Ted Frier

Ted Frier
April 02
Ted Frier is an author and former political reporter turned speechwriter who at one time served as communications director for the Massachusetts Republican Party, helping Bill Weld become the first Bay State Republican in a generation to be elected Governor. He was Chief Speechwriter for Republican Governor Paul Cellucci and Lt. Governor Jane Swift. Ted is also the author of the hardly-read 1992 history "Time for a Change: The Return of the Republican Party in Massachusetts." So, why the current hostility to the Republican Party and what passes for conservatism today? The Republican Party was once a national governing party that looked out for the interests of the nation as a whole. Now it is the wholly-owned subsidiary of self interest. Conservatism once sought national unity to promote social peace and harmony. Now conservatism has devolved into a right wing mutation that uses divide and conquer tactics to promote the solidarity of certain social sub-groups united against the larger society while preserving the privileges of a few.


Ted Frier's Links

Editor’s Pick
JANUARY 11, 2012 2:58PM

Gingrich pulls back curtain on "predatory" capitalism

Rate: 10 Flag

You mean the wealthy on Wall Street aren't benevolent "job creators" after all and that one of the pirate captains flying the Jolly Roger of buccaneer capitalism is a "predatory corporate raider" who goes by the name of Mitt Romney? Who knew?

In boardrooms across America, the plutocrats are freaking out. Their carefully plotted strategy of making the 2012 election a referendum between economic "freedom" and suffocating "big government" is being blown to smithereens by that infamous bomb-thrower, Newt Gingrich, who is detonating the idea that unsupervised laissez faire capitalism is the unmitigated blessing its cheerleaders at the Wall Street Journal have always claimed it to be.

I guess I spoke too soon when I wrote the other day that an entire philosophical tradition of conservative anti-capitalism had been lost now that the Republican Party has made itself into the wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street. But how was I to know Newt Gingrich was about to launch a jihad against the black magic of compound interest?

Gingrich is the guy, remember, who closed down the government in order to stick it to President Clinton for a perceived slight he suffered on Air Force One. So, why should we be surprised that Gingrich would lay waste to 30 years of supply-side mythology if doing so let him get back at that spoiled rich kid who used daddy's money to torment him in Iowa?

This is what everyone in the Republican Party was afraid from the start Gingrich would do to them given his well-known MO, says Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Destroy them utterly if they declined to nominate him."

And with a $5 million in the bank thanks to right-wing casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, Gingrich now has lots of money to put to use the Karl Rove strategy of inflicting maximum pain by hitting an opponent right where he's strongest. And in South Carolina Gingrich intends to hit Mitt Romney where he is strongest, specifically by pulling down all those statues erected to "The Job Creator from Bain Capital."

The political effect of these attack ads, says New York magazine's Jon Chait, is to tear down Romney's carefully-crafted image in such a way that "his private-sector experience becomes an indicator -- not that he will fix the economy -- but that he will help the already-rich. It's a smash-you-over-the-head blunt message, with ominous music and storybook dialogue."

And according to the transcript of the ad Gingrich plans to run: "Mitt Romney was not a capitalist during his reign at Bain. He was a predatory corporate raider. His firm didn't seek to create value. Instead, like a scavenger, Romney looked for businesses he could pick apart. Indeed, he represented the worst possible kind of predator, operating within the law but well outside the bounds of what most real capitalists consider ethical.....He and his friends at Bain were bad guys. Any real capitalists should disavow Romney's 'creative destruction' model that made him wealthy at the expense of thousands of American jobs."

This is brutal stuff that plays right into President Obama's hands as he portrays the GOP as the Party of the One Percent unconcerned with the fate of the other 99%, says Drum.  It also undermines the whole trickle-down rationale underpinning finance capitalism.

The supply-side oligarchs who rule the Republican Establishment are beside themselves as they circle the wagons against this madman from Georgia, who not only says Wall Street plutocrats who preach the virtues of capitalism have no clothes but that the clothes they do have on order are being imported from Chinese sweat shops which pay slave wages to child coolie labor.

The day before voters went to the polls in New Hampshire's primary, the Wall Street Journal reported that the right wing Club for Growth reflected the shock among conservatives when it went after Gingrich for his "disgusting" attacks against Romney and his record at Bain Capital.

The group's president, former Rep. Chris Chocola (R-Ind), said in a written statement: "Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported 'Reagan conservative.'"

