Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua!

Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua.com,  Un foro donde se discute la Politica Boricua aparte de otros temas de actualidad e interes.  Aqui existe la mayor libertad de expresion donde pueden debatir libremente.  Registrate!

 
Como la mayoria de las comunidades en linea necesita registrarse para poder postear en nuestra comunidad, pero no se preocupe esto es un proceso simple que solo requiere minima informacion. Sea parte de Cafe Boricua creando una cuenta con nosotros.  Puede logearse con su cuenta de Facebook o Twitter.

  • Comienze nuevos temas y responda a otros
  • Subscribirse a temas y foros y recibir actualizaciones automaticas.
  • Crea su propio perfil y haga nuevas amistades.
  • Comparta sus posteos o temas en las redes sociales.
  • Personalize su experiencia aqui.
  • Crea una encuesta!   Una gallery de fotos.  Anuncie un evento. 

Animate a participar en nuestro foro boricua!


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
charlie319

Boon Or Bane; Mitt Romney's Bain Capital Record Of "vulture Capitalism"

231 posts in this topic

[quote name='Artaguito' timestamp='1326330898' post='2944894']


Y por eso es que yo digo que o tu estabas destinado a fracasar en tus negocios, o es mentira que esos negocios existan (o tu seas duen~o, tal ves eres simplemente un empleado).

Es una obligacion fiduciaria de la gerencia de esa corporacion hacia los accionistas de esta buscar los mejores precios de produccion. [color=#ff0000][size=6]Si estos precios son mas baratos y es legal hacerlo[/size][/color], es deseable que se haga alla. Tal ves como tu y los 'Defecators' no saben mucho como el mercado funciona eso te suene grotesco y obceno, pero es como funcionan las cosas en los mercados libres.

Si hubiesen maquiladoras en este lado del borde que pagaran $1 por hora de trabajo, tal vez podrias producir aqui los mahones que compras a los precios que pagas, pero con las leyes y reglas en este pais esas industrias se tienen que ir afuera a manufacturar.

O tienes una fabrica que pague una miseria o pagas por el extra costo, pero es muy dificil que tengas las dos. La solucion es dejarle esas industrias de baja destreza al exterior y concentrarse en desarrollar industrias de alta destreza.



[b]Y Charlie, yo no tengo tiempo de leer articulos kilometricos llenos de basofia, por favor redacta y lleva al grano; es como si estuviera leyendo los posts que ponia Fearless![/b]
[/quote]


[size=6]Quien es el que hace el hecho de que llevarse los trabajos de los trabajadores americanos a otros paises sea legal????[/size]

[size=6][size=4]Te la pongo en ese tamaño por que has demostrado que eres tan bruto que ni la veas , o que hagas como con muchas de mis preguntas ...no las contestes!!![/size][/size]

[size=6][size=4]jajajajajajajajajajajajaja[/size][/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Chemo:[color=#ff0000][i][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif] todos ellos apoyan que las corporaciones se lleven los empleos nacionales a otros paises para hacerlos a ellos mas ricos y luego traer aqui sus productos y venderlos triplicando las ganancias de ellos .....y el trabajador americano??[/font][/i][/color]


Chemo, y recibe esto como parte de tu educacion economica, de quien pertenecen los trabajos en una fabrica? De quien pertenece mi plaza de piloto en FedEx?

Al empleado? A la nacion? Al patrono?

Por supuesto, hay empleos que por seguridad la nacion asume cierto control (como piloto de linea aerea), y la lealtad del empleado a su trabajo es una variable que tiene siempre que ser considerada, pero el que hizo la inversion para crearlo, provee el andamio corporativo para mantenerlo, y cuadra las cuentas para el salario de ese empleo es el patrono, sea el duen~o de un supermercadito con 4 empleados o una corporacion de 225,000 empleados.

Tu Chemo tienes la libertad de mirar la etiqueta del producto y buscar el "Made in XXXXX" y decidir si lo quieres comprar o no. Tanto que hablas pero me apuesto que hoy mismo compraste algo y ni te diste cuenta que decia 'Made in China'.

