The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Anti-Romney — Or Anti-Capitalism?

By on 1.10.12 @ 6:10AM

Newt Gingrich’s lowest, cheapest, most immoral blow yet.

 

I’ve never seen a baseball player get three strikes on one pitch, but former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich just accomplished the political equivalent. During a Sunday morning Republican debate in New Hampshire, Gingrich suggested that a Super PAC supporting him will be attacking former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist Mitt Romney’s business history.

Strike one: As Quin Hillyer notes, Gingrich may have inadvertently tipped his hand exposing illegal coordination between his campaign and a PAC.

Strike two: Regardless of the impact of criticisms by Newt-backers on Romney, Newt has shown himself to be too bitter, petulant, and vengeful — in short, too immature — to be a serious candidate for the presidency.

And — the most important and least discussed — strike three: The PAC’s impending assault combined with Gingrich’s words during Saturday morning’s debate that “I think it’s a legitimate part of the debate to say OK on balance are people better off by this particular style of investment?” show less an attack on Romney than attack on capitalism itself, something that should be anathema to a self-described “Reagan conservative.”

Newt Gingrich’s apparent point — the same one we already know Democrats will attempt to use against Romney should he become the nominee — is that in Romney’s career as an investor at Bain Capital, he occasionally had to fire some of a purchased company’s employees in an attempt to turn around a troubled situation.

If Gingrich’s claim is that making money should be done with zero negative impact on others, it is, if you’ll pardon the pun, particularly rich that the Super PAC about to attack Romney is being funded by a $5 million donation from Sheldon Adelson, Chairman and CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation. Las Vegas Sands, which owns and operates casinos in the U.S., Macau, and Singapore, reported 2010 revenue of $6.85 billion and net income of $599 million — all generously received from gamblers big and small. If there were ever a business likely to do financial harm to its customers, it’s the casino business — and I say that as someone who has been to Las Vegas many times, enjoys a wager as much as the next guy, and does not begrudge the company a penny of its profits.

But think about Gingrich’s words: “on balance are people better off” due to Romney’s “style of investment”? There is so much wrong with the question that it’s hard to know where to start.

First, who is Newt Gingrich, whose entire life has been in politics, academia, and self-promotion, to offer judgment on how businesses are or should be run? Gingrich’s qualifications in this area are little better than Barack Obama’s, but at least Gingrich’s self-promotion was done a few times through for-profit companies which appear, in total, to have hired a few dozen people — and fired some of them when Gingrich Communications was shut down last year when Newt announced his campaign. I don’t buy into the idea that a business decision is better if it helps others more than it helps you, but at least Romney’s job firings were done to protect the jobs of others as well as the investments of those who trusted Romney. Newt fired people just so he could run for office. What’s good for the goose, Newt?

And by the way, Newt, what “style of investment” do you want to recommend as comporting with your holier-than-thou approach to business ethics — one that perhaps does not require trading on political influence and connections the rest of us don’t have, and which were not the foundation of Mitt Romney’s financial success (quite different from, for example, collecting $1.6 million from Freddie Mac for “advice as a historian”)?

Second, is it an appropriate question to ask, especially for a conservative? Shouldn’t the right question be, “Did Romney do what he promised his investors he would do, while staying within the law?” Is Mr. Gingrich suggesting that Romney should have treated investors — to whom he had a fiduciary duty — worse in order to live up to Gingrich’s cynical implications regarding the morality of business? To put it another way, if I told you that someone said that a business should operate in a way that makes the nation “better off on balance,” would you assume it more likely to have come from Ronald Reagan or from Benito Mussolini?

How different is Gingrich’s formulation from Mussolini’s description of a corporatist state in his 1935 book Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions? To wit, “In view of the fact that private organization of production is a function of national concern, the organizer of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.” Mr. Gingrich may never honestly call himself a “Reagan conservative” — or any other kind of supporter of liberty and free markets — again.

——— Intermission ———

On Monday, Mitt Romney said when discussing purchasing health insurance that he “likes being able to fire people who provide services to me.” While the context was being able to change insurers if they’re not providing good service — and the incentive that that possibility instills in providers of services — Romney’s opponents wasted no time taking his remarks out of context, making it sound as if Romney was making a blanket statement about relishing firing people.

Jon Huntsman knew he was wildly misconstruing Romney’s words when the former said that “Gov. Romney enjoys firing people” which, even out of context, Romney didn’t say. But putting aside that such an interpretation was clearly not what Romney meant, even if he had said “I like being able to fire people” as a more general statement, one has to wonder what his critics would propose as alternative. Should a businessman not be able to fire people? Once again, Mussolini’s heart warms at the words of Romney’s critics.

That said, Romney’s words will be referenced or replayed out of context by each opponent he will face over the coming 10 months; it was perhaps his first important gaffe of the campaign even though an honest observer would find his statement unremarkable. When it comes to dishonest observers, it’s hard not to think “With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?”

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (208) |

Mr ED| 1.10.12 @ 6:21AM

So, the proper job of the *media* is to bring out the long knives against anyone standing in Romney's way, and Romney's list of half-truths and distortions used in Iowa against his opponents is given a free pass, requiring little to no investigation?

Got it.

I am really no huge fan or Gingrich either, but the sheer volume of one-sided attacks coming from both the Left and RINO media on Romney's behalf is astounding.

Dan| 1.10.12 @ 6:27AM

There's a reason they're coming after Gingrich.

If he was a friend to the establishment, to the established way of doing things, they wouldn't be in a dead panic about him.

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 6:51AM

Ron Paul and Romney are tied with Obama in the latest CBS poll. Ron has been tied or close to tied with Obama in several polls. He polls 7% better then Obama among Independents. For a Republican to win, he must get a lot of votes from disaffected Democrats, Independents and the young. These groups give Ron by far the most support, among Republican candidates. No prowar, pro bankster Republican can win the general election. The country wants out of these wars by a 70% margin. It wants the Fed audited. Think about how far Ron Paul would be if he got honest media coverage.

Ron Paul for Sanity, Peace Prosperity and Liberty.

AKM| 1.10.12 @ 7:26AM

Ron Paul is the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century. With him as POTUS you Americans would have a choice between war and dishonor. You would chose dishonor and get war anyway.

He's an appeaser on the level of Chamberlain. Ron Paul wants to play nice with the fascists in Iran just like Chamberlain wanted to play nice with the fascist in Berlin. Appeasement doesn't work. History proves this without a doubt.

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 7:49AM

Ron Paul is the only one with a sane foreign policy. He would defend America to the hilt, and let rich countries like Israel, the Arabs, the Europeans, the Japanese, and Koreans pay for their own defenses, with their own money, and blood. This empire has bankrupted us. Bankrupt countries can't defend themselves. It is time to take care of Americans and let everyone else take care of themselves. If Israel with 500 atomic weapons can't defend itself, it should leave the neighborhood. How long do we have to carry Israel on our backs? 63 years of welfare is enough.

emo| 1.10.12 @ 8:31AM

Where is your Bund buddy Clint? BTW Israel doesnt need US Aid and it should be ended, if for no other reason to watch Anti-Semites like you and Clint's heads explode when Israel is better off without US Aid.

""If Israel with 500 atomic weapons can't defend itself, it should leave the neighborhood.""
How about they come live in your neighborhood Jack? And I mean real Jews not the Capos you eat lunch with.

Brubaker| 1.10.12 @ 12:19PM

Your irrational antisemitism verges on the hysterical. More importantly, you've avoided AKM's central point: Ron Paul is the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century, and he's selling the same nonsense. Appeasement and isolationism have never worked, and never will.

As Teddy Roosevelt famously said, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Implicit in that aphorism is the ability and willingness to use that stick when necessary. In helping to defend our allies, we defend ourselves.

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:53AM

Would you please stop your ffkkng SPAMMING of these threads with your inane Paulifarian spew???

jbb| 1.12.12 @ 1:23PM

Your name is apt. Definite rage issues.

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 1:05PM

You can't be serious Dan, Newt is an establishment as they come (see his $1.6 million "advisory" Freddie Mac money) but people who know him best cannot stand him. He is your typical know-it-all politician with no integrity and no real idea how business operates as his attack against Romney shows. Fact is Newt would rather have Obama win than Romney despite the clear and present danger a second Obama administration is to our country. He wants his petty revenge first and foremost.

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 2:23PM

Let him have his petty revenge. He can spend the remainder of his campaign money taking shots at Romney that the other candidates don't have to pay for. He already knows he won't get the nomination, now he's just out for blood.

Also, regarding Romney and Bain Capital; I don't have an issue with a company making money, but purchasing a company with the intention of liquidating it to sell the consumer databases is pretty immoral. Did they do they with EVERY company they acquired? No, but it was done, intentionally or not, when they sold those acquired companies after they ceased being as profitable as they wanted. You don't have dive-bombing profitability in a company unless the people up top do it on purpose. The increased profitability at Ampad in 1992 from approx $106.7mil to $583mil in 1996 was nice, but then suddenly in 1997 their profits start descending like crazy until they filed for bankruptcy in 2001. It's hard to imagine that particular field of sales changing so wildly within a few years, but a shift in how much profitability is promised to investors would definitely explain the shift in maintaining the company or letting it go under so they can sell the consumer databases for a nice profit.

This is the kind of shady capitalism that Dems point to when they demonize corporations (even though most don't do this kind of thing), and Romney was CEO for the parent company for a time, even if only temporarily. There is nothing wrong with investing in or acquiring companies, but when you have a record of the above you have to question what the intent of the acquisition was. Whether he knew about it or not, it happened under his watch, so is ultimately his responsibility. Kind of similar to what people are doing with Holder and Obama now, trying to make sure Obama gets the blame he rightly deserves for Fast and Furious because he is the guy at the top. How hypocritical is it to point to Obama for that (and I can't stand the guy, just to be clear), but not Romney?

Dan| 1.10.12 @ 4:48PM

You still don't get it.

You observed that Romney took over targeted companies INTENDING to liquify them.

What exactly did that liquification consist of?

Often there were loans.

Romney would have the target company, after acquisition, take out massive loans, and from then the massive amount of cash on hand, the company then paid out as dividends that loaned money to Romney and Bain.

Which means he INTENDED all along, to stiff the banks.

That's fraud.

That's corporate bad faith.

That's not Capitalism, that's Romney fraud.

And just as we saw fraud as thematic throughout his political career, so too is fraud thematic throughout his business career.

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 5:20PM

Bullcrap Dan, you have no idea what you are talking about. No one has any evidence Romney was guilty of any fraud whatsoever and the Wall Street Journal just completed a thorough study of Bain in the period Romney was involved. The fact is he saved many companies and provided a great return to his investors. Newt is a fraudulent conservative and just another know-it-all politician who could never run a successful business because he only runs his big mouth.

Lyneuss Fields | 1.10.12 @ 7:54PM

This guy Romney does more flip flopping than a Panguitch Lake trout in the bottom of my leaky boat.

Paula| 1.10.12 @ 3:03PM

Newt sounds like someone from the Obama democrats. The republican party should dump him. Anyone voting for Newt needs to stop and really think about Newt's if I can't go out and play Nobody can attitude.

SpiralArchitect| 1.10.12 @ 1:56PM

Chalk up another one for Dan. :)

Dan| 1.10.12 @ 4:52PM

Are you comfortable with a guy intending to stiff banks all along?

Are you OK with Romney's targeted company taking out huge loans, and from the massive amount of cash on hand pay out huge dividends to Romney and his business partners.

And once the loans come due, the company declare bankruptcy.

Which means a massive wealth shift has transpired.

Loaned money to the target company is channeled to Bain.

Losses and loan repayment is confined to the target company, which then declares bankruptcy.

And you guys still haven't put it together yet.............

I don't know what's worse. Romney's brazen manipulation of bankruptcy provisions, or the bad faith of those who defend his shameless manipulations.

