Ruthless vulture capitalism as Romney's ultimate conservative cred

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter: 

Attacks on Bain do ultimately seem like a deadend in GOP primary. Bain is Rom's most authentic credential as a (contemporary) conservative.

-- Noam Scheiber (@noamscheiber)

A good point, but one that highlights Romney's potential problems down the road with independent voters and the new generation of "Reagan Democrats" in the general election.

For all his shameless efforts to pander to the right-wing GOP base to secure three nomination, on any number of issues including health care, abortion, and Iran, his great appeal to conservatives is that he made himself sinking rich as an unethical and unregulated capitalist. But it's precisely his proud record of destroying jobs and ruining lives that could turn out to be his ultimate undoing, even more than the flip-flopping and seeming lack of authenticity -- and even more than the fact that non-elite conservatives generally loathe him.

But what Scheiber misses here, at least in this one tweet, is that his plutocratic vulture capitalism, his looting, is unpopular with many on the right as well, and Gingrich and Perry have been trying to exploit that populist opposition on the right.

In the end, other than party and media elites connected to the GOP, it's hard tho imagine anyone liking Romney at all.

That Vatican Rag

By Capt. Fogg

People have argued that Science is just another kind of faith, or at least another but equally valid way of telling truth from fiction; establishing fact from a confusing universe. I suppose that Pope Benedict would be suggesting such a 'fair and balanced' approach by suggesting that same sex marriage would be a "threat to the future of humanity itself."

I would argue that science is the best method we have of keeping our beliefs honest by constant examination of the data -- and that data as concerns the cohabitation of couples, or triples for that matter does not in any way suggest that the Holy Father's predictions are based on what happens in this world when such things are not prohibited by law or even custom.

“This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself,”

he said to some 180 diplomats at the Vatican yesterday. The education of children needs proper “settings” and “pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman.” I'm not quite sure that personal pride in being traditional and obedient to dogma constitutes justification for regulating private life in a free society, but then a free society is the definition of a heretical society and it wasn't long ago that Catholics were threatened with excommunication for voting for political leaders. I'm sure the rationalization for that was much the same farrago of gold embroidered, incense scented rubbish as was the persecution of Galileo and the scientists of the Renaissance -- to cite the less egregious examples.

The fact is, that children raised by gay couples can't be shown to have turned out as Benedict predicts and since gay people have been around since the dawn of humanity and a bit before -- and long before the shaman, that oldest of professions, told them they were evil -- we can assume that human dignity hasn't been much affected. The indignities of the Crusades and Inquisitions and centuries of war and tyranny might have done some harm, but I won't go into that here.

As I said, science rejects propositions, predictions and proclamations that do not produce the results claimed. I might suggest Mein Herr, that there's a bit of egg on your face and blood on your robes from trying to stifle that heresy with force of arms, torture and murder, but so far, nothing you or your predecessors have predicted has ever been demonstrated to be the truth. So how long caro padre, will you go on predicting that if we do A, then B will happen, because we've been doing A for a hell of a long time and there's no sign of you being right so far.

(Cross posted to Human voices)

Behind the Ad: Newt Gingrich hits "Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney" over abortion

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Another installment in our new "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Newt Gingrich attacks Mitt Romney

Where: South Carolina.

What's going on: Well, he said it was coming, an all-out offensive against Romney in South Carolina, a last-ditch effort to tear down the frontrunner and likely nominee and to resurrect his campaign.

Assuming it really does materialize, a lot of it will be about Bain Capital, where Romney set about making millions destroying jobs and ruining lives, but of course that leaves open the charge -- a huge problem in a hyper-capitalist party like the GOP, where the slightest bad word about capitalism amounts to indefensible heresy -- that Gingrich is anti-capitalist. (What he's really doing is advocating an ethical capitalism inimical to the unregulated capitalism that Romney exploited and is defending now, but Republicans like their plutocrats to be self-aggrandizing looters with no regard for the consequences.).

In South Carolina, though, the opening against Romney is really on the social conservative front, and Newt and others, like Santorum, will no doubt focus a great deal of their energy in the coming days on Romney's fairly progressive (at least by Republican standards) past, including on key wedge issues like abortion. Hence this ad, which accuses Romney of having "governed pro-abortion" in Massachusetts:

Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney: He can't be trusted.

That's a powerful message that hasn't gotten much of an airing so far in the Republican race, what with the various non- and anti-Romneys so often turning their fire on each other instead of on Romney. It may not be enough to knock Romney off his perch, what with the conservative opposition deeply divided and with neither Gingrich nor Santorum possessing the broad appeal or clear electability that one would need to mount a serious challenge at this point in the campaign, particularly with most of the party elites in Romney's corner, but if pressed enough it could resonate strongly with the many Republicans uncomfortable with the thought of Romney as their party's nominee, particularly in a state like South Carolina.

If nothing else, though, it highlights one of Romney's glaring weaknesses, one that Democrats will no doubt seek to exploit come general election time. If he embraces or even acknowledtges his progressive past, he picks up independents but loses vital conservative support. But if he continues to run to the right, as he will have to do as long as this conservative challenge continues, he risks further alienating the center and losing whatever lingering credibility he may have with non-Republicans. One thing he'll try to do is avoid having to talk about issues like abortion altogether, focusing instead on jobs and the economy (while lying about his ugly record at Bain) and smearing Obama as an anti-American socialst Europhile (while playing up American exceptionalism in a shameless appeal to knee-jerk, delusional patriotism), but there's not much he can do as long as these conservative efforts to expose him as a faux conservative continue.

Live-blogging the 2012 New Hampshire primary: Does it really mean anything at all?

By Michael J.W. Stickings, with Richard K. Barry

UPDATED FREQUENTLY.

6:42 pm - Okay, we did it with Iowa last week, now let's do it with New Hampshire. How 'bout some live-blogging, baby?! (I'll do frequent updates throughout the evening (and into the early-morning hours), reporting on the results but also breaking off into tangents about the race generally, and Richard will add some additional commentary.)

6:45 pm - BREAKING NEWS: The Reaction declares Willard "Mitt" Romney the winner of the 2012 New Hampshire Republican primary. Take that, Wolf Blitzer!

6:47 pm - The polls don't close until 8 pm, but the outcome is in absolutely zero doubt. Romney will win easily in his "backyard," neighboring Massachusetts being his "home," and that will be that. So let's move on to South Carolina, where a much more meaningful vote is scheduled for Saturday, January 21. Okay? No? No. I suppose we do need to work our way through tonight's results, to derive some sort of meaning them (or to impose meaning on them, rather). Here are the key questions: How much of the vote will Romney win (and by how much will he win)? How will the non- and anti-Romneys finish (and is there any possibility of any one of them picking up some momentum heading towards South Carolina)?

