31 Jan

The most negative primary campaign in history… or “How to Buy a Nomination”, by Mitt Romney

                                       

I heard this data read on Mark Levin this afternoon, and picked it up from the CNN PoliticalTicker blog by way of Lucianne.

I’ll provide the nothing shy of jaw-dropping stats below… how you choose to absorb this ugly reality about election campaigns and negative advertising is, of course, completely up to you.

Me? To use the “he who dies with the most toys…” old saying, paraphrased, obviously he who has the most money for a campaign, combined with the least scruples, wins.

Statistics provided by the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG).

“I spent much of my academic career telling reporters, ‘Relax, this is not the most negative campaign ever,'” CMAG President Ken Goldstein said. “Well, this IS the most negative campaign ever.”

Numbers from CMAG show a total of 11,586 television spots aired in Florida between January 23 and January 29. [Mata Musing: that’s 1655 per day, or close to one every minute of a 24 hour period… no wonder my relatives were complaining…] Of those spots, 10,633 were negative and 953 were positive.

Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich’s campaign ran, 95% were negative. Mitt Romney’s campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.

The two super PACs supporting the top candidates were more divergent in their ad strategies. Restore our Future, supporting Romney, ran 4,969 spots, all of which were negative. The Gingrich-backing Winning our Future ran 1,893 spots, and only 53% were negative.

Correspondingly, the bulk of ads in Florida – 68% – were negative toward Gingrich. Twenty-three percent were anti-Romney spots. Gingrich got support from 9% of ads while pro-Romney spots accounted for less than 0.1%.

With these stats, the lesson learned is that Romney never won by positive campaigning… only by tearing down his opponent. How Obama’esque of him…. I’ve already got a POTUS with this version of ethics. Do I really want to replace him with another, just because he fakes an “R” behind his name?

Romney, of course, was busy playing the victim, whining like a little kid to his Mom, pointing fingers saying “he started it!” in reference to Newt. Unfortunately, that’s not how it went.

It was Romney’s well timed onslaught of SuperPac spending in Iowa that crashed Newt’s momentum there. Romney also outspent Newt 2 to 1 in South Carolina. Florida? Well, the above tells the story.

Needless to say, Romney’s feigned innocence and cries of “victim”, after outspending Gingrich four to one, are somewhat disingenuous to put it mildly.

In fact, as of Jan 10th, 96% of the SuperPACs’ spending on negative ads were targeting Gingrich. It’s amazing the guy’s gotten as far as he has, vacillating between being the front runner and in second both in the state, and nationally. As of the 20th of January, the SuperPAC spending had clicked up to about $33 million (both positive and negative of all candidates), with Romney leading the pack with $11 million, or 1/3rd of all SuperPAC spending alone.

While Mitt’s busy spending money, hands over fists, to destroy his competitor, what will he have left to defend himself again Obama’s massive war chest in the general? If Romney is, today, gloating over a win based on buying a State Primary with negative ads, saying they served him well, he’s got little hope of out spending Obama in the general.

There’s no money back guarantee on a Mittens candidacy if or when he loses to Obama when cast as the heartless, soul’less capitalist pig. The man who is the epitome of everything that Obama rails against. We sure know that health care will be off the table, since Romney was the architect of Obama’care. Mandates that force citizens to buy a product, simply because they live and breathe, are no more Constitutional at the state level than they are at the federal. Our inalienable rights do not stop at State boundaries.

Meanwhile, for some primary return fun, the folks over at ABC have decided to publish their predictions of by just how much Newt would be losing to Romney in Florida, in percentages ranging from 7-8% to 28%. It’s 6:41PM PT, and the cable news has called the election for Romney at 47%/Gingrich with 32% with 81% of the vote in (ever changing). Guess they’ll have to wait to declare the winner.

Wonder if they’re running a pool for cash…

AMY WALTER – ABC News Political Director

Romney- 45%
Newt- 29%
Santorum- 14%
Paul- 12%

JONATHAN KARL – ABC News Senior Political Correspondent

Romney – 41%
Gingrich – 28%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 11%

RICK KLEIN – Senior Washington Editor

Romney – 45%
Gingrich – 27%
Paul – 15%
Santorum – 11%

Z. BYRON WOLF – Politics Editor for ABC News.com

Romney – 37%
Gingrich – 27%
Santorum – 12 %
Paul – 12 %

Eric Noe – ABCNews.com Deputy Managing Editor

Romney: 43%
Gingrich: 29%
Santorum: 16%
Paul: 12%

SHUSHANNAH WALSHE – ABC News Digital Reporter

Mitt Romney – 36 %
Newt Gingrich – 29 %
Rick Santorum – 15%
Ron Paul – 13%

GEORGE SANCHEZ – ABC News Washington, DC Assignment Editor

Romney – 49%
Gingrich – 21%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 12%

ELIZABETH HARTFIELD – ABC News Political Unit

Romney- 41%
Gingrich- 28%
Santorum- 14%
Paul- 11%

CHRIS GOOD – ABC News Political Unit

Romney – 38%
Gingrich – 30%
Santorum – 12%
Paul – 11%

MATT NEGRIN – ABC News Political Reporter

Romney – 36%
Gingrich – 29%
Paul – 17%
Santorum – 15%

AMY BINGHAM – ABC News.com Reporter

Romney- 43%
Gingrich- 28%
Santorum- 12%
Paul- 9%

SARAH PARNASS – ABC News Intern

Romney – 46%
Gingrich – 27%
Santorum – 16%
Paul – 11%

ALEXA KEYES – ABC News Intern

Romney -44%
Gingrich – 29%
Santorum -14%
Paul – 11%

We have a problem, folks. While I support the voters’ right to choose via elections, even if not my candidate of choice, the amount of money and the sleazy tactics that have permeated our process are beyond alarming. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t celebrate the primary results, as it’s going now.

