. The person with the biggest contrast with Obama on HealthCare, Global Warming and the Wall St Bailout. Newt and Mitt supported that. I'm the only one here who ever defeated a Dem incumbent and won a swing state. Elect someone who can contrast with Obama and can win. South Carolina voted for Reagan before we knew Reagan as the Reagan we now know. Vote for me.
Candidate 1: I didn't hear the question, Katie, but the answer is whatever the conservative base wants, that's what I want, whatever it is. And if elected I'll do whatever "conservative" is, whatever that is.
There were 140.5 million returns filed in 2009. 1% = 1,405,000 and the income at that point would be in the $400-$500K range. I would be more than surprised if Governor Romney had reduced his income to that level.
The whole point of the #occupooper movement was to place a 1% tag on Governor Romney. He qualifies.
Over at CNN they are now interviewing the candidates individually and Gloria Borger is trying to continue the division by asking Santorum to continue to go after Newt.
He is complying. Trying to do it decently and diplomatically but not always succeeding.
Gloria: Would Newt be "Erratic" as President?
Rick: Newt's brilliant and sometimes he's not disciplined and focused. that why he was revolted against in the House..
Glorai: Can Romney be trusted to be reliable as President?
Rick: Going after Romney for multiple flipflops.
Smart strategy from CNN---continue to ask questions after the debate in order to get video dirt and divisiveness they might not have got from nominee's during the actual debate itself.
Not to Santorum: Rick, would you please keep in mind that Gloria Borger and CNN are the enemy of America, not Newt or Mitt.
Mitt's been running for prez for a long time now. I'd be surprised if he's hiding anything in his tax returns. He did seem to embrace his success and capitalism a bit more tonight, ya think?
NPI, but does anyone else find Senator Santorum a tad bit sanctimonious? I'm not a Ronulan, but I really had to applaud Congressman Paul when he said that Santorum was too sensitive.
The rain has been modest so far, but we had to turn on the sprinklers to keep the yard alive. There is supposed to be more on the way, and I sure hope so. We need it.
Now on the complaining about the wet, dank weather.
"If he only gets an unitemized total of his Blind Trust holdings for tax purposes"
For me, that's a big "if" because I have no idea how his assets are held. I think it has now become incumbent on him to release his most recent personal filing. My own 2011 return will not be filed until September or October of this year (you can't control when you receive the K-1's), but I could put my 2010 return online in twenty minutes. What's stopping him?
"What's stopping him is the demand for release of iBama's transcripts."
Has Romney made that demand? If he does, do you think it will be perceived as an appropriate quid pro quo? (I'd pereceive it that way, but I think a majority would see it as petty and juvenile.)
Once again I ask to the cyber savants, why do the GOP put their candidates up for target practice from the likes of CNN and ABC? Had I been advising Newt (he's much better off without me, generally) I would have advised him to tell John King that he was shameless, a pawn of the Democrats and a panderer for asking such a salacious question. I would have wanted Newt to exit with an invitation to the others to leave lest they give the impression that they somehow condone gutter snipe journalism.
I remain confused and hope that at some point the GOP will refuse invitations to bloodletting.
Drudge has a bunch of links on Holder's megaupload shutdown.
"CYBER WAR: Feds SHUT DOWN file-sharing website; No trial, no due process...
'This is just the beginning'...
'Anonymous' Goes on Revenge Spree ...
DoJ, RIAA, MPAA, and UNIVERSAL MUSIC All Offline..."
IMO, there is no political gain for Romney to hide his wealth. In their day, Washington, Jefferson, Madison and even Adams were in the top 1%. Roosevelt and Kennedy were as well. Recent Dem candidates, e,g, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Hillary are all 1%ers. Obama now probably is as well with his book royalties and what not.
Why are their 1%ers any less of a problem than GOP 1%ers?
Jim Rhoads nails it right to the floor. The worst thing Romney could do would be to get defensive or apologetic about it--but it won't surprise me if he does.
What the hell: I don't like any of these guys. I think I would have enjoyed a shooter or two with Perry, but keep these clowns away from me.
I agree and would add that I don't believe that Governor Romney even creased a regulation, rule or law in accumulating his wealth while BOzo and Moochelle Antoinette have been fraudulently cashing Bill Ayers' checks for years.
Had I been advising Newt (he's much better off without me, generally) I would have advised him to tell John King that he was shameless, a pawn of the Democrats and a panderer for asking such a salacious question.
Did you see his response? That's almost precisely what he said. He said "Americans are tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by focusing on this trash" or something similar. Standing ovation right out of the gate.
(John Harwood went into near shrieking defense mode this AM when the lack of transcripts were merely mentioned. He shouted down Joe Kernan to get the "Editor of" datum out in front of the discussion.)
There exists a very known weakness amongst the "In" Crowd.
I hate to say "they" but "they" said the other night on some TV show that Obama went from not being able to pay his bills or student loans to at present a net worth of about $7.5 million.