De que marca es tu carro Chemo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Chemo, pongo tu pregunta en[b] bold,[/b] en[i] italico[/i], y en[color=#ff0000] rojo [/color]para que se den cuenta lo poco que tu sabes: [color=#ff0000][i][b][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=6]Quien es el que hace el hecho de que llevarse los trabajos de los trabajadores americanos a otros paises sea legal????[/size][/font][/b][/i][/color]



[b]Los mismos principios mercantiles que permiten que la BMW tenga una fabrica de carros en Carolina del Sur y la Mercedes en Alabama.[/b]

La solucion no es restricciones, la solucion es educacion de la empleomania del pais, innovacion, y mas facilidad de inversion y desarrollo privado en el pais. More capitalism, not less, and use a carrot, not a stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja, ja... Quien dice que los lees? Eres posiblemente uno de los cabezones mas desinformados que he visto... O posiblemente no ves la letra en "negrita" o las areas subrayadas...


Toma aqui tienes un articulo de lo que dice Rushbo:

[b] Rush: Romney admits he’s just like Obama[/b]

[b] Radio giant also says Ron Paul is a 'conservative killer'[/b]

[i]by[/i] [url="http://www.wnd.com/author/jkovacs/"]Joe Kovacs[/url]
Radio host Rush Limbaugh is scratching his head today at the strategy employed by Mitt Romney in the wake of his New Hampshire primary victory, as the former governor is likening himself to President Barack Obama.
[b]During an appearance on CBS today, [color=#ff0000]Romney said his job-cutting actions at his Bain Capital investment firm were no different from Obama’s bailouts of the U.S. auto industry[/color].[/b]

[b]“In the general election I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler – closed factories, closed dealerships laid off thousands and thousands of workers – he did it to try to save the business,” Romney said[/b].
In his analysis of the comment, Limbaugh explained, “Romney said what he did running Bain Capital was no different from what Barack Obama did bailing out the auto industry. Thud! Kerplunk! You’ve got to be kidding me.”
Limbaugh said Romney was actually accepting the premise of his critics such as fellow Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry “that he has gone into these companies with a chainsaw.”
[i]Limbaugh continued, “What Romney should’ve said is, ‘You call what I did layoffs? I was trying to save jobs. I was trying to save companies. Look at what Obama did at General Motors. Those jobs went overseas to the Chi-coms (Chinese communists). Look at how he’s laying off 80,000 soldiers.’ And this is a point. Is Obama trying to save the Pentagon by laying off 80,000 soldiers? No, ladies and gentlemen. Quite the opposite. There’s not a single thing that is common between we as conservatives and Barack Obama. Not a single thing. In the areas of economics and substance there’s not a single thing.”[/i]
Limbaugh added: “My concern here is that capitalism’s under assault. Barack Obama is not a capitalist. Barack Obama and Romney did not do what they did for the same reasons, for the same objectives, same things. If you’re going to wade intro this pool of defending the way you save a business … you’re not government. I just think there’s a better way of doing this educationally, informatively than tying yourself to Obama. It’s not that I think Romney’s gonna take over car companies as president. That’s not what my fear here is. I think in order to win this Obama is gonna have to be properly defined as what he is and what he intends for this country. And his takeover of General Motors was not benevolent. There was nothing about the takeover of General Motors that was oriented toward saving it. He doesn’t care whether it runs at a profit.”
[b]Romney easily won the New Hampshire primary last night, taking 39 percent of the ballots cast, with Ron Paul finishing in second place with nearly 23 percent,[/b] and Jon Huntsman at close to 17 percent. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were tied with 9.4 percent each. Rick Perry and Buddy Roemer each collected less than 1 percent.
[u]Limbaugh said he was interested in Paul’s placing second in New Hampshire, and says Romney wants Paul to stay in the race and not drop out, suggesting Paul will help clear the field for Romney by siphoning away votes from other contenders[/u].
[b]“Fifty-seven percent of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see,”[/b] he said.
“Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. The powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there.”


