axcess.me™
Creative Destruction

Newt Gingrich and others are making a lot of noise about Mitt Romney’s time as managing partner at Bain Capital, a private equity firm. This is disappointing coming from Mr Gingrich because he knows better. It’s the first time that I know he is being disingenuous with the voters, and it damages his earlier effort at speaking truth to those who would listen. I question his decision to go negative in the first place, but the way he has chosen to do so all but eliminates him for my consideration as being deserving of the office he seeks.

The charge is that Mr Romney presided over a company that, by and large, bought control of companies to drain them of worth, fire everybody and sell the remaining assets, generating an overall profit for the effort. He then points out a couple of companies that seem to match that description.

That is nothing short of cheap demagoguery.

Bain Capital, as a private equity company, specializes in turn-a-rounds – buying troubled companies, jettisoning the unproductive aspects, and reorganizing the working parts into a profitable company which it then seeks to sell to owners interested in operating the company from there. Most of the time they succeed, and the reorganized company goes on to grow and hire and produce wealth. Some do not, and they end up in bankruptcy (which is where they were headed before Bain – or any private equity firm – came in to try and save it).

The critics never mention Domino’s Pizza and Staples, Bain Capital’s two largest successes that, between them, have created a couple of hundred thousand jobs and created billions of dollars of new wealth. Yes, 22% of Bain’s acquisitions have failed. That means, of course, that 78% of them have not, and that is typical of the private equity industry, whose economic function is to save companies that are faltering for whatever reason. It’s a different undertaking than venture capitalism – which provides seed money for new startup companies – and “corporate raiders” – whose activities resemble those described by critics of Mr Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital.

Arthur Rock is a quintessential venture capitalist. He invested $100,000 in a startup (Intel) in exchange for “eight points” – 8% of the nascent company. One would probably need one of their microprocessors to figure what eight percent of ground-floor Intel is worth today, but that is the idea behind venture capitalism: to absorb the risk of a good idea propagated by good people and enjoy the reward if it succeeds. Carl Icahn is a primary example of a “corporate raider.” He takes over companies to “flip” them – to extract the maximum amount of money from a failing venture, normally by “piecing it out.” They are noticeable by their proclivity for hostile takeovers, where they take control of a company against the wishes of the current owners – a practice not exhibited by private equity firms.

I would expect these anti-business arguments from Democrats – especially the anti-business Democrats now in power – but not from Republicans – especially those claiming to be conservatives. Disappointing.


Mr Rock also underwrote $2.5 million in convertible debentures, an arcane financial instrument which he used in an unconventional way – forgiving them as they were “paid back” in lieu of the 8% ownership stake.


Posted 01-16-2012 9:26 by Eagle Watch

Comments

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-17-2012 2:48

I read an article published in the Wall Street Journal several weeks ago that examined Bain Capital in great detail and listed all it's successes and it's few failures. They said pretty much what you have said and pointed out the differences between Bain and companies that are actual venture capitalist companies. You are both right in that Mitt Romney is no "Gordon Gecko" and it is shameful for both Newt and Perry to try and paint him as such. I agree.

However, they have both back-tracked on that political tack at this point. Gingrich has now found another weak spot in Mitt's armor and is going after him over why he won't but should release his tax  statements to be picked over and scrutinized by the public. I think Newt's tenacious bulldog approach is actually gaining him a lot of points with the last ditch conservatives who still haven't decided to "surrender" to the establishment element and just go with the guy who can win.

I have a theory on what is going on here. Actually two theories...Either Newt is really seriously seeking the nomination and will say anything and do anything to get it (which is what most Republicans think of his tactics) OR...Newt is doing the grunt work for the party and bringing up everything that the Democrats will use as ammunition in the fall against Romney and thus nullifying or neutralizing these charges by thoroughly vetting these "weaknesses" that Mitt would face as the nominee. By Sept. all of these issues will have been brought up, discussed and (hopefully) laid to rest and won't hold the public's interest. "Yah yah! We've heard all about this already and Mitt has explained this stuff away!"

Newt: The good Republican soldier falling on his sword for the good of the Party. What do you think?

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-17-2012 3:34

Perry is actually leading the charge for Romney to release his tax returns, with Gingrich agreeing with him.  I liked Romney’s answer to that last night when he said he would in April or so, when most candidates have in past elections.  I have never doubted Gingrich’s sincerity in running for president.  That is, I don’t think he’s a stalking horse for the vetting of Mitt Romney.  I think he’s just chosen a path that I find regrettable.  While it’s true these discussions could have the effect you describe, none of these issues is a surprise to Romney, and he could bring them up himself (in a far better light, by the way) in the normal course of the campaign.  I used to advise candidates to address any such personal issues subject to misinterpretation themselves.  Gingrich’s ego wouldn’t let himself be used as a foil for someone else’s election.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-18-2012 3:08

I think you are probably right that Gingrich wouldn't agree to allowing himself to be used by the Party to run interference for Romney. Exactly because of what you said about his ego.

And Romney did get kind of blind-sided when he found himself the focus of all the other candidates attacks. Which started right after he won N.H. and ended up in the lead (a Big lead) in S.C. He should have expected that and although he had adequate "rote" replies to the charges leveled against him in the debate, he didn't acquit himself very well and it seemed to me that he got a little flustered when the audience seemed to be enjoying, applauding and cheering for whoever leveled a charge against him. I don't think he expected that. It certainly wasn't his best debate performance so far.