6:56 pm - Just going to have some dinner. Be back shortly. Stay tuned. And feel free to add your comments if you so desire.

7:47 pm - Alright, here we go... But first, let me tell you what I'm drinking tonight. I'm just polishing off a nice Creemore Springs pilsner from one of the best Ontario craft breweries. We'll go darker and deeper as the night goes on.

7:49 pm - The polls over the last few days show Romney with about a 20-point lead in New Hampshire. Again, there's no question he's going to win. But what will the numbers be? I tend to think that the inevitability of his win could dampen his support somewhat. He's been polling in the range of 35 to 41. Let's say he ends up with 37 percent of the vote. And then let's say Paul finishes second at 19, then Huntsman at 17, Santorum at 12, Gingrich at 10, and Perry way back at 1.

What would all that mean? Actually, I'd say that wouldn't be all that impressive for Romney, who should at this point, and with divided opposition, be able to win well over 40 percent of the vote. Paul will likely stay in the race until the very end, but even a second-place finish here wouldn't give him much of a bump. This is Huntsman's big shot at respectability, and he's put a lot of energy into New Hampshire, but the Republican Party is no place for him these days and he'll fall off badly in South Carolina. Gingrich is done. His role now is to try to knock off Romney in South Carolina. So it falls to Santorum to be the leading anti-Romney. Even a fourth-place finish here wouldn't be all that bad considering where he was just a couple of weeks ago. But he'll have his work cut out for him to build support over the next 10 days. It's possible that he'd emerge as a viable alternative to Romney were Gingrich to drop out, but there's just no way he has the staying power to mount a serious challenge over the long term. He might finish second in South Carolina but then fall off again in Florida.

But it's all about expectations, as you know, and about "narrative." And the problem for Romney tonight is that he has nothing to gain and much to lose. And if he underperforms, particularly with all the battering he's been taking over his destructive work at Bain Capital, he could emerge even from a decisive victory as a still-very-weak frontrunner, even if his ultimate victory is all but assured given his money, his organization, and his support from Republican elites.

RKB: Does anyone doubt that Huntsman is playing for the next time, that this is all about 2016? What else could he be doing? I can't imagine he really sees a path to win the nomination now. Maybe if Romney failed to meet expectations in New Hampshire there might be some room for another "electable candidate," but that's not going to happen. Romney will do well enough in New Hampshire to pretty much lock this thing up. And after he wins South Carolina, it really will be over. No surprises tonight. 

8:01 pm - Yes, CNN (and I assume everyone else) declares for Romney. Done.

8:02 pm - Exit polls, according to Wolf, show Romney at 36, Paul at 23, Huntsman at 18, Gingrich and Santorum at 10. A result closer to 35 than 40 would be even worse for Romney, obviously. Possible strong showing for Paul, though I suspect he'll fall short of the exit polls. (Results here.)

RKB:  Woo-hoo. CNN projects that Romney wins. Never saw that one coming. Carville just said that Huntsmann has implied he would drop out if he didn't do well in New Hampshire. It looks like a distant third for Hunstmann, and Paul is still hanging in. Santorum isn't going anywhere, currently at 10%. CNN exit polls has Romney at 36, Paul at 23 and Huntsman at 18. If that holds, this thing is over, and not just NH.

8:11 pm - I'm not disagreeing with Richard. The race is pretty much over. It's Romney. Conservatives find him "acceptable." Hardly a huge endorsement, but they're obviously willing to living with him. The question is whether the lack of enthusiasm on the right, and really within the new right-wing GOP mainstream (with Dear Leader Rush as one of the key spokesmen), will hurt Romney in the general election. Even if most on the right come around, hold their noses, and vote for Romney as anyone-but-Obama, that general lack of enthusiasm could translate into somewhat lower turnout among conservatives, particularly with the spotlight on Romney's relatively progressive past (at least in terms of social policy) that will come with him being the nominee.

But I think there's more going on here. Romney currently has just 35 percent of the vote (with 17 percent of precincts reporting) in a state that is perfect for him: close to home, socially liberal or libertarian, economically conservative, where he's been campaigning since before the '08 primaries, where he has an extensive ground campaign and huge name recognition, where, as a clear frontrunner, he should be able to win over 40 percent easily, if not over 50 percent. Am I overstating the expectations? Look, even with 35 percent he'll be able to declare a decisive victory and head on as the clear frontrunner to South Carolina. But I think we're still seeing just how weak he is, not to mention just how weak and divided the opposition is. Put a credible conservative in here and you'd get a much closer race and anything but a decisive victory for Romney.

RKB: Paul in second place is more than Romney could have hoped for. It effectively marginalizes the other real contenders because Paul can't win. Wow. Perfect for Mitt.

8:22 pm - Indeed. Romney certainly has luck on his side. Or a horseshoe up his ass. Or something.

CNN declares Paul second and Huntsman third. So no surprises whatsoever.

RKB: Huntsman people are now saying that Huntsman is not getting out. In fact, it appears that no one is getting out, which is good news for Romney. His opposition remains fractured.

8:25 pm - What position do you think he'd get in a Romney administration? Secretary of state?

8:26 pm - "Tonight we made history." -- Romney. Yup, he's already giving his victory speech. Let's see if this is any better than his disaster of a speech in Iowa. Oh, already attacking Obama. Surprise, surprise. It makes him appear to be the nominee already, as if he's already running against the president. "We still believe in that shining city on a hill." More meaningless bullshit. Romney is a plutocrat and a panderer to the right. And so he resorts to attacking Obama with lies and distortions.

"President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial." And, he adds, he's been joined by some Republicans (looking at you, Newt). This, of course, is ridiculous. The president has proven to be nothing but a free enterpriser, rescuing Wall Street and industry and refusing to do anything serious about the havoc the American capitalist system is wreaking on most Americans. And I assume by defending free enterprise he's defending the right of unregulated capitalists to make millions destroying jobs and ruining lives. 

Yes, yes, Obama is a European-style socialist. Has Romney ever been to Europe? Seriously, in what world can this be taken at all seriously? Right -- in the world of Republican insanity.

"He passed Obamacare, I'll repeal it." No mention that Obamacare is based almost entirely on Romneycare.