And since when has Capitalism been synonymous with corporate bad faith?

Is that a new strain within American Capitalism?

steve| 1.10.12 @ 9:55PM

Dan is a plant from the Democrats spinnng the left wing anti wall street rant. You sound like that nut from Florida. Are you receiving her emails and posting them here?

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 6:41AM

Your wrong about Gingrich's superpact getting 5 million from the rabid Zionist Sheldon Adelson. The actual number is 20 million. Newt Gingrich is a shill for the worst elements in Israeli politics. This chcikenhawk would sacrifice our children's blood for a foreign power. He is unfit to shine the shoes of Ron Paul. Gingrich and Adelson should go move to Israel if they love it so much.

AKM| 1.10.12 @ 7:27AM

Rabid zionist, eh? No surprise you like Ron Paul so much. He loves the islamo-fascists who want to kill all Jews.

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 7:41AM

Adelson is a rabid zionist and funder of the most extreme elements in Israeli politics. Gingrich has been in the pocket of the rabid zionists for decades. He puts Israel over America first every day. This chicken hawk doesn't care how much American blood and wealth is wasted on Israel.

Seek| 1.10.12 @ 12:05PM

A "rabid" Zionist. For those like you, there appear to be no other kind.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.10.12 @ 5:43PM

My article is not "on Romney's behalf". It's on behalf of capitalism. I think that was pretty clear.

jbb| 1.12.12 @ 1:25PM

Apparently not. It was an attack on Gingrich article.

beebop2| 1.10.12 @ 5:57PM

Figs is nasty piece of work. Both of his former wives are better off as formers and when he is finished with his crash and burn, he'll be looking for someone younger, more docile and pliant. He seriously gags me.

Jonnie| 1.11.12 @ 2:56PM

"Criticism of any behavior by a private firm? Outrage! An Assault on Capitalism! Haven't they read Schumpeter? Don't they know the glories of Creative Destruction? And, of course, all such destruction must be assumed to be creative! Yikes. If this is where some in the conservative movement and the Republican party are inclined to go—four cheers for finance capitalism!—good luck. Indeed, it’s useful to flush out this tendency now, and subject it to debate. Because it’s a recipe for political disaster—and intellectual sterility."

- Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard - From Bain to Main

Dan| 1.10.12 @ 6:24AM

Don't be a blockhead.

When Romney was savaging Perry for aptly observing that Social Security had become a generational ponzi scheme, and when Romney was out there blasting Perry for speaking to the problem of Social Security, where was the storm and furor against Romney.

Romney's takeover bankruptcy rate was 22%.

Which means that over 1 in 5 of EVERY single company that Romney took over failed.

Yet Romney is the guy touting his private sector experience.

Gingrich has calmly observed that such a business approach, although legal, is hardly laudable.

Romney WAS a corporate raider, and although some here and elsewhere like to portray him as some modern Commodore Vanderbilt, who enriched a nation and left behind him businesses that enriched generations to come, Romney DID bankrupt companies, DID then lead to massive financial strain to employees and families.

While it is true that it would probably be unwise to prohibit corporate raiding, and while it is also true that such raiding is enormously difficult even to regulate and thus also unwise to attempt to do so, it is also true that Romney's business approach is NOT wholly laudable.

Not every single activity occurring in the private sector is praiseworthy merely by virtue of it having occurred in the private sector.

What is so damn difficult to understand about that.

Conservatives instinctively understand that, instinctively get it.

But others who are determined to rip and tear into the best candidate available, Gingrich, are de facto embracing Romney. And thus forcing themselves to go into a general defending corporate raiding, defending bankrupting and looting companies, defending stripped pensions and defending massive layoffs.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.10.12 @ 7:27AM

Dan is Correct. Methinks that, perhaps, Ross needs to put out a Disclaimer, of sorts.

You're a TRADER, aren't you, Ross?
Hmmmmmmmm.

One wonders if you were as vociferous in your denunciation of Mitt Romney's Super Pac Blitzkrieg? One wonders, where were you, when Mitt Romney's "Hatchet Men" were dragging poor Herman Cain, behind a Pickup Truck? One wonders where you'll be when they Hit and Run, Santorum. Only the other Mormon, will be left unscathed.

Ah. If only we would LISTEN to the Great Man. "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." Reagen's 11th Amendment.

I'm not a Mormon. I don't even play one on T.V. But I'm betting that their JESUS, is the same as mine. And, when I watch Mitt Romney, I'm reminded of one of the most salient WARNINGS that HE passed on to us: "What does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and lose his immortal soul?"

I don't begrudge him the Baine Capitol, thingy. That, too, is between him and HIM. "You cannot serve two Masters. You cannot serve God AND Mammon." Sometimes these things have to happen, in a Global Economy, where the Competition's overhead consists of a 5lb. bag of Rice, and bucket of Frogs, for Soup. I get it. It's not the Money, per se. It's what he's chosen to do with it.

Was it okay for Mittimer to spend MILLIONS, attacking an Unarmed Newt Gingrich? Is it Cricket, to drag out his every failing? Attack Ad, after Attack Ad, after Attack Ad.

I have a problem with Ambition, when it is used to defend the tearing down of another Human Being. Your Enemy? That's fine, but is Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney's Enemy? Touting his own worth, wasn't good enough? He felt that he needed to DESTROY him?

Money is the root of all Evil, and Power Corrupts. The two, combined, rarely make for a Good Combination. Add in Raw Ambition, and a Scorched Earth mentality, and you get Mitt Romney's Campaign.

Wouldn't you AGREE, Ross?
No?

What if I told you that ONCE AGAIN, we're doing the "It's His Turn" dance, that gave us Bob Dole, and John McCain, and got us The Impeached Rapist, and the Marxist Muslim, with the Administration full of Jew Hating, Anti-American, Communists, Fabian Socialists, and Worse.

Fess up, Ross.
What's in this for YOU?

CrackerHound| 1.10.12 @ 10:03AM

America's debt has surpassed our GDP. The Democrats are hell bent on keeping the spending pedal to the floor to the tune of at least a trillion per year. I don't know if they actually believe we can tax our way to prosperity or are trying to convince this MTV nation that we can while siphoning their last penny as the deficit skyrockets. Republicans don't seem to care. Only someone of Alan West or Rubio's qualities/character is acceptable under these circumstances and they aren't running and quite frankly don't have the experience anyways.

Regulation and PC doublespeak, media propaganda are coalescing to destroy what is left of America's energy production. Industry (manufacturing) has already left the building. America has no moral compass, work ethic, or belief in national greatness in a general sense. The shining city on the hill is decaying (Rome 476 A.D. anyone?). Yes this a pessimistic outlook but it might also be reality.....and our choice to lead this nation for the next four years will be Romney or Obama!!!???

Hell, I might have to consider Ron Paul. His military isolationism is usually a non-starter but we might not have a choice BUT to let South Korea, Isreal, and the EU pay for their own defense. I mean what's worse, having to fight WW3 because of neglect or watching the country burn and having to fight your neighbor for food?
Sorry for the rant but I've about had it. I think I have supported all of the GOP nominees at one point or another and I'm usually pretty loyal.

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 2:29PM

What else just HAPPENED to occur at the same time as Rome's decay? I believe it was something called moral decadence. The empire stopped upholding any kind of moral values and focused instead on the pleasure of the elites, no matter the subject. Kind of like what the "liberals" are pushing now, no?

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 4:26PM

Love of money is root of all evil is the proper phrasing and important one at that. Romney by all accounts was an excellent manager and help saved many more jobs than he cut. Did Romney do anything unethical? Is there something wrong with trying to make failing businesses profitable? Sure he made alot of money from it but that is capitalism for you, do you have a problem with that?

I think conservatives can have a number of legitimate complaints about Romney but this attack against Bain is straight from the Occupy movement, you sure you want to go there? I got the impression you are a big conservative Timothy, do you really think Newt represents you? What does Newt know about private enterprise? He thinks getting $1.6 million from Freddie Mac for his "expertise" qualifies as free market experience, give me a break!

What is your evidence that Romney was behind the attacks against Herman Cain? Rather disgusting to say he dragged him behind in a pickup truck, I know exactly what you are referring with that. Get a grip on reality man, Newt was never going to be the guy to defeat Obama and is a phony conservative anyways.

Dan| 1.10.12 @ 4:58PM

No.

You don't yet understand some of the details, which are nauseating.

Not every Bain takeover was of a distressed or failing company.

That I think is your first misconception.

What of those companies that were thriving that he took over?

When Bain took over an undervalued company, it used the underlying value of the successful company as part of the purchase price.

A leveraged buyout if you will.

Once acquired, that's when Bain looting ambitions went into hyperdrive.

The successful, under Romney's ministrations, would take out loans for as much money as they could swing from banks. The banks were never informed that the money was for divident payouts. From the now massive amount of cash on hand, Romney and his business partners would take out MASSIVE dividend payouts.

The company meanwhile could not meet its loan payment schedule, and would declare bankruptcy.

Which means that the loans were nothing but transfers of the wealth of banks through the target company's hands to Romney and Bain.

Which means FRAUD was thematic throughout the entire process, from the takeover to the loans acquired and the promises made to repay the loan.

Again, all of you know that loans aren't tendered without promises to repay.

Through Romney's ministrations, those promises were ALWAYS fraudulent.

This is rather disgusting stuff.

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 5:25PM

Why don't you provide for me actual facts of what you are accusing? You have a basic misconception on how private equity works and seem to believe everything on Wall Street is a fraud. He is not Warren Buffet getting the Fed to bail out all his investments through TARP and making billions on Goldman Sachs based on government guarantees. That is the real fraud.

steve| 1.10.12 @ 9:56PM

Dan has no facts. He is a Democrat leftwing plant.

richard ryan| 1.10.12 @ 8:10AM

Excellent point. Newt was wrong to attack Romney on this point. But let's face it-Gingrich has been hammered from all sides. He had a choice to make. Attack Romney hard, or continue to stand by and watch his numbers drop. He chose a populist attack that could resonate with the middle class, potentially very potent. I think Romney's ok, but Dan's point about social security is a great one. THAT along with other entitlement reform is where I view Mitt's weakness to be. He walks this tightrope, desperately trying not to offend potential voters. I applaud Perry for the Ponzi scheme statement. It took guts. If Romney is the only electable guy in the field, ok. I'll get on board. But I'm not an "enthusiastic voter."

KateS| 1.10.12 @ 8:46AM

Romney's takeover bankruptcy rate may have been 22%...however, he was able to save 78% of companies that were on the way to bankruptcy.
We need someone with business experience to rebuild our manufacturing base and turnaround the government. There is no better leader running for office. Newt seems willing to anything and everything to win...shameless.

Doug| 1.10.12 @ 1:23PM

So consulting (Gingrich, Santorum) is not private sector business activity?

Or is only Romney's private sector resume acceptable? Sounds like mainstream establishment brainwashing to me.

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 4:30PM

They sell connections in DC, at least Newt does. Do you think his $1.6 million from Freddie Mac constitutes private sector business activity? Newt thinks so and that is exactly the problem with him.

squalis| 1.10.12 @ 10:04AM

While I haven't completely made my mind up about my candidate of choice, I don't think it would be bad to have a Chief Executive not afraid to cut the bloat out of corporations, in this case otherwise known as the Federal Government.

Ken Royall| 1.10.12 @ 11:25AM

You show me a guy who has a 75% success rate in starting and turning around businesses, and I will show you a REMARKABLE manager. You act as if 1 in 5 is a bad record! New business failures outnumber successful ones 8 to 1. Romney's firm was taking on companies that were already in trouble and yet MOST OF THE TIME, the investments were successful. Get a clue.