Gingrich is as he says the "debator extraordinaire" and that is his one valid argument for being the nominee. It seems that being the wise old politician that he is, he sensed that that fact would actually gain him ground in the S.C. primary and it has. He is closing on Romney at a pretty alarming rate.

Romney will win S.C. I'm sure. But if Newt comes in a close second he's going to take the battle on to Florida and maybe--just maybe--he'll experience a third resurrection.

It's strange, but I never thought that New Gingrich would end up as the final thorn in Romney's side. Now it looks like he might be...The only other candidate that has any chance as a challenger to Romney now is Santorum and he just isn't catching on in S.C. the way I thought he would. I don't know why that is. No matter where Santorum ends up if he goes on to Florida he'll get killed there IMO. If Perry can't see the handwriting on the wall after S.C. he'll just end up splitting the group of voters who are seriously committed to the best "Christian Fundamentalist Socially Conservative" candidate still running. Which means he and Santorum will split them. Which probably would serve Newt's cause in the "Anybody But Romney" battle. That's what I think.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-18-2012 3:31

Santorum’s problem is that he is now battling Gingrich for the Not-Romney slot – Perry is toast, and the voters know it.  Gingrich is such a cleaver debater that he outshines Santorum and, like Monday’s debate, even when Santorum has his best debate, Gingrich did better.  

Money will be Santorum’s problem here in Florida.  It’s a very expensive state to campaign in – it’s large and its TV markets are expensive.  If he lets Gingrich finish ahead of him in South Carolina, his money will slow down at just the wrong time (and Gingrich’s will improve).  

I agree that Romney’s performances of late have been unexplainably lackluster.  He should have a slick, succinct response to the Bain question by now, and he should have expected the tax return question, and used it to educate the voters on why capital gains deserves lower tax rates – investments put people to work and generate new wealth – and argue for lowering everybody’s rate to closer to what he pays, while eliminating loopholes.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-19-2012 3:52

I'd say your political experience as a campaign strategist from by-gone years is right on target!

I think to his credit that Romney is indeed trying to keep the focus in the debates on Obama and his "lousy" record economically and project himself as the guy with the economic solutions. Unfortunately for him the audience that is attending these debates aren't exactly enthralled with this, "You need to vote for me because I am the anointed one and everyone agrees that I have the best chance of winning against him" assertions. They are looking for something much more. They want Red Meat.

Gingrich gives them red meat. He's confrontational and provocative in his statements and his challenges and they love it. Doesn't matter how grandiose or absurd his claims are. They don't care if he can't possibly deliver on what he says he'll do, they are looking for a pit bull and he knows it and he delivers.

I am quite sure that these debate audiences know in their hearts that in the end they will have to get behind Romney, but for now they are just enjoying the chance to vent their frustrations against anything that smacks of "establishment". And as they see it, Romney represents and is the establishment candidate. And this is their last chance to rebel and show that they really unhappy with what the Republican Party is offering them as their one-and-only choice.

Your last paragraph is really great advice for Romney when he becomes the nominee and faces Obama in the general election. But using this argument in the primary debates would illicit no more than tepid applause, I fear. If he tries to lecture these people in the audience on why capital gains deserve lower tax rates, etc. etc.; they will see that as a move by him to assume that he already has their vote and isn't addressing them but is speaking to American voters in general. They don't need to be told about the wonders of capitalism. They already know all about that. The last thing they want to hear out of Mitt Romney is a speech on why the Republican Party platform and philosophy is superior to the Democratic Party's philosophy. They want him to convince them that he is a true conservative and the best choice they can make because he is indeed a TRUE CONSERVATIVE. See what I'm saying?  

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-19-2012 4:54

Romney is walking a fine line right now.  As long as the not-Romney vote is being split up, he has the luxury of running against Obama – getting the press used to his general election campaign … fine tuning it before Team Obama catches him in a weakness.  That’s why he needs to develop a crisp and succinct answer to the Bain question (most voters don’t understand the capital markets, so the answer has to be very “common sense,” rather a technical explanation).  That applies to the primaries as well.  

Romney’s TV is already running here in Florida, and it’s focused on Gingrich and Santorum – no mention of anyone else.  It’s all negative, allowing him to be above it all in the debates and personal appearances.  

He also has a fine line to walk within the primary process as well.  He can’t go too far to the right for fear of cutting moderates and independents loose.  He’s going to need to keep them in-tow for the general, and as I say, as long as the not-Romney vote is being split, he can win each state without drifting away from what his message will be in the general (thus soothing the moderates by not changing after the nomination).  He needs to upgrade his prep team – the people who get him ready for appearances by posing likely questions and formulating the best answers, and preparing questions for him to ask and the likely answers he will get.  He needs a Karl Rove.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-19-2012 5:33

I'll comment on what you have written today tomorrow. I'll just say that once again you are absolutely right when you make the point that Romney's political team has let him down. He definitely needs a Karl Rove!

I have a question right now that I think is important and need to ask you about: Does South Carolina have an open Primary like New Hampshire does or do they have a closed Primary like Pennsylvania has? That is critical. That would explain why his answers in the last debate seemed like he was addressing voters in general and not just avid right wing Republicans. I'm curious.

