It’s Florida’s big day to have a voice in this race, and already there’s a strange, de’ja’vu-ish sort of thing going on as I have flashbacks to Rick Scott’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign, wherein many of the same observations can be made.
If Floridians award our fifty delegates to Mitt Romney as a protest to Newt’s 1997 ethics violations in Congress, it would be the height of hypocrisy, since this is the same state that put Naples millionaire Rick Scott in the governor’s mansion right on the heels of his own HCA scandal, the largest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history. That case ended with the hospital giant paying a record $1.7 billion in damages.
That wasn’t a concern for the majority of Florida voters, but Newt’s multiple marriages and his troubles with Congress in 1997 may trump that in favor of Romney, whose own life seems to mirror many of the same attributes as Scott.
Both 2010 Rick Scott and 2012 Mitt Romney are millionaire business men who have absolutely put profit over pretense to climb the ladder of success, and have had to possess egos the size of Mt. Kilimanjaro to do it.
The moral of the story: As Florida heads to the polls, don’t think for a moment that Mitt-the-Mormon is in any way more ethical than Newt Gingrich.
Don’t believe me? Let us hearken back to the campaign trail of two years ago and see the remarkable and eerily familiar comparisons between presidential candidate Mitt Romney and gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott:
Marc Caputos’ 2010 article from the Tampa Bay Times, could in so many ways be about Mitt Romney today:
“Rick Scott’s campaign for the Florida governor’s mansion is starting to look like his latest business acquisition. In the 1990s, Scott exploded on the business scene and reshaped the hospital industry thanks to financial moxie, relentless drive and a salesman’s knack for exploiting opportunities missed by others.”
By comparison, Mitt Romney’s FL campaign in the presidential primary is starting to look like his latest business acquisition. He’s ahead in the polls largely because he is outspending his opponents by tens of millions of dollars in glitzy ads that eviscerate his main competition, Newt Gingrich, rather than focusing on his own solutions. At least 17 of the 24+ million dollars spent in Florida have been from the Romney campaign, and as a result, Romney has been able to reshape the political scene and promote his ObamaCare agenda thanks to his financial moxie, relentless drive and a salesman’s knack for exploiting opportunities missed by others.” (Yep, that sounds familiar).
According to a recent piece in Forbes Magazine, “RomneyCare was more of an insurance bill than a means to cut healthcare costs…to pay for the extra coverage, the state had to find an additional $350 million from its own budget. On balance, RomneyCare costs Massachusetts an extra $100 million a year from its state budget. Not bad for a state with a $30 million budget.”
But will Floridians get the message before it’s too late? Not likely, as the comparison of the voting history continues.
Regarding Rick Scott’s campaign for Governor:
“Those attributes have made the Naples millionaire the frontrunner for governor today. A political newcomer, Scott unexpectedly entered the race in April, hired a top-notch campaign staff and leveraged his sizable fortune to surge ahead of Attorney General Bill McCollum in the Aug. 24 Republican primary…”
Likewise, those attributes have made Massachusetts millionaire Mitt Romney the frontrunner for president today. As Romney entered the race, he hired a top-notch campaign staff and leveraged his sizable fortune to surge ahead of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (leveraged a little and raised a lot from super PACS and millionaire buddies). It seems that he who has the most cash wins, regardless of his record on the issues.
Regarding Scott: “As head of the mammoth Columbia/HCA hospital chain in the 1990s, Scott acknowledges, he was “responsible” for what became the largest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history, totaling $1.7 billion.
Romney: While he understandably tries to push a moral issue down the throats of FL voters regarding Newt Gingrich’s ethics violations in 1997, let’s face it: if FL voters can usher in Rick Scott after his HCA scandal but can’t move on from Newt’s ’97 debacle, then Floridians get what they deserve when Romney is elected and slams them with a huge health care mandate just like his buddy Barack Obama. They’ll also have no room to complain when Romney goes to bed with China in a business-as-usual scenario that will be full of campaign rhetoric but will end up with Romney-style profiteering.
The similarities are painfully obvious. But, just like Governor Scott, Romney brushes off accusations that his campaign feels more confident spewing venom and vitriol against Gingrich than focusing on the solutions Romney offers for the economy or other issues (Isn’t it amazing, folks, how quickly the devout Mormon can turn ugly when power and ego are on the line)?
