Mitt Romney will beat Barack Obama and he will beat Obama for the same reasons some conservatives don’t like him. I am well aware that some of my fellow authors here find Romney less than ideal but I do believe the future of this country depends on Barack Obama being defeated in November and a Romney-Santorum ticket is just what is needed.
Obama has already taken a stab at Romney for his financial history but it is not going to gain traction and Jack Lew is the reason.
Barack Obama named Jack Lew to replace Bill Daley as chief of staff. Jack Lew was one of the investment bankers who bet that worthless CDO’s, sold to investors as financially solid vehicles, would fail. This was all done without disclosure, of course.
Lew got a $1 million dollar taxpayer funded bonus in 2009.
Obviously Barack Obama highly regards such a person as this.
And here’s a beauty of a quote from Lew:
“[I don’t] personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it, but I don’t believe that deregulation was the proximate cause.”
Barack Obama’s chief of staff does NOT believe deregulation caused the financial meltdown. Save that one for discussion with liberals about deregulation. Barack Obama cannot harp on Romney’s past without inviting scrutiny of his own choices.
A Southern evangelical declared that Romney was “not Mormon enough” for social conservatives.
A leading Southern Baptist figure predicted Friday that Christian conservative leaders won’t rally around an alternative to Mitt Romney until after next week’s South Carolina primary, while warning that the former Massachusetts governor is “not Mormon enough” for most socially conservative voters.
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said during a newsmaker interview on C-SPAN that evangelical leaders hope that the Palmetto State primary Jan. 21 will whittle down the GOP presidential field and make it clear whether they should rally around Romney rivals Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry before Florida’s primary later this month.
But this reminds of George Stephanopoulos’ colossally stupid moderation of the Republican debate. The country is mired in economic doldrums, foreign tensions run high and what does Stephanopoulos ask? He presses Romney about contraceptives.
Social conservatism is not going to solve the big issues facing this country and social conservatism is not enough to win this election.
Mitt Romney is going to become the Republican Presidential nominee and he will beat Barack Obama in the election and in no small part it will be due to Barack Obama:
“It’s in many ways like the ’08 campaign when Barack Obama ran as a candidate to be an alternative to George W. Bush. That was true in his announcement speech in Springfield [in February 2007].
“This was true when Ronald Reagan ran [against Jimmy Carter in 1980]. We went back and looked back at his [Obama’s] speech. He closed it out offering an alternative to George W. Bush, much to John McCain’s frustration.
In 2012, the economy would be the “one big, dominant issue” as in 2008. “This race is about the economy and a referendum on Barack Obama.”
In terms of New Hampshire this week, however, the Romney campaign looked long and hard at what Obama did here in 2008 when he arrived in the state from Iowa with momentum from his win there and a poll lead in the Granite State. It all evaporated on voting day when Hillary Clinton won.
“We studied what Obama did wrong,” said Stevens. “A lot of people thought that Obama was going to win big. I would have bet you anything Obama was going to win big. So we went and said, ‘OK, what did Obama do wrong?’
“The best thing we could figure out was that he didn’t take questions, that he isolated himself in the bubble. I can remember being in Manchester on a Sunday. He had an event in mid-afternoon and there were people lined up. It was very moving actually. It must have been what it was like with Bobby Kennedy or something. And then he [Obama] lost.
“So we said, ‘OK we’re not going to do that. We’re going to do the exact opposite. We’re going to keep taking questions from voters’. If they sense that you’re on a glide path, that you’re not taking questions I think that’s really bad.”
Another reason that Romney will win comes from democrat flack Donna Brazile:
BRAZILE: Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him — and for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us.
KARL: Why is that?
BRAZILE: Because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attackin’, and that’s Mitt Romney.
KARL: Oh, come on.
Brazile is politicking. She is the canard. She knows that Romney has the best chance to beat Obama and so do most Republicans.
While the Republican presidential hopefuls continue to fight it out on the campaign trail, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the only GOP contender that most voters view as having a chance against President Obama.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of Likely U.S. Voters think Romney is at least somewhat likely to beat the president in November.
Lawrence O’Donnell takes a more sober analysis:
“Romney is the one they don’t want. They know they can beat anybody else. Romney, they think they can beat, but it’s a harder road.”
Probably the best choice for a VP would be someone who appeals to the social conservatives and Rick Santorum fits that need rather nicely. Such a choice would shore up Romney’s right while Romney is free to court the middle upon whom this election depends.
Santorum has taken a far more gentle approach to Romney than have his rivals. Santorum may be thinking the same thing I am thinking. Santorum’s painting Romney as “not conservative enough” could be exactly what both Romney and Santorum need.
No candidate is perfect. None of us ever gets everything we want. But this election is much more than about getting the ideal candidate. It is first and foremost about getting Barack Obama out of office and this combination can achieve that.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Condoleesa Rice! She knows international politics better than anyone else in the Republican field. And if something happens to Mitt, she could easily be president, and a very good one!