Also I just heard on the Drive-By media that Iowa is announcing the results of the recount in their Caucus in about 45 min. and it shows that Santorum won Iowa by 34 votes! Do you think that will make any difference to S.C. voters? It is more bad news for the Romney team, at any rate.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-19-2012 5:53

I believe that South Carolina is a closed primary, but I’ll see if I can find out definitively.  

I was hearing Monday that the recount could result in a Santorum win in Iowa (with an 8-point margin on the original count, that is certainly possible!).  I will have no effect on either momentum or the South Carolina vote – the “damage” has already been done; the initial public perception was of a Romney win, and as you know, in politics, first perceptions are everything.  It means a shift of one delegate from Romney to Santorum.  New Iowa count: Romney 12; Santorum 13.  The three uncommitted delegates from Iowa are not affected.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-20-2012 3:48

Yeah. I don't think the Iowa recount will have any long-lasting effect on the way people will vote in the primaries. It's just a tool being used in the Left-Wing element of the drive-by media to try and make Romney look inconsequential. Like, "Despite what the Republican Party Claims, he's not as great as they would have you believe. And he ISN'T the first Republican candidate to win both Iowa and N.H. in a race to defeat and incumbent President!" Blah, blah, blah. Big Deal...And so it goes...

I think we will agree that the really big news story that broke yesterday was Perry's dropping out. That will definitely effect the race and breathes new life into the conservative movement within the party. Throwing his support behind Gingrich is a Christmas Present that I don't think even Newt expected. I'm really shocked that Perry didn't wait until after S. Carolina to do his "dropping out" thing.

I think Santorum will suffer the most from this move. And I predict that if Santorum finishes fourth tomorrow, he will probably drop out before Florida. If he finishes third ahead of Ron Paul, he might hang in through Florida, but I think it's futile. Newt is the new designated and anointed standard-bearer for the conservative wing of the Party.

I can't help but wonder how the establishment wing of the Republican Party is going to react to this. I'm going to be watching "The Conservative Network" [FOX] to get Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer's take on all of this. As far as I know they are all still pushing for Romney to be the nominee, but I heard Bill Krystal talking on the radio yesterday to Dennis Miller, and he--who is a Romney backer--was talking whistfully about how maybe Newt could (or should) be the better choice. This is all fascinating to me!

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-20-2012 4:21

Yeah, I was surprised that Perry quit … he has Texas money (oil) to run, at least in Florida, but decided not to.  Interesting.  

Santorum won’t loose momentum unless he finishes fourth, but I don’t think that would be a knockout blow.  This field-of-four will continue to Florida.  A pundit put the Republican consensus the best I’ve yet heard when he said, “We would like to see Gingrich debate Obama and Romney appear on the ticket.”  As well-grounded on business and economics as Romney is, he seems to lack the knack of getting to the heart of a response in the first sentence – hook the audience and then answer the question (in more detail).  He’s too prone to get into the weeds on subjects, where Gingrich keeps things on a common sense level as long as he can.  Most of the intricacies of government, finance and business look intentionally opaque and probably corrupt to the public and Gingrich knows that.  He’ll say “We have a problem with X, and this administration wants to do Y?!”  Even if “Y” is the best course (if for reasons that most voters don’t understand), Gingrich can make it sound loony.  Obama just makes it sound political (and the people are really tired of that).  

Having said all that, the Republican establishment hasn’t yet wavered from Romney’s side, and I don’t see anything on the horizon threatening that.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-22-2012 1:49

If I were a Republican the thing that would be worrying me right now is that Newt has exposed a personality flaw in Romney's character and has exploited it. Romney is in some ways similar to Obama in that he doesn't seem to be able to connect with the "populist little guy". He seems distant and nerdy and doesn't seem to understand their plight. All of his attempts to convince them that "I feel your pain" seem phony and contrived. In other words, I think he's losing the "charisma" battle to Newt. This might not matter once the South Carolina primary is over, though. I'm not sure that Newt can appeal to the Florida and Nevada and beyond primary voters using this tactic. I would speculate that after S.C., the voters will not be so easily influenced by the "Fire and Brimstone" speeches and the one sentence smackdowns in the debates that Newt is so fond of and skilled at delivering. So I think Newt's "day in the sun" [aka] Third Resurrection will probably end after S.C. even if he wins there.

I agree with you that the idea of Romney being the nominee and Newt being his V.P. running mate would be a Republican's dream-come-true slate. The only problem with that ever happening as I see it is I don't think Newt's ego would let him agree to being the minor player (second fiddle) to Romney who he personally doesn't like to begin with. I don't think it's within his personality to put "the good of the party" above his personal goal of being NUMERO UNO. Also, I can't imagine Romney asking him to be his running mate. The relationship between the two men is obvious dislike and distrust of each other. Newt will never forgive Romney for the SuperPac attacks in Iowa and Romney won't forgive Newt for trying to attack him back with the SuperPac money over his "capitalist expoitation" when he was CEO of Bain. So I think a Romney / Gingrich ticket is a pipe dream. Never gonna happen, IMO.