It turns out that all we feared may be true, as it plays out before our very eyes and with documented facts… that offices of our central government are, indeed, for sale to the highest bidder with those with the most creative lies.

~~~

A “must read” … C. Edmund Wright’s American Thinker article 2/1/12 – “Mitt’s Scorched Earth Win”.

Another “must”…Thomas Sowell’s primary day column, “The Florida Smear Campaign”

George Neumayr’s American Thinker article, “Romney’s Cheap and Empty Win”… tho I might disagree as to how “cheap” it was in a monetary perspective.

About MataHarley

Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 6:45 pm
| 1,660 views

249 Responses to The most negative primary campaign in history… or “How to Buy a Nomination”, by Mitt Romney

  1. anticsrocks
    hello there, anyone , it’s early, so I’ll take the 200 too,
    if you don’t min
    bye thank you

    ReplyReply
  2. @ilovebeeswarzone: Go for it Beezy. Grats. I had to work, so I hit 198 before I left and 201 when I got home.

    ReplyReply
  3. anticsrocks
    yes thank you for the 198, it help me, and I took the other one, ,because I knew you where at work or sleeping at my time, and didn’t want a wheellr rolling in to take it, bye

    ReplyReply
  4. anticsrocks
    what do you think of what I’m thinking now; RON PAUL AND SANTORIUM, IF AT ONE TIME GET BEHIND FURTHER,
    could give NEWT THEIR followers votes, that would propel NEWT IN FRONT TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY,and I’m sure they would get in close to NEWT IN THE DUTY OF PREVENTING AMERICA TO BE DESTROYED AGAIN , and play a good positive role in GOVERNMENT WHICH WILL HAVE THE NEED OF THE RIGHT AMERICANS , BECAUSE OF THE GIGANTIC REPAIRING JOBS NEEDED IN THE NEW PRESIDENCY

    ReplyReply
  5. @ilovebeeswarzone: Well there is no doubt that Santorum’s voters would go to Newt in the event Santorum were to drop out.

    Not all of Ron Paul’s votes would go to Newt, but he would definitely get a portion of them.

    ReplyReply
  6. GaffaUK says: 206

    @Mata

    Wow – what weak excuses you use in defending Gingrich…

    Apparently he’s not hypocritical in using negativity in his campaigns and bitching about himself being a target…because…he was trying to ‘differentiate himself from his opponents’ and because his …well…opponents also use negative campaigning…and…and…(this is a great one) he’s not the worst negative campaigner in modern US political history! Lol weak. If you don’t believe in negativity campaigning then don’t do it. Simple. Has Gingrich used negative campaigning in the past? Yes. Is he using it now? Yes. As I say – hypocrite.

    Apparently someone who served as the Speaker of the House, has a 20 year record in Congress plus time spent as a Washington consultant is an ‘outsider’. He wants to parade his experience, his endorsements from notable Republicans from previous administrations and the deals he has cut (fine) but he then tries to make out he’s an outsider – drawing on that hoary old cliché. If everyone in politics considered themselves an outsider when they fall foul of their colleagues then the place would be awash with outsiders. Being an insider who isn’t liked doesn’t make you an outsider. As Jon Stewart put it to Gingrich ‘When Washington gets its prostrate checked, it tickles you’. LOL

    As for the ethics charge –

    Gingrich is paying $300,000 for the costs of an ethics committee investigation after admitting last year he made inaccurate statements during a lengthy probe into Democratic allegations that he misused tax-exempt donations. Gingrich denied the charges but submitted to a reprimand by the House.

    And

    The ethics panel decided to take no further action because there is no evidence that “Rule 45″ violations are continuing in the speaker’s office, a post Gingrich has held since 1995. Consultant Jeffrey Eisenach’s work took place while Gingrich was the GOP minority whip in 1990-91.

    So he was found guilty of a charge which he admitted to and he got let off another one. But that’s okay because apparently it’s more important the number of charges which don’t stick that the ones that do. Lol. So he was guilty of that charge and it wasn’t fake. He led a witchhunt against Clinton and he got impaled upon a witchhunt aimed at him. Sounds like he got his just desserts there. He led the charge against Clinton and he went too far – hence why his colleagues turned on him. He only has himself to blame there.

    I don’t complain about Gingrich for compromising with Democrats – quite the opposite. The fact he compromised in some areas and was instrumental in balancing the budget is to his credit. And if he was a straight forward honest fiscal conservative then I would think he was the best thing for the US. But he isn’t. Even in politics – his dishonesty is quite breathtaking.

    Why do people Gingrich expect he will clean up Washington when he was part of the problem!

    Encouraging Earmarks
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289425/newt-and-earmark-era-katrina-trinko

    Howabout the House banking scandal which Gingrich drew attention to despite him hypocritically having kiting 22 checks including $9,463 to the IRS? I guess that’s ok because as long as he wasn’t the worst offender…lol

    Here’s an example of negativity from Gingrich’s Superpac
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/four-pinocchios-for-king-of-bain/2012/01/12/gIQADX8WuP_blog.html

    Gingrich was clearly hypocritical in his effort to get Clinton impeached over his infidelity whilst committing infidelity himself was and preaching about moral standards.

    With Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – Gingrich was paid by them and duly defended them – until after he was paid and politically it was expient to

    Gingrich even praised Romney’s healthcare plan at the time
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204296804577123043147395330.html

    lol

    ReplyReply
  7. @Gaffer: Oh Gaffer, you really do like to stick your nose into things you cannot even participate in. How sad.

    Newt was found not guilty by Clinton’s IRS.

    CNN: IRS Exonerated Gingrich in 1999

    This is audio from Neil Boortz’ radio show in which he explains step-by-step the entire ethics “scandal” that you seem unable to understand, Gaffer. It is 12 or so minutes, but it is well worth the time if you are interested in the truth. If you just want to nurse your hate on for Newt, then don’t bother.

    Then you twist reality to find Newt liable for the content of ads put out by a SuperPAC.

    As much as I abhor citing wikipedia, it does have the rules correct in this case:

    Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties since they are “independent”. However, a candidate may “talk to his associated super PAC via the media. And the super PAC can listen, like everybody else,” according to journalist Peter Grier, election law expert Rick Hasen and former chairman of the United States Federal Election Commission Trevor Potter… – Source

    Then you dredge up the Fannie/Freddie Democrat talking points INRE Gingrich.

    He released his contract with the GSE, which clearly showed he did not lobby.

    The contract released yesterday states that Gingrich and his firm were retained to “provide consulting and related services as requested by Freddie Mac’s Director, Public Policy in exchange for which Freddie Mac will pay Consultant $25,000 per each full calendar month.” The director of public policy was the head of Freddie Mac’s lobbying arm.

    “The contract was solely for consulting purposes and not lobbying,” Nancy Desmond, who has served as chairman and chief executive officer of the Center for Health Transformation since Gingrich left the firm to seek the presidency in May, said in a statement.

    Gingrich’s consulting contract expired at the end of 2007, Meyers said. – Source

    Additionally J.C.Watts, a Republican House member from Oklahoma (1995-2003) was on the House Banking Committee and has publicly testified that Newt Gingrich’s name never came up at all as a lobbyist for the GSE’s.

    Watts said Gingrich, a former House speaker, was never a part of the discussions on Capitol Hill about Freddie Mac. He criticized Romney for accusing Gingrich of lobbying for Freddie Mac because it isn’t true — and because it’s hypocritical to blast Gingrich for hiding the nature of his work when Romney took steps to conceal public records pertaining to his service as Massachusetts governor.

    Watts, a former four-term congressman from Oklahoma first elected with the Republican revolution that Gingrich led in 1994, is a former chairman of FM Policy Focus, an arm of his Washington consulting firm that represented various financial institutions who were pushing for greater oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. – Source

    Really Gaffer, you ought to at least do a little homework before you spout off like this. It is rather tiresome, you know.

    ReplyReply
  8. MataHarley says: 208

    @GaffaUK: Apparently someone who served as the Speaker of the House, has a 20 year record in Congress plus time spent as a Washington consultant is an ‘outsider’. He wants to parade his experience, his endorsements from notable Republicans from previous administrations and the deals he has cut (fine) but he then tries to make out he’s an outsider – drawing on that hoary old cliché.

    Gaffa, an “insider” or “outsider” status is not achieved simply by holding a seat or office in Washington DC. Ron Paul, Sheila Jackson Lee, Dennis Kuchinich are all just a few examples of others considered “outsiders” despite their Congressional status. Meaning their views, or even personalities, are not considered within the general trend and norm of their peers. Washington DC is truly a bastion of elitism and snobbery. A collection of Ivy League types who tend to look down on others that either don’t fit the Ivy League mold, or don’t follow the heinie of the dog in front of them on the trail.

    Newt was despised in Congress by most. Some didn’t like his personality. Others didn’t like the idea that he compromised with the “enemy”, the Democrats and Clinton. In fact, if you ever read the Vanity Fair article in 1989, you’d see that the “outsider” status bothered Newt very much. He really wanted to be accepted by these snobs. They ostracized him, then used him as a scape goat to try and bolster their own failing approval numbers.

    So he was found guilty of a charge which he admitted to and he got let off another one. But that’s okay because apparently it’s more important the number of charges which don’t stick that the ones that do. Lol. So he was guilty of that charge and it wasn’t fake.

    Seems you suffer from the same affliction as Greg, Gaffa… the inability to retain facts, or to outright block them. The “charge” of $300K isn’t a “charge”. It was a vote by the House membership as a “reprimand” which carried a penalty. Newt could have fought it, but since the Party was already being viewed negatively by the media and public during the election year, and their quest to impeach Clinton … as well as the perception by those (like you) who pronounced the Speaker “guilty” without investigations and authorities, Newt just paid it so that it would not be a campaign issue that hurt the Party.

    What he was reprimanded for, and paid a lot of cash for, was the very charge that he was exonerated for a year later by the IRS. You might liken this fake reprimand as similar to this: I accuse you of violating an equal opportunity employer federal law. You don’t’ want to fight it out in court because it’s expensive and can damage your reputation, so you just settle out of court. But a federal investigation ensues anyway, and finds later on that you weren’t guilty of the accusation I made.

    But you still paid the settlement. Are you now guilty because you paid the settlement?

    Newt was innocent of all charges. Period. You can do the backstroke all day long, and you’ll still be wrong.

    He led a witchhunt against Clinton and he got impaled upon a witchhunt aimed at him.

    My heavens, revealing your Wiki history dependence, aren’t you? Let’s see if we can help you learn the real story instead.

    Following Vince Foster’s death in 1993, political pressure mounted in Washington for an independent investigation into Whitewater-Madison. The Clinton administration then turned over documents to the Justice Department including the files found in Foster’s office. In January 1994, in order to stave off ever-mounting criticism from his political foes, President Clinton reluctantly asked Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint a special counsel. Reno chose former U.S. Attorney Robert B. Fiske of New York, a moderate Republican.

    Two months later, further controversy arose with the sudden resignation of Associate Attorney General Webster L. Hubbell, after allegations were raised concerning his conduct while he was a member of the Rose Law Firm. Following his resignation, friends of President Clinton arranged about $700,000 in income for Hubbell just as he was coming under scrutiny by Whitewater investigators. The President’s close friend, Vernon Jordan, an influential Washington lawyer, was among those aiding Hubbell.

    By the summer of 1994, the House and Senate Banking committees both began hearings concerning Whitewater and eventually called 29 Clinton administration officials to testify.