@Bruce: I like Condi a lot but I think someone with stronger social conservative bonafides is needed to make everyone happy(er).
Oh great…a big blue state flip flopper and a blue state big spending labor union supporter on the Republican ticket. I guess anything is better than Obama but looks like by not much.
Sorry Dr. John but I’d Romney is the nominee it is going to be a disaster. Jack Lew is no Bain Capital.
If we use your logic in assessing Donna Brazile’s comments then one would have to conclude that Sarah Palin would have been a would have beaten Obama in a land slide and the Republican Establishment should be crawling on their hands and knees asking her to reconsider.
As for your take on Evangelical leaders rallying around Romney, they already had a meeting last week or the week before and they endorsed Santorum.
Romney is going to be a disaster in the general election. If you think the conservative base is underwhelmed now wait until Romney starts trying to out liberal Obama for independent voters.
@drjohn:
We have $15 Trillion in debt. 100% of the GDP, 100%. Why would anyone care about a social conservative? I would make a bet right now that if either Romney or Santorum were to become president we would not see the debt decrease in the first or second year. I would even be willing to bet that the debt level would increase.
I think the nominee is going to be Romney. I don’t see a path for anyone else. Ron Paul is going to win close to 200 delegates giving him a pretty good voice at the convention. If Romney wants to really solidify the base, he needs Rubio and Rubio isn’t going to do it. But there is another choice that would do the same, Allen West. Plus West would beat the crap out of Romney every time he did something stupid.
@Bruce: I don’t trust Rice. Although she was or is Republican she would vote color over substance. I am basing this on some of her previous comments during barry’s reign.
I would lean toward Santorum though. I think he would be a good pick from the entire field of Republicans. And yes I am not crazy about Romney but the alternative is just too darn scary to contemplate.
@Aqua:
I made that point already, but you need thos votes.
I would damned near have to be dragged to the polls to vote for a Romney-Santorum ticket. This wouldn’t be like holding my nose to vote, I would have to go to the polls in full chem gear and require decon when I left. He needs to find someone like Rubio, West, Mike Lee, or Jason Chaffetz. I can also think of two governors off the top of my head, Susan Martinez and Bobby Jindal.
@Mike Henkins: Romney, the plastic RINO has done nothing the past 5-6 years except campaign. He doesn’t share many of the Conservative values and he has NO BACK BONE! Santorum is another loser (speaking as one of his former constituents) who managed to pick up some momentum, but you will see that dwindle as the campaign moves out of the Northeast.
There is simply no way I’d vote for either of them separately, so together, it’s an easy decision. I guess I’ll vote Libertarian despite their “open border” plank, I was going to last time until McCain picked Palin, so I voted for her in hopes the excitement of winning would make her POTUS in short order.
It is quiet simply amazing that the TEA party has had virtually no impact on the Presidential nomination process of the GOP. Not a single announced candidate has an actual record of making, or even trying to make government smaller. . . no, I’m not even going to say it.
I see you and I still disagree on the definition of “winning”, drj. I can’t remember what conservative pundit said it, but paraphrased, he said the job of the Republican Party was to win elections, not adhere or drive a conservative agenda.
I think that pretty much says it all, and is the perfect explanation as to why 66 to 75% of conservatives and independents are on the anything-but-Romney bandwagon.
Get Romney in 2012, and you are likely stuck with incumbent Romney in 2016. No thank you. At the rate of speed for fiscal debt, for onerous legislation and regulations, and laws that have already been enacted, a moderate who goes where the wind blows him is not what we need…. most especially for a possible two terms.
Count me with Mike Henkins and Aqua on this one… I’d need a HAZMAT suit to pull the lever for the combo you suggest.
I also believe Romney will be just another McCain and lose to Obama. More and more the support I see for Ron Paul is from the anti-war. Obama talks a better game on that, and will have slashing military and battle theater withdrawal on his record. It’s my belief that the young RP supporters who are more laser focused on his foreign policy will simply return to Obama as the lesser of the two evils.
ummmmm… that’s like saying life would be so much better if I trade in my Pinto for a Corvair, drj. Especially when what I really need is a Toyota. Not hardly an improvement or a “win”, IMHO.
Actually, considering the way things are going for a WH nominee, I think the greater focus should be on not only taking the Senate and the House, but getting close to veto-proof supermajority in both – and all seats filled with *real* fiscal conservatives. Therein genuinely lies the only way to change the direction. Assuming we can find real ones in the local races, they can join with the midterms newbies that came in, and fight the establishment leadership of the GOP – who are almost in-discernibly different from the Dems. This year’s continuing resolution is proof of the uphill battle in spending by a Congress who has no compunction spending other people’s money.
Which brings me to JustAl’s comment:
There are some TP “ins” that have fallen dutifully in line with the Congressional leadership, that’s true. But if you look back on most of their votes and resistance to bills, you will see most have tried to remain faithful to the issues and constituents who sent them there.