By the way, I did get a clue about S.C.'s primary rules from an article I read online this morning and what the media heads are saying, but it IS only a clue...I heard one source say that "only Republicans and Democrats can vote." Then I heard another reporter say, "It is an open primary". So I have concluded that people can go to the pole, prove that they are a registered voter and then request either a Rep. or a Dem. ballot. I would call that an open primary.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-22-2012 2:34

Actually, I never said that I, nor any other Republican that I know of, “dream” of a Romney/Gingrich ticket.  I only mentioned that I heard one Republican operative mention he would like to see Gingrich debate Romney (rather than Romney) and Romney appear on the ballot (rather than Gingrich).  Although Kennedy despised Johnson at the time of the nominating convention, he gave him the VP slot in return for his considerable influence in southern states.  Having said that, I don’t see a Romney/Gingrich ticket any more than you do.  

Yes, South Carolina is an open primary … I found that out the same way you did – reading it in news accounts of the campaign.  

As of this writing, I’ve got returns from 95% of South Carolina’s precincts, showing Gingrich with 41% of the vote to 27% for Romney, Santorum with a disappointing 17% and Paul, in his worst showing to date, with 13%.  As best as I can estimate this morning, the delegate count now looks like this: 33 for Romney; 25 for Gingrich; 14 for Santorum; 4 for Paul; 3 at large (Iowa has three delegates that are not up for assignment by the caucus results); 2 for Huntsman, who has withdrawn from the race and endorsed Romney, but I haven’t heard him release his delegates to anyone; and 2 for Perry, likewise retired from the race, backing Gingrich, but also lacking an announcement releasing his delegates.  

I had a blog ready to post Friday morning, but Kim Strassel wrote an almost identical op-ed for Wall Street Journal that morning, so I’m back to the drawing board … coming soon.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-22-2012 2:41

Explanation: I thought I posted this reply yesterday but this morning I saw it didn't go. I probably didn't have the password exactly right.

Anyway, S.C. is over now and Newt has won, I see. I think that is good news for "My side"...I haven't seen the actual breakdown on the voting. I went to bed early last night and only found out online this morning that Gingrich won. I guess Romney came in second and Paul was third with Santorum bringing up the tail.

At this point I guess they are all planning on going to Florida. Santorum says he isn't dropping out. He might do a "Perry" though, I suspect. If his numbers in Florida don't improve and he stays stagnant in last place after about a week I think he might drop out and throw his support behind Gingrich. I wonder if this should happen, would that deliver Florida to Gingrich?

I'll give you my personal opinion on this situation and I hope it won't offend you. I say this because the last I heard you were suggesting that Romney would be the wisest choice for the nomination for the Republicans to make. And I don't know if you have changed your mind like so many conservatives have by jumping on the Newt bandwagon:

I still think that Romney has the best chance in the general election. Despite Newt's wonderful debating skills and his great ability to deflect any criticism that is leveled against him, I don't think his charisma will be enough to capture a majority of voters in the general next fall. Although Romney is having a very rough time of it right now and has stumbled in his handling of the criticisms leveled against him, I think he would still be the more palatable choice to the general voter. Because he seems to be the most (and only) moderate candidate in this bunch. I think that matters. Maybe I'm wrong.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-22-2012 2:52

I’m not much of a bandwagon kinda guy … Romney is still the smartest choice for the general, in my opinion, and for all the reasons you cite.  Were I on Gingrich’s advisory team, I would tell him to transist from bombastic back to optimism.  Save the overt criticism for Obama and concentrate on his vision for rescuing America – a Reaganesque approach of appealing to voters rather than souring them on another choice.  Bombasity wears thin over a long campaign, but telling the voters that they are smarter than Washington never does.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-23-2012 2:53

Watching the TV news cycles yesterday, I think Newt is doing exactly what you have suggested. No one could ever suggest that Newt Gingrich isn't the smartest politician in the crowd. Or should I say the remaining "Gang of Four"?

He seems focused on attacking Obama's policies and Washington in general now. He has definitely eased up on Romney. But now Romney is focused on attacking Newt and I wouldn't put money on Newt sitting still and ignoring or brushing Romney's attacks off. He will respond in kind and that's what his followers love about him.

I'm just enjoying the whole spectacle from the sidelines. Being a political junkee, this is as entertaining to me as a SuperBowl! I'm hoping that the contest goes on for several months at least...Ha haha!

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-23-2012 2:58

I tried to access Kim Strassel's WSJ op-ed that you mentioned online but couldn't. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your next blog whether it is on that topic--whatever it was--or something else.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-23-2012 3:07

Much will depend on how Santorum does in Florida.  The race is now between Gingrich and Santorum for the Not-Romney voters, and Newt won that one handily in South Carolina.  The two Florida debates will be interesting.  

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-23-2012 3:17

I was speculating, judging from his behavior, that Ron Paul was collecting delegates to use as bargaining chips at the convention – to offer his delegates in return for provisions in the Republican platform.  When Kim’s op-ed outlined the same theory, I felt that my “speculations” seemed a bit borrowed.  Anyway, I should post later today.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-24-2012 2:06

I have heard many pundits from both sides describe Ron Paul's behavior in exactly that light. He--they say--is definitely collecting delegates to use as bargaining chips to influence the Republican platform that comes out of the convention. I think that is true and it is an astute observation.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-24-2012 2:22

Dr Paul is banking on no one coming out of campaign season with 1,144 delegates so he [Paul] can swing the nomination to one of them.  This bargaining needs to take place before the first ballot because after that, all delegates are cut free from their states’ primary/caucus results, consulting within each states’ convention delegation to back a candidate.  This “brokered” phase makes it more difficult to corner a candidate who needs a number of delegates within Paul’s number of held delegates.  Geez that was wonky!  Sorry ‘bout that.  