And, like Governor Scott, the Romney sees the criticism as trivial:
“Scott, 57, brushes it off – sometimes literally, by waving his hand as if shooing gnats.” Likewise, Romney brushes off Newt’s accusations (or any other for that matter) with a flippant wave and a smirk, shrugging it off as just being the ugly side of politics. This week he even had the low class to say that he “felt sad” for Gingrich, hearkening to some kind of school yard thug who can’t make a point based on his own merits but instead finds strength through demeaning others.
More flashbacks from Caputo’s article:“Scott is a study in polarizing contrasts: he’s arrogant or humble. He’s a visionary who wants to revolutionize health care, or he’s blinded by ambition and a lust for profits.”
Sound familiar?? When it suits him, Romney is the humble Mormon family man, and when it doesn’t, he’s a cutthroat egotistical profiteer who’s out to win at all costs, no matter who he has to pay, what he has to say, or how he has to pray.
Perhaps Kenneth Rapoza says it best in Forbes when he laments the predictions of Gringrich regarding his own campaign:
“I believe the Republican Party will not nominate a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase moderate from Massachusetts,” Gingrich said after attending a Baptist church in Lutz, Florida.
Rapoza: “Oh, yes they will.”
To that I plead: Say it ain’t so, Florida, say it ain’t so…
It’s also a state that counts Alcee Hastings, who was ousted from the federal bench for taking bribes, as a member of its congressional delegation.
Well, here’s hoping Rapoza is wrong. At least Newt got one vote from me just a few minutes ago. Had a hard time seeing Rick Perry still listed on the ballot and not marking him though.
To discuss Romney’s record as a businessman is to come out firmly in opposition to capitalism.
So let’s discuss his record as a politician: he has serially attacked every Republican who has every challenged him, Guiliani, Thompson, Huckabee, McCain, Perry, Cain and now Newt. The negativeity is unbounded. He has never won a contest of ideas, but has won several contests of ruthlessly negative ads.
Win at all costs is the theme of his political life…when it comes to fellow Republicans.
So why would anybody think that it wasn’t the theme of his business career as well.
What I want to know is where are the testimonials to his business success? After 5 years of running for president, where are the business leaders who praise his efforts to turn their companies around? You would think there would be hundreds of them. Where are the videos of the people thanking him for saving their jobs? You would think there would be thousands of them. We know he made a fortune in business, surely there must be legions of people who know exactly how he applied his business skills to save their businesses and to “save the country”…because that is the claim. Why isn’t anybody explaining the details?
Of course, maybe he will be as ruthless in attacking obama as he was in making his fortune and in running for president.
Anybody want to bet?
There’s no reason to think that Romney won’t be “ruthless” in going after Obama. But the reality is that there is a heavy media bias in favor of Democrats in general and Obama in particular. We’ve seen to what lengths they will go to obfuscate the truth, either by distorting reality in attacking the GOP candidate or ignoring reality by covering up Obama’s mistakes. This same media is perfectly happy to let one GOP nominee attack another GOP nominee but that will not be the case in the general election. So it’s clear that Romney has no problem being “ruthless” but it’s also true that in a general election he must always be mindful of how an “attack” will be portrayed. Newt’s problem is that he shoots from the hip first and only thinks about it afterwards. It’s not enough just to attack Obama constantly…but they must be well-crafted attacks that can minimize and withstand the blatant distortion and hostility with which the media will inevitably respond.
Newt and Mitt were on Hannity last night, separate interviews. Sean asked them both the same questions, including one about how they would go after obama.
To paraphrase, Newt said his standard response that he would contrast the food-stamp president against a jobs president. He will expose the lifelong radical Alinsky tactics of a committed radical to the centuries long principles of the founders.
Mitt said he would challenge the record of the president. About five more times, he talked about his record and how he has failed. At least this time, Mitt didn’t praise him for being such a nice guy. McLame redo. These people are idiots.
Well, if the economy is such a disaster in November that Micky Mouse could win, then Mickey Mitt would do just fine. And he would do it by being very respectful too.
He only trashes Republicans, you know.
Gingrich is simply not electable. His lack of character is a big part of that, but not the only factor. If Florida goes with Romney it will have made the correct choice.
Even Moira, the ultimate McRomney hack, can’t bring herself to say anything good about Romney.
Here, if you read through the lines, she implies that Mitt’s character is bettr than Newt’s.