Obama's "appeasement" strategy around the world... no need for American military superiority. Right, like how Obama refuses to use drones to take out terrorists, or how he refused to approve that mission to take out Osama bin Laden, or how he's pulled out of Afghanistan. Funny, eh? There appears to be no connection whatsoever between Romney's rhetoric and reality.

"We still believe in the America that is the land of opportunity and a beacon of freedom." There's a line with absolutely no substance to it.

What a massive pile of bullshit.

RKB: Just listening to Romney's speech. Is anyone going to believe that Romney gives a damn about middle-class Americans? What a phony bastard. He is one cringe-making politician. I almost can't wait for Romney to secure the nomination so the Dems can focus on him and hang him by his own pathetic cliches. He is so embarrassing. So full of shit. What an ass. 

9:04 pm - "President Paul!... President Paul!... President Paul!" So chant Paul's supporters, who prove once against just what utterly delusional nutjobs they are. (Okay, they're not all nutjobs. Just a lot of them.)

9:05 pm - Am I completely anti-Paul? No. I respect and for the most part agree with his views on civil liberties, American militarism and foreign wars (including the military-industrial complex), the war on drugs, etc. It's quite admirable that he's willing give voice to some harsh truths that most Americans would rather not hear, to speak out against some of the most dominant and most destructive forces in American life (and politics). But he's quite mad, raving against the Fed (and paper money), as if gold is the answer, as if somehow America could really withdraw from the global financial system. And don't be fooled. He's an extremist right-wing libertarian who would gut government and subject everyone to the forces of the unregulated market. He says he wants to protect liberty, but there's a dark side to that, is there not? What "liberty" would there really be for most people in Ron Paul's utopia? (And on capitalism and the economy, he's certainly siding with Romney.)

Fine, fine, it's good to have him in the race, good that he's doing fairly well, good that someone is talking about civil liberties and the follies of American militarism, but let's not give him a free pass just because he happens to be more sensible on these issues that pretty much every other Republican and even many (if not most) Democrats.

"We will restore freedom to this country." Yeah, good luck with that.

9:19 pm - How about an update? With 46 percent reporting, it's:

-- Romney: 34,702 (37%)

-- Paul: 21,956 (24%)

-- Huntsman: 16,124 (17%)

-- Gingrich: 9,324 (10%)

-- Santorum: 9,227 (10%)

-- Perry: 679 (1%)

Paul is doing a bit better than I expected, but he's being helped by independent / Democratic support in an open primary. A lot of his support, in other words, is non-Republican.

Santorum is doing worse than I expected. Will he be able to regain his footing, and recapture the attention he got after Iowa, when the focus shifts to South Carolina?

Gingrich is doing about as I expected. Will he carry through with his threats to go after Romney in South Carolina? Can he recover at all in a state where he's fairly strong? Will he and Santorum continue to divide the conservative vote?

Remember when Perry mattered?

9:26 pm - Romney's now up to 38 percent, with 49 percent reporting. 

9:29 pm - Now down to 37 again, with 50 reporting.

Huntsman at the podium: "Ladies and gentlemen, I think we're in the hunt." Uh, no you're not. "I say, third place is a ticket to ride, ladies and gentlemen." I just lost a ton of respect for him. Does he really believe this? He was all-in on New Hampshire, a state receptive to his old-school brand of conservatism. Of course he's done well -- by his lowly standards. If he stays in the race, he'll do well in Vermont and Maine as well. That doesn't mean he has a shot at winning the nomination, just that he's a moderate (relatively speaking) who can do well in liberal/moderate parts of the country.

Afghanistan is not America's future. Iraq is not America's future. He's talking economy, and the challenges America faces, particularly in the Pacific. Look, I can't say I agree with him on most issues, but I do respect him and his positions. I did once upon a time call him "Huntsman the Formidable." In a saner time, the GOP would hand him the nomination. But Republicans are too crazy and too stupid and too extreme to know what's good for them.

Term limits for Congress? Really, we're back to that after all these years? What is this, 1995?

End the war in Afghanistan? Wait, is Ron Paul still speaking?

His speech is a bit disjointed, all over the place, a bit like Romney's last week but without all the anti-Obama nonsense and hyper-nationalist bullshit. Though Huntsman did just pull out the "greatest nation on earth" line. Uh-huh. Sure. Whatever. This is when much of the rest of the world laughs at American arrogance even from its more thoughtful public figures.

"We have the greatest and most courageous armed forces this nation has ever seen." Um, what about those who fought in World War II? Wait... so we'll have another Greatest Generation now, helping to rebuild the country? I wouldn't bet on that.

On to South Carolina... (He's running either for a top spot on Romney's administration, assuming he doesn't destroy Romney in the process, or for 2016, when the GOP may be more receptive to him.)

9:41 pm - Did you know that CNN's election coverage tonight is being brought to us by... fossil fuels? Yes, by propaganda from the oil and gas industry, by "clean" coal, by global warming and the destruction of our world as we know it, by the mass murder of potentially hundreds of millions. Good times.

9:46 pm - I was going to follow up the pilsner with a smoked stout from Iceland, but I'm not sure I can do that. Just too heavy. Maybe some bourbon. With a toast to Obama for winning the Democratic primary. In case you were wondering.

Waiting on Newt and Rick... Just going to take a break. Be back in a bit.

10:21 pm - Quick reflections on Santorum and Gingrich: 

Santorum: Decent speech, if rather more muted than last week's in Iowa. He said what had to be said. On the one hand, he hasn't done well, battling it out for a distant fourth with Newt. On the other hand, he'd done really well, moving up to 10 percent support after being in the low single digits not so long ago. He was never going to do all that well in New Hampshire, but he actually downplayed his presence in the state. Last week he bragged about how much time he'd spent there. Tonight he treated the state like an afterthought. But he's on to South Carolina, where his social conservatism should allow him to do significantly better.

Gingrich: Give him credit, he talks ideas (even if they're unpalatable right-wing ones). His speech was sober and, from a conservative perspective, sensible. He presented himself on the one hand as a uniter of all Americans and on the other as a Republican with a record of getting things done even when faced with intractable Democratic opposition. He talked about his indebtedness to Reagan and Thatcher, and even, succumbing to his usual egomaniacal self-aggrandizement, took credit for the economic success and job creation of the Clinton years. His selling point is that he's the best candidate to debate and defeat Obama. But what of his recent attacks on Romney's unethical capitalism? In the speech, he defended capitalism as the be-all and end-all but didn't draw that distinction between "true" capitalism and the job-destroying venture capitalism of Bain Capital. And as much as he's been talking of an all-out assault on Romney in South Carolina, I just don't see it coming.