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 3:18PM

Dan,

Do you realize that almost every company they got involved with was on the verge of bankruptcy to begin with? You clearly do not understand how private equity works, there will be a sizable failure rate that comes with the territory with potential big payoffs and Bain was very successful at it. You are not a corporate raider when the company is about to fail and everyone will lose their job. The question is not how many people Romney fired but how many jobs and businesses he saved. Newt seems to think firing anyone under any circumstances is socially unacceptable, where do you think that mindset leads?

There are a number of complaints conservatives can have with Romney but these complaints about Bain are straight out of the "Occupy" playbook. Do you really want to align yourselves with those people?

beebop2| 1.10.12 @ 6:05PM

You can pick any stats you want. What you will never know is the ABSOLUTE fail rate if Bain hadn't stepped in. Please just grow up.

Kitty| 1.10.12 @ 6:32AM

Oh boo frickin' hoo, McRomney is finally getting some much needed scrutiny. His years at Bain deserve looking into.

emo| 1.10.12 @ 8:32AM

There is plenty on which to attack Romney. But GOP candidates should attack him from the RIGHT, not the LEFT.

Stormzeye| 1.10.12 @ 1:02PM

Argeed, emo. I'd also like to see Romney talk about firing postal workers, EPA enviro-fascists and federal bureaucrats posing as "educators". Of course, he meant this when he said he likes firing those who don't provide him with the services he wants. Wouldn't that be most of Washington?

Morpheus| 1.14.12 @ 6:31AM

Nothing is more destructive than the fact that a politician is unwilling to make sacrifices. Not to mention the fact that Newt has just made a bigger flip-flopped out of himself than Romney. He denounces OWS then takes on their mentality of people being entitled to jobs three months, yes THREE STINKING MONTHS LATER! Wow, and some people think he deserves to be president! I think he deserves to know his place, and be a cheerleader, because he bombed it at campaigning.

Jonnie| 1.11.12 @ 1:42PM

Attack from right vs left? What a strange characterization. What makes examination of Romney's activity at Bain an attack from the "left"? This seems like just a clever way to try to innoculate Romney from *any* scrutiny of his so-called job creation record by his fellow Republicans. What a load of crap. Why are you people afraid to look into Bain Capital? Is it because you're shilling for Romney?

Dan| 1.10.12 @ 6:33AM

The title of this article is a damn outrage.

There's no other word for it.

"[I]mmoral?"

Have you lost your mind?

Romney was the one corporate raiding, making a killing, divesting pensioners of their due, fingering the taxpayer to support his raiding, and now using the proceeds to portray himself as something he isn't.

Yet Gingrich is the guy "immoral?"

What planet are you on?

Nancy in NC| 1.10.12 @ 7:31AM

So you prefer big government to big business? While big business may make life difficult for some, big government will destroy life as we know it for all.

Doug| 1.10.12 @ 1:24PM

So Gingrich's experience in actually SHRINKING govt should be discounted in favor of someone who is a Wall Street insider?

KateS| 1.10.12 @ 8:49AM

You probably don't have an MBA, eh? Romney is a reengineering expert who saved the businesses he worked with at Bain. It is absolutely amazing what Boston Consulting Group (where Romney worked first) and other turnaround companies can do.

So, is it better to save a 400 of 500 jobs in company by making the company efficient and profitable....or lose all 500 jobs.

Nonbusiness people shouldn't assume they know everything about business. That is a big problem today...everybody is a bleeping expert.

Dan| 1.10.12 @ 5:01PM

Again, you've bought into Romney's narrative.

NOT EVERY company that he took over was distressed.

Which means not every company required his reengineering skills if you will.

There were perfectly thriving companies that Romney looted, and that's the only term for it.

steve| 1.10.12 @ 9:57PM

Name the companies and what happened to them.

W| 1.10.12 @ 1:35PM

If a pension is vested you cannot "divest" it.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 6:36AM

Newt Gingrich's comments are all the more phony, which I believe is an apt comment referring to former Speaker Gingrich, when you consider that right out of the Speaker's job, New couldn't wait to get a job at an investment capital firm, Forstmann Little. Newt tries to avoid answering any questions about his role there, but he will be out of the race soon as this gets around:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.....-industry/
Mr. Gingrich was himself on an advisory board for a major investment firm that had a similar business model, Forstmann Little, a pioneering private equity firm co-founded in 1978 by Theodore J. Forstmann that was, along with Mr. Romney’s Bain Capital and Henry R. Kravis’s Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts, among the leading private equity firms during the 1980s and 1990s.

Forstmann Little earned billions of dollars in profits from its investments in companies including General Instrument and Gulfstream Aerospace. But the firm shut down most of its operations a decade ago after suffering losses from ill-timed bets on high-flying telecommunications companies at the height of that industry’s bubble.

Mr. Gingrich’s involvement with the firm could complicate his attacks on Mr. Romney.

Doug| 1.10.12 @ 1:25PM

So Newt's work at an inbvestment capital firm is bad. Romney's is good.

Sounds like liberal logic to me.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 2:55PM

That comment indicates you may be stupid.

It's Newt logic.

He's the one tearing into Romney while he did it himself.

Seriously, you really can't be that stupid not to see the hypocrisy.

steve| 1.10.12 @ 9:58PM

Dan is a lefty Democrat plant.

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 3:32PM

Ted Forstmann was a great man and a true gentleman of Wall Street (and rare conservative) which is almost an oxymoron now days. Your point is of course that Newt is a hypocrite as usual and is more than willing to play the populist demagogue to try to even the score against Romney. He can attack the Occupy crowd for applause at a debate but uses their ideology to attack Romney from his time at Bain. It is pitiful and outrageous and Ross nailed it.

Jonnie| 1.11.12 @ 1:48PM

Why is this any worse than Romney running ads that lie about Gingrich? Washington Post fact check awarded Romney's ad 4 Pinocchios. So you defend Romney's ability to lie but disparage Gingrich's pivot to populist rhetoric? Your bias is patently obvious. I think it's a very shrewd move by Gingrich in an election year that's going to be about jobs, wall street, Obamacare, and the state of the economy.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.12.12 @ 3:20AM

The Washington Post fact checker is nothing but a bunch of leftist spin.

Starchild | 1.10.12 @ 7:11AM

Ross Kaminsky's analysis here is well-taken. Newt Gingrich's question does indeed seem to embrace an anti-capitalist perspective. Yet Romney's activities at Bain Capital do indeed deserve more scrutiny. How much taxpayer assistance did this supporter of the financial bailouts of big banks receive?

Both Gingrich and Romney are too establishment, their commitment to limited government too suspect based on numerous past inconsistencies, for me to trust or support them.

Although I do not agree with 100% of his positions, Ron Paul is the one candidate in the field who I feel is trustworthy. His record in Congress of opposing even popular spending programs, of returning part of his office budget each year, of refusing a congressional pension, of refusing to play ball with his party's leadership in ways that would have gotten him more plum committee assignments years ago based on his seniority, all suggest that he is that rare politician who honestly cares more about ideas more than holding office just for the power or prestige or money of the office.

I don't know about you, but I think having someone like that in the Oval Office, who we could count on to do what he thinks is right, and who is passionate about limited government and upholding the Constitution, rather than just paying lip service to these ideals, would be a huge breath of fresh air.

Jonnie| 1.11.12 @ 1:52PM

Gingrich was the last person to actually CUT government. So if that's your primary desire in a candidate, why do you refuse to vote for the guy who's actually done it but support the guy who just perennially talks about cutting it? The last time we elected a guy who talked a great game, look at what we got in return? That guy was Obama.

W| 1.10.12 @ 7:27AM

Newt is just showing why he could not get along with his House Republican colleagues once he became Speaker, and they wanted him out. He has an oversized ego and thinks he is smarter than everyone else.

He resigned as Speaker and paid a $300,000 fine for ethics violation. He did not even have the balls to fight it. At least Clinton, who was guilty as hell, had the balls to fight. While the Republicans were accusing Clinton various charges Newt has having an affair with his staffer and committing the ethics violation that led to his fine and ouster. That showed real good judgment.

Newt is an example of the government entrepenour. He uses his public service background to make money. He writes books, lobbies for Freddie/Fannie, gets a gig on Fox,etc. Do you think any of this would occur if he was a history teacher at CorncobU in Georgia?

What really turned me off about Newt is his performance on Hannity on Jan9 attacking Romney over Bain Capital's investments. Newt is usining phrases like "taking money out of companies." If he would have ever worked in private industry he would know Bain invested in companies to make money not to loot them. Some worked and some did not.

Newt sounded more like a combinationof BarneyFrank and DebbieWassermanSchulz. More bizarre was that Hannity turned over 20 minutes to Newt's ramblings without questioning him on Bain. Hannity was worse than the MSM questioning Obama.

KateS| 1.10.12 @ 8:50AM

Bingo...how any decent conservative could support him is beyond me.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 9:07AM

Double bingo! Newt Gingrich is the poster child of everything wrong inside the beltway.

Stormzeye| 1.10.12 @ 1:13PM

George Will on Newt Gingrich is worth reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 10:35AM

Pesonally, I judge Newt by those enemies in DC. What did they accomplish after the chased Newt out? The Bush era expansion of government and near doubling of the national debt and record deficits. Those Congress critters that hate Newt so much shafted the country and set the stage for Obama's election. Have you forgotten all this already? If all those bums hate Newt, he must have something going for him because THEY are every bit as much the enemy as the Democrats.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 11:43AM

Then Newt jumped on the revolving door and made millions from GSE's and other government entities, including companies who got huge government grants for solar energy.

If Newt was hated that much he couldn't have worked behind the scenes to keep Fannie/Freddie open while publicly decrying their activities.

He's a two bit phony if nothing else.

Doug| 1.10.12 @ 1:27PM

So Newt working as a consultant in the private sector is bad? I thought private sector business consulting is good. Or do you feel it is only good for Romney?

W| 1.10.12 @ 1:36PM

Freddie/Fannie are not really private.

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 1:41PM

So all the inside the beltway types and the Congress critters that have been blasting Newt were just pretending they hate his living guts? LOL
Sure, Newt's a skunk, but he's a better skunk than Romney and all the establishment insiders who have been attacking him. That's the point, Bill. But you get that, you just don't want to admit it. Romney is worse than Gingrich is the bottom line. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Now if you still prefer Romney, fine. But don't pee down folks' backs and then tell them it's raining by claiming Romney is conservative or bellyaching about Gingrich 'smeaing' Mitt, but give Mitt a pass for doing the same to Gingrich.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 2:58PM

No, actually I don't know it and I don't need someone to tell me what I know. That's not what adults do, or haven't you heard?

I never claimed Romney is a conservative.

What I point out is why should he be?

The Republicans have never had one in the last 4 sittings.

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 4:46PM

"What I point out is why should he be?"

Why should whom, be what, Bill? Mitt? Newt? It's unclear. You lost me.

"Republicans have never had one in the last 4 sittings." Had one what? Again, I am unable to follow you.

If you want to keep it adult, Bill, then don't contradict someone that has presented a factually accurate statement but used minor literary exaggeration about 'all' the insiders hating Newt. That's nit picking. Also known as chicken $#!t. Practice what you preach.

Best regards,

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 6:02PM

Your patronizing attitude is noted.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 4:22PM

The Bible says we're all skunks.. but repentant skunks please God, and could make great Presidents.

Better a repentant and forgiven Adulterer in the people's House than an unrepentant Marxist!

Newt vs. Romney??

Newt would get my vote.

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 4:33PM

You hate Mormons even more than Catholics

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 5:55PM

Todd S.,

Interestingly, Margie shares some of the same beliefs with the Church of Latter Day Saints.