I guess she discounts that fact that all McRomney does is bludgeon his Republican opponents to death, with zero regard to anything but winning.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/george-soros-not-much-difference.html
George Soros is saying no difference between Obama and Romney. Maybe Creepy Dude is stirring up trouble, but there are serious doubts about this with the conservative base. All the more reason for this process to continue to the convention. Santorum needs to stay in. The only way to have this open is for Gingrich, Santorum and Paul to take enough delegates so it has to go to the convention. Claiming Romney won now and not letting this process vet out would be a big mistake by the GOP establishment.
Just because nobody can say very much positive about Promney…doesn’t mean they want to join the Newtonian Implosion, where we blow up the free market just to destroy the Mummney.
http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2012/01/30/gingrich_baggage_gives_voters_pause_in_panhandle
People are flocking away from the Newtonian Implosion in droves. The raging, frothing, foaming mad dog attacks don’t seem to have a wide appeal. In fact, they are having the exact opposite effect.
Congratulations Newtonian Imploders! YOU…are getting Promney elected.
Keep up the good snarling!
In other news…ALL the “A” teamers are sitting at home saying “Now do you see why I didn’t want to join in this humiliating farce?”
Another post without a single positive thing to say about McRomney.
But on another thread, their is a poster with something good to say. Slight paraphrase “Mitt is good at tacking into the wind”.
Oh please — Newt Gingrich for president? While Newt was Speaker of the House in the 1990s he behaved so erratically that the House Republicans could no longer stand having him in charge — so they forced him out of office. Has he changed or mellowed since then? The evidence suggests not. At the beginning of his nomination run his entire staff quit — they couldn’t stand him as their boss either. Their replacements flubbed up the requirements for getting him on the primary ballot in Virginia and Missouri. That is the second sign of a bad boss — things go wrong because only incompetents are willing to work for him. Newt Gingrich has a first-rate mind (for a politician) and a third-rate temperament. Note that the greatest presidents in US history — such as FDR and Reagan — have been described by their contemporaries as just the opposite, as having first-rate temperaments and third-rate minds (probably because when a great president does in fact have a first-rate mind he is politically astute enough to hide it.) Given the evidence, we can confidently predict that Newt Gingrich would be the opposite of a great president.
Let’s ignore the national polls as well.
In EVERY category, Gingrich is a loser. EVERY, SINGLE… CATEGORY.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152348/Romney-Seen-More-Presidential-Sincere-Gingrich.aspx
Of course (harrummph), this is meaningless because (cough, cough) polls 40 years ago showed a likeable Reagan (shift, squirm), was losing to Carter (stutter, stammer) and therefore, ergo, we MUST avert our gaze, avoid looking at facts and come to the conclusion (snicker, sneer) that ONLY Gingrich is going to “save the day”.
EVERY. SINGLE. CATEGORY.
They BOTH suck.
“B” teamers.
But being NOT for one…does NOT equate in the “other” being Mr. Wonderful.
Gingrich is going in the wrong direction ….his big mouth, his lunatic fringe daydreams, and his mad dog attack temperament are turning off voters in droves.
It’s Santorum’s turn to try to be the “not Romney”.
In the Bonfire of the Inanities (also known as the Republican primaries), we have successfully trashed the Republican brand, sold out the free market and raised a small c communist President’s chances in a collapsed economy.
Lovely.
I’m sure Ford’s supporters thought Reagan sucked.
Wow, were they ever as wrong as you are.
Why call only Romney voters hypocritical? The choice between Romney and Gingrich is a choice between six of one and a half dozen of the other.
Gingrich has clear advantages. For one thing, he never led the takeover of the healthcare industry in his state as governor–while still claiming that’s a wonderful thing–and Gingrich did more shrink the federal government then any one else alive.
And Romney’s supporters are so dishonest they claim Newt is a threat to the free market.
They told us Romney was inevitable — then he lost Iowa and South Carolina. Now they tell us he’s electable, glossing over the fact that Sarah Palin had out-electable’d him before even running for governor of Alaska.
This is getting ridiculous. The difference between Romney and Gingrich are about as stark as the difference between vanilla and french vanilla. I could understand getting worked up if there was a clear choice, like Romney-Ryan or Gingrich-Palin but getting this fired up over these two? Really? Look, one of these two will be the nominee and whoever it is will be an upgrade over our SCOAMF-in-Chief, albiet not as much of an upgrade as I would have liked. In the meantime, lets try to get a bit of perspective here, mkay?