Je, je, je, je... Cuando Rushbo habla de conservadores se refiere a la mayoria moral... No a la corporativista apatrida... Considera los hechos: Iowa donde Romney gana por 8 votos... Seguido en el estado donde el tiene casa y es contiguo a donde fue gobernador, literalmente su patio, gana con menos del 40% y paul, el anatema del Republicano corporativista llega segundo con mas de un 22%... Estadisticamente no es una victoria, pero ahora vamos a Carolina del Sur, dond Bain si le costo el empleo a muchos... Ustedes creen que Paul esta ahi para allanarle el camino a Robbo-Mitt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Artaguito' timestamp='1326332184' post='2944898']
Chemo, pongo tu pregunta en[b] bold,[/b] en[i] italico[/i], y en[color=#ff0000] rojo [/color]para que se den cuenta lo poco que tu sabes: [color=#ff0000][i][b][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=6]Quien es el que hace el hecho de que llevarse los trabajos de los trabajadores americanos a otros paises sea legal????[/size][/font][/b][/i][/color]



[b]Los mismos principios mercantiles que permiten que la BMW tenga una fabrica de carros en Carolina del Sur y la Mercedes en Alabama.[/b]

La solucion no es restricciones, la solucion es educacion de la empleomania del pais, innovacion, y mas facilidad de inversion y desarrollo privado en el pais. More capitalism, not less, and use a carrot, not a stick.
[/quote]


Tanto te cuesta aceptar que quien hace legal los negocios [color=#ff0000][size=6]SON LO POLITICOS!!!!![/size][/color]

[color=#ff0000][size=6]LOS MISMOS QUE LE HAN VENDIDO LOS EEUU A CHINA!!!...LOS MISMOS QUE HAN CREADO TODOS ESTOS TRATADOS DE LIBRE COMERCIO QUE HAN HECHO MAS RICOS Y DE MANERA INNECESARIA A ESTAS CORPORACIONES A COSTILLAS DE LOS EMPLEOS EN EEUU!!![/size][/color]

[color=#000000][b][size=6][size=4]Aprendete eso mi querido corneta , esos politicos que tu tanto defiendes estan acabando con EEUU y con el resto de el planeta!!![/size][/size][/b][/color]


[size=6][color=#000000][b]SCHOOL OUT!!!![/b][/color][/size] Edited by Chemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Chemo: [color=#ff0000][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Tanto te cuesta aceptar que quien hace legal los negocios [/font][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=6]SON LO POLITICOS!!!!![/size][/font][/color]


Entonces porque llevas 94 paginas en otro tema criticando a las corporaciones privadas que solo se beneficiaron de lo que les dieron? Porque te rehusas a darle responsabilidad a Fannie y Freddie Mac?


No vengo yo diciendo desde el principio (y buscalo en las primeras 20 paginas de ese tema) que los que jodieron la cosa fueron los politicos? gracias por por fin darme la razon Chemo, ahora te falta reconocer tu embuste sobre la carta, reconocer la diferencia entre valor y precio, y reconocer que el banco no obliga a nadie a hacer nada.


[size=4][i][color=#FF0000][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]LOS MISMOS QUE LE HAN VENDIDO LOS EEUU A CHINA!!!...LOS MISMOS QUE HAN CREADO TODOS ESTOS TRATADOS DE LIBRE COMERCIO QUE HAN HECHO MAS RICOS Y DE MANERA INNECESARIA A ESTAS CORPORACIONES A COSTILLAS DE LOS EMPLEOS EN EEUU!!![/font][/color][/i][/size]

A mi no me molesta en lo absoluto que las corporaciones se hagan mas ricas, especialmente la mia, pero si te molesta que le "vendieramos" a EEUU a China, llevale esa queja a Bill Clinton, el padrote de Charlie (que es ahora tu padrote aqui), que fue el que empujo que China recibiera el Most Favored Nation status. Tambien fue el que firmo en ley el NAFTA, que convirtio a Mexico y Canada en free trade partners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Bueno, si consideras que los politicos jodieron la cosa a nombre de los empresarios que los tienen comprados como esclavitos, entonces tienes que culpar tanto a quein hace el acto como a quien paga por que lo hagan.