    In August, Robert Fiske’s tenure as special Whitewater counsel came to an abrupt end amid charges from conservatives that he simply was not aggressive enough in investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton. On August 5, 1994, following the renewal of the independent counsel law, the three-judge panel responsible for appointing independent counsels replaced Fiske with staunch Republican Kenneth W. Starr, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, and federal appeals court judge and solicitor general in the Bush administration.

    Thus began the four-year-long Starr investigation of the Clintons. Through an extraordinary set of circumstances, Starr’s investigation would eventually veer away from Whitewater and delve deeply into the personal conduct of President Clinton, ultimately leading to his impeachment for events totally unrelated to Whitewater.

    If you bother to read real history of the step by step uncovering of Clinton’s questionable alliances and behavior during his terms (transparent.. .not) – you’d learn two things…

    1: That the charge was for perjury – lying under oath, not having an affair. (duh…) and
    2: That the genuine “leader” of the charge was GA’s Bob Barr, and the Speaker, along with a few others who constructed the Contract With America, were trying to hold Barr back.

    In 1995, as a House freshman from Georgia’s conservative 7th Congressional District outside Atlanta, he championed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act – notwithstanding that Barr himself was on his third marriage while his two divorces and a dispute over medical expenses with his second wife were issues used by opponents in the 1994 campaign.

    Now Barr, 49, is leading the charge to impeach a popular president – and making the Republican leadership just a tad nervous.

    “My constituents didn’t send me up here to glad-hand and have a good time. They sent me up here to get something done,” Barr said recently in his Longworth Building office, as a spate of allegations about Clinton and a White House intern garnered publicity, if not support, for HR 304. That’s Barr’s resolution directing the House Judiciary Committee “to undertake an inquiry into whether grounds exist to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, the President of the United States.” Barr introduced it last fall – way before the current headlines – claiming White House abuses of power in earlier scandals.

    …snip…

    But the Republican powers that be so far have shown no stomach for Barr’s crusade, never mind that last week House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and several committee chairmen discussed contingency plans in case an impeachment inquiry becomes inevitable.

    “I’m very glad if [the discussion] does reflect an effort on the part of the leadership to lay the groundwork for that contingency in the near future,” Barr said yesterday of the meeting, first reported by Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper. “I expect it will make it more comfortable for members to take a more active role in support of what we’re doing.”

    For now, though, Gingrich has been keeping the resolution bottled up in the Rules Committee, while Gingrich’s lieutenants have been exhorting Republicans to keep their lips zipped on the latest White House scandal.

    “We are using responsible self-restraint that is uncharacteristic in this Congress,” says House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.). “I don’t think we have the kind of evidentiary basis to be talking about impeachment at this time. I don’t really think you should, when it’s such an important matter and it’s frankly still in the abstract.”

    …snip…

    Top leadership staffers, meanwhile, have been urging discipline among the membership, and Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the Republican Conference, recently instructed a group of House press secretaries to steer clear of the perilous “I-word.” When Barr introduced his resolution Nov. 5, he was joined by 17 co-sponsors; in the past three months he’s picked up only three more.

    “For months I urged the leaders of my party to take action. To finally say enough is enough. But my cries fell on deaf ears,” Barr said in a speech two weeks ago to the Conservative Political Action Conference. In private, according to a witness, he was more pointed: “If Newt wasn’t sitting so hard on this, we’d have 200 co-sponsors – not 20!”

    My my… does that sound like a Speaker “leading the charge”, when they were sitting on the resolution, and the fellow penners of the Contract with America were urging others to restrain from using the word impeachment?

    Not a single hearing was held before Henry Hyde’s House Judiciary Committee prior to the midterms. They impeached Clinton Dec 19, 1998… 12 days before Newt formally resigned.

    A bit hard for Newt to “lead the witchhunt” when he wasn’t on the House Judiciary Committee, was resisting the impeachment resolution, nor was even a member of Congress during the proceedings, don’t you think?

    As far as you demonstrating Newt’s negative advertising… the original post I wrote has the amount of cash in negative ads by each candidate. Therefore no one suggested that Newt hasn’t engaged in negative advertising. Newt, however, was the receipient of a tsunami first, and then only responded with a bucket of water in Romney’s face. Hardly comparable, and all campaigns have negative ads. That’s not the point. The point here is the absolute volume run thru, and out of the candidate’s personal control.

    Romney and his PACs swamped Newt in negative advertising first in Iowa, and Newt did not respond until SC. Even at that, the volume and percentages of the Gingrich advertising is minimal compared to Romney’s, so was not a quid pro quo.

    Now Santorum, with his three state sweep – putting Romney on alert that the coronation has been postponed – will be facing Romney’s negative war chest. He’s the new threat… today, at least.

    Consider yourself debunked, and rebuked for your deplorable knowledge of American History. But then, you’re a foreigner. Even many of our own citizens are as ill-informed as you.

    ReplyReply
  9. Hankster58 says: 209

    Gaffa…. you seem to OBSESS over the USA…. I can see US doing it, it’s out home. What’s YOUR deal??? You know, YOUR nation, has become such a tangled up Socialist clusterpluck of what it ONCE was.. I’d think, you’d focus, on trying to SAVE the (once) Great Britain!! Instead of huffing and puffing over the Colonies… just saying!
    (unless you are considering US a place to refuge too, once England goes completely mad with Social Utopitis, thus are worried about OUR health)

    ALL nations of the world, would do much better, if that managed their OWN back yards, before obsessing, and interfering in the backyards of OTHERS……. US INCLUDED!

