Up for Debate: Romney looks forward, Gingrich looks deep

Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 1:00am

Mitt Romney, following primary wins Tuesday night, turned his attention squarely toward defeating President Barack Obama this fall. Newt Gingrich told CNN that he would need to take a "deep look at what we are doing" before going on. As Romney and Obama square off, what lines of attack will come out of each camp? What are the strengths and weaknesses of both? Whose camp is better suited for the battle ahead? 

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

127 Comments on this post:

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 7:53

Black liberation theology is a political movement not a religious movement... and it's comparable to Islam.

The Mormon cult is religious movement founded on a morality very compatible with the morality of Christianity. Mormonism is noted for a lot of its crazy rituals but so are the Masons and any number of other organizations who on net contribute to society.

As far as we know Obama is an upstanding and morally righteous guy willfully blinded to the benefits of the capital economy over socialism/Marxism by a strong morality of care that doesn't see any further than direct charity (charity, as he defines it, with other people's money).

It's a shallow morality that ignores the idea of 'teaching a man to fish' and is bolstered by a huge cognitive rationalization of anything that supports direct redistribution and denies anything that might be beneficial about growing the overall framework. 'Equal' is more important than an overall good and the overall good may be sacrificed for equality... even when it hurts the people you purport to help.

By: bfra on 4/25/12 at 7:55

Gdifante - I note that Rasputin72 dotes on someone's net worth, he must be in the low income bracket.

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 8:03

I don't really judge a person by their net worth. I don't care. There's more to life than that.

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 8:04

Careful, children. It's too easy to be quick on correcting someone's error when you're making errors yourselves. And errors are made too often when you're correcting someone else.

By: dargent7 on 4/25/12 at 8:08

I think the Mormon Temple situation came up 3 years ago in TCP.
Someone here asked what "church" was that on I-5, in La Jolla.
I lived in Del Mar (most fantastic, beautiful city in America, IMO).
...for the 1st week after the JCLDS OPENING, they had "the community" invited to take a look.
Then, it was sealed off to the public.
All I'm saying is Romney castrated cos., made a fortune, wears two sets of underware, has "magic eyeglasses", and is a convert to a cult, not unlike Scientologists.
And has 5 sons, ALL of military age, who never enlisted in wars he championed.
The guy stinks to high heaven.
If this type of person wins on Nov. 6th, we're all F***. He will certainly start a nuclear war, thinking it's God's plan and he'll become as God, same as God.
Putting these religious zealots in the Oval Office is a crime against humanity.
Haven't we learned that with GW Bush, his daddy, since 1991, for Christ's sake?

By: pswindle on 4/25/12 at 8:12

Mitt does not have any ideas or policies, he just critizes President Obama. He will do to America as a whole as he did as a Bane employee. He said that he likes to fire people, you had better hang on to your hats if he is elected. He will trun the US into Bane policies. He does not care for people, he is selfish and self-centered. We need to dig deeper into the Morman Regilion. I'm not sure we will like what we find. I have a relative by marrigae that is Morman.

By: Moonglow1 on 4/25/12 at 8:15

Moonglow1:
Romney is a drip
He will never be hip
A fake through and through
How will he be good for you

Gingrich the clown
Time to drown
Fly him to the moon
With Romney's silver spoon

By: slacker on 4/25/12 at 8:16

If Obama happened to be a Mormon, somehow it would be ok.

By: Rasputin72 on 4/25/12 at 8:18

gdiafante......Why don't you enligten me as to what proper grammar should be?

By: bfra on 4/25/12 at 8:19

d-7 - I ask about a beautiful building I has seen from the interstate between LA & San Diego. It looked like it was made of sugar, beautiful and was told it was the Morman temple. Googled it and it is now only open for Mormans

By: slacker on 4/25/12 at 8:24

bfra, you can visit, but no saggy pants or ''Daisy Dukes'' allowed.

By: bfra on 4/25/12 at 8:25

oops! Grammar or spelling? building I had seen

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 8:25

Rasp, see Umm's post earlier. He summed it up quite well.

By: slacker on 4/25/12 at 8:30

Rasp, sometimes your participle dangles.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 8:32

BenDover:
Barack Obama, 4.5 Trilllion more in debt,
Plus he respent the TARP; and he's not done yet,
It's only three and a half years and he wants more time
Obama won't be done 'til he spends the last dime

He'll increase the taxes on the wealthy with glee
decrease them on the poor and charge you and me
for when the Bush cuts expire, we'll all have to pay
a highly progressive tax structure is the Obama way.