Anda negrito, que tu sabes que quien negocio NAFTA... O tengo que desmentirte otra vez:

[color=#ff0000][b]Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in [/b][/color][b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio,_Texas"][color=#ff0000]San Antonio, Texas[/color][/url][color=#ff0000], on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush"][color=#ff0000]George H. W. Bush[/color][/url][color=#ff0000], Canadian Prime Minister [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney"][color=#ff0000]Brian Mulroney[/color][/url][color=#ff0000] and Mexican President [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Salinas"][color=#ff0000]Carlos Salinas[/color][/url][/b][color=#ff0000][b], each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it[/b][/color]. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
Before the negotiations were finalized, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton"]Bill Clinton[/url] came into office in the U.S. and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell"]Kim Campbell[/url] in Canada, and before the agreement became law, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Chr%C3%A9tien"]Jean Chrétien[/url] had taken office in Canada.
The proposed Canada-U.S.trade agreement had been very controversial and divisive in Canada, and the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1988"]1988 Canadian election[/url] was fought almost exclusively on that issue. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada"]Liberals[/url] and the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party"]New Democrats[/url]) but the split caused more seats in parliament to be won by the pro-free trade [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada"]Progressive Conservatives[/url] (PCs). Mulroney and the PCs had a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_government"]parliamentary majority[/url] and were easilly able to pass the Canada-US FTA and NAFTA bills. However, Mulroney himself had become deeply unpopular and resigned on June 25, 1993. He was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell"]Kim Campbell[/url], who then led the PC party into the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Canadian_election"]1993 election[/url] where they were decimated by the Liberal party under [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Chr%C3%A9tien"]Jean Chrétien[/url].
Chrétien had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA but broke his promise and negotiated two supplemental agreements with the new US president. In the US, Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton"]Bill Clinton[/url]. Prior to sending it to the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate"]United States Senate[/url], Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required US partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.
With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#cite_note-0"][1][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#cite_note-1"][2][/url][/sup] Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#cite_note-2"][3][/url][/sup]

[b][sup]Creo que despues de esta publica clavada que te he dado en la que no te queda una estria tensa, yo he de ser tu padrote...[/sup][/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Artaguito' timestamp='1326338187' post='2944907']
Chemo: [color=#ff0000][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Tanto te cuesta aceptar que quien hace legal los negocios [/font][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=6]SON LO POLITICOS!!!!![/size][/font][/color]


Entonces porque llevas 94 paginas en otro tema criticando a las corporaciones privadas que solo se beneficiaron de lo que les dieron? Porque te rehusas a darle responsabilidad a Fannie y Freddie Mac?


No vengo yo diciendo desde el principio (y buscalo en las primeras 20 paginas de ese tema) que los que jodieron la cosa fueron los politicos? gracias por por fin darme la razon Chemo, ahora te falta reconocer tu embuste sobre la carta, reconocer la diferencia entre valor y precio, y reconocer que el banco no obliga a nadie a hacer nada.


[size=4][i][color=#ff0000][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]LOS MISMOS QUE LE HAN VENDIDO LOS EEUU A CHINA!!!...LOS MISMOS QUE HAN CREADO TODOS ESTOS TRATADOS DE LIBRE COMERCIO QUE HAN HECHO MAS RICOS Y DE MANERA INNECESARIA A ESTAS CORPORACIONES A COSTILLAS DE LOS EMPLEOS EN EEUU!!![/font][/color][/i][/size]

A mi no me molesta en lo absoluto que las corporaciones se hagan mas ricas, especialmente la mia, pero si te molesta que le "vendieramos" a EEUU a China, llevale esa queja a Bill Clinton, el padrote de Charlie (que es ahora tu padrote aqui), que fue el que empujo que China recibiera el Most Favored Nation status. Tambien fue el que firmo en ley el NAFTA, que convirtio a Mexico y Canada en free trade partners.
[/quote]


Ahora estas como los pollos cuando se les tuerce el pezcueso y estan dando los ultimos aletazos!!!!....Gracias por aceptar que los politicos de EEUU le vendieron la nacion a China y demas paises tercermundistas ...solo te falta aceptar que los politicos hicieron dichos tratados para favorecer a los corporativistas que son los que costean las campañas politicas de los politicos de ambos partidos .....dejate de pendejadas , tu llevas cientos de paginas defendiendo a los politicos de EEUU y las ejecutorias de los bancos y las corporaciones como si fuesen Dioses ...Increible!!!