    ReplyReply
  10. @MataHarley: Well said Mata. You addressed points I neglected to discuss.

    ReplyReply
  11. GaffaUK says: 211

    @Hankster58

    Do you know what socialism is?

    1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
    3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
    See socialism defined for English-language learners »
    See socialism defined for kids »

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

    Here’s a list of companies that have been privatised – almost all during or after Thatcher…

    British Petroleum (1977, 1979, 1981, 1987)
    International Computers Limited (1979)
    Thomas Cook (1972)
    [edit] 1980sAmersham International (1982)
    Associated British Ports (1983, 1984)
    British Aerospace (1981, 1985)
    British Airports Authority (1987)
    British Airways (1987)
    British Airways Helicopters (1986)
    British Gas (1986)
    British Leyland
    Alvis (1981)
    Coventry Climax (1982)
    Danish Automobile Building (1987)
    Istel (1987)
    Jaguar (1984)
    Leyland Bus (1987)
    Leyland Tractors (1982)
    Leyland Trucks (1987)
    Rover Group (1988)
    Unipart (1987)
    British Rail Engineering Limited (1989)
    British Shipbuilders (1985 – 1989, shipbuilder companies sold individually)
    British Steel (1988)
    British Sugar (1982)
    British Telecom (1984, 1991, 1993)
    British Transport Hotels (1983)
    Britoil (1982, 1985)
    Cable and Wireless (1981, 1983, 1985)
    Council Houses (1980 – present, over two million sold to their tenants) – see main article Right to buy scheme
    Enterprise Oil (1984)
    Fairey (1980)
    Ferranti (1980)
    Inmos (1984)
    Municipal Bus Companies (1988 – present, bus companies sold individually) – see main article Bus deregulation in Great Britain
    National Bus Company (1986 – 1988, bus companies sold individually)
    National Express (1988)
    National Freight Corporation (1982)
    Passenger Transport Executive Bus Companies (1988 – 1994, bus companies sold individually)
    Rolls-Royce (1987)
    Royal Ordnance (1987)
    Sealink (1984)
    Water Companies – see main article Water privatisation in England and Wales
    Anglian Water (1989)
    Northumbrian Water (1989)
    North West Water (1989)
    Severn Trent (1989)
    Southern Water (1989)
    South West Water (1989)
    Thames Water (1989)
    Welsh Water (1989)
    Wessex Water (1989)
    Yorkshire Water (1989)
    [edit] 1990sAEA Technology (1996)
    Belfast International Airport (1994)
    British Coal (1994)
    British Energy (1996)
    British Rail – see main article Privatisation of British Rail
    3 Rolling Stock Companies
    Angel Trains (1996)
    Eversholt Leasing (1996)
    Porterbrook (1996)
    6 Design Office Units (1995 – 1997, sold individually)
    6 Freight Operating Companies
    Freightliner (1995)
    Loadhaul (1996)
    Mainline Freight (1996)
    Rail Express Systems (1996)
    Railfreight Distribution (1997)
    Transrail Freight (1996)
    6 Track Renewal Units (1995 – 1997, sold individually)
    7 Infrastructure Maintenance Units (1995 – 1997, sold individually)
    25 Train Operating Companies (1996, operations contracted out as franchises)
    British Rail Research (1996)
    British Rail Telecommunications (1995)
    European Passenger Services (1996)
    Railtrack (1996)
    Red Star Parcels (1995)
    Union Railways (1996)
    British Technology Group (1992)
    Building Research Establishment (1997)
    Central Electricity Generating Board
    National Grid (1990)
    National Power (1991, 1995)
    PowerGen (1991, 1995)
    Girobank (1990)
    Laboratory of the Government Chemist (1996)
    London Buses (1994, bus companies sold individually) – see main article Privatisation of London bus services
    National Engineering Laboratory (1995)
    National Transcommunications Limited (1990)
    Northern Ireland Electricity (1993)
    Property Services Agency (1994)
    Regional Electricity Companies
    Eastern Electricity (1990)
    East Midlands Electricity (1990)
    London Electricity (1990)
    MANWEB (1990)
    Midlands Electricity (1990)
    Northern Electric (1990)
    NORWEB (1990)
    SEEBOARD (1990)
    Southern Electric (1990)
    SWALEC (1990)
    SWEB Energy (1990)
    Yorkshire Electricity (1990)
    Scottish Bus Group (1991, bus companies sold individually)
    Scottish Hydro-Electric (1991)
    Scottish Power (1991)
    The Stationery Office (1996)
    Transport Research Laboratory (1996)
    Trust Ports (1992 – present, ports sold individually)
    2000sActis (2004 – 60%)
    British Nuclear Fuels Limited
    AWE Management Limited (2008)
    BNG America (2007)
    BNG Project Services (2008)
    Reactor Sites Management Company (2007)
    Westinghouse Electric Company (2006)
    National Air Traffic Services (2001 – 51%)
    Partnerships UK (2000 – 51%)
    Qinetiq (2002, 2006, 2008)
    UKAEA Limited (2009)
    [edit] 2010sHigh Speed 1 (2010)
    Northern Rock (2012)
    The Tote (2011)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_privatizations#1970s

    1984 Johnson Matthey –
    2001 Railtrack
    2008 Northern Rock
    2008 Bradford & Bingley (mortgage book only)
    2008 the Royal Bank of Scotland, (partly nationalised)
    2008 HBOS-Lloyds TSB (partly nationalised)
    2009 East Coast Main Line

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_Kingdom

    Doesn’t take a genius to see that the UK has gone from nationalised socialist policies to privatised, market solutions. Even the bank buy outs in 2008 under a Labour government was done partially and with reluctance – echoing the similar US but outs under Bush. But still don’t let that stop your misconceptions. lol

    ReplyReply
  12. Hankster58 says: 212

    Typical Brit…. Socialism HERE, is when the Government basically Controls everything… Basically Communism, WITHOUT the “Equality” of Nothingness TRUE Communism espoused. Note, there has NEVER been a Completely Communist nation, ever. Even Russia, and Red China, have never been Textbook Communist nations. The “gov types lived WELL ABOVE the “Citizen subjects”,.. thus not true Communism.

    And. your “Dictionary” definition is cute, but doesn’t use the word, as it has come to be in modern parlance today, Sorry, “chap”!
    Modern day England, is about as “socialized” as a nation can be! You have socialized Medicine, Retirement, etc etc.. PARLIAMENT tells you to JUMP, and you only ask.. HOW HIGH!! And, you’ve surrendered your RIGHT, to guns for self protection, and, your Government, now will prosecute YOU, for defending yourself!! YOU have no individual rights to self defense anymore…. that’s not how it is, in a FREE nation, is it?? A “god given” right over here…. You want to stay deluded.. knock yourself out.