Basically, if anyone is to beat Romney, either Gingrich or Santorum has to withdraw and endorse the other, uniting the conservative vote against Romney and Paul. As of right now, with everyone's attention turning to South Carolina and with optimism still high, that doesn't look like it's going to happen. Which means that Romney's path to the nomination remains clear. How fortunate he is not to face any truly serious and credible conservative opposition.

10:33 pm - Not much new to report. With 74 percent reporting, it's Romney at 38, Paul at 23, Huntsman at 17, and Gingrich and Santorum at 10. 

12:12 am - Just watched Stewart and Colbert... Alright, let's wrap this up. Romney is now at 39 percent, with 92 percent reporting, followed by Paul at 23 and Huntsman at 17. Gingrich appears to have finished fourth, at 10, with Santorum declining to 9. All this as votes came in from the more populous, Romney-oriented parts of the state.

So what are to make of this? I still think Romney continues to be an extremely weak candidate, though there's no denying his clear victory here. There's no doubt he's the favorite to win South Carolina and that this win will help build the aura of inevitability that seems to be engulfing his campaign. The question is whether anyone will emerge to challenge him not just in South Carolina but in Florida. Everyone was talking big tonight, but at some point either Santorum or Gingrich is going to have to get out of the race is conservatives are to have a shot at taking down Romney. As it is, it looks more and more like Republicans are resigning themselves to a Romney candidacy that will have a hard time arousing much enthusiasm on the right. The overwhelming desire to beat Obama will likely bring most conservatives into the fold, but Romney is still a tough sell, and he'll have to balance securing conservative support with moving back to the left to try to win independents and the new generation of "Reagan Democrats."

12:19 am: Stay tuned for extensive coverage of the Republican race as we now turn our attention to South Carolina. Keep coming back. You'll find a lot to like, or a lot to infuriate you.

12:22 am: Good night, everyone. We'll be back at it in the morning.

This day in music - January 10, 1997: James Brown receives a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

By Richard K. Barry

(Ed. note: It's also the great Shawn Colvin's birthday today. And Pat Benatar's -- real name: Patricia Mae Andrzejewski. And some guy named Rod Stewart's. And on this day in 1984 (it's hard not to feel old when you realize that was 28 years ago) Cyndi Lauper became the first female recording artist since since Bobbie Gentry in 1967 to be nominated for five Grammy Awards. -- MJWS)

James Brown (1933-2006) was referred to by himself and others as "The Hardest Working Man in Show Business," "Mr. Dynamite," "Soul Brother Number One," and the "Godfather of Soul." And I'm sure it was true in every case.

He was in the first class of those inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and received a Lifetime Achievement Award at the 34th annual Grammy Awards, in addition to his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. And that just scratches the surface.

Can't do any better than the AllMusic entry on James Brown, which has this to say:

Other singers were more popular, others were equally skilled, but few other African-American musicians were so influential over the course of popular music. And no other musician, pop or otherwise, put on a more exciting, exhilarating stage show: Brown's performances were marvels of athletic stamina and split-second timing.

Through the gospel-impassioned fury of his vocals and the complex polyrhythms of his beats, Brown was a crucial midwife in not just one, but two revolutions in black American music. He was one of the figures most responsible for turning R&B into soul and he was, most would agree, the figure most responsible for turning soul music into the funk of the late '60s and early '70s.

Here's a discography, if you're interested.

Let's go with the obvious clip: "I Feel Good." If the information accompanying the YouTube clip is accurate, this is from a 1989 concert in Italy, which brought together a number of pioneers of rock 'n' roll in addition to Brown including Bo Diddley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Fats Domino, and B.B. King. Now that would have been a show.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Mitt Romney and Bain Capital: destroyer of jobs, destroyer of lives

By Michael J.W. Stickings

*** Must-see video below. ***

It hardly matters whether Mitt Romney likes to fire people or not. What matters is his record. What matters is what he did at Bain Capital. And what he would try to do if elected president.

After all this time, with Romney not just the frontrunner but the likely GOP presidential nominee, his weakness appears not to be Romneycare, his health reforms in Massachusetts, but his work at Bain, where he made a lot of money, millions upon millions upon millions, buying up companies and tearing them down for profit, putting a lot of people out of work and destroying a lot of lives. As Politico explains:

Forget his specific rivals. The biggest threat to Mitt Romney is hitting now and set to fully detonate in South Carolina: It's the Bain bomb.

While conservatives look unlikely to unite around one alternative to Romney, the campaigns themselves are uniting around the theme that the former head of Bain Capital looted companies, tossed people out of jobs and is now exaggerating his success at the venture capital firm.

In other words, he was (and is) a capitalist -- profiting on the dark side of capitalism (capitalism not always being the fun and games its ardent and usually delusional right-wing adherents make it out to be). But what's crazy, given Republicans' general enthusiasm for capitalism, is that Romney's rivals (most of them now mere also-rans) are using his work at Bain, that is, his capitalism, to try to knock him off his perch. This includes, strangely enough, Newt Gingrich, never one to pass up a chance to make a buck, though perhaps nothing is strange in the shameless pursuit of votes, and Newt certainly has a long history of hypocrisy. As the Times reports:

Thanks to a $5 million donation from a wealthy casino owner, a group supporting Newt Gingrich plans to place advertisements in South Carolina this week attacking Mitt Romney as a predatory capitalist who destroyed jobs and communities, a full-scale Republican assault on Mr. Romney's business background.

The advertisements, a counterpunch to a campaign waged against Mr. Gingrich by a group backing Mr. Romney, will be built on excerpts from a scathing movie about Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mr. Romney once ran. The movie, financed by a Republican operative opposed to Mr. Romney, includes emotional interviews with people who lost jobs at companies that Bain bought and later sold.

Note: a movie "financed by a Republican." You can watch the preview below.

Jon Chait writes that Gingrich is swift-boating Romney. That's not the right word for it. The swift-boating of John Kerry was based on lies, whereas these attacks on Romney, while certainly lacking nuance, are based on Romney's record.