Tanto republicanos como democratas le han vendido hasta las nalgas a China y demas paises donde hay mano de obra barata en favor de las corporaciones y en contra el pueblo de EEUU que cada dia pierden mas y mas empleos bajo todos esos tratados de libre comercio...y lo peor de todo es que en ninguno de los 2 partidos poiticos hay algun candidato que detenga o deshaga alguno de esos tratados o busquen la manera de frenar la perdida de empleos!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[url="http://www.thedocisin.net/?p=18292"]http://www.thedocisin.net/?p=18292[/url]
[url="http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2011/08/23/obama-s-head-of-us-jobs-council-shipping-jobs-to-china-ge-s-immelt-joining-forces-with-china"]http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2011/08/23/obama-s-head-of-us-jobs-council-shipping-jobs-to-china-ge-s-immelt-joining-forces-with-china[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.org/business/story.php?id=42530"]http://www.catholic.org/business/story.php?id=42530[/url]
Under the current agreement, China will use GE technology to construct its own airliners. This decision will cost American jobs as China will be able to build their own technologically advanced airliners instead of purchasing them whole, or their component parts from US manufacturers such as Boeing.

Despite the criticism these realities bring, GE defends its position. In a recent article in the Washington Post, GE's Aviation Systems Chief Executive, Lorraine Bolsinger, was paraphrased as claiming the opportunity was too great to be missed, "even if most of the jobs are created in Shanghai or elsewhere in China."
[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-20117416.html"]http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-20117416.html[/url]
Immelt: [u]You know, with the currency weaker, [b]with wage-rates inflation lower here than the rest of the world[/b], we think the U.S. can be quite competitive[/u].

Stahl: What struck me is that the new plants don't hire a lot of people. You talk about hundreds instead of thousands. And I wonder, as you bring in new factories: they are so automated.

Immelt: You're going to have fewer people that do any task. In the end, it makes the system more productive and more competitive. But when you walk thru Mississippi, for every person that was in that plant, there's probably seven or eight in the supply chain.

Stahl: [b]A lot of the jobs we saw were $13-an hour jobs. That's really not the ticket, is it, to a really vibrant middle class[/b].

Immelt: [u]We have a range. When we go out and recruit, let's say hire 1,000 people at between $15 and $17 an hour, we get 50,000 applicants. So I think you've gotta start somewhere and ...but we want to hire more people.[/u]

But here's the problem when it comes to creating jobs: the inflow's a trickle; the main event is still overseas. In places like Brazil, once known for sun, samba and soccer, now one of the world's fastest growing economies. Brazil is buying more GE products than almost any other country. It's no wonder they have a GE company town 90 minutes from Rio.

Stahl: You hear GE and you think Schenectady, New York. Lynn, Massachusetts. Petropolis, Brazil?

Immelt: It's the world we live in today, Lesley. This is where we have to be today to be successful.

And they are wildly successful in Brazil.

Where GE is growing at a rate of 35 percent a year compared to one percent in the U.S. Immelt showed us around a GE locomotive plant.

Immelt: If you go back five, 10, 15 years, maybe we made 30 or 40 locomotives here, you know, Lesley, we're now making 150.

Stahl: That's the horn?

Immelt: So just push? I need one of these in my office.

GE has become so global that [u]more than half of its 300,000 workers are now overseas[/u]. We spoke to him on the floor of GE's jet engine servicing plant in Petropolis.

[b]Stahl: How much of your revenues, now, come from overseas?[/b]

[b]Immelt: Sixty percent.[/b]

Stahl: Sixty percent of GE's revenue is foreign.

Immelt: Wh[b]en I became CEO it was 30. Now, I wish all our customers were in Chicago. I mean everything about the U.S. is easier than doing business here, but this is where the growth is.[/b]

Stahl: You know, it's like a bucket of ice on your head. I don't think we have caught up to the reality of how much the world is consuming and-- and how we're slippin' back.

Immelt: You know, I-- I don't think it has to be all bad news. [b]I still think there's lots of things we can do in the U.S., but the customers are here. And, and that's just the way it is[/b].