    But it REAL TERMS… I stand by my statements… and, as to what do I KNOW, about YOUR country?? One of my best friends, is a Former British “subject”, and Former British COP as well.. so i have GREAT INSIGHT into YOUR system….. by the way, My friend here, HAS his own Gun, and CCW permit as well… Something, a SOCIALIST Nation.. doesn’t issue to it’s SUBJECTS… like you! Have a nice, deluded day.. go back to sleep now…LOL!!
    I have a Misconception?? OR you’re so blind, you don’t see what’s been done to you?? Think about it…. that’s why WE LAUGH, when YOU try to preach to us , on how we should do things etc… YOU are, what WE are trying.. TO AVOID becoming!! Get it NOW?? We’re fighting it.. you surrendered, and now HAVE IT. that makes you, a loser….. sorry once again. Looks as if, the sun HAS SET, on the “British Empire”…..

    ReplyReply
  13. Donald Bly says: 213

    Slash and burn Hankster…. two thumbs up!

    ReplyReply
  14. Hankster
    they are escalating the rhetoric, you have made an unquestionable point, rendering the opponent
    speechless,
    can you believe the pension fund to pay for home mortgage loan, 25 billion to those who
    past their mortgage payment,
    what will happen to the pensioners? are they taking from
    PETER later, to pay now to PAUL?

    ReplyReply
  15. Hankster
    hi,
    what do you think of Santorum picking PAUL RYAN FOR HIS TEAM if he get the job

    ReplyReply
  16. GaffaUK says: 216

    @Hankster

    Bad luck old chap but I’ll think you’ll find Merriam-Webster is an American dictionary so that’s the definition used in the US. Unless went you meant over HERE as being in your household or in the warped reality and parlance of conservative wireless propagandists. But maybe you see dictionaries as cute and don’t tend to use them? So socialism is just like communism in that in controls everything but in reality it doesn’t. Sorry old boy but I’m afraid you’ll find that vague meaningless claptrap. Although I must say, you rather do seem to confuse left and right with authoritarianism and libertarianism. Look it up some time.

    And modern day England (and don’t forget the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish whilst you’re at it) is about as socialized as a nation can be eh? So her Majesty government runs and controls British Airways, British Gas, British Telecom, British Petroleum etc do they? And is this England of yours therefore more ‘socialized’ than say China, Cuba or North Korea? Of course I thought us Brits with our stiff upper lips weren’t that good at socializing at parties etc. But may you confused socialize with socialism with your funny mangled version of the Queen’s English?

    It’s true we have a universal health care system – which our current conservative led government is trying to partially privatize – like almost all western countries (I guess they’re all commies too eh?) and indeed you yankies have VHA & Military Health System – and what’s this Medicare & Medicaid– government health insurance?! Sounds like a pinko plot to me. Heaven forbid – I hope you don’t have a ‘socialized’ police force, armed services, firefighters, social security, libraries, road system, airport security, postal service as well!?

    I also see you have social security, state schools and unemployment benefits, comrade…and unlike us Brits I see to become a citizen all you need is for your mother (illegal or not) to drop you on the right side of the border. Wow that is a socialist’s paradise there – equality for all – no matter where your parents are from – Lenin would be proud:D

    Yes when Her Majesty’s parliament makes laws we tend to follow them – I believe you over there in the colonies do the same? Indeed didn’t you base your legal system largely on ours? Although I think you’ll find we don’t have a right enshrined in our constitution about gun rights – partly as we don’t have a written constitution and mainly because we don’t give a hoot about waving guns about down the high street as if it was the Wild West. All very vulgar.

    And I think you’ll find that Englishmen and ladies are entitled to self defence by common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. But why let facts get in the way.

    I don’t think the British Empire was sank somehow by socialism. Rather it was economics dear boy. After fighting two world wars and running the empire on a shoestring – we simply didn’t have the cash to run the wretched thing. It’s a shame though because at its height of the Empire – all British subjects really had so much freedom – well beyond most all the males and all females not being able to vote, an inflexible class system, religious persecution and so on. I’m sure good old Rick Santorum will bring lots of individual freedom to the US – unless you happen to be a woman or gay or generally fall outside what he considers to be accepted norm. Is that socialized conservatism? What, what:D

    I guess if you base your ideas on jolly old England by some bloke over there who was an ex-subject of her majesty then it’s no wonder you are confused. Or maybe you see snippets in the media (possibly through our disreputable rag The Daily Mail) about exceptional cases and exaggerate that somehow believe that is the norm. We have dumb Brits like that over here that think the US is just Dallas wear you all wear 6 Gallon cowboy hats or the US is where everyone gets shot because some Yankie said so. Maybe you think Downton Abbey is a current affairs documentary? Lol It sounds like you have never been to England – where the streets are cobbled, and we all wear Bowler hats and cor blimey the London fog is a real pea souper. I suspect that’s explains your ignorance and dull cliches. Tally ho!

    ReplyReply
  17. Hankster58 says: 217

    You confuse “socialized” with “public service”.. as most deluded leftist types do…. enjoy your utopia then. Question is, why do you bother then, with us??? LOL.. BORED ?

    You know where you expose yourself?? When YOU say, you are DE_SOCIALIZING.. via the Government, PRIVATIZING itself…. Lets see… didn’t YOU SAY…

    “Doesn’t take a genius to see that the UK has gone from nationalized socialist policies to privatized, market solutions. “???

    Let me ask YOU then, genius…. didn’t you fight, in the LAST WW…. AGAINST the “Nationalist Socialist Workers Party?? then why did you allow yourselves, to BECOME that way?? OOPS!!

    @ bees… that could be an interesting mix.

    ReplyReply
  18. @GaffaUK: Odd how quite Gaffer got about Newt after Mata and I cleaned his clock…

    And it looks as though Hankster is following suit, so really one has to wonder why the Gaffe machine even tries when he says:

    It’s a shame though because at its height of the Empire – all British subjects really had so much freedom – well beyond most all the males and all females not being able to vote, an inflexible class system, religious persecution and so on. I’m sure good old Rick Santorum will bring lots of individual freedom to the US – unless you happen to be a woman or gay or generally fall outside what he considers to be accepted norm. Is that socialized conservatism? What, what:D

    Besides being a perpetual Gaffe machine, one wonders how Gaffer talks with one foot in his mouth…I guess since he’s using a keyboard, it’s all good.

    Bottom line is this –

    Gaffer is confusing economic memes with social memes. Despite Obama in particular and the left in general’s best efforts, we still enjoy overwhelmingly more personal liberty here in the good ‘ole United States of America than the subjects of Her Majesty’s Empire. Hell even the terms used show the difference.

    United States has citizens.

    Great Britain has subjects.

    ’nuff said

    ReplyReply
  19. anticsrocks
    hi
    I think GAFFA UK like to drink that scotch, BY GEORGE IT MAKES HIM TALK,
    THEN HE FALL ASLEEP
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  20. Hankster58 says: 220

    Yo Antics…. ya just made me remember…. I was going to ask “da gaffer” how he likes, having a Government, that allows FOREIGN LAW and COURTS, to operate with in Britain! Britain IS allowing SHARIA LAW, to be used with in it’s borders, is it not.. “gaffer”??? Hmm…

    ReplyReply
  21. Hankster
    that mean the BRITISH have abdicate power to the that community, and will
    descend into hell from there, they already had a taste of a revolution by the young generation,
    which was just a practice, there was some of them among the crowd then, I saw them on the news running among the young, it’s a matter of time now, what we see in SYRIA now and EGYPT, is related and unstoppable, it’s a world movement, and we are not immune from them either,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  22. @Hankster58: Right you are.

    Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors

    At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday.

    The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted.

    The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts.

    However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said.Source

    So much for personal freedoms and liberties, huh? I don’t care if you call it socialism, Marxism, or a friggin’ kumquat; loss of freedom is loss of freedom, period.
    .
    .

    ReplyReply
  23. anticsrocks
    so strange is in it, the stunning part is that we have seen it coming, but those in power allowed it to start and flourish until they cede their power bits by bits, why so, and it’s the people which have to accept to
    live the negative of it, they cannot fight it, they are rendered powerless under the thug rules
    bye

    ReplyReply
  24. GaffaUK says: 225

    Hankster

    Astounding you and Antics really are fluent in speaking tosh aren’t you?

    Amazing you both confuse socialism with a monarchy and now Islamism. Lol. And whilst I don’t have any truck with any of those wretched systems and beliefs it pays to be educated to know the difference. Maybe ignoring the history books in your distorted reality – at the height of the British Empire there was no monarchy – this was only created when socialist Labour Prime Minister, Clement Atlee came to power in 1945 and ever since the powers of George VI followed by Liz II have increased. Because it well known that socialists love monarchy. Indeed thanks to Russian Revolution a monarchy was also installed in Russia in 1917. Meanwhile we all know conservatives across the globe loathe monarchies.
    And I see you confuse nationalize with nationalist! Lol – you must be very confused with the English language when you get easily confused by suffixes believing words to have the same meaning if they share the same root word.

    Is a socialite a socialist?
    Is a Methodist the same as a methodize?
    Is organize the same as organism or organist?

    I can see why you avoid dictionaries:)

    Maybe you should get a passport one day and actually visit the UK, dear boy, and gem up on some knowledge.

    ReplyReply
  25. @ilovebeeswarzone: You are right Beezy. To hear Gaffer tell it, the UK is a bastion of freedom and democracy… :lol:

    ReplyReply
  26. @GaffaUK: You said:

    Is a socialite a socialist?
    Is a Methodist the same as a methodize? [whatever the hell that means, LOL]
    Is organize the same as organism or organist?

    I don’t know you tell me Gaffer.

    Is a Gaffer a simplteon? Seems like it. What part of personal freedoms and liberties do you not understand?

    I made no bones about my comments on this thread. Were you to climb down off your high horse and try a little reading comprehension you would know that; but since I am well aware of your history of selective reading, let me try to help you.

    In this comment, I said:

    Gaffer is confusing economic memes with social memes. Despite Obama in particular and the left in general’s best efforts, we still enjoy overwhelmingly more personal liberty here in the good ‘ole United States of America than the subjects of Her Majesty’s Empire. Hell even the terms used show the difference.

    United States has citizens.

    Great Britain has subjects.

    And in this comment, I said:

    So much for personal freedoms and liberties, huh? I don’t care if you call it socialism, Marxism, or a friggin’ kumquat; loss of freedom is loss of freedom, period.

    The link I posted about the 85 Sharia courts that you so delicately avoided commenting on was in response to Hanster’s comment here.

    Yo Antics…. ya just made me remember…. I was going to ask “da gaffer” how he likes, having a Government, that allows FOREIGN LAW and COURTS, to operate with in Britain! Britain IS allowing SHARIA LAW, to be used with in it’s borders, is it not.. “gaffer”??? Hmm…

    Now one would have to be quite the simpleton to not understand that I was commenting on personal liberties and freedoms. And typical Gaffer tries to change the argument and segue into something I wasn’t even talking about.

    ReplyReply
  27. GaffaUK says: 228

    @antics

    Looks like you needs some attention. Bless.

    And typical Gaffer tries to change the argument and segue into something I wasn’t even talking about.

    lol – changing an already existing tangent about whether the UK is a socialist state to Sharia courts is changing the argument. Hypocrisy huh.

    btw this is what methodize means…

    to reduce to method : systematize

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodize

    Looks like you learnt a new word.

    @Hankster