By the way, I’ll send you a copy of Kim Strassel’s op-ed.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-25-2012 2:22

So what do you think? Will one candidate (Romney) come out of the campaign season with 1144 delegates? None of the other three has any chance of going to the convention with 1144 delegates in hand, I'm sure.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-25-2012 2:52

Actually, the longer Gingrich dominates debates, the better chance he has of overtaking Romney’s momentum in delegate-count.  Much depends on Gingrich’s self-discipline (read: a return to a positive message of returning America to greatness) and Romney’s recovery (read: stop the wobbly responses to expected issues – taxes, RomneyCare, etc).  Whichever comes first and/or best will control the rest of the race.  Either could end the season with 1,144 delegates.  Having said that, I don’t Gingrich can keep himself in check for the next seven months, so, yes, I think Romney can come out with enough delegates to take the nomination on the first ballot.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-25-2012 3:27

My opinion is that only Romney would be able to garner 1144 delegates. I really don't think Gingrich's Third Resurrection is sustainable past Florida and maybe not even in Florida. I predict that Newt's popularity bubble is about to burst.

I view Newt as once again "the flavor of the month" which I think is still where the Republican Primary voters are living. If Gingrich manages to win in Florida it will be because Florida does have a closed primary and only registered Rep.s will be able to vote. Which is definitely a big help to Gingrich and the "Anybody But Romney" group.

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-27-2012 4:17

God I love these debates! Unfortunately there won't be any more for three weeks...[sigh].

By the way I think you might just have found your man. The one who promises that he will see to it that we have an American colony on the moon within the next decade, and with no help or assists from the Russians or the Chinese! WOW! Ha hahaha.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-27-2012 4:30

That’s what going to get the nomination for Romney – not the idea of reigniting the Lunar program, but bringing it out of left field during a debate.  Typical Gingrich.  From what I’ve seen of this morning’s coverage, it looks like Rick Santorum won last night’s debate (I still haven’t devoted a couple of hours to actually watching one those things).  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-28-2012 3:32

I must admit that I haven't watched one of these debates in it's entirety either. I just get the highlights off Google or the 24  / 7s.

I think though from what I have seen that Santorum is doing a bang-up job in the debates ever since Iowa. I think it's a shame that he is being discounted because so many Republicans have decided that he isn't a viable nominee against Obama. They are fixated on the idea that it EITHER has to be Romney, OR Gingrich. On the rare occasions when Santorum gets a chance to answer a question in the debates he is ready, on top of the situation, and gives a very studied and eloquent answer. IMO.

In many ways I see Santorum similar to Ron Paul in that he doesn't mince words, change his position on issues to appeal to whichever audience he is addressing, or allow himself to look hypocritical when something in his past seems to be a black mark on his pedigree. I thought he was very adroit when he explained why he voted for the Medicare Part D bill. Didn't you?

And lastly, I loved Ron Paul's attitude in the most recent debate. H treated the whole thing as a big waste of time and I loved his "zinger" when he was asked what he would do if Fidel Castro called him in the middle of the night--a very silly question put to him by a very silly moderator (Blitzer):

"I'd ask him why he called me in the middle of the night." That was precious!

And by now you know that the media juggernaut has declared Romney the winner in that debate. They have decided (for the good of all of us voting idiots,of course) that the race is between only Romney and Gingrich. And Romney was the winner Thursday night.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-28-2012 4:08

Actually, Romney is only one of the candidates that minces his words, but yeah, “the Republicans” want Romney, but many of the voters are keeping Gingrich in the hunt.  Much like Pawlenty, Santorum just doesn’t seem “presidential.”  For whatever reason, he doesn’t seem tall enough for the ride.  I haven’t heard the Part D question or Santorum’s answer to it, so I can’t really comment on that.  

My view of what I have seen of it, I think Santorum won the debate, but Romney came out ahead because of that.  As to the race being touted as a 2-man race, that isn’t a creature of the media (can’t believe I’m defending them!), rather a results-based observation – Santorum’s post-Iowa numbers are out-averaging only Ron Paul, and he is not close enough in Florida (11% to ~30-40% for Gingrich and Romney) to be seriously considered to be in the hunt.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-29-2012 3:43

Expanding on your comment that Santorum just doesn't seem "presidential", I wonder if that would be because he looks so young and "baby-faced / fresh faced"? Perhaps his handsome young appearance is working against him in this contest. Many people have this perception that a president must have a dignified, wise and "fatherly" continence about them...A kind of "stand tall" look as does Mitt. Or a "kind-benign-grandfatherly" look like Newt tries to exploit. I wonder...

And you are right when you say that the two-man race isn't really media-driven but rather the results of the polling data. It is a fact that the Republicans are really beginning to narrow the field down to two candidates. They realize that it is time to move on from their "flavor of the month" mentality and settle upon two choices. It is between the "moderate" and the "conservative". Time is getting short and they certainly want to avoid a brokered convention.