Cuanto crees tu que gasta GE anualmente cabildeando para que el "wage rate inflation" sea mas lento en los EEUU que en el resto del mundo, aunque aqui estan sus mejores consumidores? Es legal, porque no permiten que pasen leyes que impidan que campeen como les da la gana. Pero eso no lo hace justo, ni etico y mucho menos moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Que dice la prensa y cual es el futuro inmediato del "Corporate raider of the lost ark":

[b] Romney Free-Enterprise ‘Trial’ Aligns Republicans With Obama[/b]

January 12, 2012, 8:15 AM EST

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Republican front-runner Mitt Romney, who has cast the 2012 presidential campaign as “free enterprise on trial,” finds himself in a struggle over the role of capitalism in an unlikely place: within his own party.
As Romney attempts to frame a general election contest with President Barack Obama on the economy, some of his rivals for the Republican nomination have made many of the same arguments against him that Democrats have.
[b]Texas Governor Rick Perry accused Romney of practicing “vulture” capitalism during his days as a private equity executive. A film bankrolled by supporters of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich charges that Romney’s firm, Bain Capital LLC, eliminated jobs and turned “the misfortune of others into their own enormous financial gain.”[/b] These are complaints the Obama campaign will be ready to reinforce during the campaign.
“We’ve understood for a long time that the Obama people would come after free enterprise,” Romney told reporters aboard his campaign plane yesterday during a flight to South Carolina, site of the next primary. “Little surprised to see Newt Gingrich as the first witness for the prosecution.”
With the U.S. economy the dominant concern of voters, Obama heads into November’s election seeking to portray himself as a champion of middle-income Americans who is confronting Wall Street and Republican obstructionists in Congress. The president signaled his re-election message with a Dec. 6 address in Kansas, saying the nation is at “a make-or-break moment for the middle class.”
Market-Oriented
Kent Hughes, director of the Program on Science, Technology, America and the Global Economy at The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, dismissed Romney’s portrayal of Obama as political hyperbole.
“I don’t really see free enterprise being put on trial by any of the candidates, including President Obama,” he said. The president “looks, as previous administrations have, for business to play a leading role in everything from job-creation to long-term productivity growth.”
[b]Republican criticism of Romney’s business record could prove damaging if it depresses enthusiasm for the party’s eventual nominee among the white working class.[/b]
“Obama is never going to convince those white working- class voters to stay home rather than vote for Romney,” said Dan Schnur, a campaign adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s first bid for the White House in 2000. “Some of that rhetoric from Gingrich and Perry can.”
Key to Victory
[b]White working-class voters have become increasingly important in the Republican electoral coalition, said Ruy Teixeira, a political demographer and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington.[/b]
[b]A Republican nominee “literally can’t win without a very large supermajority from the white working class,” Teixeira said. “It’s the key to their victory. The stakes couldn’t be higher.”[/b]
[u]Republicans succeeded in the 2010 midterm congressional elections by gaining a 30-percentage-point lead among white working-class voters,[/u] Teixeira said. [u]Obama won election in 2008 even with an 18-point gap among those voters because of support from minority groups and college-educated whites[/u].
Seizing the Moment
Romney seized his moment before a national television audience on the night of his New Hampshire primary victory to define his differences with the Democratic president in terms of fundamental economic principles, portraying Obama as a practitioner of “the bitter politics of envy” who would “turn America into a European-style entitlement society.”
“This president takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe,” Romney told his supporters.
Romney promised instead to “lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success.”
For now, it is Romney’s Republican rivals who are stoking resentment and providing recorded comments that Democrats could turn against Romney should he become the party’s nominee.
Companies such as Romney’s Bain Capital “come in and loot people’s jobs, loot their pensions, loot their ability to take care of their families,” Perry said at a town hall meeting in Fort Mill, South Carolina, on Jan. 10. “They’re just vultures sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick. And then they swoop in, they eat the carcass, they leave with that, and they leave the skeleton.”
Hard Times
With the move to South Carolina, the Republican presidential race is shifting to an electorate that has faced more difficult economic times than many other states.
[u]The November unemployment rate in the site of the first nominating caucuses, Iowa, was 5.7 percent. In New Hampshire, which hosted the first primary election, it was 5.2 percent.[/u]
[u]By contrast, the jobless rate in South Carolina was 9.9 percent in November[/u], the most recent month for which state-level figures are available. In the states that host the [u]next nominating contests, unemployment in Nevada is 13 percent and in Florida it is 10 percent[/u].
Nationally, the unemployment rate for December was 8.5 percent, the lowest since February 2009. The Obama administration said on Jan. 6 that 200,000 jobs were added in the U.S. in December.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 index has risen 2.8 percent this year on better-than-forecast U.S. economic data and amid optimism that Europe is taking steps to tame the region’s debt crisis.
Free Markets, Capitalism
David Woodard, a Republican political consultant and director of the Palmetto Poll at Clemson University in South Carolina, said the attack on Romney runs counter to the ideological outlook of voters in the state.
The South Carolina electorate, particularly in Republican primaries, “really embraces free markets and capitalism,” Woodard said.
The primary-season attack on Romney’s record in business could work to his advantage in a general election campaign if it allows his campaign to perfect a response, Schnur said.
“If they come up with a very effective answer, this is a blessing -- if they don’t, it’s going to hurt even more,” said Schnur, now director of the Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.
[b]Romney’s response based on free-market principles “is a little bit abstract” for voters in the November general election, he said. “You’ve got argue it in terms of jobs.” [/b][i][color=#ff0000](ahi se jodio, porque aunque le puso dinero en el bolsillo a sus aliados de BAIN, le costo el empleo y fodo de retiro a muchos trabajadores)[/color][/i]
Carter Eskew, a strategist for Democrat Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign and now a managing director at the Glover Park Group in Washington, said Obama’s allies were likely to reprise the attacks on Bain if Romney becomes the nominee.
“My guess is the Obama campaign has already filmed a lot of people who will talk about how Romney’s business enterprises resulted in their being fired,” Eskew said.
--With assistance from John McCormick and Lisa Lerer in South Carolina and Corinne Gretler in Zurich. Editors: Mark Silva, Mark McQuillan
To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington at mdorning@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Komarow at skomarow1@bloomberg.net