Like smart traders who buy low and sell high, America's plutocracy has profited spectacularly from the yawning gap which exists between the values used by the public to judge and reward economic behavior and the public's understanding of the revolutionary changes in the economy over the past 30 years that have made those values obsolete.

When conservatives talk about the virtue of competition and "entrepreneurship," for example, they are exploiting the ignorance of a public that still believes America's economy is dominated by people who make things and so thinks rewards should naturally go to those who can make things faster, better, cheaper.

As a reader on Andrew Sullivan's Daily Beast site put it: "Most Americans appreciate a free market system in which those that produce the best goods and services at the best value should be successful and become wealthy. However, when people become fabulously wealthy at the expense of others while producing nothing but investment gain for the investors, I think most Americans take pause."

Yet, as economic historian Kevin Phillips notes, Wall Street is no longer the servant of Main Street where profits are confined to the earnings it can make by providing capital to entrepreneurs and businesses to invest in real things and good ideas. Today, financial firms earn more than 40% of all corporate profits and command a quarter of stock market capitalization -- up from just 6% when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 - largely because of the powers Wall Street's been given from deregulation to create debt and to earn fees from the distribution of that debt.

Historically, says Phillips, this transformation from a making to a papering economy "is as momentous as the emergence of railroads, iron and steel and the displacement of agriculture during the decades after the Civil War."

And the problem for Mitt Romney is that he embodies these fundamental if poorly understood changes, which is why Republicans are so furious with Newt Gingrich for putting this all up in lights.

All Republicans talk about free markets, says Kevin Drum, but Mitt Romney has actually lived it. "That makes him a more concrete messenger, someone who can credibly say that he not only believes in free markets, but has lots of experience in making them work."

Chances are that when Americans hear about free enterprise from conservatives "it's usually accompanied by images of sunrises over wheat fields, hardworking farmers, and small-town construction workers heading home after a day of honest labor," says Drum. "It is very definitely not accompanied by images of well-coiffed guys in suits and green eyeshades, making millions by sitting in boardrooms and approving mass layoffs by adding a quick line to a spreadsheet before they head out to lunch."

Someone like Newt Gingrich can get up on his soapbox and keep things "fuzzy" by delivering a stem-winder about free markets, the glories of competition and keeping government of our backs "and then just walk off the stage -- mission accomplished," says Drum.

Not so Mitt Romney. When Romney talks about free markets the stakes are much higher, says Drum.

"He can't get away with platitudes," says Drum. "His experience at Bain Capital will inevitably be Exhibit 1 in just what he means when he talks about free markets."

Short of being the CEO of Goldman Sachs, "this is quite possibly the worst possible face you can imagine for a conservative message about the glories of free enterprise and wealth creation," adds Drum. "Romney, whether he likes it or not, won't be able to talk about those glories without also facing up to the human destruction that often follows in its wake."

Americans may say they are for free markets. But at the end of the day they are just regular folks who believe in a regular day's pay for a regular day's work. So, "if you rub their noses in the true face of modern capitalism, they aren't going to like what they see," Drum insists.

And that is what Gingrich is threatening to do. So, you can understand why Republicans and their wealthy benefactors are so uneasy -- and incensed -- by what Gingrich is about to do.

The revolutionary bomb-thrower who once brought down a House Speaker and ended 40 years of consecutive Democratic rule is now poised to blow up the Republican Party's designated heir apparent and with him the Republican Party's name-brand issue.

Wouldn't it be ironic, then, if Newt Gingrich's final act as America's most famous radical was to squander the profits Republicans have so regularly earned -- both economically and politically - through the arbitrage which exploits the gap between fact and fiction, reality and myth, in America's system of free market capitalism?  

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
No, we shouldn’t start calling Gingrich a socialist, desperate is a more fitting word for his recent behavior. But you hit the nail on the head when you said his comment “plays right into President Obama's hands”. Yes, Obama will use the exact same quote by Romney as the basis for his attack. I see this as a welcomed test for Romney. If Romney is able to convince the country companies like Bain are important contributors to the nation’s economic health, he wins in a landslide. So on the contrary, Republicans are ECSTATIC that the primary season is (for all intensive purposes) over and the Romney/Owebama fight begins.

I can see the Romney attack ad now: a private corporation invests millions in Staples which now employees 90,000 people, whereas Obama takes millions from America’s youth, to invest in Solyndra, which is now bankrupt.
Exactly right, Johnnie Fever.
Gingrich will be a forlorn footnote to the primaries in a few months--a tragic case of egomania trumping basic brights. What will survive will beRomney, a welcome contrast to the Obamamess.
Interesting read. Thanks.