Like the Clinton's who had nothing and had never owned a house when he got elected to both being worth 10s of millions today.
DOT: Mitt put all his assets in a Blind Trust during his last run and according to more recent articles I've been reading, he just left everything there. The Trustee is his long time attorney ??? Malt. I don't remember his first name.
I did find returns for his foundation up to 2008 online. I didn't understand them. And I hate .pdfs.
One article, sorry don't have the links anymore, was very confusing for someone who doesn't understand the ins and outs. It talks about how he deffered much of his return to later years, think they said sometimes for decades. Then they were detailing that he wrote into deals that some of his profit was taken in stock that he donated to the Church. It all made it sound like a very complicated return. Then were his personal donations that for some reason go on his personal return as itemized deductions (I guess) as opposed to those unitemized totals that are included from the blind trust. But to complicate matters further, some of the stock goes to the foundation as donations. I don't really understand any of it, except that he must have a massive return that takes an army of attorneys and accountants to figure out.
Really, it's Newt Gingrich's fault that the presumptive nominee is rich as Croesus and the Dems have spent months if not years laying the ground for their class warfare attacks on him should he get close to the nomination?
I don't blame Newt at all. I actually credit him for forcing Romney to address the issue now rather than later and come up with a half-decent response. If Romney can't respond convincingly he's toast anyway. And he should have had a plan for it back in 2006 when he decided he wanted to be President. At least Newt is forcing him to take stock of the situation and do something about it.
Actually that's not the comparison, that comes to mind, self made technocratic millionaire businessman and philanthropist,
you see where I'm going with this. TR, his cousin and JFK were career politicians
Except that Romney is very reluctant to "go after" the others of his party and he is chomping at the bit to take on Obama.
The worst thing Romney could do is let Newt or the dem media force him into Newt's or their timetable.
Ari Fleischer, Bush's former press secretary, said in the after debate wrap-up that he would advise Romney not to put his returns out until he is familiar with every dot and dollar sign. Even Gergen agreed with this. Both said he should know every jot in the returns and then go over them again and again, looking for the things that could raise questions.
There's an ancient precept in cross-examination that you don't ask a question unless you know the answer. I'd be willing to flout that rule in the case of his undergraduate transcripts, but in the case of law school it could be a real exploding cigar.
We know that by the time he was at HLS there were affirmative-action tracks to the Law Review, and that once you're there it's an elective office.
The problem is, he graduated Magna, and that means top 5%, and at least back in the day the exams were graded in the blind, i.e. the professor did not know whose exam he was grading. And I wouldn't expect any help at all from HLS in shedding any adverse light on that narrative.
Newt. Please shut up about this line of attack. It is inconceivable that you are not in the top 1%.
In tonight's debate, he didn't really talk about it much except to say that Romney should release his returns in order to reassure voters that there won't be any unpleasant surprises in the fall.
And of course he's a 1%er, which he isn't denying. The 2010 (?) tax return he released just tonight showed he paid taxes of nearly $1 million on an income of $3.1 million.
Now you will all probably say he's a chump for paying so much. :)
Newt paid nearly a million in taxes in 2010. Romney gave about a million five (not counting gifts of stock) as charity in 2010. Which dollars, dollar for dollar, do you think helped the poor more? Newt's million to the gov't or Mitt's to charity?
It verifies that most presidents, and all presidents after Calvin Coolidge except Truman were in the top 1%.
The better comparison would be their net worth when they were running for president, not what they ended up with. Still a lot of one percenters (NTTAWWT), but not nearly so many as ended up that way.
Doesn't really matter, Sara. What matters is what Mitt says about his wealth, his income and his taxes. I would like to see him do a much better job than he has thus far.
I might agree, DOT, but I've listened to him so much, I don't know exactly what you are looking for. I don't know if you've been one to say he should have known, but I've never gotten the sense he doesn't know or didn't expect to be attacked But, I've been involved in some pretty down and dirty politics, and even I was surprised, taken aback, shocked, at the attack coming from Mitt and Rick me too, me too jump on the bandwagon Santorum.
What Newt is doing is shocking even the most jaded pundits and he doesn't seem to get it.
And the attacks on Mitt's integrity and honesty have really taken everyone by surprise. Tonight a half second after Romney said he did not want to engage in personal attacks on his fellow candidates when Newt started quetioning Mit's integrity. What could Romney do that he didn't? He chuckled alittle and said "I don't think I've ever had anyone question my honest or integrity before." Newt with his 84 ethics violations as Speaker probably doesn't know that world at all. To him, integrity and honesty are for suckers and that's is how he treats Romney.
"Would be interesting to see how the losers rank, too"
Start with Gore. Then consider Kerry. McGovern failed at running a bed and breakfast, but beyond that I have no idea (a fine, sappy man). Mondale got big bucks as a name on a law firm's letterhead. McCain is a 0.1% guy.