Y SAntorum en el show de Gretta van Sustern:
[b]SANTORUM:[/b] Oh, look, I think what Newt just talked about with going after Governor Romney's record in Massachusetts is absolutely dead-on. Governor Romney's record in Massachusetts is deplorable. [b]It's not a conservative record. It's tax increases, as he mentioned, $50 a taxpayer-funded abortions in "RomneyCare." There are a whole host of fees and things that the governor put in place that, actually, he even proposed and a Democratic legislature wouldn't go along with some of his tax increases[/b].
So you have a -- that's why I've been somewhat, you know, hesitant to go after his Bain Capital record. [b]I don't want to divert attention away from his horrible record as governor and being a moderate to liberal governor in Massachusetts[/b]. That's the record I want -- [u]as Newt said, gun control, abortion, and a very bad record on taxes and spending[/u]. Those are the kind of things that I want to talk about here in South Carolina.

Ahi lo tienen... Flip-flopping, tax-&-spend, job killing, moderate brahmin from the east coast republican...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
La pregunta para ti Charlie es: Votaras por el candidato que nomine el GOP o seras un 'Default Obama Voter' que si no te nominan a Ron Paul te vas corriendo a Obama?

I mean, yo voto por un carton de leche antes que Obama, y hasta por Ron Paul que creo que se llevaria la pela del siglo a manos de Obama.

Tu puedes decir lo mismo Charlie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[color=#989899][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][/size][/font][/color]

[b] 2012 Florida Republican Primary[/b]
[color=#999999][font=Georgia, serif][size=5]
Florida GOP Primary: Romney 41%, Gingrich 19%, Santorum 15%[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#989899][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][b]
[url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/2012_florida_republican_primary"]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/2012_florida_republican_primary[/url][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#989899][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][b]
Thursday, January 12, 2012[/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#272727][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]
Mitt Romney is now running away with the race in the latest Rasmussen Reports’ survey of the end-of-the-month Florida Republican Primary.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#272727][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]
Coming off his decisive win in Tuesday’s New Hampshire Primary, Romney earns 41% support with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich a distant second at 19%. A new telephone survey of Likely Florida Republican Primary Voters finds former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum running third with 15% of the vote.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#272727][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]
Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former Utah Governor Jon Hunstman are next with nine percent (9%) and five percent (5%) support respectively. The two men finished second and third in New Hampshire where independents are allowed to vote in the primary. The Florida primary is open to Republican voters only. Texas Governor Rick Perry runs dead last among primary voters in the Sunshine State with two percent (2%) support. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate in the race, and eight percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, [url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/questions_florida_republican_primary_january_11_2012"]click here[/url].)[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#272727][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]
(Want a [url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/daily_updates"]free daily e-mail update[/url]? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on [url="http://twitter.com/RasmussenPoll"]Twitter[/url] or [url="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Asbury-Park-NJ/Rasmussen-Reports/86959124863?ref=nf"]Facebook[/url].[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#272727][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]
This Florida survey of 750 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted on January 11, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by [url="http://www.pulseopinionresearch.com/"]Pulse Opinion Research, LLC[/url]. See [url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology"]methodology[/url].[/size][/font][/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Artaguito' timestamp='1326380681' post='2944925']
La pregunta para ti Charlie es: Votaras por el candidato que nomine el GOP o seras un 'Default Obama Voter' que si no te nominan a Ron Paul te vas corriendo a Obama?