But their numbers are not large enough to buck the established power leaders, JustAl. Thus we need to keep replacing the old-timers with the newer fiscally responsible types until they have enough of a majority to be effective. These junior Senators and Representatives were not enough in number to make the immediate change you wanted to see.
As for the POTUS candidate, what’s always been interesting about the two Tea Parties is that they aren’t mindless followers of what their supposed “leaders” say. With some of the more prominent elected ones (like Haley, Chris Christie, etal) jumping on the Romney bandwagon, you didn’t see the movement blindly follow. The same will happen with SC’s Sen. Davis endorsement of Ron Paul. They will not follow.
The TP has had an effect on the POTUS nomination because they do resist the “we have to do this because we will win” mantra heard here by all too many. Yet these pleas to immediately stop all attempts for a chosen candidate, and fall in line behind someone we do not support, continue to fall on deaf ears. Only when Romney is the last standing, and anointed against the will of the majority, will he likely get many reluctantly pulling the lever.
As of today, I will not be one of them. But there’s time to see who a Romney candidacy picks as a sidekick for his own redemption. Last election I voted for Palin, not McCain. I might consider doing the same this coming election, depending on the Veep choice.
But I think many here will be surprised, and Romney – who believes he will have won some sort of mandate and is untouchable – won’t be picking what we’d like to see. And that will be your first look into a self-confident, false prophet POTUS who doesn’t help us win, but is the reason we would lose for the next eight years… especially with him in the WH.
What you really need is a ticket with RON PAUL and Judge Andrew Napolitano. Anything else will be disastrous to your country and to the world.
Maybe Mittens will ask Hillary to be his running mate, nothing this election cycle will surprise me.
Ron Paul is not a Republican. And having been born on Mars to space aliens, he is not a natural-born citizen.
Mata #11,
Your frustration is well founded, and you’ve effectively deciphered the frustration with how the dust appears to be settling on the Rep leadership. Now the hope will rest in achieving majorities in the House and Senate.
The Nation is in very serious trouble. IMHO it will take more than conservative policy to prevent further disaster, and unfortunately, Congress cannot positively affect the country’s mindset and consciousness the way a single, strong leader can.
The electorate is seeking a Leader. I’m convinced that the majority knows Obama is not a leader, even those who support him ideologically. Sadly, neither is Romney. While I appreciate Romney’s business accumen, it is rather evident that he lacks deeply felt principles which might guide him and his policy. We have been exposed to him enough to know that his DNA is missing that important ingredient that would enable him to use the political capital of Presidential leadership to implement difficult decisions necessary to put the Nation back to safer economic footing. The decisions will have to be radical. The next President will have to see himself as a ‘one termer’ in order to be really effective.
Romney is personally sitting on hundreds of millions. He just isn’t about to upset any applecarts. Becoming President is just another notch for his ego, but it is clear that he has no ‘sense of history,’ or fearlessness, which would lead him to DO what is most critical for a country in trouble.
I don’t see leadership in Santorum either. It might make one sleep easier if Romney picked Rubio as second in command, although that still wouldn’t change the Leader.
Romney idolized his father (an old fashioned true moderate), who was on track to have a decent chance against Richard Nixon in 1968, until he torpedoed himself with the “brain washing” quotation. I was a real admirer of George Romney (who was the governor of my state, at the time). I’d definitely have voted for him, against Humphrey that year (the year I turned 21 and was first eligible to vote). I ended up pulling the lever (literally; that was in the era of the mechanical voting machines) for Humphrey.
Mitt has a big poster of his father in his campaign bus. If you want to know what Mitt really believes, in his heart of hearts, go back and research the policies and viewpoints of George Romney.
If I were you guys, though, I’d support Mitt. Control of SCOTUS for the next couple of decades will be at stake. The judges Mitt would appoint would be very different from those of Barack.
Apropos of nothing, but just because I think it is cleverly well done, have you seen the (unaffiliated with Stephen Colbert, wink/wink) super PAC ad?
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405930/january-15-2012/colbert-super-pac-ad—attack-in-b-minor-for-strings
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
When a Republican takes any of those quizzes that allows you answer questions on a sliding scale to eventually see who your perfect match is, they can also look down the chart to see where each other candidate ranks.
(I like this one: http://www.votingaid.com/ )
If Romney is not your top pick, he is probably #2 or #3 for you.
Look at the percentages that separate your top pick from Romney.
Not too many points.
Will you throw away the good because it is not the perfect?
I noted voters are worried about Romney’s Mormonism.
How can it be worse than Obama’s Black Liberation Theology ”church?”
Even with the re-hab Obama is trying to pull by re-writing history (that only 90 seconds worth of all 20 years’ sermons were ”bad,” and he never heard those few seconds) and by now regularly attending some other church he cannot run away from his religious past being much more destructive toward America than Romney’s church.
I see Americans in the Mormon church; people who own businesses, have nice families, strive to take care of themselves and others.
I see spongers and America-haters in Obama’s old church.
Is Mormonism really going to be a make-or-break?
About Bain Capital.