My guess is that Dole is quite comfortable. Dukakis has to wear Kitty around his neck unto eternity, and no amount of money can matter to him.
McCain's married his money. Kerry married his money. Gore's money comes from that evil mining.
Romney said tonight that he didn't inherit any money from his Dad, he went out an earned it. Having read a bio of George, Mitt's father, I can believe it. He was a self-made man and he expected that of both his sons. I can't find anything on Mitt's two older sisters.
You know it's funny, if Elliot Ness were alive today, heck TR, they would find some way to put them in jail, or go bankrupt. meanwhile the grifters like Blumenthal, (who ruined a much better man, in Ted Forstmann,
and the Times and apparently Fortune threw dirt on him, the other day,) and Spitzer, advance onward and at least laterally if not upweards.
Campaign finance law makes it much more likely that candidates are rich now, since there's no limit on how much of your own money you can spend. Thanks, McCain and Feingold.
"McCain's married his money. Kerry married his money. Gore's money comes from that evil mining."
Gore's originally came from Occidental Petroleum, and nore recently from various green scams. But the inquiry was about how the losers did, not how they did it. Seems almost all of them have done well, one way or another.
“There are too many holes in the certified totals from the Iowa caucuses to know for certain who won, but Rick Santorum wound up with a 34-vote advantage. Results from eight precincts are missing — any of which could hold an advantage for Mitt Romney — and will never be recovered and certified, Republican Party of Iowa officials told The Des Moines Register on Wednesday.”
What crap this whole wealth thing is. Mitt should state outright that every one of the candidates and President Obama is well within the 1% of top income earners, as is every one of the questioners, and that virtually everyone who lives in the United States, including the poorest, are still within the top 10 % of income of the population of the world. It is not about whether anybody makes more money, it is about what is the best policy to improve the lot of the most. And that is capitalism, the system that creates wealth, and which our current president is dedicated (in spite of his own very comfortable income and lifestyle) to denigrating. Romney should also state that he is wealthy enough to be beholden to nobody, but will do what he thinks is the best thing for America. Stop cringing! And all of the Republican candidates who have attacked Mitt for his wealth should be ashamed of themselves.
Thought provoking comment at this PJ Media story about Newt in tonight's debate:
"Imagine… Newt is President and there is a reversal of the roles from 1994. As President, using his executive powers he shuts down the government until Congress addresses the current budget imbalances."
In such a case, who does the Media blame? I can guess at the answer, but will it stick a second time?
Helllooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Posted by: Clarice | January 19, 2012 at 09:11 PM
Lets take a trip down memory lane, about Brian
Ross's judgement shall we;
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7471217&page=1#.TxjLyIF-jcs
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2012 at 09:11 PM
T-H-A-N-K Y-O-U CLARICE!!!!!!
Posted by: centralcal | January 19, 2012 at 09:15 PM
TM is the greatest!
We vote for *him* every day, don't we?
Posted by: Frau Genug-ist-genug | January 19, 2012 at 09:17 PM
CNN sucks. No wonder they have NO viewers. John King is both disgusting and/or ridiculous.
Any viewers they get tonight is because we are down to 4 candidates and a lot happened today. No one would be watching otherwise. They would have all changed channels.
Posted by: centralcal | January 19, 2012 at 09:17 PM
Santorum lost me on SOPA.
Posted by: Jane | January 19, 2012 at 09:17 PM
I'll support Romney if he is the nominee but wow does he sound like a stumbling, bumbling goofball at times.
And, get the darn tax return question behind you Mitt. Is it possible that Mitt is more wealthy than generally accepted and the whole 99% vs. 1% thing is hanging over his head.
Posted by: MoodyBlu | January 19, 2012 at 09:23 PM
Isn't $250 million wealthy enough to put him in the 1%?
Posted by: Sara | January 19, 2012 at 09:25 PM
His tax returns won't tell us how wealthy he is, only the amount and sources of his annual income.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 19, 2012 at 09:25 PM
Just in with the dogs.
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2012 at 09:30 PM
Romney will post his tax returns. Are we wondering if he's rich. Has our side determined that success in the private sector should be punished?
I feel for Newt, but that said, he's so damaged. How can he recover from all of it, including today?
Posted by: MarkO | January 19, 2012 at 09:31 PM
Swing states will carry Newt, MarkO.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2012 at 09:35 PM
Consider the source, but this a very generous measure;
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2012 at 09:35 PM
Romney/Rick in a bit of a tiff over what Romney supposedly said earlier about immigration.
Rick is hard and fast about applying the current laws and don't give illegals a special break. Big applause.
Romney says he pretty much agrees. Wants legal immigration, stand in line.
Ron Paul: The Laws are misdirected. Says like all the others none of them are for Illegal Immigration, but says we have to look at the economics and see why they are coming. Says we a more generous Immigration policy, and we need more resources. I think he's saying he wants to bring the troops and money home from overseas and put it to border protection here. Big applause.