So I was wrong to accuse the media of manipulating the campaign's results. Actually when I think about it the media is if anything trying to keep the whole thing going by stressing that there are STILL four candidates in the contest...Better ratings that way. Yuk! Yuk!

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-29-2012 3:55

Yeah, the media won’t get involved in trying push a candidate until the general, and yes, the messier, more crowded the field (in a primary – any primary) the better for circulation.  

My guess is that Senator Santorum doesn’t “look presidential” because of his stage presence, not his looks (remember John Kennedy?).  He’s just doesn’t exude authority and confidence when he enters a room or begins to speak.  I return to my example of Pawlenty.  They both are well versed on issues and speak their mind well … they just don’t project the image of someone who wears profound power easily and confidently.  It’s purely a perception thing.  For the record, I don’t think Gingrich has it either – the GOP just salivates at the thought of Obama being ripped apart like debate moderators.  But when it comes time to actually vote for a candidate, they tend to pull Romney’s lever.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-30-2012 3:30

You are certainly right about why so many in the GOP are still backing Gingrich. They are sure he would destroy Obama in the pre-election debates. And that might be a great reason to support Newt if the election results were just based on who won "the debates". But when it comes to the general, I think there are only going to be three debates--not 20 plus as their has been in the primary.

I think it is also unrealistic for the Gingrich supporters to believe that Newt's great debating skills will convince the majority of voters in the general that his quite extreme conservative positions are exactly what the country needs and the sooner it is implemented, the better.  And the establishment Republicans are aware of this, we know.

It is now obvious that Romney has in effect already won Florida. Next up I believe is Nevada. I wonder if Newt can re-group and maybe pull out a win there? His sugar-daddy SuperPac benefactor is from Nevada. I wonder if that will make a difference? How Pro-Conservative are the GOP voters in Nevada anyway?

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-30-2012 3:53

You’re right about the relative importance of debates being less in the general than in the primaries, but not as much so about the lack of utility of pitting one extreme against another.  Don’t forget that most Democratic likely voters think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are to the left of them – never mind Independents and Republicans.  This administration is exercising extreme policies.  Any perception of extreme conditions tends to breed an extreme “cure.”  Having said that, I still don’t believe that Gingrich will secure the nomination, but he will have a substantive following of delegates going into the nominating convention.  

I don’t think Gingrich will win Nevada because Ron Paul will be able to split the Not-Romney vote again (Nevada is a causcus state).  The Adelsons will have an effect on the campaign there, but just to lessen Romney’s margin of victory, in my opinion.  The momentum coming out of Florida will be hard for Gingrich to overcome, especially in the absence of news-readers asking stupid questions in filled auditoriums.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-31-2012 3:25

If you are correct in your assumption that most Democratic "likely" voters think that Obama / Pelosi / Reid are to the left of them (I don't agree with that assumption by the way); then I hardly think that they would be drawn to vote for Newt / Mitt. Unless Mitt does a big course-correction and starts talking like the moderate that he is accused of being by the conservative wing of his party. And if he should do that he will appear to be a Kerry-like, "I was for it until I was against it and now I'm for it again..." personality which is a hard sell to all voters wherever they come down on the Bell curve. Just an observation.

And you're right about Newt as far as Nevada is concerned I think. I hear [from the media] that his chances of winning Nev. aren't good. He won't do well in any state until he can get back into the debate mode. And that isn't happening until March. In the meantime both Paul and Santorum are concentrating on the caucus states. Which is very smart strategy on their parts, IMO.

In conclusion I think we are finally, at last seeing the demise of "The Newt".

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 01-31-2012 3:45

Two things.  I don’t think Obama/Pelosi/Reid are to your left – I think you are to the left of most Democratic likely voters; second, I wasn’t saying that they will vote for any Republican, I was saying that, by definition, the current administration is extreme, and as such, tends to generate extreme opposition.  

Romney has a very strong February coming up.  A Florida win for him will almost cement the nomination, in my opinion.  Strong performances by Santorum and/or Paul in February will not hurt Romney (who run the table in February) as much as it will doom Gingrich.  You will still have the conservative wing splitting their vote as Romney scoops up delegagtes.  That’s how I see it playing out going into March.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-02-2012 2:34

I guess you classify me as a leftist extremist. Anyone who would approve of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is an extreme leftist from your perspective. OK.

I know you couldn't put me in a category with the blue collar Dems. who voted for every Republican President since Ronald Reagan. They would be what you would call "moderate" Democrats, I'm sure. I call the DINOS, you know.

And I think you are right about what's going to happen in February. I have a question: If Newt can hang in there until March and he wins most of the Southern States like Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, etc. will he--at that point--pose a renewed threat to the Romney juggernaut? Or will he still be woefully lacking in the delegate count? I guess it would depend on whether these states have a winner-take-all system, huh?

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-02-2012 3:38

I classify you as being to far left because of how liberals classify themselves.  As I say, most likely Democratic voters say that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are to the left of them, and if you see them as “the norm,” that puts you to left of the leftist norm.  By definition, that describes someone to the extreme left.  I would say the same thing about Gingrich (and his philosophical think-a-likes) being to the extreme right.  It’s not pejorative, it’s just an observation.  By the way, I use “likely voters” because they are all that really matter in things politic.  