John Hinderaker, one of the lawyers who pens Powerline Blog, didn’t understand all the fuss about Bain Capital so he asked a decades long banker to help explain it all.
That essay is here.
People who wish to be informed would do well to read it.
(The writer is in agreement with Ron Paul on Wall Street, BTW.)
Bottom line, after having read that, is I don’t think Bain Capital will be an albatros around Romney’s neck at all.
Especially, by the likes of Obama whose picking of
winners andlosers has been on OUR dime.@MataHarley:
I don’t agree. If he doesn’t please those who voted for him, do you think the left would vote for him in 2016? I think those he would need will sit on their hands next time if he goes windvane.
@MataHarley:
Romney has pledged to overturn Obamacare.
He’s polling very well against Obama among likely voters. He’s doing very well in the GOP primaries and will likely take SC and FL. It seems to me that you are finding yourself in a minority hoping for someone else.
Who? Gingrich? Stick a fork in him. He poisoned the well.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
But uh, you’re not.
Sorry, no amount of cheer leading will get those of us who say today that we will not vote for for Romney to change. He has a long record that speaks for itself. At various times he’s openly called himself a progressive, supports government insurance mandates and is “proud of Massachusetts gun laws.
Those who support the status quo, slide to the left, only slowed (maybe) by Romney always point out the SCOTUS. Can anyone tell me of a single election when changes to the court wasn’t an issue?
The very small degree Romney is likely to be better than Obama does not, in my mind, justify rewarding the GOP leadership with victory. What part of No More Business As Usual do these clowns not understand?
It isn’t about “purity”, at this point even a believable pretense to shrink government would be better than what we have going into the convention, it’s about the realization that we simply can not take more business as usual from big government reps or dems.
@Nan G: #17,
Excellent. I believe that the dialogue about Bain Capital will educate more than a few of that middle 20% fence sitters. It might even educate a few Democrats. Having spent a number of years in the venture game, I ran into all stripes, good and bad, but either way, they are not Wall Street. The Bains of the world are not a Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley. It’s important to differentiate Wall Street insiders, from the rest corporate America big and small and the financial firms that make up middle America.
Obama and his minions are clueless about the engines that make America function, nor do they care. In their ignorance, they throw stones at the catch-all basket they call Big Business, without understanding the separations between Wall Street brokerages which too often infect businesses with diseases, on one side, and the vast number of large and small businesses and investment firms which, as you know, enable American businesses to function and grow efficiently, on the other side.
I look forward to seeing the Bain discussion continue. It will underscore the Obama failings and ineptitudes. It will highlight Obama’s ignorance of America.
@Aqua: Sorry chief but Jindal is the conservatives Barack Obama. He has not kept his campaign promises, his machince spins the facts to suit their needs. He is a conservative, he is smart but he hasn’t done what he said he was going to do, granted he is soooooo much better than the last guv we had, but don’t get all giddy about Jindal, he far more moderate than he wants folks to believe. But Santorum and Romney would not be a bad pairing. A business guy and a social conservative…sounds like a match made in heaven, plus we could have Allen West as Defense Secretary and he could still beat the snot out of Romney if he veered too far to the left!
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?CID=10850496933&ch=39030ED5791EABD8A31BA006188E72C6&h=8834f741cb89ba2acd7bef60c0cac942&ei=WuWMVs8Nh
Maybe you should read this. All GOP candidates are for GUN banning except Ron Paul who is 100-% for the second amendment. This is a MUST read.
Hi James Raider(#22): Let me tell you my own experience with Vulture Capital. It is very typical, unfortunately.
In 1985, I co-founded a company, called Oncotech, initially just with an NIH small business research grant in the amount of $50,000 and a donation from a non-profit foundation of $75,000. I originally had a 4/7 share. In 1987, we received our first round of VC funding (Southern California Ventures), in the amount of $1M, which bought SCV a $1M equity stake. We turned down an offer from a consortium of 3 VC companies, which had offered $3M for a 60% share. Naively, we thought that if we retained 70% of the company, we’d remain in control.
Right after taking the $1M from SCV, they insisted that we bring in a “proper” management team (Harvard MBA, etc.). This accelerated our burn rate from a 3 year window down to 1 year. We then needed additional funding. The 2nd round consisted of $2.8M, which we obtained from SCV, US Venture Partners, North Star Ventures, and MedVentures. This also reduced the founders’ share to less than 50%. At this point, it was no longer “our” company. It was “their” company. Several years later, we needed additional capital. They did a severe down round funding, which diluted the founders’ stake to about 1%. This was absolutely fraudulent, as they hid the details of this from me and the other founder for 15 years. Fast forward to Dec 2007. They sell the company to a Danish firm (Exiqon) for $45M. It was only during this sale that the founders got the details of the fraudulent down round. The two of us spent $80K on lawyers fees, only to have Exiqon liquidate the company, leaving no assets and no one to sue.
The VC companies got a reasonable return on their investment. The new investors who came in on the down round made out like bandits. The employees all lost their jobs when Exiqon liquidated. The founders were, as noted, gutted, and, with no one left to sue, I’m sitting on my net loss of $50K in my share of the legal fees.