Newt: As Pres I will get rid of the Lawsuits suing Arizona and the other states.
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2012 at 09:35 PM
If the GOP is smart, (exception Santorum who is heavily vested in Rupert Murdoch) they will hit Obama HARD on SOPA.
Just sayin'...
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | January 19, 2012 at 09:36 PM
Usually, the 1 percent is defined by yearly income rather than wealth.
Romney might have arranged his finances so that his income does not put him in the 1 percent.
(Both ways are reasonable, but the first is more common.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 19, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Will it even do that DOT. If he only gets an unitemized total of his Blind Trust holdings for tax purposes, how would we know the sources any more than the person whose assets are in a blind trust. All we would have is the total and the tax liability. Romney has the assets, his cap gains interest and divident investment money, he has his personal tax return, and he has the his Tyler Foundation. Do we want them all, or just his personal return?
His tax attorneys and accountants aren't going to stop everything they are doing at this time of year, to prepare his returns for 2011. I think that is one reason he will wait until April. I doubt his 2011 return is even close to being finished.
Posted by: Sara | January 19, 2012 at 09:37 PM
I missed the first 40 minutes. Any bombshells?
What time is it in Alaska Daddy?
Posted by: Jane | January 19, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Newt: Snark back at John King. Always an applause getter. Now off on Romney's RomneyCare and and if Romney is tryly Pro-Life.
Romney: Going thru Newt's charges 1 by one to dispute Newt's falsehoods even tho there is a scintilla of truth in there.
Doing a decent job of getting in the weeds about Judges, Planned Parenthood, etc. I don't have litmus tests for the judges I appointed. I am pro=life. I might have made mistakes, but as Pres you can count on me to be Pro Life and overturn Obama policies.
Santorum: Says Romney is taking a dodge. He knew the judges were going to alter some of the stuff in Romneycare, so Mitt's being a bit disingenuous in so many words. Hits Newt for being outwardly pro-life but in the back rooms being not pro=life for political advantage and expediency. I won't be that way as Pres.
Romney: Rebuts. Nothing memorable to me.
Newt: I voted with Henry Hyde. 98.6 pro life voting record. Twice I pushed a Bill to end partial birth abortion. My job as Speaker was to maximize the seats won by Pro-lifeers.
King tries to move on without asking Ron Paul. Crowd boo's.
Ron Paul makes a good saying "Hey, I'm a Doctor and we're talking about a medical issue." Now he's off talking about Laws and funding. He now indicts the funding to the Hispitals of Fed money. Sez get the Govt out of the hospitals.
Santorum: Paraphrases what he says Ron Paul has previously said and then somewhat hits him on that but I didn't follow his argument too well, sorry.
Paul: Responds to Rick. Overall point is Paul says he is for State's Rights, repeal Roe V Wade overnight and empower the States. Think I got that correct.
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2012 at 09:48 PM
Newt apparently bit the head off King and smacked ABC upside the head for a standing ovation/
Posted by: Clarice | January 19, 2012 at 09:48 PM
The Cadillac CTS...Some kind of car, nice video about some car.
Now CNN showing a train .
Now some redhead has a cols. Sneezing, Alasultzer will relieve her runny nose.
Warhorse---a great movie, Rated pg 13 Now playing
Cnn Live coverage saturday, 6 eastern.
Visit Myrtle Beach .com, Dare to vacation in a world class value. Enjoy a variety of attractions, speciality stores, coastal cuisibne.
I feel like Charlie Chaplian in Modern Times when he can't quit turning things with his wrenches.
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2012 at 09:50 PM
Not "apparently," Clarice. He did.
Posted by: centralcal | January 19, 2012 at 09:51 PM
I used that word because I was relying on 2d hand reports, but here's a utube of the event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcYF5aNwUeI&feature=youtu.be
Posted by: Clarice | January 19, 2012 at 09:55 PM
John King:
Something about South Carolina. make your case, either embrace Mitt or continue the nomination process
Paul: A riff on Liberty. We must convince folks that freedom is what made this country great. Our debt is awful. Cut a trillion in yea 1. The Debt Burden will kill us if we don't control debt.
Newt: Thanks CNN and the folks here. We have to defeat Obama. This is the most dangerous Prez of our lifetime. The level of radicalism in his 2nd term will be truly frightening. We must have very deep, very dramatic change. We must defeat him and so please vote for me as the person who can defeat this Saul Alinsky radical.
Romney: I agree with the 2 previous guys. Life Liberty Pursuit of Happiness. Our Founders made us the greatest power in the world and this President is making this an entitlement country. We have to return to our founding principles. Pres wants to fundamentally change America. he is wrong we have to re-instill the values of Founders gave us.