No, he's is more accurately called a neo-fascist, but slick and manipulative. Like most of the Republicans, he would do anything to win--sell his soul and blatently lie. That's my view.
I'm not going to be surprised at all if the romney/gingrich bomb toss opens the door to santorum in a way nobody expected and if nothing else ensures his place on the ticket.

in any event, I've never voted for a republican in my life and doubt if i ever will. I am a member of the middle class with no illusions of grandeur.
The "job creators" so beloved by the Republican Party tend to create jobs in only one category: low wage, minimal benefits, part-time positions with little security that do not support families. Since Republicans dislike OSHA, we add unsafe to that list as well.

Since Republicans want to slash medicaid and food assistance, these workers will be hurt even more since many of them depend on these programs to supplement their meager incomes. As for "frills" like vacation days, sick days and the like, so important for those with families, forget it.

Republicans want to further weaken the labor movement through ill conceived legislation and lawsuits, thus making it even more difficult for American workers to improve their situation. American workers live in an atmosphere of fear, harassement and intimidation already. This would only worsen if Republicans have their way.

Read Mitt Romney's "Believe in America" 160 page economic plan sometime to get an idea of the future the Republican Party plans for us: A sweatshop labor economy in an eco-wasteland brought on by deregulation and removal of laws and programs that benefit the American working class.

The real job creators of course are the American workers who do the work and buy the products necessary to keep the economy going. That actually requires enough money to buy those products.

Newt Gingrich may be a lying treacherous politically opportunistic egotist, but he is on to something in attacking the Republican establishment through Mitt Romney.

Let the games begin.
Patrick Frank -- yes, I believe that Gingrich is a pseudo-fascist as well. But it is not a word that should be thrown around loosely or indiscriminately but needs to be used with precision. And I define fascism as racialist politics designed to divide the community on some kind of demographic basis and then achieve cultural purity by advantaging one subgroup in the community over others. That is why those who talk of "Real America" or America as a "Christian Nation" are either flirting with or already engaged in fascist cultural politics.

Ben -- I agree. There is a conservative economic populism that doesn't get a lot of attention in the GOP because it overshadowed by the religious right and Wall Street oligarchs. These are people who fear and loath power because they have so little of it, whether it comes from government officials or Wall Street barons. The lunch bucket "Reagan Democrats" were blue collar union workers who had no love lost for guys in suits, which is why Republicans have made "freedom" a central theme and claim only the government, but not Wall Street, can take it away from us. Santorum embodies this populism to a greater extent than others in the field.

And Bob -- I think it is very encouraging that a new conversation has opened up thanks to occupy wall street and now Newt Gingrich about the nature of American capitalism and the realization that financial manipulation in which healthy companies are often looted by investors for short term profits is not the same thing as a free market that rewards hard work and good ideas and pays investors for putting money behind things that grow.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Johnny and Gordon are probably right in thinking that Gingrich's bomb throwing won't have a long-term effect on the race, if Romney is the nominee. Now if he pushes the Rs towards Santorum in SC, that could change things...But, in the meantime, it IS fun to watch and maybe some of this conversation about what is capitalim now vs. what it was 20 or 30 years ago can move into the national consciousness.

This is the second or third time you've seriously misunderstood me, so I don't know if it is me or you.

But if you check out my other posts you will see that Newt Gingrich is far from being my "hero" as you say. In fact, I think at one time I even when so far as to call him a pseudo-fascist for the way he exploits demographic differences in a divide and conquer attempt to gain power and "purify" the culture.

I do think his comments on venture capital in general and Bain Capital in particular are fascinating and likely to cause a great deal of grief among the financial oligarchy because it's opened up a whole new topic of discussion that's been kept under wraps for a very long time -- the changed nature of American capitalism under the supply-side laissez faire regime begun with Ronald Reagan in 1980 and carried forward without too much change to the present day -- despite all the whining on Fox News about "socialism" and "class warfare."

Newt has pulled back the curtain that Republicans and Wall Street would like to keep closed on the difference between "entrepreneurial capitalism" and "finance capitalism." Public values on the free market are determined by the picture they have in their heads that rewards ought to go to the people who make the best mousetrap, plain and simple. Wall Street and the GOP then tries to apply that value system and understanding of capitalism to a whole different species of capitalism rooted in finance not manufacturing that lets a few get fabulously wealthy by using LBOs and other techniques to loot, pillage and cannibalize existing enterprises just as thoroughly and wantonly as did the Vikings who onced sacked towns along the English coast.