I think Newt will stay in at least through Super Tuesday because he does stand to gain delegates in those southern states.  I don’t think that will have a practical effect on Romney’s campaign, as he, Santorum and Paul will still be splitting the Not-Romney vote.  According to GOP rules, there can’t be winner-take-all states until after April 1 (Gingrich has filed a complaint to this affect against the Florida results – it will get nowhere).  More importantly than delegate-count this early is the money-count, and an increasingly strong Romney will increasingly out-furndraise other candidates, further limiting their chances of mounting meaningful challenges.  I still think Romney’s double-digit win in Florida sealed the deal.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-07-2012 2:14

I'm still mystified how pollsters figure out who is a "Likely voter". Do they ask the person they are surveying, "Are you likely to vote in the general election this November?" And how does that validate what the person being polled answerSleep?

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-07-2012 2:32

A “likely voter” is someone who voted in the previous same-type election (off-year, presidential, bond issue, etc).  So this year’s “likely voter”, being based on 2008’s Democratic-heavy turnout, is especially telling.  Any poll is up against the tendency of people to tell the pollster what they think they want to hear, and that is best laundered-out by the relative size of the sample you poll (there are statistical data available to serious pollsters that indicate what your sample-size should be for a given “universe”-size – adult citizens, American registered voters, likely voters, and on – expressed as degree of certainty.  Sample size also affects the margin of error in the results.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-08-2012 4:05

Your explanation helps somewhat. I would think that most reputable pollsters would use a similar form of screening. There wouldn't be much point in just asking someone if they plan to vote and who are they going to vote for. But you are the expert in these matters. I believe both Rasmussen and Gallup  use a sample size of around 1000 don't they?

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-08-2012 5:13

In a national poll, both Gallup and Rasmussen typically use more than 1,000, but I can’t emphasize enough that Rasmussen is only pollster that always use likely voters – the others use either registered voters or adults, both of which are good for gauging the general attitude of the country, but inaccurate when gauging the outcome of elections (the most important variable on the direction of future policy).  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-09-2012 4:07

Simply my last word on polls and polling: I see both Rasmussen and WSJ / ABC agree that as of last Monday Barack Obama comes out ahead (very narrowly) in a matchup against Mitt Romney. But after Tuesday's big triumph for Santorum in Minn., Mizzou and Colorado, Santorum comes out ahead in a head-to-head matchup with Obama according to Rasmussen. Kind of makes me think these daily pollings are a big waste of time in predicting anything! LOL.

Were you as shocked as I was in how well Santorum did? Everyone thought he would win in Missouri, but Minn. was a minor upset and Colorado was totally unexpected. One last gasp from the anybody-but-Romney crowd I guess. So now Santorum ascends the "flavor of the month" throne...Wonder how long he'll stay there?  

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-09-2012 4:44

These periodic polls pitting the president against this challenger or that are mercurial, like the daily tracking polls that look at job approval every day.  They float around depending on the events of the day.  President Obama has only recently started beating Mr Romney occasionally in these polls.  It will go back and forth until Election Day.  These polls are weighted the same way that local polls are – that is, proportional to the number of registered Republican, Democrats and Independents in the sample pool – not weighted by electoral votes of their home state, nor are they smoothly distributed in population-based numbers across all states.  That won’t get here until after both conventions.  

Yes, I was surprised that Mr Santorum swept all three states.  I expected Missouri and suspected Minnesota, but was surprised by Colorado.  He has now won four states to Romney’s three and Gingrich’s one.  I have the delegate count as Romney 87; Santorum 35; Gingrich 32; Paul 13; and Huntsman 2.  1,144 needed for the nomination.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-10-2012 2:35

I'm pleased you posted the current delegate count. I was wondering about it and didn't really hear a breakdown on any of the TV stations I perpetually watch...daily...LOL.

My mind is whirling around when it comes to these stats concerning which state goes next and whether they are holding a caucus or a primary and it that makes a difference and if that state's election is one in which delegates will actually be assigned or the delegate count will come later...I depend on you to keep me abreast of all this stuff. To quote Emperor Joseph from the play Amadeus, "Too Many Notes!" That's me...

I guess Maine is next. Tomorrow. If the pundits are correct Romney should take that one rather handily. But who knows since this seems to be Santorum's week. What with the big bru-ha-ha over the Obama administration's BIG misstep concerning the matter of the Catholic Church and religious freedom. That incident seems tailor-made for Santorum to exploit.  

It seems literally to be a gift from the Almighty! Ha haha!

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-10-2012 3:11

I know what you mean … I have trouble getting up to date information about vote totals and delegate counts.  They’re scattered all over the place.  I’ll keep you as informed as I can.  

I’m not sure what’s next after C-PAC, but I’m sure we’ll start hearing about it soon.  And yes, Romney will have New England pretty much sewed up.  