Santorum: I agree with what Mitt said. Who is the best person to take on Obama. The person with the biggest contrast with Obama on HealthCare, Global Warming and the Wall St Bailout. Newt and Mitt supported that. I'm the only one here who ever defeated a Dem incumbent and won a swing state. Elect someone who can contrast with Obama and can win. South Carolina voted for Reagan before we knew Reagan as the Reagan we now know. Vote for me.
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2012 at 09:59 PM
Candidate 1: I didn't hear the question, Katie, but the answer is whatever the conservative base wants, that's what I want, whatever it is. And if elected I'll do whatever "conservative" is, whatever that is.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | January 19, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Jane it is currently 6:02 pm uh here. Super cold outside.
Say it's going down to between 10 and 20 below zero tonight. Clear and beautiful but freezing. Brrrrrrrrrrrr.
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2012 at 10:02 PM
CNN sucks! (h/t bad)
Posted by: centralcal | January 19, 2012 at 10:03 PM
It's not 10 or 20 below tonight here, but at last we are getting rain! Hallelujah!
Posted by: DrJ | January 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Jim Miller,
There were 140.5 million returns filed in 2009. 1% = 1,405,000 and the income at that point would be in the $400-$500K range. I would be more than surprised if Governor Romney had reduced his income to that level.
The whole point of the #occupooper movement was to place a 1% tag on Governor Romney. He qualifies.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 19, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Hooray, Dr.J! Waiting, waiting, for it to hit here. My yard is thirsty.
Posted by: centralcal | January 19, 2012 at 10:09 PM
TK, can't use Newt and "swing" in the same sentence.
Posted by: MarkO | January 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Only 4 hours difference? Wow.
Posted by: Jane | January 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM
MoodyBlu - I disagree, but I guess we see what we want to see.
Get over the wealth thing. It's the Dems who scream
peniswealth envy. Arghhhhh!Posted by: Frau Genug-ist-genug | January 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Over at CNN they are now interviewing the candidates individually and Gloria Borger is trying to continue the division by asking Santorum to continue to go after Newt.
He is complying. Trying to do it decently and diplomatically but not always succeeding.
Gloria: Would Newt be "Erratic" as President?
Rick: Newt's brilliant and sometimes he's not disciplined and focused. that why he was revolted against in the House..
Glorai: Can Romney be trusted to be reliable as President?
Rick: Going after Romney for multiple flipflops.
Smart strategy from CNN---continue to ask questions after the debate in order to get video dirt and divisiveness they might not have got from nominee's during the actual debate itself.
Not to Santorum: Rick, would you please keep in mind that Gloria Borger and CNN are the enemy of America, not Newt or Mitt.
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Mitt's been running for prez for a long time now. I'd be surprised if he's hiding anything in his tax returns. He did seem to embrace his success and capitalism a bit more tonight, ya think?
Posted by: Rocco | January 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM
"Note" to Santorum.
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2012 at 10:16 PM
NPI, but does anyone else find Senator Santorum a tad bit sanctimonious? I'm not a Ronulan, but I really had to applaud Congressman Paul when he said that Santorum was too sensitive.
Posted by: Barbara | January 19, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Rick - You're probably right; Mitt Romney probably does have an income that puts him in that 1 percent.
But, he has an IRA that is worth somewhere between $20 and $100 million (!), and he might be deferring much of his income.
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 19, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Niters.
I doubt that Obama is not in the 1%, too.
Or any of the fruitcakes moderating these debates.
Posted by: Clarice | January 19, 2012 at 10:22 PM
CCal,
The rain has been modest so far, but we had to turn on the sprinklers to keep the yard alive. There is supposed to be more on the way, and I sure hope so. We need it.
Now on the complaining about the wet, dank weather.
Posted by: DrJ | January 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM
"If he only gets an unitemized total of his Blind Trust holdings for tax purposes"
For me, that's a big "if" because I have no idea how his assets are held. I think it has now become incumbent on him to release his most recent personal filing. My own 2011 return will not be filed until September or October of this year (you can't control when you receive the K-1's), but I could put my 2010 return online in twenty minutes. What's stopping him?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM
DoT-
What's stopping him is the demand for release of iBama's transcripts.
Save the ammo.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 19, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Oh, and maybe some other loose paperwork.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Yes, Mel. Save something for the Chi-guy.
I'm ditching the post-blather and have switched to an old Aachen Grand Prix show in RFDTV. That beats Gergen and Dona Brazile any day.
Posted by: Frau Hotte-Max | January 19, 2012 at 10:34 PM
"does anyone else find Senator Santorum a tad bit sanctimonious? "
In spades. In skin-crawling spades.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 19, 2012 at 10:36 PM
"What's stopping him is the demand for release of iBama's transcripts."
Has Romney made that demand? If he does, do you think it will be perceived as an appropriate quid pro quo? (I'd pereceive it that way, but I think a majority would see it as petty and juvenile.)
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 19, 2012 at 10:39 PM
"I doubt that Obama is not in the 1%, too."
Well then, he'd better ante up !