Gingrich's Fannie and Freddi connections, for me, have simply been further evidence of how hollow conservatives claims have been that it was the government -- and not Wall Street -- that was responsible for the mortgage industry meltdown that precipitated the financial crisis of 2008. Was it a sign of corruption. Sure. But in selling Fannie and Freddie to his Republican cronies it showed conservatives didn't take seriously the charge that these quasi-publics were provoking a crisis so much as contributing to one already underway.

And thanks for signing on for the ride! You're site sure looks interesting!
Things are certainly getting interesting!
"Is Gingrich a socialist?"

Are both you and he two-faced bourgeois fuckwads?

Look at his bio, Trace. He's a fucking political operative. He works with asshats like Gingrich all the time.
Tracy and Davey,

Thanks for writing in, but in case there is any doubt I am AGAINST Gingrich. In my view he is truely one of the most destructive forces in American politics and has been for some time. I guess I need to be more direct -- or use words like fuckwad and asshat like you do. Not to be a prude, guys, but why don't you clean up your acts. This is a family newspaper.

And as for my bio, if you got to the end you would have read: "So, why the current hostility to the Republican Party and what passes for conservatism today? The Republican Party was once a national governing party that looked out for the interests of the nation as a whole. Now it is the wholly-owned subsidiary of self interest. Conservatism once sought national unity to promote social peace and harmony. Now conservatism has devolved into a right wing mutation that uses divide and conquer tactics to promote the solidarity of certain social sub-groups united against the larger society while preserving the privileges of a few."
Yeah, yeah, and some shit floats. So what.
It's no use, Davey. The bourgeoisie twist and veer and veer back again as it suits them. But they never really budge an inch. He'll get a nice commentary job someplace, maybe MSNBC, and then CNN, and then, later, back to being a rightie and FOX, and then, and then....
Good for Newt. I like to see the conservatives attack each other where it hurts. Will make things more interesting for those of us observing. Rated.
Gingrich isn't a socialist; he's an opportunist
You defined fascism: Racialist politics designed to divide the community on some kind of demographic basis and then achieve cultural purity by advantaging one subgroup in the community over others.

By your definition a substantial portion of Americans favors fascism, as evidenced by voting like a school of fish for politicians who base their election strategy on thinly disguised racist appeals. Despite the denials, the Teapartian movement is largely a reaction to a Black Man in the White House.

Do you deny that? Have you heard of the Southern Strategy or Lee Atwater by any chance? Here's a taste, try to swallow it without gagging:

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Lee Atwater may be gone, thank god, but he lives on in the person of Karl Rove and others of that slimy ilk. Do you really think Gingrich -- or Romney or Santorum, for that matter -- is above using a racist appeal to get elected? Think again.

Clearly, Ron Paul is racist, unless you swallow his pathetic claim that he never once in ten years read the newsletter published under his name. Then again, maybe it was his speechwriter who was the racist nutjob.
Wow, that was powerful. I salute you. Here's what I'm thinking: all of the punditry I have heard, mostly on NPR, in recent days has spoken to the issue of venture capital without addressing the specific means employed by Bain, which often was to acquire a company, lard it with debt, take their profit, and cut it adrift. With American Pad and Paper, they took over the company, took out a huge loan, purportedly to purchase another company under Ampad, but they used the proceeds to pay off $60 million in profits to themselves and their investors while crippling the newly configured company. Now that's vulture capitalism.
Tom Cordle,

You've got me all wrong. I think you mistake me for a Newt Gingrich fan. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I see the confusion. In agreeing with Gingrich's attacks on Romney and vulture capitalism you must think I support the man himself. But I don't. In fact, I agree with you that in many ways he fits the definion of pseudo-fascist I gave earlier. So does those parts of the Tea Party movement motivated mostly by a fear of demographic change -- which is why the word "Takeover" as in government takeover -- resonated so strongly in the health care debate and got so many older folks who rely on government health care to angrily storm congressional town hall in the summer of 2009. They were not concerned about the "takeover" of health care by their government. They were concerned by the "takeover" of their country by people who do not look and talk and pray like them.

I also feel that in many ways today's Southern dominated GOP is exhibiting many of the same seditious manifestations as the Southern plantation elite before the Civil War. Unwilling to relinquish power and dominance of the government, both were willing to see the nation destroyed rather than be a subordinate power in it. That is why we are hearing again the echo of "nullification" and "secession" and arguments about more power to the local (read white Christian) community than to the polyglot nation.