    Here’s a wake up call – the US already has Jewish Halaka Courts and Native American courts – and apparently Sharia Law has been taken into account in the US. http://shariahinamericancourts.com/
    Oh my god – this surely must mean that the US is a socialist clusterpuck!

    So you may want to take your own advice and manage your own backyard in regards to the dangers of Socialism/Islam/’Insert random enemy’ before OBSESSING over socialism and Sharia Courts etc in the UK.

    LOL:D

    ReplyReply
  28. Hankster58 says: 229

    Gaffer… Manage my backyard? Workin on it… that’s why WE”RE in here…..NOW, looking at YOUR ADVICE… You don’t see ME posting on ENGLISH politics websites do you?? Try taking your OWN ADVICE… two faced… LOL!!

    “Tosh”? Cute, but we understand “English” slang insults as well… you’re more of a “yes-man” type…. gone doolally have we??

    ReplyReply
  29. GaffaUK says: 230

    @Hankster

    lol – but that wasn’t my advice was it now Hankster? I think it’s fine for ‘foreigners’ to comment on international or national issues of other countries. Funny how those on the right sees socialism creeping everywhere to hysterical proportions whilst the left in similar extremes believe capitialism is doing the same in a destructive vein. Meanwhile the rest of us moderates in the middle laugh at such polarised views. Not so much tosh (I guess the reason I used of that out of date expression flew over your head) but as we would say in modern English parlance – Bollocks. If anyone knew about UK politics in a moderate way – would see that the PMs during and after Thatcher (including ex-socialists as Blair & even Brown) have moved to the right (mixed with progressive ideas as well) compared to the 30 years before that – and that has generally been a good thing. But those who read and/or hold ‘Daily Mail’ views will forever be trapped in a deluded world of hysteria.

    ReplyReply
  30. Donald Bly says: 231

    Socialism loves capitalism… it can’t exist without it. For without capitalism… socialism is communism.

    ReplyReply
  31. @GaffaUK:

    Funny how those on the right sees socialism creeping everywhere to hysterical proportions…

    Says the guy who has no idea what personal liberties and God-given freedoms are.

    …whilst the left in similar extremes believe capitialism is doing the same in a destructive vein.

    Again showing his ignorance. Conservatism and Capitalism have brought more peace, more prosperity and more liberty to more people than progressivism could ever hope to.

    Mata and I shut you up about all the falsehoods you were spewing in regards to Newt Gingrich, so you now have changed your focus and are lamely attempting to, what? Prove how the United Kingdom is a bastion of personal freedoms and liberties? The only thing funnier than that is the idea that you know what you’re talking about.

    And since you fancy yourself a vocabulary genius, let me just say that you are a spurious blatherskite prone to bloviating. You believe yourself to be pawky, but in reality you are a tendentious, mendacious jobbernowl.

    Thanks for playing, and have a nice day.

    ReplyReply
  32. Hankster58 says: 233

    @ Antics.. ROTFLMAO !! TOUCHE’!

    @ Gaffer… professi sapias, nisi probet se esse stultos
    NO? те, кто утверждает, что был шикарным, только доказывают себя, чтобы быть дураками
    Don’t do Russian?? well lets see…. how about in my native families tongue then….
    “hen die slim te zijn, alleen zien dat hij dwazen”
    Have a nice day there….oh, by the way…. I’m having My pal Mr. Creighton over tomorrow night.. I’ll run your “appraisal” of Englands current situation past him for his comments.. ought to be interesting. also.. he’s from Newcastle… where shall I tell him YOU hail from?? :-)

    ReplyReply
  33. Hankster
    comment alley vous? je ne comprend pas votre language, mais je suis crtaine que c’est bien
    bonjour mon ami

    ReplyReply
  34. anticsrocks
    mais quest ce qu’il a dit?

    ReplyReply
  35. Donald Bly
    a very poetic way to say it,
    many ism like obamist
    bye

    ReplyReply
  36. @ilovebeeswarzone: I am guessing you are wondering what those words I said to Gaffer mean?

    Sorry Beezy, even though I took a semester of French waaaaayyyyy back in high school, I must confess I have no idea what you said.

    ReplyReply
  37. Hankster58 says: 238

    @ Bees….cela peut ne pas être proprement parlé, mais vous avez vous-même une bonne journée. Amusez-vous!

    ReplyReply
  38. Hankster58 says: 239

    @ Bees…..Et, Gaffa est un fou n’est-ce pas? Dis-je cela correctement?

    ReplyReply
  39. Hankster58 says: 240

    Bees .. Je parlais hollandais, c’est là que mes parents venaient tous deux de.

    ReplyReply
  40. Donald Bly says: 241

    Enough with the Frog talk

    ReplyReply
  41. Hankster
    yes, on all you said, when I read your first comment on russian and another tongue
    I join the game too, I see you know many of them
    bye

    ReplyReply
  42. anticsrocks
    I was playing with Hankster tongues, I couldn’t resist the fun,
    you sure remember the meaning of my sentence
    bye

    ReplyReply
  43. Donald Bly
    hi,
    I love frogs, not in dinner time, when was the last time you where in frog country?
    do you want me to tell my story about my encounter with FROG?
    THAT WAS FUN I couldn’t resist when Hankster came first,
    I never let pass a fun moment
    bye

    ReplyReply
  44. Hankster58 says: 245

    @ Donald Bly……… Le coassement de coassement dit la grenouille ! LOL!!!! I couldn’t resist one more….. that’s “croak croak says the frog”! ;-)

    ReplyReply
  45. Hankster58 says: 246

    one last one..
    @Gaffa… gaffa, تو احمق ليبرال واقعي, آيا شما میدانید كه? ما در جهالت خنديد.

    Have fun with that one! LOL!! HINT: This is what OBL would speak to his little Terrorist pals in…..

    ReplyReply
  46. Hankster
    I see you posess the genes of the old MIGHTY VICKING, fearless CONQUERED OF MANY LANDS,
    they have cross the raging waters of oceans, they have landed in NEWFOUNLANDS CREATED A RACE OF RED HAIRS AND BLOND HAIRS HUMAN SOLID NAVIGATORS AND HUNTERS AND FISHERMAN
    FOLLOWING STILL TODAY THEIR TRADITIONS OF MIGHTY WARRIORS HAVING DEVELOP THE HIGHEST SENSE OF HUMOR OF THE WORLD TO HAVE PEOPLE LAUGH A LONG TIME, FOR THEIR SMART JOKES.
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  47. Hankster58 says: 248

    @ bees….. Sans l’amour, sans l’humour, ou sans le rire, vivre des puanteurs !

    for the rest of you… “without love, without humor, without laughter, LIFE STINKS! ”

    And I bid you all a good day!

    ReplyReply
  48. Hankster
    you are a POLYGLOTE MEAN YOU HAVE MANY TONGUES,
    I’m sure glad you put the !!!!!! between the puanteurs and the rest of the comment, bye
    good day to you too

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>