From the haves to the have nots... he'll move money around
indiscriminate redistribution is the best deal in town.
Forget thresholds and needs to qualify for a safety net
indiscriminate redistribution is the best plan yet!

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 8:36

Carmel by the Sea is a much prettier town than Del Mar, dargent7.

By: slacker on 4/25/12 at 8:38

I'll hold my nose and vote for ''Mittens''
His business gravitas has me smitten.
-Barbosol

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 8:43

BenDover,

History has shown too many people love being given a handout free of charge than going to work for a living.

According to the last data I noticed there was over 47 percent of the people on welfare. The question then: How many would quickly take a job if they had an opportunity? And how many would take a job that would pay less than their welfare?

My answer to the last 2 questions? Less than one half of one percent. Their reasons? Why work for less when I can get more for nothing?

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 8:47

According to the last data I noticed there was over 47 percent of the people on welfare.

Please cite your source.

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 8:50

Rasputin72,

I believe the young people on this site believe they know so much more about [you name it] than the old folks that's already been down the road. And they aren't willing to admit a mistake and take a correction on their error.

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 8:56

And they aren't willing to admit a mistake and take a correction on their error.

Priceless, coming from the source...lol

By: Moonglow1 on 4/25/12 at 8:57

Moonglow1: Do we really want a venture capitalist as our President? How many dumb CEOs are paid millions even when their company tanks. We reward failure and then promote them.

By: slacker on 4/25/12 at 9:02

Moonglow, I'm not enthused with Romney, but he might invigorate job growth.
Maybe not. We're screwed.

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 9:05

I was willing to go with Romney before the nomination process...now I'm not so sure...

I'd say we're screwed...

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 9:06

gdiafante,

I'll readily admit, I don't write down memos, notes and all the evidence I can get my hands on to make a comment on a subject. I read newspapers and magazines and listen to news casts on radio and television. Unless you're in the middle of the news cast, that's the only place you can get your "news".

And no, I don't make notes of it so I can pass that news on to imbecilic people who can't read or listen. I can only presume my brain has enough left up there to influence my memory of what I've heard on the news and what I've read elsewhere.

I can only guess, mistakenly, you don't have the same mode of brain as I.

My attitude is: I'll take a man for his word, unless, and until, I can prove him wrong; legally or technically.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 9:06

I think the stat. is that people on welfare have increased by around 47% under Obama and 49% of households are receiving some kind of federal benefit (not surprising if you don't break out Social Security and Medicare).

Food stamps are at around 15% of the households compared to around 8% average over the previous 40 years.

http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/01/27/welfare-food-stamp-rolls-soar-under-obama/

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 9:12

I don't think there should be any surprise that welfare increased since the bottom fell out in 2008...it's common knowledge that the recovery has been uber slow.

But, look at the data Ben...that 49% include unemployment benefits...and the number was 44% the year before Obama became President.

So, there's an increase of 5%...during a severe economic contraction...yeah, I'd say that is a duh moment.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 9:17

I'm just providing the numbers GD it's you who wants to wrap your rationalizations around them to bolster your predispositions.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 9:26

.And technically the math of an increase from 44% to 49% is about an 11% jump. Just like if a number doubled from 25% to 50% it would be a 100% jump not 25%.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 9:28

Gingrich is out.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-25/gingrich-to-suspend-campaign-after-tough-primary

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 9:31

Fine, 11%, still not unexpected, except to you conspiracy nuts.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 9:35

Do you disagree Obama was running around saying he'd bankrupt the coal industry, proposing a Cap and Trade VAT that would tax every level of production in this country and was touting doubling the capital gains taxes out of 'fairness'?

Then the sh*t really hit the fan when it turned out he really meant all this populist pablum and wasn't just spouting it as rhetoric to get elected.

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 9:38

Question, gdiafante: If you agree with me on Rubio as you stated in your 7:28 post, why do you not agree with me on Obama for the same reason?

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 9:38

The rationalization, Ben, is that no matter who was elected in 2008, due to the economic conditions, welfare recipients were going to increase.