They both teach that the Church apostatized at the beginning, in the first century A.D., with the death of the Apostles.
They also both teach that Christ was not homoousion, or consubstantial, or of one essence or substance, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 6:33PM

The Church did apostatize after the death of the Apostles, history shows that quite clearly. Got nothing against the Catholic Church of today but to claim a direct link to Peter is a joke and a fraud from the Nicene Creed. What the history of the Catholic Church shows us is that it is a very bad idea to allow religious leaders to be our political leaders as well, at least not until the Second Coming. Goes the same for any other religion which is why Islam is such a problem today. Of course Islam is a false religion made up by a viscous warlord but that is another issue. The Jews wanted Christ to be their political leader and he would have nothing to do with it and hence very few accepted him.

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 6:34PM

vicious not viscous

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 7:00PM

Todd S.,

Sorry you feel this way. We will have to agree to disagree.

You will find that Saints Papias, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch all taught Catholic doctrines, though.
These men were taught by the Apostles Peter, John, and Paul.
God Bless!

Todd S| 1.10.12 @ 8:22PM

You are a nice guy Nick and I see you are a real Christian whatever our disagreements. Something Margie doesn't understand is that disagreements over doctrine should not be reason for anyone to condemn others.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 8:28PM

"Something Margie doesn't understand is that disagreements over doctrine should not be reason for anyone to condemn others."

Stupid idiotic Troll.

The WORD of GOD condemns liars.. not me.

Better read what HE says, as you are lying in your posts concerning me, especially when I'm not even here to defend myself, which makes you not only a disgusting liar, but a COWARD as well:

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 12:03AM

Todd S.,

Thanks for the compliments. I appreciate them, very much.
I'm sure your love of Christ knows no bounds, as mine also knows none.
I agree whole-heartedly about disagreements over doctrine. I tell Margie this, constantly.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 8:23PM

"nterestingly, Margie shares some of the same beliefs with the Church of Latter Day Saints."

Nor do you, you filthy liar.
What you just said about me is SLANDER, and UNTRUE, PUNK.
And you KNOW where God throes LIARS, right???

Nick| 1.11.12 @ 12:04AM

Margie,

What did I get wrong? I'll correct my statements accordingly.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 8:22PM

Excuse me??
You don't get to tell me that I hate anyone, punk.
Who the Hell are YOU??

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:56AM

Newt was kicked out on ethics violations. I'm a rock-ribbed Reaganite, and Gingrich makes my skin crawl.

DaPicayune| 1.10.12 @ 11:07PM

Psycho is correct, Newt was cleared of the House charge by the FBI.

He made enemies on both sides of the aisle by cutting the Fed budget/spending/corp taxes, which broke too many WDC rice bowls. That's the prescription we need now, even if it makes your skin peal.

Mitty's "progressive views" will never allow him to repeat what Newt accomplished as Speaker with Clinton. His PAC's hit-men used Mittys Alinksy smear tactics first on Newt. Self defense is fair play in the USA. Man up Mitty, admit your sins or endure the scorched earth from the angry bear that you poked repeatedly and now cry "look, an angry bear!"

US voters see through Ross's disingenuous smear here, as well as, all the other RINO attacks.

Do come on down South, Mr. "Progressive Views" the voters are waiting to show you why no Liberal NE Gov has become POTUS with their help, evah.

John Navratil| 1.10.12 @ 2:18PM

W,

If memory serves me correctly, Newt did fight 84 ethics charges brought against him and 83 were dismissed. There was a huge attempt to bring Newt down by the "loyal" opposition including the illegal taping and leaking of his cell-phone calls.

The charge netting the $300,000 fine was for conflating his profit-making and political activities. Newt claims it was an oversight (who wouldn't but it is self-serving) and settled.

I think you discredit him unfairly in this regard.

W| 1.10.12 @ 4:01PM

John,
You are correct that the Dems did pile the charges on which is the usual practice. He cut a deal where they dismissed 83 and he pled to one. But he should have contested the one real charge and not caved. If there was nothing to it then fight it. Newt claimed that he relied on a lawyer or accountant's incorrect advice for the one charge that stuck. If so, fight it, and don't agree to pay $300,000. That is a huge fine.

Of course the Dems were playing payback because Newt had filed numerous charges against the Dem Speaker Jim Wright. Wright also made money by writing a book and then forcing labor unions to buy thousands of the book.

You would think that Newt having filed the charges against Wright and forced Wright to resign would be more careful, and remember that the Dems would do the same to him given the chance. Another stupid judgment decision.

I am more concerned about his attacks on the profits made by Bain Capital. It shows no understanding of economics and is the same language used by the Barney Frank / Debbie Wasserman Schulz school of lefty economics.

But he is still better than Obama.

Jonnie| 1.11.12 @ 2:09PM

"Criticism of any behavior by a private firm? Outrage! An Assault on Capitalism! Haven't they read Schumpeter? Don't they know the glories of Creative Destruction? And, of course, all such destruction must be assumed to be creative! Yikes. If this is where some in the conservative movement and the Republican party are inclined to go—four cheers for finance capitalism!—good luck. Indeed, it’s useful to flush out this tendency now, and subject it to debate. Because it’s a recipe for political disaster—and intellectual sterility."

- Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard - From Bain to Main

Jonnie| 1.11.12 @ 2:03PM

Perhaps we should eviscerate you for taking the Democratic Party line on Newt and "attacking him from the left"? How dare you use a play out of the Democratic playbook!!! OMG YOU LEFTIST!!!

The pointed sarcasm aside, you need to get your facts straight. Gingrich was brought up on ethics charges by DEMOCRATS, and after a thorough investigation, ALL but one charge was dropped. The last charge was deferred to the IRS which later cleared Gingrich of any wrong doing. It's on the record if you'd actually bother to look it up.

The charges were entirely politically motivated and everybody knows it. Remarkable that Romney defenders blast Gingrich for using plays out of the Democratic playbook then turn around and do it themselves.

W| 1.12.12 @ 8:45AM

House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker
By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information....

As you can see he paid the fine to the House, not IRS. He should have fought the charges if innocent.

Morpheus| 1.14.12 @ 6:45AM

Gingrich walked out. A quitter is still a quitter no matter how innocent you can prove him. The fact that he could have stayed on board says a lot more than the charges. Why? Because anyone who tries being president will have the heat on from day one. They will be charged with everything from what's rational down to birth certificate conspiracy theories. That's what happens. Regardless of whether or not he is really guilty, his paying off and resignation, as well as his words under this campaign, say that he isn't willing to face up to the challenges of today's presidency. It's even more despicable to Gingrich that a former capitalist named Romney has more brass than him.

AKM| 1.10.12 @ 7:29AM

Immoral blow?

This is politics. All those running for this particular office are immoral, power hungry exploiters of the US. They all want into the Oval Office no matter the cost. No matter who wins, the US and her people are boned. There is no alternative. You can chose between Left wing and Right wing lunatics. But there is no reasonable approach in any of it, no critical thought. It's all just retarded ideologies on both sides.

Want to buy: third party, the reasonable party, where ideology is irrelevant and reason triumphs.

L. Ross| 1.10.12 @ 7:31AM

Not everything in a captialist system is great. Look at Enron. Of course the biggest problem with our current system is that it isn't capitalist, it is a weird blend of capitalism, socialism, and ridiculous over-regulation. For Ross Kamisnsky to complain that Newt isn't a strong enough capitalist shows to me that he doesn't really understand where America actually is, vs where he thinks it should be.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 7:46AM

Enron was a criminal enterprise.

Kade| 1.10.12 @ 11:38AM

We do not have capitalism in America anymore We have crooked capitalists that own both Parties that design legislation and backdoor bailouts to help these elites and to screw Main Street America. TARP and Quantitative Easing are just two examples. NAFTA and all its sons is another.

SC Mike| 1.10.12 @ 7:47AM

Hey, don’t knock the way casinos treat their customers. My uncle arrive in Vegas in a $45K car and left in a $250K bus…

Some folks don’t seem to understand how a so-called “corporate raider” works. Using money from investors and loans from banks (because leverage is the key to making sizable gains), the raider purchases an enterprise that appears undervalued. At the time of the purchase and for some time afterwards, there are not enough assets to strip to make the effort worthwhile.

Some streamlining (firings) may be necessary where activities don’t contribute to the bottom line, but the objective is to re-focus the operation and make it profitable so that the lenders that provided the loans and the investors get their principal back. Ideally the enterprise will grow to the point where it can be sold for a handsome profit for the investors.

In the Wall Street Journal article and an earlier Atlantic article it’s clear that the Bain investment group Romney led had more winners than stinkers. Some deals went bad, the enterprise went bankrupt, people lost jobs. But enough of the other investments turned out to be gems and more than made up for the bad ones, thanks in large measure to Romney’s proven managerial abilities.

FWIW, it was that experience and those successes that prompted Bain to ask him to rescue the rest of Bain, which he did.

Romney’s not been my first or second choice, but he does have more practical business experience than any other presidential candidate over the past fifty years. He is a capitalist, and that’s good.

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 10:32AM

Very true. But, politically he's a leftwinger and not of the Austrian school of economics. It's the classic contradiction that so many Democrats have. They are fine with making lots of money themselves but enact policies that are destructive of the marketplace [to sum it up briefly]. Romney is a status quo left leaning politician and status quo businessman. He'll do better than Obama, but that will not take much doing at all. He's not going to be another Reagan when it comes to economic policy.

JimH| 1.10.12 @ 8:13AM

Adam Smith, the man who defined and extolled the modern free market system warned that whenever businessmen got together they were likely colluding against the common good. One should not confuse support of the free market with unquestioned support of individual businessmen. Rand made gods of capitalists and in real life, some were truly heroic. Ford and Edison through their inventions made the lives of all immeasurably better but they had their nasty sides too. Men are imperfect beings. Conservatives well know this. The wonder of the market is that it takes the self interest of individuals and produces valuable products and services which raise the wealth of society as a whole. Looking at Bain’s activities under Romney’s leadership they played the game by the flawed rules of government regulation and tax law and knew how to exploit them. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. That said, he is no Howard Rouark. In some instances companies he invested in grew and became successful. If this would have happened without him I don’t know. In other cases they bought into firms which may or may not have survived, but because Bain saddled them with enormous debt and sold off the more valuable assets they made survival impossible. It is not for nothing that some of these practices are known as vulture capitalism though the term may be inaccurate here as a vulture waits for death, while Bain sometimes helped it along the way.

Pete| 1.10.12 @ 12:53PM

Excellent points: Edison for example refuse to pay the 10,000 dollars he owed Tesla for the invention of the carburetor. Later, since Tesla went out on his own and invented the AC Generator, Edison would set cats on fire near the plant claiming that the cause was the generator. One problem corporations have is that they seem not to be required to be ethical as us humans are.

Wordmonger| 1.10.12 @ 8:18AM

"That said"? In the treatise you have written that trite expression serves no purpose, Mr.Kaminsky.

Ivan Ivanovich| 1.10.12 @ 8:32AM

I like capitalism, I like freedom and liberty, I love America, I’m glad were have venture capitalists that take failing companies and make them well by often cutting away the uncompetitive slackers thereby saving job for the productive workers. Therefore I like, and I’ll vote for Mitt Romney.

Peppermint Tea| 1.10.12 @ 9:15AM

We should have known Newt wasn't a real capitalist; now we can only hope that Mitt is. By that I mean, when he becomes President, he will encourage Congress to cut out about 1.8 trillion of funds.

And Mitt will need to turn his "I like be able to fire people who work for me" statement to his favor by saying, "Weren't we better off firing Wiener and van Jones? Let's fire Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Holder, the remaining democrats in the senate, the democrats in the house, and Michelle eat-your-vegetables Obama!"

KateS| 1.10.12 @ 8:55AM

I believe Newt has gone off the deep end. Jeff Krohner stated last week hat Newt is willing to take the republican party down with him.

Newt's credible ethics violations alone would sink his ship. There are so many things wrong with his candidacy it's almost laughable.

We could always call him "do as I say, not as I do" Newt.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 9:08AM

He's the man behind the curtain and with little credibility.