Otherwise, though, Chait is right: "Newt Gingrich's new message assailing Mitt Romney is a remarkable breach of protocol" in that it violates the informal rule that "the closer a candidate gets to wrapping up the nomination, the more gentle his opponents must be in assailing him." In this case, the reverse is true: the closer Romney is getting to the nomination, the more vicious the attacks are getting (assuming that Newt actually follows through on this). We've been waiting for the anti-Romneys to turn their fire on Romney instead of each other. That now appears to be happening. And the damage to Romney could be enormous:

Politically, the ads are devastating to Romney, whose message against Obama is that he is a "job creator" who understands the private economy. The message of the ads is that his private-sector experience consists of looting companies and destroying the livelihoods of working-class people. The victims testifying in his ads are the working-class people who have suffered economic stagnation over the last three decades that was accelerated by the revolutionary changes to the economy of which Romney was at the forefront. (If you haven't already done so, read Ben Wallace-Wells's story on Romney, Bain, and the transformation of the economy.)

The political effect of these ads is to turn Romney's chief selling point into a liability – 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. At one point, the narrator says of  Bain's executives, "their greed was only matched by their willingness to do anything to make millions in profits."

Chait also makes the case that Romney was just being a capitalist -- for worse, not for better:

He was in the business of creating wealth, not jobs. Capitalism increases a society's standard of living, but it does not increase its rate of employment...

Since we want to increase our standard of living, we want capitalism. That wealth benefits the whole society over the long run, but in the short run it can destroy lives and communities — which, of course, is one justification for the role of government in siphoning off a portion of the limitless wealth generated by the Mitt Romneys of the world in order to alleviate social dislocation. But the thrust of Romney's platform is that people like himself give too much already, and those left behind get too much. His self-presentation as a "job creator" is an attempt to paint over that ugly reality.

The huge wealth Romney created was for himself and others like him, not society. (And I'm not so sure that capitalism always creates wealth and always "benefits the whole society over the long run. It really depends what sort of capitalism is in place.) What's remarkable, though, is that it is Republicans who are now making the case that he wasn't a good capitalist:

Gingrich's assault relies on drawing a distinction between real capitalism and the "looting" undertaken by Bain Capital... The distinction is utterly ephemeral. It's a way of saying you'd like all the nice aspects of capitalism without the nasty ones – creating new firms and products without liquidating old ones.

I tend to agree with this. Such "looting," like it or not, is an essential part of the capitalist way. And Newt and others making the anti-Romney case with him are driving a wedge into the hyper-capitalist Republican Party.

Generally, a party of plutocracy like the GOP -- one that pushes for tax cuts for the wealthy, spending cuts to programs for everyone else, and the cruelty and brutality of free market absolutism -- would be happy with a multi-millionaire looter like Romney, but these times are weird. Now even Newt Gingrich is making sense and appearing to want to constrain capitalism with social justice (even if it's just a last-ditch effort to turn the tables on Romney).

Gingrich is hardly endearing himself to Republicans with this line of attack, but there's certainly a constituency even on the right that's receptive to such anti-elitism. It won't be enough to stop Romney in the primaries, but it will certainly help Democrats make the case against Romney in the general election campaign. Bloodthirsty capitalist looters, after all, generally don't go over all that well beyond the confines of the GOP, particularly at this time of economic uncertainty.

Chris Christie -- New Jersey governor, Romney pal, bullying misogynist -- calls women stupid cocksuckers

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Slate's Torie Bosch:

On Sunday, Jan. 8., New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was speaking at a Romney for President rally in New Hampshire when he was interrupted by some female hecklers. It's difficult to make out exactly what Christie's critics were yelling, but it's something to do with jobs going down. Ever the class act, Christie's response: "You know, something may be going down tonight, but it ain't going to be jobs, sweetheart." He then goes on to insult the women by saying that if they were from Jersey, they wouldn't be so silly as to think that his policies don't support job creation.

That's right, he makes an aggressive oral sex remark, as if the women are nothing better than cocksuckers (to put it bluntly) who should submit to the force of his dominant manliness, and then calls them stupid. This is the sort of thing that you expect to hear in a good deal of the hardcore porn that men like Christie consume with such enthusiasm -- "Suck it, you stupid bitch!" -- and that, given the mainstreamization of such porn in recent years, contributes to the ongoing social oppression of women, specifically as objects for men to use and abuse at their leisure, too stupid to do anything other than serve, and sexually satisfy, their male overlords.

Think I'm over-reacting? Think I'm making too much of it? Read again what he said (or watch it below -- the New Jersey GOP put up the clip itself, apparently proud of Christie's response "rather than recognizing it as flagrantly demeaning, even misogynistic," as Bosch writes).

Here's the governor of New Jersey, a leading national political figure and one of Mitt Romney's key surrogates, dismissing women -- hecklers, but still women -- by telling them to suck his dick and then insulting them. He's not just a bully, as we've seen so many times before, he's a sexual thug who apparently treats women like shit.

Nothing surprising there, perhaps, but what of Romney? Shouldn't we judge people by the company they keep? Shouldn't we hold his good pal Christie against him? There he is, right behind Christie, yukking it up, smiling happily at Christie's sexist retort, playing right along, apparently in agreement. Judge him accordingly.

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley resigns, finding no deals to be made

By Richard K. Barry

With all eyes on today's Republican New Hampshire primary, it was almost possible to miss the news that William M. Daley, President Obama's Chief of Staff, will be stepping down after what most people are calling a frustrating year. He will be replaced by Jacob J. Lew, the budget director. 

The New York Times had this to say about Daley's departure:

Mr. Daley, an affable former banker who is the son and brother of legendary Chicago mayors, proved to be an awkward fit on the Obama team. Recruited largely for his deal-making skills and ties to the business world, he failed to help his boss strike a huge budget deal with Republicans in the House.

After that failed negotiation, which led to months of acrimony between the White House and Congress, some of Mr. Daley's duties were transferred to Pete Rouse, a low-profile former Congressional aide with closer ties to the president.

That Mr. Daley was frustrated by Washington was no secret. In October, he told a Chicago TV station that he planned to leave the White House in January 2013, at the end of Mr. Obama's first term. It was not clear what precipitated his decision to leave now.

Is the obvious comment that a man with "deal-making" skills was not the best fit for the current dynamic in Washington? Old-school politics, with good-faith bargaining, which involves getting some of what you want in return for giving up some things, is not where we are at the moment.

We know that the Republican agenda is to ensure that Obama fails. The way they see it, nothing is supposed to happen. In that context, a deal-maker like Daley really had nothing to do.

Now that the election is in sight, different skills are required. Best advice for Obama may be in the immortal words of the late owner of the Oakland Raiders, Al Davis, who famously said, "just win baby."