The issue should be if the 11% increase represents legitimate effort to expand the welfare state or a reaction to extraordinary circumstances.

Don't worry, I know you think it's a Marxist conspiracy...

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 9:40

Reading comprehension, yogi. I agreed that birthers would have a problem with it. I didn't say I did.

By: slacker on 4/25/12 at 9:41

Ben, Newt's depressed. He's gonna have to go back to Motel 6, on his book signing tours. Clerk... make sure you wake me, and whats her name here, for the Continental breakfast. lol

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 9:42

Again, Ben, I think investors were worried about much greater things than election rhetoric...like watching banks fail...unless I missed the part where Lehman's demise was due to non-implemented rhetoric about the coal industry...

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 9:46

Believe Obama's promises and fulfillment of these promises had no effect if you like GD. It's a delicate balance keeping investors in growth investments and not running for cover in precious metals and bonds.

Just like it's a delicate balance to keep that second earner working when, due to taxes and other considerations, it makes as much sense for them to stay home, fire the babysitter, the housekeeper, and the lawn boy; and then play defense with the family budget instead of keeping working, spending excess in the economy and playing offense.

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 9:49

Just like it's a delicate balance to keep that second earner working when, due to taxes and other considerations, it makes as much sense for them to stay home, fire the babysitter, the housekeeper, and the lawn boy; and then play defense with the family budget instead of keeping working, spending excess in the economy and playing offense.

As Bill Maher would say, dispatches from the bubble. This is why there's a disconnect, Ben. I can count on one hand how many working people I know that this would apply to.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 9:52

But what you will find is that those people are the ones actually paying substantial federal income taxes, gd.

By: Kosh III on 4/25/12 at 9:54

"unless I missed the part where Lehman's demise was due to non-implemented rhetoric about the coal industry..."

Don't forget that it was the collapse of BearStearns in MARCH 2008 that signaled the start of the Bush Recession; so there was no mythical fear-of-Obama as Ben proposes--the presumed nominee at that point was Clinton.

It takes time and money to clean up an 8 year mess.....

By: Ummm... on 4/25/12 at 9:59

Bennie, here's more information from Christy Romero (the TARP Inspector General) to disabuse you of your oft-repeated misconceptions:

"It is a widely held misconception that TARP will make a profit," she writes right at the top of her 327-page report. "The most recent cost estimate for TARP is a loss of $60 billion. Taxpayers are still owed $118.5 billion (including $14 billion written off or otherwise lost)."

That directly contradicts the Treasury Department's repeated claims that the government will eventually at least break even on the bailout. So far, the government has gotten back about $300 billion of the $414 billion it has paid out to banks, but some banks paying back TARP have simply used other government money to do so, as The Huffington Post and the Wall Street Journal have reported.

Have you got it straight now, Bennie? Oh well, to use your earlier adolescent comeback- whatever.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 10:09

So what you are saying, Ummm, is that after the most recent machinations it's $300 billion in TARP repayments that have been blown by the Obama administration and not $400 billion?

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 10:14

I guess it says, also, that the net of the $414B was shelled out in crony deals by the administration that the taxpayers have little hope now of ever recovering.

Is that about right?

By: Ummm... on 4/25/12 at 10:14

No, Bennie, what I am saying is that you apparently have no idea what you're talking about- as if that comes as a shock to anyone.

By: bfra on 4/25/12 at 10:53

yogi - My attitude is: I'll take a man for his word, unless, and until, I can prove him wrong; legally or technically.
============================================

Now that's funny!

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 11:21

Funny only to fools, bfra. If its funny to you, do you take everyone as a liar until its proven to you what they said was true?

On that basis, can anyone prove anything to you unless you already know it?

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 11:35

Umm...Ben isn't naive about TARP, at least I hope not. I'm not sure anyone really thought the taxpayer would recoup the bailouts...and if they did, I have a bridge to sell them in NY.

By: Ummm... on 4/25/12 at 11:40

gd, this is what Bennie said yesterday:

"To my knowledge, also, I'm the only one who points out that the TARP spending to banks that everyone was outraged about under Bush has been repaid with interest..."

Maybe you've found a customer...

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 11:41

Did you fail to comprehend the last two posts I made Ummm? It seems you made my case for me and then said, "HA!"... "SEE!"... It would seem you have yet to learn how little you know.