Details of the Exiqon liquidation are described at: http://cancertest.org See June 12, 2010 posting.
The personal lesson from this to me was never to get involved again with VC. In the business I’ve run since 1992, whenever I’ve needed capital, I’ve just borrowed it from banks.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@Craig:
Look, Craig, just because candidates didn’t return a survey does NOT mean that they are for banning guns.
Sometimes your work is NOT done for you the easy way.
Sometimes you have to do your own digging.
NEWT:
PERRY:
ROMNEY:
SANTORUM:
Ron PAUL:
Newt Gingrich:
For those who have followed Newt Gingrich’s career, the revelation that he talks out of both sides of his mouth won’t be a surprise.
Despite claiming to be pro-gun, Newt Gingrich’s reign as Speaker was downright hostile to our Second Amendment rights.
Newt supports the Brady National Gun Registry, a national biometric thumbprint database for gun purchasers, the Lautenberg Gun Ban and the “Criminal Safezones Act.”
Newt doesn’t think the Brady Instant Gun Registry goes far enough — he wants thumbprints:
“I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint… Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process.” — June 27, 1997
Gingrich may claim to be pro-gun . . .
But his record indicates otherwise, and his refusal to answer his NAGR survey should give any Second Amendment supporter cause for concern.
Rick Perry:
Texas Governor Rick Perry has received an earful from NAGR members over the past several months for refusing to return his Candidate Survey.
His strategy seems to be to tell gun owners “trust me” while keeping completely silent on what he would do about our gun rights if elected President.
Over the years, gun owners have learned that this is a failed strategy.
George H.W. Bush ran as a pro-gun candidate for President in 1988, but when elected, things changed.
First, he signed an Executive Order banning the importation of so-called “assault weapons.”
Not only that, but it was under President Bush that “Operation Triggerlock,” which dramatically increased funding and power for the BATFE, was implemented.
Of course, as Governor of Texas, Rick Perry did make some minor improvements in state law for gun owners.
It is, however, one thing to act pro-gun as Governor of a state like Texas and quite another to be a pro-gun President of the United States.
@Craig:
Do you call cutting and pasting off the same Ron Paul web site ”doing your research?”
Your research:
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?CID=10796000865&ch=DB08C1FDBF5E9F42F8C39C18AA3A9887&h=72f8477489e0d2657cdc3aa03a131b6e&ei=W91ZZN8N8
I’m thinking that Romney is the best in the end, but the perception (bullsh*t perception, but nevertheless) of charisma and campaign funding win elections. Period. So, Obama could be the worst POTUS in history to win a second term, because Romney is unremarkable and doesn’t have a Fortune 500 company’s worth of profit (3/4 to 1 Billion $) to spend on propaganda. Veep? It won’t matter. If Condi gets the nod, the connection to Bush will be dusted off and the ol’ “More of the Same” crap will come out of Obama’s camp.
I’m already loathing each encounter with covert ACORN volunteers as they say “Excuse me sir, are you registered to vote?”
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/clarity/
We are on a path to nominate someone who campaigned against Reagan, campaigned against the Contract with America, campaigned against those who are pro-Life, campaigned against 2d Amendment rights, campaigned against conservatism, and designed and enacted the precursor to Obamacare from which he will not back away.
Frightening.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/clarity/
@ Nan G
YES, because it seamed to me that you did not read the article.
If gun rights is your thing, Santorum, Perry, and Paul are pretty solid (though I’ll give Paul the edge for fanaticism). Gingrich and Romney have mixed records and probably aren’t all that trustworthy on the issue; however, it’s fair to ask why this would really matter. Either of them would have their hands full with other stuff as President; the NRA presumably will continue to keep Congress in check. Even if they’re not strictly ‘pro-gun’ I don’t think either of them is going to go to any effort to pursue anti-gun legislation. So unless you’re angling to have existing legislation repealed, I can’t see why gun control per se would be a hot button issue for you in this primary.
I guess, though, that for some people, gun control is a proxy for someone’s attitude to personal liberty generally. I think L Neil Smith makes that case somewhere.
@Craig:
Reagan was once a democrat.
Oh for heavens sake… Craig, are you speaking of the Lautenberg Amendment? Or do you even know what bill is being referenced, or how anyone else voted?
So for a person who says they do their… er, “rechearch”… the Lautenberg Amendment, which bans gun ownership by any one convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime, was part of the HR 4278, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997.
To state the most obvious first, it was an amendment that was part of a larger appropriations bill. So Newt or any other GOP who voted for that omnibus bill was not voting for or against the Lautenberg Amendment directly. Also in that bill? Prohibition of federal funds used for performing, or facilitating the performance of abortion. There’s a ton more items in that appropriations bill, which if you actually care to “research” instead of “parrot”, you’d learn about.