Just win, Mr. President, with majorities in the House and Senate, then jam it down their throats in a second term, if that's how they want to play. It's not my first choice, but it's all they're likely to understand.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Todd Palin endorses Gingrich. And we should care because...?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The race for the Republican nomination for president has been nothing if not embarrassing to the GOP, not to mention to the rather less-than-stellar candidates themselves.

And today witnessed yet another low.

On the totem pole of endorsers, after all, Todd Palin makes even non-witch anti-masturbator Christine O'Donnell look respectable. (Check that. Todd's above COD. At least an endorsement from him can be interpreted as a signal of Sarah's thinking. An endorsement from COD means a crazy person likes you. But there's still little reason to care.)

Newt must be ecstatic.

**********

Perhaps to his credit, Todd didn't criticize any of the other candidates. So why did he pick Newt?

Palin said he has not spoken to Gingrich or anyone from the former House speaker's campaign. But he said he respects Gingrich for what he went through in the 1990s and compared that scrutiny in public life to what Sarah Palin went through during her run for the vice presidency.

*****


But Todd Palin did point to last summer, when a large portion of Gingrich's staff resigned and the candidate was left, largely by himself, to run the campaign.

Gingrich's ability to overcome the obstacle and still move up in the polls showed his ability to campaign and survive, according to Todd Palin, who said Gingrich is not one of the typical "beltway types" and that his campaign has "burst out of the political arena and touched many Americans."

In other words, because Newt is like Sarah. 

Yes, even when endorsing others, the Palins are self-aggrandizing egomaniacs.

It looks like it'll be Romney, whether you like it or not

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter: 

"SC GOP veteran tells me he sees signs of consolidation around Romney. Growing feeling that SC wants to keep up tradition of deciding nominee"

-- David Gregory (@davidgregory)

Well, sure. All you had to do was watch that ridiculous GOP "debate" Saturday night. It wasn't really a debate, it was a sort of friendly-fire formality in preparation for Romney's imminent coronation. Shots were taken by the various anti-Romneys, but nothing stuck and he left largely unscathed. (Indeed, the most damage done to Romney was done by himself the next day, when, as if trying to cement his plutocratic bona fides, he said during the Meet the Press debate that politics is for the rich.)

It may well be over. With a big win in New Hampshire tomorrow, Romney could sweep into South Carolina and wrap up the nomination. (There are reports that Newt, suddenly flushed with cash, is preparing to go ballistic on Romney, perhaps out of revenge for what Romney and his SuperPACs did to him in Iowa, but I'll believe it when it happens. Newt still has a lot of money to make as a loyal if occasionally renegade Republican, and I doubt he's going to jeopardize his future by trying to destroy the likely nominee.) He's got Gov. Haley's endorsement, after all, and the opposition is divided, mostly between Gingrich and Santorum.

And yet he remains deeply unpopular with conservatives and the non-elite elements of the party, including the grassroots base. It certainly appears that resignation has set in for many of the movers and shakers in the party, but what of the ideologues, the hardcore loyalists, Tea Partiers and social conservatives alike, who refuse to compromise and who rightly see Romney as an interloper, a phony, and worse? How will they take to being told it's Romney whether they like it or not?

All hail Mitt Romney! -- how last night's "caustic" GOP debate in New Hampshire was really all about deference and resignation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On the one hand, last night's Republican debate in New Hampshire was "caustic," with the various anti-Romneys lining up to take their generally lame and mostly ineffectual shots at the frontrunner -- and of course continuing to show just what right-wing extremists they are, Huntsman excepted. There are occasional glimpses of nastiness in this race, but for the most part the tone is one of respect, politeness, and deference. And while the anti-Romneys have often gone after each other (e.g., Ron Paul's attacks on Gingrich and Santorum), it would appear that a certain resignation has set in. Mitt Romney will be the nominee, no one really wants to weaken him any further, and he continues to float through this whole ridiculous process largely unscathed. Last night's debate only "caustic" from the ever-so-courteous Meet the Press perspective of the Beltway.

(Speaking of MTP, this morning's debate was indeed "far livelier than its predecessor," as Steve Benen puts it, but still hardly a fireworks display. Perhaps the key takeaway is that Romney, good plutocrat/oligarch that he is, thinks that politics is for the rich. Aristotle would not be amused.)

Read what you want about the debate, but do not neglect Esquire's Charles Pierce, who penetrates through the bullshit to get to the heart of the matter:

At this moment, I am still digesting the incredible farrago of gibbering nonsense, vengeful religious rage, political chickenshit, and Mandarin Chinese that combined to make the 45,670th of 62,390 scheduled Republican presidential debates the Level 4 biohazard that it was.

*****

In brief, Saturday night may have been the most naked piece of point-shaving and game-throwing since the 1919 World Series. I've seen fixed prizefights where the issue was more in doubt. The other candidates went so far into the tank for Willard that they may not dry off until next August. In the 1950's, Frankie Carbo would have had them all killed because they made it look so damned obvious. Where was the promised Gingrich assault on the frontrunner? Where was the blood, the guts, the glory? Where was the damn slasher film we all anticipated? This was a waltz, and a clumsy one. If the people in that audience had any pride at all, they'd have attacked the ABC platform and demanded satisfaction for this massive piece of consumer fraud.

The coalescing has begun. The non-Romneys seem to be coming to grips with the fact that there's virtually no chance that Willard isn't the nominee. So, by and large, the rest of them started paying court staying away from him.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole piece. It's awesome, including his takedown of Santorum for saying there are no classes in America: "I have never heard a politician say anything that stupid before in 30 years of watching politicians talk in public."

In the end, these clowns merely embarrassed themselves still further, again excepting the generally respectable Huntsman:

At the very end, just as I was beginning to wonder if the end would ever come, they were asked what would they be doing on Saturday night if they weren't on that stage. (Ooh, ooh! Ask me! Ask me!) Gingrich started off by saying he'd be home "watching the national-championship college basketball game." He meant the football game, and he caught himself, sort of, so we'll give him a pass. Then two of his compadres — including Willard — agreed with him. Yeah, they'd be watching that national-championship game, you betcha, boy howdy.

The BCS championship game takes place Monday night. Three members of the Republican presidential field told America last night that, if they weren't in New Hampshire being dicks to themselves and the rest of the nation, they'd be home watching a football game that wouldn't be played for nearly another 48 hours. 

Morons.