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 10:25AM

Nonsense. If the GOP goes down it will be because of the GOP establishment types, like Romney.

Judy| 1.10.12 @ 9:10AM

Well said. I relish the idea of Romney taking his business skills to Washington and applying them to the federal government. Newt is in the middle of temper tantrum and needs a time out.

Stefan Stackhouse| 1.10.12 @ 9:12AM

If Gingrich wants to run against Obama, he's in the wrong primary. He really needs to get himself over to his natural home, the Democratic party, and run against Obama over there. He'd be doing us all a real service, creating just a prayer of a chance that Obama would be replaced by someone who is just almost imperceptably less socialist than is Obama. He could even hire Michael Moore to do his advertising. He's already most of the way there with his most recent ads.

Pete| 1.10.12 @ 12:49PM

Please tell Romney that Obama is a socialist. He doesn't seem to get it.

VonMisesJr| 1.10.12 @ 9:26AM

This theory that if any Republican says anything bad about another Republican, they will throw the electorate into the arms of OWS, Pelosi, Reid and Obama is nonsense.
I am actually relieved that we finally have some candidates that are not potted plants like McLame and Dull, or the Mushies. If you were going to war with the communist, would you prefer a marine or a mediator?
The last six election cycles gave us two Bush compassionate statist and two ex-military guys crying no-mas!
I think Romney would be more acceptable if he was also willing to throw punches at Obama and Reid. But he only seems to run dirty campaigns against other Republicans. This is what worries TEA Party Patriots and conservatives!!!

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 10:14AM

Right on, 'JR'. Lots of great clear thinking in this comment thread. Thanks to all and apologies if I did not add a comment in support.

Pete| 1.10.12 @ 12:47PM

Excellent point. I will tolerate the past of Newt for a couple of reasons. One is that he is a fighter and willing to call Obama a Socialist. The other is that he is hated by the GOP establishment. That's a +1 in my book.

John Navratil| 1.10.12 @ 2:33PM

VonMisesJr, Pete,

Both excellent points! Only the righteously indignant demands a candidate purer than Caesar's wife. The problem is that this system is being shown to still be the province of the party. Texas has the second largest number of electors in the general. By the time the primaries arrive here (In April thanks to redistricting challenges by the Dem), my vote will probably be meaningless; unless something big happens, Romney will have been anointed.

This system has created a game for the politicians which discourages the next Reagan to run. Perhaps there will be enough fracturing of the old guard this time to get the Jindal's, Rubio's and Ryan's into the game. It's a crying shame that one must be a tenured politician to be considered.

Kade| 1.10.12 @ 9:29AM

Newt is a hypocrite for sure in many ways but his Bain criticism of Romney has some merit. Romney left many workers twisting in the wind and made millions while bankrupting companies and it is hard to believe that he did this without government assistance in some way. Does anyone know how this really works?

Look the GOP has all but discarded blue collar workers and Main Street in general by their embracing of the greedy Wall Street elite and their ruthless behavior. CEOs think nothing of sending out pink slips to thousands of lifelong loyal employees while moving to communist China to gain even more profits -- or advocating open borders and more H1-B visas to undermine the American worker.

I do not buy into the theory that a corporation should only be concerned about profits and not their employees too – they are not mutually exclusive. It is advocating this type of ruthless capitalism that has caused many patriotic working class Americans to become Independents and thus shrinking the GOP base.

Romney embraces this cutthroat mentality and if nominated will lose the general because of this. The Demas will crucify him unmercifully in TV Ads and this will hurt the down ticket too.

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 10:12AM

I agree with you, Kade. Nothing motivates the Democratic base and "working class voters" more than the specter of a rich, elitist, country club belonging Republican born to wealth and priviledge who manipulated a system already weighted to his class' advantage to reap "excess, windfall profits" in the mega millions at the expense of regular working people who have already or will lose their jobs becoming President.

Mitt fits that stereotype to a 'T', fairly or not.

Pete| 1.10.12 @ 12:45PM

Romney will be the perfect foil for class warfare. Better deal with it now than when the Dems target him as the 1 percent keeping down the 99 percent.

George S| 1.10.12 @ 11:44AM

If you don't "buy" that corporation should only be concerned about profits, then start your own business and pay people twice the median salary.

It is very very easy to sit and preach in moral judgment when your own money isn't at risk -- only the taxpayers.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 9:35AM

I don't understand all this anti-Newt stuff coming from AmSpec and other conservative media. Do you guys WANT a moderate in the White House?

Kaminsky is also suffering from an inability to distinguish between capitalism and capitalists. CapitalISM is good, but sometimes capitalISTS are bad, disgusting people.

Conservatives celebrate capitalism, not capitalists. This romanticism about businessmen was promoted by Ayn Rand and her followers. However, just because we like capitalism doesn't mean we have to like the corporate creeps who do so much to give capitalism a bad name.

Romney's rivals are obviously trying to paint him as insensitive, and looking for any opportunity to do so. Maybe they are taking things out of context, but Romney and Paul have not hesitated to engage in such tactics. Politics ain't beanbag says Romney, so let Romney get a taste of what he's been dishing out.

Jonnie| 1.11.12 @ 2:12PM

Amen Vern. It's remarkable to see conservatives conflating criticism of Bain with criticism of capitalism.

Jeff Barnett| 1.10.12 @ 9:36AM

Whatever the merits of any criticisms of Newt otherwise, simply questioning the moral means of exercising captitalism is not anti-capital. John Adams and others of our founding fathers made it clear that our republic was designed for moral and religious people. Our freedom, to be preserved, must be restrained by individual morals. We would lose our freedom if such morals are not exercised by the individual. This is true in government and business free enterprise. Therefore, the question should not be whether Romney practiced captitalism (and its inherent freedom) within the bounds of the law or out of his duty toward shareholders to produce a profit, but was it done with the moral or religious underpinnings that would take into account the well being of all concerned so as to preserve captialism for everyone.

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 10:03AM

Very, very well said, Jeff and from what I have heard Gingrich say, what you stated is his exact point. That and the fact that Romney is phoney. "Pious baloney" I think is how Gingrich referred to it.

Samuel Johnson| 1.10.12 @ 9:39AM

Sounds like a bunch of Pious Baloney!

Kade| 1.10.12 @ 11:26AM

Yes very well said indeed Jeff. The underpinnings of a prosperous America and a thriving middle class are to have companies led by those who have strong moral beliefs rather then the Gordon Gekos of the world. Problem is there is no morality in Wall Street and many of the CEOs are either limousine liberals or bailout Republicans.

These hypocrites scream for free markets except when the market sinks then they want TARP, stimulus, and Fed printing monopoly money -- leaving We-The-People paying for their gambling and mismanagement, and then they have the gall to issue us pink slips afterwards.

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 9:54AM

In all humility I say that Ross's column is nothing more than a "...bitter, petulant, ... vengeful... immature..." rant and he is not "...to be taken ... serious(ly)..." as a columnist or analyst. As others have noted here and elsewhere, there is a double standard being applied regarding Gingrich and Romney. Romney can 'smear' Gingrich and that's ok, but when Gingrich 'smears' Romney in return, then he's a @#$^# and a @#$%^&%! This is laughale and pathetic. The rationalizations, disingenuousness and misrepresentations being used to criticize Gingrich for attacking Romney's business record are obvious and also equally laughable and pathetic. So Newt's a fascist now, a criminal and an anti-capitalist 5th columnist helping Obama in the fall campaign. LOL Yeah, like the Dems don't already have all this info, and more, in their fall playbook and are hoping Romney will be the candidate because they know how effective it will be and are salivating at the prospect of using it against Mitt. The pro-Mitt crowd should be thanking Newt for getting it out there now. By November it will be "old news" and will have given Mitt's and his thin skinned team time to better prepare for the onslaught headed his way if he's the nominee. Instead, people with a patholigical hatred of Newt [Newt Derangement Syndrome] are posting columns and comments, here and elsewhere, that are transparent "hackery" [quoted from a different NDS blog site that is allegedly conservative but is transparently pro-Mitt].

I'm not per se pro-Newt, but the pro-Romney attack hacks are phoney hypocrits, like Romney is by claiming now- even in the face of the overwhelming video evidence and his record as governor of MA- that he's a conservative. He's not. He's a Rockefeller Republican which means he's a liberal. Stop lying Mitt supporters and be honest. Are you ashamed or just trying to pull a fast one on the voters?

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 10:10AM

Newt Derangement Syndrome. Perfect description!

bluecollarbytes| 1.10.12 @ 10:04AM

Gingrich's anti-capitalist rhetoric (no matter what the motive) is a warning, a reminder that Newt is capable of, and comfortable at mimicking the Left. Newt has 'potential', but I don't think now he can be counted on to use that potential in an ideological fight- something that still needs to occur if there's any hope to change things in the govt/citizen relationship. to bad

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 10:20AM

A valid interpretation, just keep in mind please that Mitt is even worse than Newt and that is the key point when comparing these two. Newt has done things that make reasonable people distrustful. Romney is a liberal, now claiming to be a conservative who has flip-flopped on repeated issues for political expediency's sake. Who should we trust more, Newt with apostacies, but a genuine record of conservative achievement or Mitt with no conservative record period who has repeatedly said in the past that he's not a conservative, flip-flopped all over the place on issues and now wants us to believe he is a conservative. Personally, I'll take Newt with some achievements over Mitt with none.

Kade| 1.10.12 @ 2:14PM

I agree that Freddie Newt is not to be trusted but his Romney Bain criticism is spot on and from the moral right, not the left although they will use it.

Capitalism without morality and laws leads to crony capitalism, massive corruption, a concentration of power of corporate and government elites, and a hollow and powerless middle class-- and this is where we are now in America.

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 4:48PM

You knocked it out of the park again, Kade!

Resist We Much! | 1.10.12 @ 10:26AM

"On balance are people better off" due to Gingrich's "style of history lessons" at Freddie Mac and his "style of pep talks" to Republicans in order to convince them to vote for Medicare Part D for which he was paid tens of millions by pharmaceutical companies?

bill| 1.10.12 @ 10:47AM

We love capitalism. But Romney lied about his role in Bain Capital, looting small bussinesses and laying off people.
As a governor of MA, his records contradicts whta he's preaching in the campaign trail. He signed RomneyCare and supported gay marriage, tax hikes, green regulations, and abortion.
Romney is a flawed candidate. He stumbles, gets sucked, and intercepted too many times. He may win in NH, but cannot win in SC.

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 11:17AM

I heard a Mitt defender earlier today talking about the jobs Mitt and Bain created at Staples, Dominoes and some other big box store that I don't recall right now. These are all entry level, "McJobs" that pay minimum wage or if you are the "manager" you get a so-so salary but put in 100 hours per week since it's retail and it amounts to minimum wage but without overtime pay. So lots of people lost jobs which were at best replaced with "dead end" jobs. Meanwhile Mitt and Co. walked away with millions and millions. Legal? Yes. Admirable? No. As President will Mitt destroy those well paying middle class jobs that are still around and then will at best be replaced by minimum wage retail jobs? Will Wall Street bankers still be making gazillions AND get bailed out again? Mitt's actual record makes these legitimate questions, IMHO. It's not as if Mitt opened a manufacturing plant, or started a company like Apple or MicroSoft that met with great success and where people are still employed and paid and treated well.

George S| 1.10.12 @ 11:57AM

Start your own business -- a deli, dry cleaner, what have you -- and hire employees at $75 tot $250k to man the counter, sweep the floors, whatever. No dead end job there at JimP's place!

It is much easier to preach and criticize than figuring out way to run your own business so you can be a part of the solution instead of another problem waiting in line with their hand out demanding their share of "fairness".