But to state it simply to one with limited knowledge about the subject, this was not a stand alone bill that reflects the support or opposition of those voting for it, since it was ensconced within the Congressional appropriations bill. Those days, the House under Newt actually did budget and passed appropriations bills… unlike today.
Now the second inconvenient fact is that the viral anti-Newt talking point you’re spreading is rather difficult to prove because … listen up carefully… 190 Republicans voted FOR that bill, along with 88 Dems… and Speaker Gingrich wasn’t one of them. Why? Because Speakers rarely engage in debates, or participate with votes on the floor…. even tho they have the voting right. Therefore there is no record of a Speaker Gingrich voting for the Lautenberg Amendment. Pure fantasy.
Seems your “research” abilities leave much to be desired. Or perhaps you would have been happier to stand with the 90 Dems who voted against that Omibus Bill with the Lautenberg Amendment in their? In which case, I’m sure that Obama has a place for you on his campaign.
As for Ron Paul? He wasn’t around to vote for the Omnibus Bill of 1997 (passed in 1996) because he didn’t show up in the House as a Representative again until Jan 1997. You see, after RP lost his bid for a Senate seat in ’84, he then spent his years writing all those investment notes and newsletters with the racial tinge he likes to avoid talking about. He wasn’t back in the Capitol as a voting member until after this bill was passed.
How convenient….
Rick Perry is a moot point at this moment. Still way down in the polls and had his hey day. At this moment… after ONE primary (IA doesn’t count for delegates with their caucus)… it’s pretty much Romney, Paul, Gingrich and Santorum. Paul will never cross the finish line as a nominee, leaving Romney, Gingrich and Santorum as the flavors of the day.
The NAGR.. a wannbe NRA… is a bit PO’ed because Ron Paul is the *only* candidate (still in the race… Bachmann being the other) who bothered to even respond to their survey. Any guess who they want? Hint.. the same as you. But then, they are primarily a fundraising 501K any way… and apparently they might be putting some of those funds towards your boy.
I don’t like the widespread effect of the poorly constructed Lautenberg Amendment any more than any other gun owner. And believe me, I’m a big RKBA girl, even leaving California because our grassroots movement, trying to stop their state ban on “assault weapons” (what a joke…) placed me and friend in the “felon” category – the law considered any handgun with a threaded barrel an “assault weapon”. But many in the action pistol world had threaded compensators for their range pistols. California looks great in my rear view mirror.
But I really detest those who fall for the robo-calls or campaign mistruths merely because they are too lazy to do more than dutifully repeat what was sent on. But I’m with bbart here… the NRA is likely to keep Congress in line with their powerful lobby. And I doubt that Santorum or Gingrich would instigate nanny gun laws in their climate.
One more point, the NAGR seems a bit biased when they target only Newt in their robocalls. Find it odd they ignore Romney (the current establishment darling and frontrunner), Perry and Santorum… who also didn’t bother to answer their survey?
Well then perhaps Mr. O’Dell ought to check out the voting record of the majority of Republicans on the Omnibus bill, eh? Sleazy politics…
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: #25,
It’s not clear what your point is, nevertheless, even though there’s not room here to fully reply to your comment and there aren’t enough details to unscramble the ’cause’ of your discontent, a few things quickly rise to the surface. Still, there are some things you note that make very little sense such as: “Naively, we thought that if we retained 70% of the company, we’d remain in control.” and “The two of us spent $80K on lawyers fees, only to have Exiqon liquidate the company, leaving no assets and no one to sue.”
I’ve been in the position of entrepreneur, using outside financing to energize my venture, and eventually ended up on the other side of the table. Most entrepreneurs rightly ‘believe’ in what they are launching, often not aware of what they don’t know as they race toward a goal line that is ephemeral. Profitability is elusive for most start-ups.
1) Apparently, you launched a service which you deemed worthwhile, but which your ‘market’ didn’t value enough for you make a profit. Whatever your business model, it wasn’t working for you. Who’s fault? But that was only part of your problem, it appears.
2) Your contracts. Here is where many entrepreneurs fail. They don’t really ‘read’ the Rules of any of their Engagements. As an entrepreneur, I knew that contracts were a critical element of my potential success or failure, and I knew that I couldn’t trust any lawyers to fully grasp the business concepts I was dealing with, plus, I didn’t really trust any lawyers to look after my best interests, . . . . I delved into contract law, contract verbiage, contract structure, intellectual property protection, and so on, from the very beginning. It was critical to me that I be able to write my own contract, as well as read between lines to discover, or inject, “intent”.
If you go back to those original contracts, you will find the gaping holes that led to your loss of effective control. When you had 70%, you had control, and you would only have relinquished it through agreement to do so. No one could “force” you to hire experienced management unless you let them. If that was a ‘condition’ of financing, then you had to have agreed to it. It’s disingenuous to blame a venture capital firm for seeking experienced management, even though it may have hurt you ego, you had accepted the “Rules of Engagement.” Later, when you went below 50% control, you should have known that what agreement you signed when you gave up control, but then, you already know that.