This day in music - January 7, 1955: Marian Anderson becomes the first black singer to perform at the Met

By Richard K. Barry

While I will claim a decent working knowledge of a number of musical genres, Opera is not one them. I have been to a couple of performances. I am always in awe of the talent on display. It's probably a class thing. I didn't grow up with it, and can't relate to it, though at some level I still grasp the beauty of it.

Marian Anderson (1987-1993) was an African-American contralto and one of the most important singers of the twentieth century.

She was also a significant figure in the civil rights movement, having once famously performed at an open-air concert on Easter Sunday, April 9, 1939 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial after having been refused permission by the Daughters of the American Revolution to sing to an integrated audience at Constitution Hall.

Later, on January 7, 1955, she became the first black person to perform at The Metropolitan Opera in New York City. For the opera buffs among us, she performed as Ulrica in Giuseppe Verdi's Un ballo in maschera (The Masked Ball). In one reference, it was stated that she was "the first black singer as a regular company member." Perhaps someone could explain the difference.

Anderson was an important presence throughout the civil rights movement, having, for example, sung at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963, which also featured Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.

Among honours awarded were the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1963, the Kennedy Center Honors in 1978, the National Medal of Arts in 1986, and a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1991.

Below is a clip of the aforementioned performance at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in 1939. Still powerful.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

NFL 2011: Playoffs -- Wild Card Round

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Congratulations, Richard.

Yes, RKB won our little three-man pick'em competition here. Let's look at the final regular season results:

Week 17 

RKB: 13-3 = 13 points 
MJWS: 11-5 (plus upset) = 13 points

The Kid: 12-4 = 12 points 

Regular Season -- Final 

RKB: 177-79 (10 upsets right, 3 locks wrong) = 191 points

MJWS: 175-81 (9 upsets right, 4 locks wrong) = 185 points
The Kid: 162-94 (7 upsets right, 5 locks wrong) = 166 points

You know what? We all did really well. Even The Kid, who got off to a slow start but kept pace with us the rest of the way. And along the way I thought we offered some excellent analysis. Personally, I think we're at least good enough for ESPN's NFL Countdown. (No, I don't take that as a self-compliment.)

But let's move on. (Richard's ego has already swelled too much.) It's the playoffs! And we're going to keep this competition going through the Super Bowl, though now we're going to be picking against the spread -- with a new per-game points system:

-- Wild Card round: 2 points per game;

-- Divisional round: 3 points per game;

-- Conference Finals: 4 points per game; and

-- Super Bowl: 5 points.

Here are this weekend's games, with the lines we're using:

Saturday

Cincinnati at Houston (-4)

Detroit at New Orleans (-10.5)

Sunday

Atlanta at N.Y. Giants (-3.5)

Pittsburgh (-8) at Denver

And our picks:

Stickings' Pickings

Picks: Houston, Detroit, N.Y. Giants, Denver.

I'm a little worried about going with T.J. Yates, but Houston has enough talent everywhere else to win fairly easily against an inexperienced Bengals team (with a bright future, just not a bright today). Look for Foster and Tate and whoever else is running the ball for the Texans to have big games, as well as for the Texans to put enough pressure on Dalton to throw him off his game. Unless Yates has a complete meltdown, in which case we'd get Delhomme (who has extensive playoff experience), I just don't see how Cincy even keeps this close.

There's no way I'd be picking against high-flying Brees & Co. in a pick'em, but 10.5 points is just too much in what should be a shootout. Even if the Saints go up big, the Lions could make it close in garbage time, at least coming within a TD.

I'll add some commentary on Sunday's games tomorrow. Suffice it to say that I'm way down on my beloved Steelers.

Update: Alright, it's Sunday, about 2:52 pm. The Giants are up 7-2 with the ball inside the Falcons' 5.

I took the Giants in this one mainly because of their outstanding d-line, particularly Pierre-Paul. My concern, from a Giants perspective, was the secondary. If the Falcons' o-line could do even a decent job protecting Ryan, Atlanta could get the ball down the field to White, Jones, and Gonzalez, opening up the running game for Turner as well. But credit that secondary. White has only two catches for eight yards so far, and Atlanta's often high-flying passing game has been largely shut down. Of course, if the Falcons had been able to convert that fourth-and-short in Giants territory in the first half -- and it looked like they did, it was just a bad spot -- things might be different now. 10-2 Giants. Manning was finally able to throw the ball downfield on that last drive. I suspect this game will open up now, and on the current drive Ryan is moving the ball well.

Now... Steelers-Broncos. Grantland's Barnwell made a good case the other day for a Broncos win. With the spread as big as it is, I'm definitely taking Denver. The Steelers have hardly been a dominant team this year, and this one could be another anxiety-producing affair. Certainly Pittsburgh has the talent on D to shut down Tebow, but the Steelers are vulnerable to running QBs and he may do just enough to keep the Broncos in the game, particularly with injuries to the Steelers. Notably, safety Ryan Clark, the team's leading tackler, will be out due to a serious illness that threatens his health playing at high altitudes, and the two OLBs, Harrison and Woodley, continue to nurse lingering problems.

My bigger concerns are on the other side of the ball. Big Ben clearly isn't healthy. His ankle sprain has basically made him immobile, and he can't even step into this throws. And with the Broncos throwing Miller and Dumervil at him, he could be under pressure all day, unable ever to get in rhythm and spread the field with his great receivers. Add to this the fact that Mendenhall is out and that the early-season injury problems to the o-line have returned and it's a recipe for disaster for the Steelers at Mile High. All it might take is one late-game play by Tebow, or one long kick from Prater. Yeah, I'm going with Denver and taking the points, but I think Denver might win this outright.

I'm already sick to my stomach.

Barry's Tea Leaves

Picks: Cincinnati, Detroit, N.Y. Giants, Pittsburgh.

Cincinnati over Houston: I'll pick the Bengals to win this one. The solid Cincy D is going to give Houston stand-in QB T.J. Yates fits. Come on. The kid has done well enough at times, but this is the playoffs. Bengals QB Andy Dalton has also done well in his rookie effort -- 20 TDs with 13 interceptions. He should hold up fine. In a low-scoring game. Houston by 4? Don't think so.

Detroit over New Orleans: I think New Orleans will win this game, but not by 10.5. Very high-scoring game, maybe a repeat of the Lions-Packers game. Could see both teams score 40 or more points, but the margin of victory for the Saints will be closer to 7.  Also look for Darren Sproles to have a big game. While Detroit is looking for Brees to throw the ball downfield to Graham and Colston, look for Brees to be dumping it off to Sproles for good yardage. Definitely a back-and-forth day with no huge leads at any time.