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 12:11PM

LOL I do have my own business. You are so emotional- for reasons unknown to me- you misread my comment, or is it because you are a Mitt supporter? What's wrong, the arguments against Mitt make you think instead of mindlessly backing Romney because: "He's the only one who can win. He's inevitable. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE." Grow up George. Try thinking critically instead of being a sheeple and then getting hysterical and blaming the messenger and alleging false ideas to said messenger.

George S| 1.10.12 @ 5:07PM

I'm not backing Romney; I get twisted out of sorts when capitalism is seen as unjust when people make a lot of money or when capitalism is blamed for creating dead end jobs. The fact is that not everyone can earn a lot of money because people have differing skills, aptitude, drive, and ability to create products of services. Those who cannot are stuck working for those who can. If everyone could be rich without the requisite skills then everyone will be poor since no one will be willing to either pay for those services or those services wouldn't exist without someone doing the menial dead end jobs. Putting the blame on capitalism and Romney only furthers the prejudice against freedom.

DaPicayune| 1.10.12 @ 11:40PM

And Mitty started all this by stating that Newt should give back his earnings from Freddie, remember. Now it's starting to bite him, as it should.

JimP| 1.11.12 @ 6:19PM

If you're still out there George. I know all that and agree with you. You are misunderstanding my comments. I was, in part, using terms that the left uses to draw a contrast between Romney and say Jack Welch of GE in the past, or Steve Jobs or Henry Ford. Mitt was the destructive half of capitalism, not the constructive half and what he did construct was profitable for some, but offered only the bare minimum for others who are faced with moving on ASAP to get something better. That's no wrong, or per se bad, but who can get exicted about that? I don't want to be known or remembered as a guy who was in it for a fast buck and to hell with what's left behind. I'm building something to be proud to be associated with-hopefully. Yeah that's corny and it's each individuals' choice, but Romney's approach leaves me cold. I feel like it's just about the money for him and basically nothing more, other than his ego which needs success for his resume updates.

Joseph| 1.12.12 @ 7:14AM

JimP
How many employees have your hired and what do you pay them, how about health insurance, pensions? What business do you have?
You sound like a Democrat plant. At least from the neck up.

Paul from SA| 1.10.12 @ 12:08PM

bill, you and I and many others know that.

But are Romney supporters unaware of his background or do they just not care? Kind of like the Dems knew how flawed Bill Clinton was but they still supported him. Dems have no morals, so that explains that, but Republicans supporting such a liberal candidate.....

I don't get it.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 12:39PM

Paul, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope Rick Perry gets the GOP nod, never Romney.

Anthony| 1.10.12 @ 11:17AM

So Ross, looking to become SEC Chair in a Mittens McWillard Administration?
That sucking sound coming from your mouth is most unattractive.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 11:26AM

Mitt Romney is the flavor of the month-corporate executive, big government liberal RINO, and an ardent supporter of RomneyCare. He may get away in "liberal" NH, but cannot win in SC. Rick Perry or Gingrich will steal the show. Santorum opposed "right to work" law, and SC is a "right to work state", and he will have har time convincing SC voters why he voted against "right to work state" law. He cannot win in SC, anyway.

Paul from SA| 1.10.12 @ 11:41AM

I am not a Newt supporter, but I object. Did Newt say he's against capitalism?

NO.

Yesterday and today, Romney's Republican operatives are out in droves in all major GOP websites accusing Newt Gingrich of being against capitalism.

Newt's attacks were cheap, but so is accusing him of being against capitalism. What next? Newt is against children and women and the elderly?.

Romney drew first blood against Perry and Gingrich and they are rightly angry at his lies and cheap shots. They should fight back and give Romney some of his own medicine. The only problem is Romney has a media machine protecting him much like Obama had a media backing him.

When Romney and his people attack conservatives (with lies and liberal language), why not accuse Romney of being against conservatism?

Yesterday, at NRO, they accused Romney critics of being deranged. Deranged. And we were portrayed as being so dumb for supporting Sarah Palin....

Joseph| 1.12.12 @ 7:17AM

You have to admit Palin hurt McCain. Listen to her on Fox, she in uninformed, and just repeats bland talking points.

Bumr50| 1.10.12 @ 11:52AM

It's actually an incredibly important line of attack because it undermines the only supposed positive about Romney, his ability to garner the elusive "independent and moderate" vote.

"Independents and moderates" are extremely skeptical of Wall Street in today's climate, and Romney's days as a venture capitalist exemplify what many people see as the dark side of Wall Street.

There's nothing illegal or even unethical about what Bain did. But shipping good-paying manufacturing jobs overseas is not exactly a "selling point."

Pete| 1.10.12 @ 12:40PM

And Romney has the chance to tell us that Obama as president has been shipping jobs to Finland, China and Brazil.

cicero| 1.10.12 @ 11:55AM

The Party of Stupid rides again! Please bring back the days of the real national converntions where elected delegates from the vaious states who were sent by their parties. The set forth a WRITTEN platform, and nominated their candidate as the best one to represent that platform. The present system is chaotic, and open to too much manipulation.
What did Romney expect, after spending $17 million on negative adds directed at Gingrich? What did Paul expect after putting out statements directed at Gingrich, despite their clear innaccuracies?
Any of the Republicans will be preferable to another 4 years of Obama. However, they do themselves no favors by shooting one another on the road to nomination. The only reason the Dems didn't accomplish the same self-defeat in 2008, was that our watchdogs in the press didn't follow up on any of the accusations leveled at Obama by Clinton. If they had, he would have lost the nomination, if not the election.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 12:21PM

If you wants to stop Obama, then you must stop Romney.

Remember, RomneyCare was the foundation for ObamaCare.

Romney will never repeal ObamaCare.

STOP ROMNEY.

VOTE RON PAUL IN NH.

VOTE RICK PERRY IN SC & FL.

Phyllis S. Gann| 1.10.12 @ 12:29PM

Mr. Ross Kaminsky, There is much more to this than what you mentioned. You are wrong about this one. What a fine day (NH primary) to come out with this article. Are you like all the rest of the media? I thought I would like "The American Spectator" not so sure now? You, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer & many others will be eating crow when Romney loses should he get the nomination. You are being played like a fiddle. Even Sarah Palin said so yesterday. Newt Gingrich is the best qualified for the nomination get used to it.

Kingofthenet| 1.10.12 @ 12:29PM

John Stewart as ALWAYS has this issue covered perfectly:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa.....ly-wealthy

David| 1.10.12 @ 12:34PM

Newt should not be the nominee. Not just because of his ridiculous question that is the subject of this article, but because of his many many faults.

Get behind Santorum ASAP after the NH primary. I am waiting for Marco Rubio to endorse him. I expect that to happen, and when it does, the primary fight is over. If he can get Palin's endorsement, too, all the better.

somnolence| 1.10.12 @ 12:37PM

David, that sounds like a winner to me.

Pete| 1.10.12 @ 12:37PM

So what are we saying? Its alright to attack Newt but not alright to attack Mitt. He's a big man, he can take it.
This is Romney's opportunity to explain that part of capitalism is failure. A company in order to succeed must fire its weakest workers in favor of stronger or cheaper ones. That is how business stays strong and productive. After all competition will force the issue.
Government fails because it does not fire people. It leaves the weak and unproductive in positions to intimidate the stronger, productive workers. Eventually these workers leave to either start their own business or work for a private business.
Over time we get government inefficiencies and bloated payrolls.
Nothing Newt said is unfair if Romney has the balls to explain Capitalism.

Now quit the victim game.

Cosmo| 1.10.12 @ 8:50PM

"Government fails because it does not fire people.
Brilliant...thank you....Romney needs to win and fire about a million bureaucrats...

somnolence| 1.10.12 @ 12:38PM

Perry is currently running at 5% in South Carolina. I believe it is safe to say it is over for him.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 12:42PM

SC Watch:

Good News!

A new We Ask America poll in South Carolina shows Mitt Romney leading the GOP presidential field with 26%, followed by Newt Gingrich at 21%, Rick Santorum at 13%, Ron Paul at 8%, Rick Perry at 5% and John Hunstman at 4%. Another 22% are still undecided.

Romney is vulnerable in SC because of his liberal views on helthcare, abortion, gay marriage, and climate change. We can defat Romney in SC. We need to support Gingrich or Rick Perry. I do not like Santorum because he voted against "right to work state." SC is a "right to work state."

Kingofthenet| 1.10.12 @ 12:48PM

*Right to work for nothing state.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 3:48PM

Wise up.

"Right to work" for liberty and prosperity.

Those union thugs can go to hell.

David| 1.10.12 @ 12:53PM

Okay folks, I have been a big Santorum supporter and checked out his position on the National Right to Work Act. He did in fact oppose it. I am very disappointed by that. Unions have been very destructive to this nation. They may have done some good 70 or so years ago, but are not worth the havoc they wreak.

That said, the National Right to WOrk Act that everyone is so critical of Santorum for opposing was an issue in 1995. 1995. I am curious to know what Santorum has to say about it now - 17 years later. Does he support the new National Right to Work Act?

And to those of you who give Romney a pass on his record because he was governing in LIBERAL MA, then I think Santorum's position 17 years ago in heavily democratic and heavily union PA should also be given some consideration

Intelligent Design| 1.10.12 @ 1:11PM

"Strike two: Regardless of the impact of criticisms by Newt-backers on Romney, Newt has shown himself to be too bitter, petulant, and vengeful -- in short, too immature -- to be a serious candidate for the presidency."

This is actually a good description of Obama.

DaPicayune| 1.10.12 @ 11:55PM

So true, and unlike Barry or Mitty, Newt as Speaker has actually cut Fed spending/budgets/taxes, expanded our economy with 11 million New jobs created, and lowered unemployment to 4.2 % - the very things now required if we are to save our ship.

What more needs to be said, unless folks just want to waste time splitting hairs and lobbing false accusations?

David| 1.10.12 @ 1:14PM

A lot of people here are extremely uninformed. You spout crap like Santorum opposed the Right to Work Act, and Gingrich was kicked out of the speakership because of ethics violations.

True, the dems ran Gingrich out of Congress on 68 BOGUS ethics violations. I don't support Newt, but will defend him on this. If any of you bothered to check you would know that 67 of those violations were completely dismissed. Only one stuck and it was his SUPPOSED violation of some obscure, incomprehensible tax law on which he consulted a tax attorney and a CPA and followed their advice. He paid a small fine to clear the 68th violation. Get it folks. If you are trying to be fair and reasonable on this site, then get your facts straight. 67 of 68 were dismissed outright.

As to Santorum's opposition to right to work, I don't like it any more than others here. However, I do recognize that is was an issue in 1995, That's right 1995. I wonder what Santorum has to say about his lack of support now. I wonder if he supports the NEW National Right to Work Act.

And to the Romney supporters who give him a pass on all of his anti-conservative actions because he was governing LIBERAL MA, then give Santorum some slack as he was from heavily democratic and heavily union PA.

I am not happy about Santorum's position on it, but I am asking Romney supporters to be fair to Santorum.

florin| 1.10.12 @ 1:16PM

Newt is showing himself to be more and more a vindictive, petty, self absorbed man who wants, not what is best for the country, but what is best for himself. And, Rush Limbaugh is spewing forth so much hate that I finally had to stop listening. Every time Limbaugh hears that a Republican might be able to work with Democrats , he goes berserk - Limbaugh wants all out war between the parties, between Americans. In marriage, no spouse can have it all his/her way...there must be compromise for the good of the family and for the good of the marriage. I'm an Independent, former Dem., traditional American and I believe many are tired of the hate and bitterness between the parties...who loses by this? American people and America. We don't have to give up our core principles but we do have to find areas where we can agree and build on that...you cannot build on a negative. And, there are many,many good and honorable men and women in both parties, only we don't hear much from them or about them because they work quietly in the background for the good of the country. Gingrich has declared he will destroy Romney; Limbaugh is inciting warfare between honorable men and women of both parties...he is urging party before country and he is coming to believe his own talking points - that he is a god and all must bow to him and take his counsel...beware of this man...power corrupts and he is becoming more and more corrupt and hateful...we need to work together. There are many pro-life Democrats...there are traditional Democrats just as there are liberal Republicans...no one, no party, can have their own way so let's work together for the real good of our country and of our people or we will see all that is good in American be destroyed...