And, BTW, Exiqon may have liquidated Oncotech, but Exiqon still exists and its shares trade at around $11 (a crash from where it was, but still there nonetheless). Whatever you feel they owe you, Exiqon isn’t protected from Oncotech shareholder lawsuits if you have grounds. The liquidation only dealt with creditors.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not defending all VCs, but I also know that in the financial game, there are many sides to each story, and then there’s the truth. I’ve met my share of VC liars and thieves, and perhaps more than my share of lying, thieving, entrepreneurs.
In parting, I might add that throughout my business career, I almost never saw a company fail because of too little funding. Most failings were a result of self important egos.
Hi Mr. Raider, You obviously have business skills that we (as physician scientists) sorely lacked. I said that we were naive. I also said that we were not at all unusual. What we went though is not at all atypical from what inventors, physicians, scientists, engineers, etc. go through when they naively respond to entreaties from venture capital firms.
Oncotech was profitable (otherwise it wouldn’t have been purchased by Exiqon). Exiqon purchased it primarily to get the distribution network; they weren’t interested in the core business (which was labor intensive and non-proprietary). When their own products (micro RNA probes) were not looking to receive regulatory approval in the USA within their time horizon, they decided to liquidate. I have an excellent international business law firm (McDermott Will & Emery), and my litigator had convicted corporate fraud felons (when he previously worked for the justice department) who were among those receiving Presidential pardons. In other words, they knew what they were doing. Of course I pursued all legal avenues, but my legal team told me that Exiqon had structured the Oncotech liquidation in such a way as to make them immune from my corporate fraud suit against Oncotech. My only recourse would have been to go after the individual directors, but that would have been dicey, given both the time elapsed since the fraud and also the director protections written into the articles of incorporation. I elected to just walk away and not throw more good money after bad. It was just one of those life lessons.
This was simply a response to your own comments about venture capital (that they are both good and bad) and in regard to Governor Perry using the term “vulture capital.” The name of the game for venture capital is to gain control as quickly as possible. They are, of course, responsible for maximizing returns for their investors and they have no hesitancy to gain shares at the expense of the founders, however this may be accomplished. One time honored way of accomplishing this is to gain control of the board and fix the strike price of subsequent funding rounds in ways that reward investors and punish founders.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: #37,
Not true. Exiqon was looking for ‘apparent presence’. If you had been profitable, you would have negotiated a better deal, or you just didn’t read the agreements you were signing. The biggest law firms I hired were also the least competent. If I didn’t ‘structure’ and write the content of the contracts, I knew that I would become chicken feed. It took a great deal of long and hard work to go toe to toe with opposing lawyers, but it always proved worthwhile in the long term. I knew there was much I didn’t know, . . . so I learned as much as I could. (That’s also why when I watch a clown like Obama completely disinterested and uneducated on the economy, but making major Nation changing decisions, it makes me ill. He should have gotten himself educated during his first month in office. There should have been nothing more important to him.)
. . . They didn’t want what you represent was a “distribution network” – they wanted presence. Big difference. They could then use that presence to introduce ‘their’ products. Plus, this statement confirms that your previous sentence was incorrect.
If your share position was diluted, through the issuance of additional shares to ‘insiders’, you couldn’t have been paying attention. Perhaps not your area of interest, but again, if you go back and review all your agreements, you will find the trail of breadcrumbs that led to your loss. I’m not suggesting this was right. I’m saying that where people can, people will take advantage. Where there is a breach, they will step through to gain the upper hand. Whether you weren’t paying attention, or were getting bad advice, they established a beachhead and ate your lunch. I’d advise you to revisit the failings of your law firm. That may be your best bet for a law suit. Misrepresentation is rampant.
. . . . Typical, uneducated, catch-all phrase that is rooted in deep resentment, regardless who uses it.
Mata,
I can see that you haven’t awaken yet. Too bad. You will lose your country. Incredible how naive you are. Now I remember why I stopped bloging here. You are all brainwashed by the MSM (Presstitutes) propaganda..
Well elect liberal Romney. Elect Gingrich the Globalist scum. Elect Santorum the bloodthirsty warmonger idiot. And lose your country. Because none of these will bring changes… and none of them will beat Obama.
Only Ron Paul doesn’t go with the Status Quo. Only Rion Paul can bring your lost country to it’s constitutional status.
So have fun! This is probably your last free election. This is what you want, this is what you’ll get.
I feel sorry for your country. You have the PERFECT candidate and you all spit on him.
I’m done with this blog. Not only it didn’t get any better in the last 4 years… it got worse, much worse. You people are hopeless.and soon you will be helpless.
Adios!
Thought it was you, Craig. And I can see that your research still hasn’t improved. Nor your tact that when I point out the facts of the legislative bill you mention, attempting to misconstrue Newt’s 2nd Amendment record, you merely devolve into unrelated, defensive jibberish while continuing to shove Ron Paul down our throats. We can make up our own mind, thank you. But if you’d like Ron Paul for your PM, we’ll be happy to ship him north to you.