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | January 19, 2012 at 10:42 PM
I'm with DOT. Sanctimony is not a good quality in a President. Obama has it too, but why trade one sanctimonious twit for another.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | January 19, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Once again I ask to the cyber savants, why do the GOP put their candidates up for target practice from the likes of CNN and ABC? Had I been advising Newt (he's much better off without me, generally) I would have advised him to tell John King that he was shameless, a pawn of the Democrats and a panderer for asking such a salacious question. I would have wanted Newt to exit with an invitation to the others to leave lest they give the impression that they somehow condone gutter snipe journalism.
I remain confused and hope that at some point the GOP will refuse invitations to bloodletting.
Posted by: MarkO | January 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM
"why trade one sanctimonious twit for another."
To get to the other side.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM
Drudge has a bunch of links on Holder's megaupload shutdown.
"CYBER WAR: Feds SHUT DOWN file-sharing website; No trial, no due process...
'This is just the beginning'...
'Anonymous' Goes on Revenge Spree ...
DoJ, RIAA, MPAA, and UNIVERSAL MUSIC All Offline..."
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM
I thought Newt kicked ass pretty much start to finish.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Looks like the kids are alright. Keep the DOJ website down until Holder leaves.
Posted by: MarkO | January 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM
IMO, there is no political gain for Romney to hide his wealth. In their day, Washington, Jefferson, Madison and even Adams were in the top 1%. Roosevelt and Kennedy were as well. Recent Dem candidates, e,g, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Hillary are all 1%ers. Obama now probably is as well with his book royalties and what not.
Why are their 1%ers any less of a problem than GOP 1%ers?
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | January 19, 2012 at 10:55 PM
The Nor Luap followers have spammed yet another poll at Drudge, Santorum had some good points, but it was yet another pile on
Newt.
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Jim, Jim, Jim....
It's the perception that counts.
Not the facts. Aim the horde and they fire. It's all in the wrist.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 19, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Jim Rhoads nails it right to the floor. The worst thing Romney could do would be to get defensive or apologetic about it--but it won't surprise me if he does.
What the hell: I don't like any of these guys. I think I would have enjoyed a shooter or two with Perry, but keep these clowns away from me.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 19, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Jim Rhoads,
I agree and would add that I don't believe that Governor Romney even creased a regulation, rule or law in accumulating his wealth while BOzo and Moochelle Antoinette have been fraudulently cashing Bill Ayers' checks for years.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 19, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Had I been advising Newt (he's much better off without me, generally) I would have advised him to tell John King that he was shameless, a pawn of the Democrats and a panderer for asking such a salacious question.
Did you see his response? That's almost precisely what he said. He said "Americans are tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by focusing on this trash" or something similar. Standing ovation right out of the gate.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2012 at 11:05 PM
DoT-
Not to my knowledge.
Nor should any of them until they own the right.
Then lay it on thick, hard, and often.
(John Harwood went into near shrieking defense mode this AM when the lack of transcripts were merely mentioned. He shouted down Joe Kernan to get the "Editor of" datum out in front of the discussion.)
There exists a very known weakness amongst the "In" Crowd.
I, on the other hand, smell blood.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 19, 2012 at 11:09 PM
I hate to say "they" but "they" said the other night on some TV show that Obama went from not being able to pay his bills or student loans to at present a net worth of about $7.5 million.
Like the Clinton's who had nothing and had never owned a house when he got elected to both being worth 10s of millions today.
DOT: Mitt put all his assets in a Blind Trust during his last run and according to more recent articles I've been reading, he just left everything there. The Trustee is his long time attorney ??? Malt. I don't remember his first name.
I did find returns for his foundation up to 2008 online. I didn't understand them. And I hate .pdfs.
One article, sorry don't have the links anymore, was very confusing for someone who doesn't understand the ins and outs. It talks about how he deffered much of his return to later years, think they said sometimes for decades. Then they were detailing that he wrote into deals that some of his profit was taken in stock that he donated to the Church. It all made it sound like a very complicated return. Then were his personal donations that for some reason go on his personal return as itemized deductions (I guess) as opposed to those unitemized totals that are included from the blind trust. But to complicate matters further, some of the stock goes to the foundation as donations. I don't really understand any of it, except that he must have a massive return that takes an army of attorneys and accountants to figure out.
Santorum reminds me of middle school nerdy
Posted by: Sara | January 19, 2012 at 11:12 PM
And G'night.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 19, 2012 at 11:12 PM
For some the bete noire is sex, for other money, regardless they give you the once over;
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mitt-romneys-blind-trust-blind/story?id=15188063#.TxjqhYF-jcs
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2012 at 11:18 PM
And the same story, five years ago.
http://articles.boston.com/2007-08-16/news/29238146_1_bradford-malt-cells-romney-spokesman
Can we stop pretending they won't carve up any candidate, like a turkey.
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2012 at 11:21 PM
I don't think Erik Erikson should have been allowed to influence the audience in South Carolina with his biased opinions. From Red State...