Sorry I was not more clear on my allegiance in my main piece. And if you search the other things I have written on this site my real position will become crystal clear.

Another image that I like to use is the idea that capital is like radioactive material. Properly regulated and contained radioactive material can power a city. But once let out of its containment shell it destroys everything it touches.

Capital can either be used to build up enterprises or tear them down. That is why the idea of "vulture" capitalism is clever and does capture the predatory nature of some VC hedge funds but is actually incorrect because "vulture" capitalism doesn't feed on the weak. It feeds on the strong. It takes healthy companies and often loots them for their value, or uses them as collateral for loans, that enrich a few at the expense of the many.

The basic ideas of capitalism are sound provided we understand the purpose is what Adam Smith said it was -- the achievement of the "public" interest by means of the pursuit of the "private" interest. The justification for capitalism is utilitarian -- that it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number -- a rising tide raises all boats and stuff like that. Conservatives today want to make capitalism a religion to be defended on moral, ideological or metaphysical grounds, which is why you hear so much talk about "freedom" and "envy" so soon after the whole edifice collapsed four years ago.
Sorry if I mistook you for one of the new breed Republicans. I, too, remember the green eyeshade Republicans of my youth, but alas, they are gone or marginalized, as is the moderate (reasonable) wing of the once Grand Old Party.

They've been replaced by "social conservatives", people either too foolish or racist or crippled by an infantile version of religion to see they are being used and abused by those they put in power, "compassionate conservatives" with no compassion and no conservatism, consumatives (my word) whose rapacious policies are destroying family values by destroying the manufacturing base, the environment and the middle class.

Today's Republican Party is the reincarnation of the American Independent Party, and it is loathsome in its aims and tactics. If that charge doesn't apply to you, I'm glad to hear it, and the clearest evidence you've presented to say it doesn't apply to you is this:

"The basic ideas of capitalism are sound provided we understand the purpose is what Adam Smith said it was -- the achievement of the "public" interest by means of the pursuit of the "private" interest. "

Agreed, but I'm afraid damned few of today's so-called capitalists are aware of Smith's argument, or if they are, they aren't the least bit interested in the Commonweal. Instead, they're interested in removing all restraints from the greediest bastards on the planet in hopes that will miraculously avail to the common good. Only a child, a fool or a liar would spout such nonsense.

You've got the basic dynamic at the GOP right. Most parties exist to absorb and assimilate political movements by rubbing off their rough edges to make them digestible by the nation as a whole. That is how you build a national governing coalition.

Beginning with Nixon's Southern Strategy, the GOP deceived itself that it could take anything as toxic, politically immature and fundamentally anti-social as reactionary Southern conservatism (Wallace's AIP, as you say) and tame it so it would serve purposes of the host GOP.

Instead of the party assimilating the movement, however, the movement took over the party.
Again, mea culpa, for jumping to conclusions, I know all too well what happens when you assume. As for today's GOP/AIP, they want to return to what they view as America's Golden Age, the Fifties -- no, not the Eisenhower Fifties, the 1850's.

I have come to the unavoidable conclusion we should have let the South secede. After a few short years, most of those states -- with the possible exception of SC, AL and MS (and god knows we could do without them) -- would have been begging to be let back in the Union.
I'm a socialist by trade, but most of us socialist-types recognize that some kind of market economy is in our future for generations to come. The question is: What kind of market economy? I would hope well regulated private businesses, small biz & independent contractors, co-ops, unions, public services and non-profit institutions would make up the mix. Large private sector corporations should be heavily taxed and regulated for several reasons.

1.We need the money for maintaining the basic public infrastructure.

2.We need the money for a strong social welfare package for working class people. Capitalism is an unstable system and without a safety net, working class people are too easily tossed into poverty. A strong safety net also empowers working class people because it encourages them to speak out about things that go wrong in the workplace, because if they get fired, they won't starve.

3. We need a better class of capitalists. In our present system, it's too easy for the grifters, the goniffs, the polluters and the labor exploiters to succeed in business. This undercuts the honest fair-minded capitalists who have a sense of responsibility to their workers, their investors and to society as a whole. Being a capitalist should be seen as a serious social responsibility, not a smash and grab robbery as it so often is today.

How to get to a good economic mix is a huge challenge for which there are no easy answers. But our present low wage-crony capitalist- Wall Street casino economic mix is the road to perdition
I think you guys involved in political and social considerations are way off the mark. What Gingrich is doing is a personal vendetta, nothing less.