We really didn’t have time to miss you since your visit last year… to tell us that 9/11 was an “inside job”… LOL. We have our Canadian regular, Ms. Bees, who’s always far more pleasant that you ever were in the past.
I think you misunderstand my point, drj. If Romney actually beat Obama, he would be the Republican nominee in 2016. We’d have a tough time getting rid of an incumbent. So we’re stuck with him as the nominee for two election cycles if he won – this time AND the next. Again, no thank you.
Hi Mr. Raider (#38):
Several issues:
Regarding Obama, I get it that you don’t like his economic decisions, but to suggest that this was unprepared “disinterest” is an unfounded charge. He assembled a dream team of economists. Yes, these were, by and large, Democratic economists, but he was a Democratic President. The decisions were not made by amateurs and Obama had every bit as much informed interest in the decisions ultimately made as did Bush when he got behind the idea of the ill-advised tax cuts or Reagan when the latter did the same. We can debate liberal economics versus conservative economics, but there is no basis whatsoever to make the charge that Obama was an “uneducated” and “disinterested” “clown” — which is just so much partisan guttersniping.
With regard to the Weisenthal/Oncotech/Exiqon situation, you have no understanding at all of what went on. You suppositions are not at all correct. Not even close. You make it sound as if it were simply a case of the city slick VCs playing a routine gotcha game with the country bumpkin scientists. No, that’s not what it was at all; it was concealment and overt fraud. I don’t mind at all ventilating about it in lengthy detail publicly, but perhaps a more appropriate place to do this would be on my own blog. When I do this, I’ll invite your comments, if you are of a mind.
Your assertion that Oncotech wasn’t profitable is incorrect. The difference between a “presence” and a “distribution network” may be substantive in some cases but not in this case. Oncotech had an ongoing business, maintained by a network of “reps” or salesmen, with more than 1,000 hospitals and thousands of physicians, on a national basis. They had all the requisite licensures and certifications to do business in all parts of the USA. Exiqon was developing a very complementary cancer diagnostic product portfolio which, unfortunately, didn’t make promised milestones. That’s why their stock crashed. Oncotech’s existing business, although profitable, was built on non-proprietary and labor intensive technologies and they never did the requisite clinical trials to allow them to grow much beyond the level of a low margin business which had pretty much approached its ceiling. What made Oncotech attractive was its distribution network, but this was only of value if Exiqon had a product pipeline to feed into this network.
With regard to the term “vulture capital,” this was not invented by me nor even by Governor Perry. It was a term in widespread use at least as far back as the mid-1980s. I first read the term in a book of the era entitled “The New Venturers.”
The topic of exploitation of founders by VC firms and the negative economic consequences thereof has been the subject of economic scholarly research.
e.g.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2eBOXY0hHs0J:https://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Atanasov_VCs_Expropriation_Entrepreneurs.pdf+venture+capital+lawsuit+dilution&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShc1p83EQbDZzfvnjtjZQuJqe2bt5jKiTPPsKv9uevZ62J3Wm0h-MD-ceDySpExSYXwY6pVGFOh9OSO1wcsRgUGJL20aggOROTgfH8_nbSolkgaEbh6y8DRWRmj3wnufUw7TfMx&sig=AHIEtbQlh6dUUPt2Dvy1Hz6B_8NXcYIGBQ
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@drjohn: Newt won the debate in Myrtle Beach, SC hands down, drj. I wouldn’t be too quick to herald his demise.
I think that if Romney gets the nomination, he will pick Christie as his Veep.
@anticsrocks: Christy is not a conservative and Romney will have to have a conservative on his ticket.
@Sid: Agreed, and I like Christie a lot.
Has anyone suggested Romney/Palin ?
Whomever it will be- it will be; Idiot/Moron or; Liar/Hypocrite.
@Sid: I never said that Christie is a conservative, or that choosing Christie made sense. What I am saying is that it looks like it is a more than passing possibility.
Christie wows New Hampshire crowd
.
.
@liberalchild: I didn’t know you were running for office…which one are you, Idiot or Moron? Come to think of it, you could easily be either Liar or Hypocrite as well.
There’s been yet another poll!
A CNN/Time/ORC International poll.
505 Likely South Carolina Republican primary voters say they are backing …..
Romney = 33%
Gingrich = 23%
Santorum = 16%
Paul = 13%
Perry = 6%
The poll was taken from January 13 through the 17.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/18/topstate4.pdf
Nan G, your poll link still makes no sense. If they were conducting the poll from Jan 13th (pre debate on the 16th) thru the 17th, how many of those polled answered the questions pre the debate, and how many afterwards? Don’t you think that would skew the results, if any changed their minds? After all, four of the five days were pre debate answers.
As I said before… the only poll that counts from here on out.. with a second one tomorrow.. is the Saturday primary. Anything between now and then is just bogus political fodder that is meant to sway the voters on Saturday. As you know, the “herd mentality” likes to vote for what everyone says will be the “winner”, and doesn’t leave room for independent thought.