Posted by: Rocco | January 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Newt stayed. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It certainly appears the GOP will find a way to lose this election.
Posted by: MarkO | January 19, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Looks like the kids are alright. Keep the DOJ website down until Holder leaves.
I have a feeling this whole thing might not go exactly as Axelplouffe had planned.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2012 at 11:28 PM
JFK lived entirely off his trust fund from his father's billion dollar trust.
O'Reilly did a comparison, adjusted for today's dollars, and Washington was one of our wealthiest. FDR and Teddy were both very wealthy.
Posted by: Sara | January 19, 2012 at 11:29 PM
I don't quite get you, MarkO. What gives aid and comfort to the enemy?
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2012 at 11:31 PM
They've got us apologizing for success. We're on the way out. For this mess, I do blame Newt.
Posted by: MarkO | January 19, 2012 at 11:32 PM
The Net Worth Of The American Presidents: Washington To Obama
Pays to be president
Posted by: Sara | January 19, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Really, it's Newt Gingrich's fault that the presumptive nominee is rich as Croesus and the Dems have spent months if not years laying the ground for their class warfare attacks on him should he get close to the nomination?
I don't blame Newt at all. I actually credit him for forcing Romney to address the issue now rather than later and come up with a half-decent response. If Romney can't respond convincingly he's toast anyway. And he should have had a plan for it back in 2006 when he decided he wanted to be President. At least Newt is forcing him to take stock of the situation and do something about it.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Great link, Sara. It verifies that most presidents, and all presidents after Calvin Coolidge except Truman were in the top 1%.
Hey Romney campaign. If your reading, get on top of this issue and hit it out of the park. Please.
Newt. Please shut up about this line of attack. It is inconceivable that you are not in the top 1%.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | January 19, 2012 at 11:48 PM
Actually that's not the comparison, that comes to mind, self made technocratic millionaire businessman and philanthropist,
you see where I'm going with this. TR, his cousin and JFK were career politicians
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Except that Romney is very reluctant to "go after" the others of his party and he is chomping at the bit to take on Obama.
The worst thing Romney could do is let Newt or the dem media force him into Newt's or their timetable.
Ari Fleischer, Bush's former press secretary, said in the after debate wrap-up that he would advise Romney not to put his returns out until he is familiar with every dot and dollar sign. Even Gergen agreed with this. Both said he should know every jot in the returns and then go over them again and again, looking for the things that could raise questions.
Posted by: Sara | January 19, 2012 at 11:51 PM
"Then lay it on thick, hard, and often."
There's an ancient precept in cross-examination that you don't ask a question unless you know the answer. I'd be willing to flout that rule in the case of his undergraduate transcripts, but in the case of law school it could be a real exploding cigar.
We know that by the time he was at HLS there were affirmative-action tracks to the Law Review, and that once you're there it's an elective office.
The problem is, he graduated Magna, and that means top 5%, and at least back in the day the exams were graded in the blind, i.e. the professor did not know whose exam he was grading. And I wouldn't expect any help at all from HLS in shedding any adverse light on that narrative.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 19, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Newt. Please shut up about this line of attack. It is inconceivable that you are not in the top 1%.
In tonight's debate, he didn't really talk about it much except to say that Romney should release his returns in order to reassure voters that there won't be any unpleasant surprises in the fall.
And of course he's a 1%er, which he isn't denying. The 2010 (?) tax return he released just tonight showed he paid taxes of nearly $1 million on an income of $3.1 million.
Now you will all probably say he's a chump for paying so much. :)
Posted by: Porchlight | January 19, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Ericson, 'don't know who that is, better check the cables'
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Question:
Newt paid nearly a million in taxes in 2010. Romney gave about a million five (not counting gifts of stock) as charity in 2010. Which dollars, dollar for dollar, do you think helped the poor more? Newt's million to the gov't or Mitt's to charity?
Posted by: Sara | January 20, 2012 at 12:06 AM
It verifies that most presidents, and all presidents after Calvin Coolidge except Truman were in the top 1%.
The better comparison would be their net worth when they were running for president, not what they ended up with. Still a lot of one percenters (NTTAWWT), but not nearly so many as ended up that way.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 20, 2012 at 12:08 AM
Doesn't really matter, Sara. What matters is what Mitt says about his wealth, his income and his taxes. I would like to see him do a much better job than he has thus far.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 20, 2012 at 12:10 AM
The better comparison would be their net worth when they were running for president, not what they ended up with.
I agree with this. Would be interesting to see how the losers rank, too - people like Dukakis and Dole didn't strike me as astoundingly wealthy.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 20, 2012 at 12:16 AM
I might agree, DOT, but I've listened to him so much, I don't know exactly what you are looking for. I don't know if you've been one to say he should have known, but I've never gotten the sense he doesn't know or didn't expect to be attacked But, I've been involved in some pretty down and dirty politics, and even I was surprised, taken aback, shocked, at the attack coming from Mitt and Rick me too, me too jump on the bandwagon Santorum.