What does he have to gain by attacking Romney? He'll never get the nomination. He has too much baggage, and he's too ugly and petty a person to win over voters. So, he's spending the money he has to destroy Romney to try to climb higher in the Republican establishment. Remember the One Percenter motto: "A man never stands so tall as when he steps on the neck of a friend."

The only parallel to this situation was done in a Saturday Night Live sketch, in which George H.W. Bush ran a television special after his victory over Dukakis. He stated that rather than return his leftover campaign money to the Republican coffers, he was going to spend it all in an attempt to twist the knife further into his defeated opponent. And what followed was a repeat of all the ugly things spewed about Michael Dukakis, including his tank ride and the Willie Horton pardon.

The real Bush Senior wasn't that cruel, but he wasn't a modern Republican either. He'd be a bloody corpse if he'd try for the nomination against the current opponents. And it looks as if Newt Gingrich is willing to be that much of a bastard, even if it wrecks his party. Maybe he's decided that if he can't be President, no Republican can, and is willing to tear down the whole temple.

I have no doubt that Newt Gingrich's primary motivation in calling Mitt Romney a "predatory corporate raider" was vengeance. But my point was that by breaking ranks from the Republican Party's unadulterated idol-worship of unregulated "free market" capitalism Gingrich was creating an opening that President Obama and the Democrats can profitably exploit.

Republicans and their Wall Street benefactors wanted to make this election a clear choice between the "freedom" of the free market or the "statism" of big government. Gingrich attacks against Romney make that impossible by creating a distinction between the "Good Capitalism" of garage-style entrepreneurialism and the "Bad Capitalism" of leveraged buyouts practiced by hedge funds like Romney's.

Gingrich is the guy, remember, who came out with a book last year calling Obama the most dangerous president in American history because he was trying to erect a "secular socialist machine" on American shores.

It was a brilliant phrase in its own evil genius way because it combined the Boogie Mans of all three wings of the GOP coalition: "secular" for the religious right theocrats, "socialist" for the laissez faire oligarchs, and "machine" for the small government libertarians. But Gingrich has now blown that to bits by admitting that some of the attempts by Obama and the Democrats to rein-in Wall Street abuses might be well-founded. Don't think Republican strategists aren't furious with Gingrich for doing this.
perfect post. except you left out the part about romney saying he likes firing people, now going viral on youtube.
Im glad the americans are finally taking [a small slice of] the red pill.

"rich people march on washington every day"
--i.f. stone

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
--supreme court justice louis brandeis

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
--upton sinclair

"One withstands the invasion of armies; one does not withstand the invasion of ideas."
--victor hugo

"The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid dens of crime that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. "
--cs lewis

occupy party reaches critical mass/seismic effect--now what?
ah alas there is a little tinge of an "inside baseball" angle on this blog in which reality is all subjective and the writer takes no position on facts.
oh wait I have to read between the lines here, this is all about something that Gingrich is PLANNING to do. huh?
"And that is what Gingrich is threatening to do. So, you can understand why Republicans and their wealthy benefactors are so uneasy -- and incensed -- by what Gingrich is about to do."

Ill believe it when I see it dude. I think there could be a little twist on the way to this particular version of reality.

Thanks for your comments. What Gingrich seems to intend to want to do is to appeal to that slice of the GOP coalition that doesn't get much attention but which does exist -- economic populists. These are the so-called Reagan Democrats -- white blue collar ethnics who don't like Wall Street Plutocrats any more than they do Reagan' Welfare Queens because they see both as having power over them and diminishing their freedom and standard of living.

So, to win over these voters Gingrich is willing to wrap the idea of "predatory corporate capitalism" around Mitt Romney's neck -- with the emphasis on "predatory."

Yet, to the Republican Establishment there is no such thing as "predatory" capitalism, and to suggest that there is as Gingrich has done is to undermine the entire GOP strategy of painting government as predatory and President Obama as freedom-stealing.

That is what Gingrich has "done" -- he's opened people's eyes to the fact that the "free market" doesn't really exist and therefore shouldn't be trusted to "decide" anything, least of all if it's legally made someone like Mitt Romney so rich by buying companies and destroying people's livelihoods. I can't think of anything more radical from the establishment Republican point of view than the dagger Gingrich just plunged into the mythology they've constructed around free market capitalism.



& A CALL To Harms Weigh~