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 1:31PM

Well I for one am perfectly happy with Newt's control of the GOP. How about the rest of you guys out there?/s

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 4:53PM

Meant to say Rushed control.

Konnie| 1.10.12 @ 2:08PM

Don't like Romney. Sure as hell don't like Ron Paul.

Konnie| 1.10.12 @ 2:08PM

Don't like Romney. Sure as hell don't like Ron Paul.

TommyFrisco| 1.10.12 @ 2:41PM

Ross, the title to your post says it all. You are propagandizing for Mitt Romney and you hope we buy into everything you say. No, I'm not buying it. I'd like to know more about Bain Capital, but you devoted your post to bashing Gingrich instead of giving us the facts. That tells me that you are on the wrong side of the argument.

I do know this:
1. Being an investor is not the same as being a business owner. The owner thinks long term. The investor typically wants a quick return.
2. Newt is being attacked for attacking Romney, not because the attackers really think Newt is anti-capitalist. There is no basis for that argument.

Who Knows?| 1.10.12 @ 2:49PM

“The Lord moves in mysterious ways.”

Maybe it would be wise to always let this biblical string of words be the rock of ages on which to understand the political universe---which is merely a manifestation of the Lord “moving”.

Nobody KNOWS!

Another core wonder that meets any “news”, such as the present iteration of Gingrich attacking Romney’s Bain history, is whether the one making the “news” is self consciously aware of their actions, or not. At present, most conservatives are taking Newt at his word—that is, they assume he REALLY believes what he’s saying.

But, what if he’s cleverer than that, and he’s totally sure that he is toast, which frees him up to play the primary “foil”? Could it be that he’s “prepping” Romney for what he’s about to get from the Obama crowd? Certainly, the Newtster can’t REALLY be too stupid to know that a Bain type company is bad for capitalism. Can he?

Whether Newt, Perry, or Huntsman know what they are doing, or not, in their dissing of Mitt’s “firing” statement, with almost a year to go until the general election, I say it’s a good thing for this clarity to happen. What’s the essential cause of our present political-economical problem, which has been worsening for many years?

Economic illiteracy!

What is direly needed is for the vast majority of Americans to WAKE UP about how capitalism works. Presently, most people are fellow travelers of Obama, in their utter ignorance about it.

It’s always a question of growing the economic pie, or not. THAT should be the first consideration---not divvying up the pie!

Change is natural. How amazing that people aren’t able to extend their own life’s experiences to the whole economy—practically everybody SOMETIME loses a job, and must find another one. It’s called creative destruction, and that’s the ONLY WAY to grow the economic pie.

So, I say---fight on, Newt! Continue to, either consciously or not, challenge Romney. Both push all your good ideas, AND play the fool by dancing on the edge of the liberal-conservative divide, in criticizing Mitt from the left.

One last insight---if Gingrich is anything, he is a KNOWER. The dominant characteristic of a college prof is being a specialist. And, thus is a know it all born. So, the smartest guy in the room, Gingrich, IN HIS OWN MIND, meets Parkinson’s Law.

You all remember that, right? That’s where someone rises to the level of their highest INCOMPETENCE. Yes, the successful rabble rousing backbencher, Representative Gingrich, DID rise to become House Speaker, and proved how true Parkinson’s Law is. And, NOW, running for president, he’s even trumping THAT!

What a mysterious GIFT from the Lord!

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 1.10.12 @ 2:58PM

Newt Gingrich said that we wanted to be the Anti-Romney, but now I understand what he meant. Newt Gingrich is the Anti-Republican. Rick Perry appears to be eyeing this prize as well and is trying to give our socialist loving Newt Gingrich a run for the money.

Never though that I would see the Republican front runner getting attacked from the left by other Republican candidates. So much for the "Big Tent" when you get socialists like Newt Gingrich.

Kade| 1.10.12 @ 3:00PM

Rush is now distorting Newt’s Bain criticism of Romney saying conservatives are attacking Capitalism and from the left --how can you attack Gordon Geko from the immoral left? No this attack is from principled and moral conservatives attacking a hatchet-man capitalist.

Robert| 1.10.12 @ 3:10PM

Gingrich is anti-America and pro-Jew.

David| 1.10.12 @ 3:14PM

Hey florin, don't be naiive. We cannot work with dems. Which of them will work with us? They march in lockstep and have since the Clintons were in office.

When Dole and Bob Michels and Arlan Specter and the Senator from Wyoming all worked with them for decades, what did we get? Through compromise the democrats moved the ball left. They always go for the whole ball of wax on an issue and then we compromise and give them 5 or 10 or 15 percent of what they wanted. Then republicans and conservatives claim victory.

What a bunch of idiots. We did not win - we lost. A little compromise here and a little there and we end up in precisely the position we are in. We have to roll back florin, not give more.

dougiex| 1.10.12 @ 3:15PM

Same problem. People who have milked at the government teat their entire lives have no idea the true rough and tumble of free enterprise, whether they are millionaires like Newt or poor people on welfare, it's the same mindset.

KateS| 1.10.12 @ 3:19PM

Rush Limbaugh is saying today that Newt is in this to deny Romney. Why doesn't Newt run as a third party candidate and forever stay away from the republicans. Sure seems like a dem operative to me...

REBEL| 1.10.12 @ 4:26PM

He is giving Romney his own medicine; as Mitt said in politics one has to have broad shoulders.

Kade| 1.10.12 @ 4:39PM

Newt is there to win period – what is wrong with Rush?

Rush today also defended so-called free trade today, which is the transfer and redistribution of our nation’s wealth and industry by anti-American, backroom trade deals to poorer countries and communist China. Rush is advocating international socialism.

inspectorudy| 1.10.12 @ 3:31PM

I understand where you people from Wall Street are coming from but don't make fools of yourselves. Bain was a leverage buyout company whose only goal was to make a profit. No problem with that. But when you try to make what the leverage companies do into some sort of national heroism then you are stupid. Sure it may be legal but is it what normal people with a heart and a brain would do? Frank Lorenzo was a buyout king in the 80's and he was a sorry SOB. He took Eastern Airlines over than sold or stole everything of any value then declared bankruptcy. Could he have run and improved Eastern? Sure but it was a lot easier to rape it and quicker. I do not fault Romney for what he did but can he be so stupid as to beat his chest over it? In this climate of HATE Wall Street I don't think that is a good idea. I wonder what your attitude would be if you had been with one of the companies that Bain bought and then raped and saw your pension go down the drain so that his "Boys" could show a tremendous profit. Rush made a fool of himself today by claiming that Newt was coming at Romney from the left! No, Newt is going after Mitt just like Mitt went after Newt. Payback is a bitch.
As to your suggestion that Newt has never run a company maybe you should tell the employees at the four businesses that he started, owns and runs today.

Kade| 1.10.12 @ 5:20PM

Good Info and post Insp. -- looks like Mittens really is Gordon Geko. Why are conservative hosts defending this immoral behavior-- it will doom the GOP ?

Anthony| 1.10.12 @ 3:42PM

Frankly I'm not too upset about Newt's leftist attacks against McWillard. McWillard caused this to happen, and now he is reaping the harvest of his attacks on Newt.
Playing with fire can get you burned McWillard. Didn't mommy tell you not to play with matches?
But Newt had better be careful however, his anti-capitalist attacks are not having universal approval from many conservatives, with good reason.
All this said, I don't think Obozo will be able to score any points using these ads in the future. Obozo is all in with the hard left. That's all he's got. Any moderate with 1/2 a brain will not support Obozo regardless of the blood sport going on between McWillard and Newt.
Conservatives will forgive Newt for his going after McWillard, and Newt will simply say he went over the top with going after McWillard.
Bottom line, Obozo is toast, unless there is massive voter fraud.

somnolence| 1.10.12 @ 4:12PM

Aside from his authoring books, Newt Gingrich has raked the American taxpayer over the coals for his income for an extravagant YEARLY sum for life, as has Paul and Santorum. I'm just about ready to burst out laughing at you people who speak of ANY congress person in pastoral term. I will give Santorum and Paul kudos for being better family men, with Santorum the slight edge for telling it like it is about social engineering.

Jack in Wi.| 1.11.12 @ 1:36AM

Ron Paul practiced medicine most of his life and does not participate in the Federal Pension program. He is the anti politician.

REBEL| 1.10.12 @ 4:24PM

As Romney said to Gingrich in Iowa "you have to have a broad shoulder to take it in politics". Gingrich will not be the nominee but I understand his bitterness and I hope his bloodletting will stop Romney too. Gingrich is not attacking capitalism he is attacking Romney's corelessness and hypocrisy. The Obama camp can not get more of a dream candidate than Romney. They love to have him to be the Republican nominee. No one suffices better to lose.

Bob| 1.10.12 @ 6:19PM

Bain won't be his bane but his first name will be W-I-L-L-A-R-D. Those of us old enough to remember of course mean the "Rat" movie from 1971. I can see Democratic operatives portraying Romney as the new leader of the rat pack, greedmonger devouring industry causing millions to lose their jobs. Here comes W-I-L-L-A-R-D the plague carrying king of the rats.

JimP| 1.10.12 @ 6:20PM

How ironic that so many of the people giving Newt a hard time about being "anti-capitalist" support a candidate [Romney] who is a big government, high tax, high regulation, creeping socialism politician that, given enough time, will kill capitalism. This is just another point that exposes the Newt attackers as hypocrits. Romney isn't for free markets as much as he is for markets under the control and for the primary benefit of the elites.

Kade| 1.10.12 @ 7:17PM

Now I just heard Britt Hume with a sour look quote Rush about Newt attacking capitalism -- looks like the establishment GOP media are circling the wagons trying to shut up Newt about Romney’s ruthless practices at Bain.

This is from another post and the GOP media is defending these tactics -- unbelievable:

Romney’s Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In
By Pat Garofalo on Jan 9, 2012 at 9:25 am

2012 GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney, who has a large lead in the polls heading into the New Hampshire primary tomorrow, has been taking heat from both Democrats and his Republican challengers for his time at Bain Capital, the private equity firm that he headed. Bain’s modus operandi was to invest in companies, leverage them up with debt, and then sell them off for scrap, allowing Bain’s investors to walk away with huge profits while the companies in which Bain invested wound up in bankruptcy, laying off workers and reneging on benefits.

Last week, Reuters profiled one company, Worldwide Grinding Systems, that went belly up after Bain invested in it. The company not only lost 750 jobs, but the federal government had to come in to bail out its pension fund, while Bain walked away with millions in profits.

And according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, this was far from an isolated incident. In fact, 22 percent of the companies in which Bain invested wound up either in bankruptcy or shutting their doors entirely, while Bain itself has made billions of dollars for its investors:

somnolence| 1.10.12 @ 9:40PM

It is called capitalism, and it is the economic system I prefer to live under.

somnolence| 1.10.12 @ 9:46PM

The feds also bailed out G.M. and myself and millions of others are waiting for the residual checks we earned as taxpaying "shareholders". Romney will destroy Obama with that reminder along with Solyndra, along with the half million returning G.I.' s who will be left in the unemployment lines. And that is just for starters in the 3.5 year infomercial against the Bamster that Romney's legions will have put together. Obama prevailing------SURE!!!

POST American| 1.10.12 @ 9:59PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

AGAIN, escape the 'ISM--prison'.

It's a phoney all cooked up by the
Victorian USURY psychopaths.
You know, the same bunch who
promoted control-freak psychopaths
Jeremy Bentham ---and Malthus.