Yeah, this Catholic thing is just the latest unforced political error by the White House.  The left, of course, is trying to make it about “choice” when it’s really about an unconstitutional intrusion on religious practice.  They should just issue waivers like they do for everything else, and this will go away (but they’ve done real damage to the re-election effort among Catholics).  And I’m sure Santorum will jump on this (along with the rest of the GOP field).  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-11-2012 3:12

Well we see that the Obama administration has tried to diffuse the Catholic vs HHS controversy with his attempt to "walk it back"  in his remarks yesterday. I don't know how successful that strategy will be.

What I heard of the C-PAC convention speeches it looks like Santorum and Gingrich "wowed" the crowd. And Romney's speech fell flat. If I were an establishment Rep. and were really intent on seeing that Romney becomes the nominee, I would be ready to push the panic button. It appears to me that the "establishment" crowd is quickly losing ground to the "true conservative" crowd.

It is beginning to look like Romney despite all of his far reaching political preparation for this campaign and his vast superiority in accumulated political wealth is losing ground by not being able to connect with the voters and make his case for why he must be their choice. And I'm hearing this stuff coming from the Right as well as the Left. If I were a Romney supporter I would be alarmed.

Even Republican pundits like Peggy Noonan and Erick Erickson of Red State and Jennifer Rubin are being very critical of his strategy and his capabilities. Whereas several months ago the "establishment" wing of the Party were pushing the idea that Romney might not be perfect but he's the best candidate available to win for the Party because he has broad appeal to all the voters because he is a "moderate". Now they are beginning to say that his very moderation would be a handicap. Go figure.  

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-11-2012 3:46

Yeah, the president had to do something, not wanting a menu of illegal aspects of ObamaCare fleshing out the “We’ve got to pass it to see what’s in it” narrative of the right in an election year.  This “fix” does little, as the added cost to the insurance companies will simply be passed along in increased premiums, meaning that the religious institutions will still be forced to provide a service that rejects a tenet of their religion.  It’s still unconstitutional.  

Conservatives don’t tend to panic … his appeal to moderates hasn’t wavered, it’s only the red-meat conservatives that are luke-cool to him, and it’s the conservatives that drive the primary process.  It’s an old political story whereby the best general-election candidate often has a hard time getting the nomination from a more ideology-driven primary process.  

The right is critical of Romney’s strategy so far because it is failing to address the gap between moderates and conservatives in ways that shows each why his course is long-term better for them.  The politics of division is a liberal tactic, not a conservative one.  

He needs to demonstrate (not just articulate) why these are the playoffs, the general is the World Series.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-12-2012 2:50

In response to what you've said in your first paragraph, I found this little tidbit online this morning and think it's relevant. It's by Gail Collins writing for the N.Y.T. and it's entitled, "The Battle Behind the Fight". I've lifted a couple of sentences from it that addresses the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church's Bishops stance on the violation of their "First Amendment" rights:

"Let’s skip over the flaws in the strong moral position position. Such as the fact that many states already require employers’ health care plans to cover contraception and that all over the United States there are Catholic universities and hospitals that comply.

Or that the bishops have totally failed to convince their own faithful that birth control is a moral evil and now appear to be trying to get the federal government to do the job for them. We’re rising above all that."

Check the whole article out online if you think your BP can stand it. LOL.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-12-2012 3:00

This is the basic liberal narrative – it’s all about contraception and “choice”; but it’s not.  It’s about the government mandating that a religious sect provide something that is considered a sin by that religious sect.  Whether or not practitioners actually commit that sin is irrelevant, the mandate is prohibited by the First Amendment.  The directive is unconstitutional.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-13-2012 3:22

Definitely a basic liberal narrative, I agree. Being a liberal I see the validity in the argument pointing out that the Catholic Church is being hypocritical in their position. What do you expect? Why make an issue over this matter now when they have been complying with the premise and offering this service to their employees for years in Catholic institutions all around the country?

If this directive is unconstitutional (and I'm not saying it isn't), why wasn't the Federal government's insisting that Bob Jones University must desegregate since they were receiving Federal monies also interfering with Bob Jones' first ammendment religious rights also? Bob Jones University insisted that it was, you know. Just sayin'.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-13-2012 3:38

Whether or not the Catholic Church is being hypocritical has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the edict.  Also transparent to the constitutionality of the government’s actions are the voluntary acts of the various religious institutions.  The constitutional question isn’t whether they are doing it anyway, it’s whether the government can mandate that they do.  The Bob Jones University question is different as it only involves the receipt of federal funds – not mandated behavior.  All federal funds have strings attached, and if you don’t want the strings, don’t take the money.  You want the money, you have to jump through the hoops.  Apples and oranges.  

Libby wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-14-2012 2:07

You are right. Just for the record I did not and do not approve of what the administration and the HHS attempted to do in this matter. They were wrong any way you look at it. And it is a terrible political blunder by "Team Obama" and will hurt him seriously in the upcoming election.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Creative Destruction
on 02-14-2012 2:18

For a team that showed so much political sophistication during the campaign, they appear totally inept at governing – and much of that ineptness is rooted in bad politics.  I find that utterly fascinating.  All I can think of is that they are so “in the bubble” at the White House that they honestly don’t understand the American people any more – or completely misread their own polling.  There’s a PhD thesis in the chameleonic change of the winning candidate between campaign victory and administrative failure.  

Add a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Remember Me?

axcess.me™ is a trademark of Axcess Internet®
The views expressed on personal blogs are the property of the owner and are subject to this disclaimer.