Newt Gingrich's private equity past .Fake as Newt ...

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/09/newt-gingrichs-private-equity-past/

Funny thing------I get my a.m. political junkie fix from realclear politics.com, a non partisan website. Of the numerous articles on Mitt, this was the ONLY one positive about him. Most conservative pundits & right-wing media , at this point, DESPISE Romney. Mitt looks like the prohibitive favorite to get nomination ( 87%, according to intrade.com ) so, Romney & the right are gonna have to make amends, or it's gonna be a bumpy road to defeat Obama.

The writer of this article whose in Mitt's camp, is a prominent Jewish Neo-con; In Gingrich's corner & pumping over 3 mill to help Newt beat Mitt in SC, is another member of my "tribe" casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. "Shelly" is 8th richest person in U.S. The following about him from Wikipedia : "Originally a Democrat, Adelson became a Republican as his wealth increased. "Why is it fair that I should be paying a higher percentage of taxes than anyone else?" he once asked. He began making major contributions to the Republican National Committee following clashes with labour unions at his Las Vegas properties"

Paging GaG & Croix-----LOL ! But, WTF-----tho they align with Adelson's sentiments, at least they aren't anti-semites, like the unlamented mrng & madison, who complained about "disproportionate Jewish influence in politics"------hmmmmm-----you know----- ehhh-----never mind-------------LOL !

So conservatives, you agree with this article ?

As for Mitt ( & this is hardly a fearless prediction ) if he wins SC on 21st, it's all over.

-- Modified on 1/11/2012 7:39:47 AM

Your last paragraph, "specifically the sentence that says Conservatives are correct in their belief that Mitt's no conservative candidate and is most likely to be more of Obama". This shit pisses me off. So what you are saying is that Romney is not a TRUE conservative. A conservative who has adopted 100% of the total conservative platform, from abortion, to gay rights, to less govt, to a strong defense. And God forbid, that if a Romney type deviates one fucking iota from the platform, well throw the piece of shit out, because he is not a true believer.

The 20% of the left, the Progressives, and the 20% on the right, the evangelicals, ne-cons, whatever, don't speak for the majority of this country. And as someone who considers himself a conservative on fiscal and security issues, I'm OK with Romney.

Guess what? Most Americans like everything in moderation.

Why would it necessarily be the case that Romney wins if he wins SC? Aren't the big wins far more important, like Texas, Florida, and California? What happens if Santorum takes Texas (assuming Perry is out of the race by then), Gingrich takes California, and Huntsman takes Florida?

Or even more so, true Libertarians. Any one who is "true" to a political cause is usually incapable of independent thought and is much more of a follower that a leader.

Guess what? I too am a conservative on fiscal and security issues and I won't have a problem votint for Romney this fall either.

Perhaps he's a moderate by modern standards in the Republican Party, but he ain't a moderate by the real definition of the term. Being a serial liar doesn't make you a moderate.

I was going to basically say the same thing. So fuck you and fuck the Giants (lol).

But don't forget that Florida comes right after SC, and Florida has 50 delegates.

What's right next door to the Palazzo? Yep, the Wynn and the Encore. Steve Wynn also despises Obama. Must be something in the Manischewitz. That's 4 great hotels and casinos from the Venetian to the Encore.

I'm going to bet $100 that Sheldon Adelson doesn't go by "Shelly". That's something someone's Aunt Esther might call him (lol).

And yeah, I agree with the article. See you at the buffet over Super Bowl.

Packers vs Pats.

Btw, when he votes in primary, will he get braille voting booth ?-----pardon my sick humor--------

Wonder who Wynn is backing ?-----

Having become acquainted with most of the policies, legislation, and general modes operandi of Mitt as governor of MA, he's no more a conservative than Obama.  As governor, you could count on one hand the policies he implemented that were conservative.  For all practical purposes, you could easily say he was a liberal democrat in nearly everything he did.

Fast forward to now:  Conservatives are left with no candidate (assuming Mitts gets the republican nomination).  Prior to his current campaign, Mitt's position on most issues are nearly identical to those of Obama's.  Very little difference.  And, his style of campaign is even identical to Obama.... say whatever you think the voters want to hear, knowing full well that if elected, it doesn't matter what you said.  Getting elected is all that matters so you say and do whatever that takes.

So, both sides actually have it figured out:  Conservatives are correct in their belief that Mitt's no conservative candidate and is most likely to be more of Obama in most regards.  The Democrats are right to fear Mitt as a candidate because his track record is more liberal than anything else and would thus give the dems a way to keep a liberal president in place but still get rid of Obama.

It's true Romney is probably more moderate than he's trying to portray himself, which is why the conservatives think he's a RINO.  And this is one reason I wouldn't flee the country if he was elected.

For your own good, you'd be wise to investigate Mitt's tenure as governor.  If you did that, you'd discover that he was a "spendor" not a fiscal conservative.  You'd discover that his RomniCare was no different than ObamaCare.  You'd discover that when he had the opportunity, he supported judicial appointments of historically liberal biased Judges.  You'd discover that he supported virtually liberal social handout put forth by a liberal legislature.  In short, you'd discover that despite all his campaign hoopla, he did the exact opposite while governor.

So now, just like Obama did last election, Mitt is out there telling us what he thinks we want to hear, using a well scripted stump speach, and spending tons of special interest money that other candidates can't seem to get.  Just like Obama, his criticism of other candidates is half truths and distorted messages, and just like Obama, as soon as he veers off of his prewritten scripts and says something not vetted, he makes an ass of himself such as his comments about firing people.

Sorry, to have to tell you, but he's a fake.  And, the only reason he's leading the pack is the ton of money he is spending so that the uninformed will be suckered into believing all the hype just because they saw it on TV.  Sadly, it's working just like it worked for Obama.

I actually would like to see a candidate like you describe, but unfortunately Mitt's not who you think he is.

But, come on, dude!  Since when did any candidate run to the extreme wing of his party to get nominated, then run back to the center to get elected?  Hypocrisy? Yes!  Also the way it's been done here for decades.  Romney is hardly the only one to do it.

If Romney can win in both liberal New Hampshire and conservative South Carolina he will seem inevitable, and funding for the others will dry up.  Also, the national party will put pressure on them to concede and rally behind him, so as to have a better shot at beating Obama.

In your heart of hearts, you envy all Giants' fans.  Luckily for you, the Silver and Black have a quarterback, so there is hope for your sorry asses next year.

Romney is already saturating the airwaves there.  That's what Big Bucks and Super PACs will do for you.