SO drop 'Calm--you--nism'
-------------'SO--SHALL--ism'
---------------'Marks-ism'
-----------------'An-ARK--ism'
-------------------'SIN-dick-all--ism'
---------------------'CAP--'it'--ALL-ism'

Again, it's the 'ISM-prison' to CON-troll
your perceptions, and dictate your
CON-ceptions ---and thereby DIR-rect
your CON-clue-sions.

Keep those terms ---FREE MARKET
------------------------------FREE ENTERPRISE
and LIBERTY hoisted.

----------GET WITH THE DE-PROGRAM-----------

-------------------------------------------FAST!

AVCurmudgeon| 1.11.12 @ 2:48AM

Look. If someone -- Gingrich, Obama, whoever -- wants to go after Romney for the way Bain did business, that's fair game so long as the criticism is based in fact. But there are two things to note here.

First, Gingrich is playing the demagogue game. He knows what Romney meant, and he is deliberately twisting it.

But second, Romney has shown himself to be more than a bit of an idiot. To use the word "fire" in these times, with actual unemployment hovering around 18%? Just stupid. Say you want to be able to leave one insurance company for another if the first is not giving good service, and nobody can say "boo". Channel Trump, and you sound like a rich chump who doesn't even understand the power of words, especially the simple ones.

Someone in Romney's position should know better than to use hot-button words casually.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 1.11.12 @ 3:16AM

Ross -
Me thinks that you are needlessly soiling your underpants in a wet fart bunch over Newt's remarks and the PAC supporting him. You need to step back and chill out! Have you already forgotten the "innocence" of the Mitt Romney political million dollar propaganda campaign which was very recently leveled against Gingrich in Iowa?

You, like Rush Limbaugh are unreasonably upset. You readily jump to conclusions and illogically generalize. Both of you thereby go on your individual propaganda war paths, either by clearly insinuating and / or subtly accusing Newt Gingrich of being anti-capitalistic. I see nothing morally wrong with Gingrich's thinking that an employer should have a moral obligation to his employees. It's very easy for [so-called] "self made" business people to hide behind free enterprise and make cold hard decisions based only upon market and money.

You, Rush, and others, such as both of you, now do damage to the opposition Republican cause by equating Newt with Obama and the leftist extremists, and all their socialism. In short, you, Rush and the media propaganda peddlers, have over-reacted to Newt Gingrich and his new line of political (candidate) attack. You all need to begin to grow some tough political skin and quit attempting to unduly influence the voters from choosing their preferred GOP candidate choice.

And, here, for a moment (in the past) I thought (“new” media) pundits like you and Rush were reasonably content to believe American citizens could sort out the whole presidential campaign process. Too bad [now] that you and others are now acting more and more, like the liberal (extremist) news media……….

MainerDoc| 1.11.12 @ 5:04AM

I fully expect Newt to run a third party campaign once it becomes apparent that the GOP is not going to nominate him for the Presidency.

Jabber3| 1.11.12 @ 7:45AM

Newt is not only living in the past but embellishing his importance to past accomplishments that he calls transformational. He reminds me of someone who is constantly name dropping in order to make an attempt to impress an audience with their importance. He has not impressed enough because quite frankly he is not an impressive person. Newt does not give a hoot for anything except his own self aggrandizement. Newt will end up on the trash heap of histrionic politicians for his attack on America and capitalism.

Jonnie| 1.11.12 @ 1:36PM

Bill Kristol over at the Weekly Standard weighed in on this issue brilliantly. Intellectual lightweights please take notice and stop conflating criticism of Bain with criticism of capitalism.

"Criticism of any behavior by a private firm? Outrage! An Assault on Capitalism! Haven’t they read Schumpeter? Don’t they know the glories of Creative Destruction? And, of course, all such destruction must be assumed to be creative! Yikes. If this is where some in the conservative movement and the Republican party are inclined to go—four cheers for finance capitalism!—good luck. Indeed, it’s useful to flush out this tendency now, and subject it to debate. Because it’s a recipe for political disaster—and intellectual sterility."

- Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard

The full article:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....16568.html

Dmac| 1.11.12 @ 5:07PM

"show less an attack on Romney than attack on capitalism itself, something that should be anathema to a self-described "Reagan conservative."
Reagan despised the type of capitalism we have today. Reagan railed against the high salaraies CEO's and other corporate officers were making in the 80's and its ten time worse now. Do anyone really think Reagan would have allowed our 401K's to be robbed everytime the market goes up 200 points? Reagan fought against congress and the FTC when they changed the law and allowed people to buy a stock one day and sell it the next. He knew exactly what was going to happen. The small stock trader was going to be manipulted like never before, and thats exactly what has happened.
Regan loved thee middle class, and he truly wanted to help the poor lift themselves up. When Reagan was president blacks were finally getting into home ownership. Then along comes Bush and he destroys the black community by allwoing all the illegals in(remember, Reagans own party forced the 1986 amnesty bill on him and all asked for in return was that they learn english in two years or be deported) and blacks were losing there jobs left and right just so corporate America could make a better margin. Same thing when Bush gave the green light to send all the damn jobs to China. Hmm, and just who was Richard Nixon's ambassador to China? None other than Geaorge Bush. Makes one wonder doesn't it? Makes one wonder why we didn't attack Saudi Arabia after 9-11, again Bush senior has too many close realtion ships with the royal family and owns banks with them.
Reagan was not an elitist like Bush and Romney. Bush like Romney would sell your mother, wife or daughter if he thought he could profit from it or if it would do them some political good.
Reagan would not sell you out. There's a HUGE difference between Reagan and the clown running for president now.

Oldefarte| 1.11.12 @ 11:27PM

This whole political attack upon capitalistic methods and procedures is anti-American and anti-capitalism. His intended meaning was no doubt his desire to terminate non-productive companies, and was not directed at their futuristically unemployed workers. Should Solyndra have been continuously propped up by the government even though its operations were bleeding money/profits? Such anti-capitalistic comments are stupid and ludicrous in relation to the current administration's socialistic dislike of commerce/business [MILLIONAIRES & BILLIONAIRES ETC PROPAGANDA]. Ginguich or anyone else commenting thus is playing right into the Democrats/Obama's hand politically and providing future ammunition to be used from such quotations. It's bad enough that normal taxpayer-voters have to battle this corrupt socialism within their current governmental operations, but to also have to endure same from other Republicans is an outrage. If these selfish Republicans don't begin to put this country ahead of their own self-centered political desires, then should any of them be trusted with the potential power of the presidency? Are they worthy of our votes? Maybe JFK's words should be remembered: ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!

Mitch| 1.12.12 @ 1:03PM

Right on, Ross! We should be grateful as this type of family squabling hones the skills of the Republican nominee. I no longer feel Newt's knowledge frequent intelligence outweighs all. Furthermore, the "vulture capitalist" idea would be one of Obama's main attack strategies. If it can be refuted and shown to be false before it even gets to the vicious Obama campaign, Romney benefits greatly for such an early defusing of the issue.

jbb| 1.12.12 @ 1:20PM

So who is this Ross guy? He really has anger issues and should seek counseling. His article is full of "if", "may" and all manner of speculation. He obviously has quite a hatred of Gingrich...who has NOT given in to vicious attack ads. He has taken the higher road of ideas. You twist his words to get your own conclusion. And I'd be interested in knowing on what basis you judge what's immoral. According to who?
I didn't think the American Spectator stood for "assault speculation."

Randy131| 1.12.12 @ 2:56PM

Romney propaganda, simple to assess as that. If you watch the Bain Documentary video, that Obama's billion dollar machine will be broadcasting on the 3 major networks, during prime time, continuously through the campaign, if Romney becomes the Republican candidate. This alone should show you why Romney is the true unelectable one in the Republican field, and that the Republicans don't need another compromising cut-throat conservative, as Mitt Romney certainly is, but a compassionate conservative, such as Ronald Reagan was, in order to win the White House. Gingrich is most like Reagan than any of the other Republican Candidates, and is trying to warn Republicans of what to expect if they choose Romney as the Republican candidate. After watching the Bain Documentary video, already in the public domain, no American will have the confidence that Romney will look after their benefit, before he takes care of himself and his rich supporters, for all will know that the country and it's people, being one and the same, will come after Romney's wealth, every time. It's not about 'Capitalism', as the Romney camp wants us to think, but how he applied 'Capitalism', that only enriched Romney and his investors, by destroying people's jobs and their lives. A good CEO does what it takes to look after his employees, as well as his investors, but knows that the employees are the ones who make the money for the investors.

somnolence| 1.12.12 @ 5:57PM

Sorry, the unemployment crisis, as exemplified today with a marked increase in new claims filed, has happened on Comrade Obama's watch, along with Solyndra, electric car subsidies, and the G.M. union bailout along with waivers from Obamacare directed at favorite unions. Romney's organization will counter with that for 3 months in the midst of the campaign, perhaps with G.I. s returning home also thrown aside. Obama is nothing, because he has nothing to run on in achievements. The election focus, as Romney is already shrewdly planning, will be solely on Barack Obama's war on the U.S.A.

POST American| 1.12.12 @ 11:02PM

-------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------

See through the engineered haze of
capstone perception management.

Unaccountable INTER-national USURY
is ABOMINATION ramped up into full-blown
paychopathy.

Nothing good, lasting or true can EVER
come of it ----EVER.

It is empowered by, upholds and aggressively
promotes DV---ants.

'Sexual Liberation' is, ultimately. nothing more
than elimination via sex.

On every level, TREASON is its modus operandi.

EUGENICS is its long term aim.

Gingrich/ Romney/ Hunstmen et al
---are of them.

----------------MAKE NO MISTAKE-------------------

S. Winkel| 1.12.12 @ 11:44PM

At least Newt has guts to protect our Country. You wait till Iran gets done with their bomb. Our Country is in deep trouble and we want to go from a Musslim to a Mormon. I wander if we can marry 4 or 5 men. They get to marry 5 or 6 women. Gee bet you guys will like that. The people in this country are going crazy. I remember when the people at the Church said they were going to vote for Obama because he said Change. I told them that when the Anti-Christ came he would be able to get them easy. All he has to do is make a few promisses and they will follow him straight to (well). Well, go ahead and vote for another nut case, you'll get what you ask for.....

Morpheus| 1.14.12 @ 7:09AM

Newt Gingrich is a nice little Catholic boy with three successive wives which he dumps each time they cease to look beautiful. I would rather take Santorum or Romney over him. Second, a polygamist with one wife of over forty years is better than a monogamist who has to dump wife after wife.

Brian Richard Allen | 1.13.12 @ 2:15PM

On November 13 1995, then besquatter and bemanurerer of our once white house, Boy Blythe, ("Cli'ton") vetoed a continuing resolution and debt-ceiling raising -- and shut down the feral gummint. His popularity plummeted and he was surely headed for electoral defeat.


On November 15 1995, though, the shutdown's second day, then speaker, Mr Gingrich, demonstrated his infantile immaturity by, at a "press breakfast," whining to the fascist media that on a flight from Israel on Air Force One, Boy Clinton had "insulted" him by making him leave the plane, with the DNCpress and with the other "help," via the rear door.


The DNCmedia had a field day hollering that "Cry Baby Gingrich" had shutdown the government from spite. The public then blamed Gingrich and the Republicans for Clinton's shutdown, reelected the boy presidential pretender -- and terrified the Republicans as to the consequences of ever again courageously handling the House of Reps' fiscal responsibilities! Hence the frequently Barak-bonered but otherwise boneless Boehner and his budgetless brood.

Here's that era's best major-newspaper anti-Newt front page:
http://www.tothepointnews.com/.....-16-95.png

video converter ultimate| 1.17.12 @ 1:59AM

Edit Scanned PDF,
Photo Slideshow to DVD

More Articles by Ross Kaminsky

More Articles From Special Report

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

May 21, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

May 16, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/10/anti-romney-or-anti-capitalism

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|129 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.