What Newt is doing is shocking even the most jaded pundits and he doesn't seem to get it.
And the attacks on Mitt's integrity and honesty have really taken everyone by surprise. Tonight a half second after Romney said he did not want to engage in personal attacks on his fellow candidates when Newt started quetioning Mit's integrity. What could Romney do that he didn't? He chuckled alittle and said "I don't think I've ever had anyone question my honest or integrity before." Newt with his 84 ethics violations as Speaker probably doesn't know that world at all. To him, integrity and honesty are for suckers and that's is how he treats Romney.
Posted by: Sara | January 20, 2012 at 12:23 AM
'WAit what'
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/19/hey-look-whose-money-turned-up-sponsoring-the-southern-republican-leadership-conference/#comments
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 12:24 AM
attack coming from
MittNewt and Rick me too,Posted by: Sara | January 20, 2012 at 12:26 AM
"Would be interesting to see how the losers rank, too"
Start with Gore. Then consider Kerry. McGovern failed at running a bed and breakfast, but beyond that I have no idea (a fine, sappy man). Mondale got big bucks as a name on a law firm's letterhead. McCain is a 0.1% guy.
My guess is that Dole is quite comfortable. Dukakis has to wear Kitty around his neck unto eternity, and no amount of money can matter to him.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 20, 2012 at 12:30 AM
McCain's married his money. Kerry married his money. Gore's money comes from that evil mining.
Romney said tonight that he didn't inherit any money from his Dad, he went out an earned it. Having read a bio of George, Mitt's father, I can believe it. He was a self-made man and he expected that of both his sons. I can't find anything on Mitt's two older sisters.
Posted by: Sara | January 20, 2012 at 12:34 AM
You know it's funny, if Elliot Ness were alive today, heck TR, they would find some way to put them in jail, or go bankrupt. meanwhile the grifters like Blumenthal, (who ruined a much better man, in Ted Forstmann,
and the Times and apparently Fortune threw dirt on him, the other day,) and Spitzer, advance onward and at least laterally if not upweards.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 12:34 AM
It is bad enough that my keyboard is sticking, and my eyes are all blurry, I seem to have lost my ability to spell and type.
Posted by: Sara | January 20, 2012 at 12:36 AM
Campaign finance law makes it much more likely that candidates are rich now, since there's no limit on how much of your own money you can spend. Thanks, McCain and Feingold.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 20, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Today is the day that Cain was to give his big, surprise endorsement. Did anyone hear what it was?
Posted by: Sara | January 20, 2012 at 12:38 AM
WEll the whole thing's like a Python sketch, so why not;
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cain-endorses-we-the-people-20120119,0,1142937.story?track=rss
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 12:40 AM
"McCain's married his money. Kerry married his money. Gore's money comes from that evil mining."
Gore's originally came from Occidental Petroleum, and nore recently from various green scams. But the inquiry was about how the losers did, not how they did it. Seems almost all of them have done well, one way or another.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 20, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Via Brother Geraghty:
Posted by: Sara | January 20, 2012 at 12:47 AM
Sara,
I enjoyed your story today about being offered "a job" in Alaska.
Made me giggle:)
Posted by: daddy | January 20, 2012 at 12:54 AM
What crap this whole wealth thing is. Mitt should state outright that every one of the candidates and President Obama is well within the 1% of top income earners, as is every one of the questioners, and that virtually everyone who lives in the United States, including the poorest, are still within the top 10 % of income of the population of the world. It is not about whether anybody makes more money, it is about what is the best policy to improve the lot of the most. And that is capitalism, the system that creates wealth, and which our current president is dedicated (in spite of his own very comfortable income and lifestyle) to denigrating. Romney should also state that he is wealthy enough to be beholden to nobody, but will do what he thinks is the best thing for America. Stop cringing! And all of the Republican candidates who have attacked Mitt for his wealth should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: Boatbuilder | January 20, 2012 at 01:07 AM
StarWars edition of Don't tell PETA
Posted by: daddy | January 20, 2012 at 01:32 AM
Calista better pray she doesn't get sick. Newt divorced his first wife when she got cancer, his 2nd when she developed MS.
Posted by: Sara | January 20, 2012 at 01:55 AM
Thought provoking comment at this PJ Media story about Newt in tonight's debate:
"Imagine… Newt is President and there is a reversal of the roles from 1994. As President, using his executive powers he shuts down the government until Congress addresses the current budget imbalances."
In such a case, who does the Media blame? I can guess at the answer, but will it stick a second time?
Posted by: daddy | January 20, 2012 at 01:57 AM
While watching the debate last night, we were reminded that we want what the Egyptians want; to beat the shit out of Anderson Cooper and John King.
Posted by: A Casual Observation | January 20, 2012 at 02:01 AM