Giants over Falcons (and beating the 3.5-point spread): The Giants are peaking at the right time. They've got a respectable running game back with Bradshaw in the lineup. I love the way Eli is throwing the ball and the D is getting healthy at the right time. Sure, I'm worried about the Giants secondary so I don't think this will be a low-scoring game. I'm just expecting the New York pass rush to make it hard for Ryan to tee up for those shots down the field. That'll be the key. If the Giants' pass rush shows up, game over. If not, it'll be a long day for New York.

Pittsburgh over Denver (beating the 8-point spread): I know Steelers' RB Mendenhall is gone for the duration and Big Ben is not at his best, but I can't see Tebow having much of a game against the Steelers. And this is where playoff experience is going to matter for Pitt. Without getting fancy, it'll come down to a mature and proud franchise showing the kneeling boy how it's down. Last point is that defences are figuring Tebow out. You have to make him throw from the pocket, which he can't do. If you don't think the Steelers get this, you are wrong. Look for some terrible Tebow passing numbers for this game, like 5-10 for 57 yards.

Comfortable Kid

Picks: Houston, Detroit, N.Y. Giants, Denver.

Behind the Ad: Ron Paul supporters question Jon Huntsman's loyalty to America

By Richard K. Barry 

Who: NHLiberty4Paul attacks Jon Hunstman. 

Where: New Hampshire. 

What's going on: I can't imagine that I will have been the first to say this, but the best argument against Ron Paul may be the idiots who are supporting his campaign. While not entirely fair to judge people by the company they keep, in politics it's an indicator that shouldn't be ignored either. At a minimum, a candidate should disavow comments made by supporters if, in fact, they disagree with those comments. If they don't, they wear them.

A group calling itself NHLiberty4Paul has just put out a very poorly made video that attempts to raise questions about Jon Hunstman's ties to China. It shows him speaking Chinese and also with his two adopted daughters, one Chinese and the other from India. I guess the implication is that Jon Hunstman is not a real American due to his supposed "foreign sympathies," that he is a Manchurian candidate. Whatever. And I love the Chinese music in the background, by the way. Really cool.

To their credit, the Ron Paul campaign is distancing itself from the attacks, and that's fine.

I guess it's even possible this ad was done and distributed by people who want to hurt Ron Paul given the fact that it is so unseemly. I mean, most reasonable people would probably think proficiency in a foreign language and the willingness to open up your family to children in need would be good qualities in a president. On the other hand, I've seen little evidence that Ron Paul supporters are reasonable people.

Here's Jon Hunstman's response. Talk about a softball opportunity.

What I object to is bringing forward pictures and videos of my adopted daughters and suggesting there is some sinister motive there. I have a daughter from China who was abandoned at two months of age in a vegetable market, picked up by the police and sent to an orphanage. No future, no hope, nothing to look forward to. Now she's in my family, and she's one of the greatest human beings I've ever known. She's also, at 12 years old, my senior foreign policy adviser.

Again, I can accept the fact that the Ron Paul campaign is not behind the ad. And I do want to be careful about suggesting that significant numbers of Paul supporters would be okay with this sort of thing. But it's a fair question. Is this a lone nut job, or is this what Paul brings to the campaign? Is this the type of character motivated by his brand of politics?

Politics in the big leagues is as much about how you manage your friends as it is about how you address your enemies. What say you, Congressman Paul?

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Behind the Ad: Ron Paul targets "serial hypocrite" Santorum in South Carolina

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As we proceed through the primaries and then the general election campaign, not only for the presidency but for Congress and various governorships as well, we're going to be posting some of the more prominent political ads -- in our new "Behind the Ad" series -- and offering some beneath-the-surface analysis. This will complement our extensive political coverage. And, besides, who doesn't like watching political ads, especially when they're viciously negative?

The image here, as you may know, is from Lyndon Johnson's famous 1964 daisy ad, one of the most effective ads in U.S. political history -- not that LBJ was going to have much trouble with the right-wing Goldwater, but this association of the Republican with nuclear armageddon was awfully powerful. (You can watch it here.)

Okay, let's get started...

**********

Who: Ron Paul attacks Rick Santorum.

Where: South Carolina.

What's going on: Just as he attacked Gingrich as a "serial hypocrite" in Iowa, contributing to Newt's collapse in the polls (and dismal showing in the caucuses), Paul is going after the surging Santorum in South Carolina, the next battleground state after New Hampshire.

In a way, though, SC matters more than NH at this point. Romney will win NH, his backyard, in a landslide. The only question is by how much. Paul will finish second, most likely, but will struggle from then on. Why is he going after Gingrich and Santorum?

On the one hand, he may well want Romney to win -- if it's not going to be him (which it won't be). It makes sense that he would prefer the business-minded, plutocratic Romney to social conservative authoritarians like Gingrich and Santorum, whatever their allegiance to the unregulated free market. And in any event he may realize that Romney is the likely nomination.

On the other hand, he may (delusionally) think he still has a shot and is hoping to take down the anti-Romney alternatives one by one so as to be the only one left standing. There's no way the GOP would pick him over Romney, but, well, who knows what he thinks.

Whatever the case, he may just want to make sure he finishes a strong second, assuming he stays in the race for the long haul (like Pat Buchanan did in '92), so as to have a place of prominence at the convention and more generally within the party. It's not that he'll be the veep pick or have a Cabinet post in any Republican administration, but he can still be a major player, his right-wing libertarian agenda part of the party platform whether the establishmentarian elites like it or not.

At this point, it looks like Santorum is the only credible anti-Romney left. (Yes, I'm assuming that Gingrich is done. Right now he's just pathetically lashing out, once more the egomaniacal bully, at both Romney and fellow conservative Santorum. Wasn't it just a short while ago that Newt was bemoaning all the negativity when it was directed at him?) And so he's the obvious target for Paul's venom. And the place to take him down is South Carolina, where Romney has the lead but Santorum is coming on strongly (and may even be running a very close second) and, with a strong showing, could turn the race into a one-on-one affair, with Paul pushed out.

Just imagine the look on Romney's face when he first saw this ad. And imagine him rubbing his hands together gleefully. If he ends up winning the nomination, he should give Paul an expensive gift (or profusive thanks), just like a running back rewards his o-line after a great season. There would many reasons for Romney's success, starting perhaps with behind-the-scenes Romney booster Karl Rove, but it certainly helps that Paul, who has no chance of winning the nomination himself, is helping to clear the path of major obstacles.