I mean, yo voto por un carton de leche antes que Obama, y hasta por Ron Paul que creo que se llevaria la pela del siglo a manos de Obama.

Tu puedes decir lo mismo Charlie?
[/quote]


Si es Romney, yo probablemente vaya a trabajar...

Tu con tal que sea lo que percibes que te ordena el partido votaras por una columna de estiercol con lentes y sombrero...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Artaguito' timestamp='1326381124' post='2944927']


[b] 2012 Florida Republican Primary[/b]

[color=#999999][font=Georgia, serif][size=5]Florida GOP Primary: Romney 41%, Gingrich 19%, Santorum 15%[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#989899][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][b][url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/2012_florida_republican_primary"]http://www.rasmussen...ublican_primary[/url][/b][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#989899][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][b]Thursday, January 12, 2012[/b][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#272727][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Mitt Romney is now running away with the race in the latest Rasmussen Reports’ survey of the end-of-the-month Florida Republican Primary.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#272727][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Coming off his decisive win in Tuesday’s New Hampshire Primary, Romney earns 41% support with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich a distant second at 19%. A new telephone survey of Likely Florida Republican Primary Voters finds former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum running third with 15% of the vote.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#272727][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former Utah Governor Jon Hunstman are next with nine percent (9%) and five percent (5%) support respectively. The two men finished second and third in New Hampshire where independents are allowed to vote in the primary. The Florida primary is open to Republican voters only. Texas Governor Rick Perry runs dead last among primary voters in the Sunshine State with two percent (2%) support. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate in the race, and eight percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, [url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/questions_florida_republican_primary_january_11_2012"]click here[/url].)[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#272727][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3](Want a [url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/daily_updates"]free daily e-mail update[/url]? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on [url="http://twitter.com/RasmussenPoll"]Twitter[/url] or [url="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Asbury-Park-NJ/Rasmussen-Reports/86959124863?ref=nf"]Facebook[/url].[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#272727][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]This Florida survey of 750 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted on January 11, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by [url="http://www.pulseopinionresearch.com/"]Pulse Opinion Research, LLC[/url]. See [url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology"]methodology[/url].[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]

Romeny gano en Iowa por 8 votos y en su estado con menos del 40%... Estan tratando de crear la leyenda de que va repartiendo pela a ver si algun incauto se la cree... Esa primaria de Florida no es sino hasta finales de enero y todavia falta el efecto que SC pueda tener sobre los indecisos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Artaguito' timestamp='1326380681' post='2944925']
La pregunta para ti Charlie es: Votaras por el candidato que nomine el GOP o seras un 'Default Obama Voter' que si no te nominan a Ron Paul te vas corriendo a Obama?

I mean, yo voto por un carton de leche antes que Obama, y hasta por Ron Paul que creo que se llevaria la pela del siglo a manos de Obama.

Tu puedes decir lo mismo Charlie?
[/quote]


Aqui es que esta la diferencia entre un libre pensador con autoridad propia y un fanatico politico doctrinado :sardonic:

Tu no entiendes nuestro mensaje por que no tienes la altura intelectual para enteder que el pais lo han jodido los 2 partidos , que estamos en quiebra por eso mismo y que no hay un solo candidato en los 2 partidos que este dispuesto a devolverle el control de el pais a sus ciudadanos por medio de un gobierno que su prioridad sea el pueblo y la nacion ....

Charlie y yo creemos en el capitalismo y creemos en el sistema , en lo que no creemos es en las prioridades de los politicos de estos tiempos en el congreso y en el poder casi dictatorial que le han otorgado a las corporaciones , los banqueros , los petroleros y Wall Street con toda la impunidad legal que eso conlleva!!!

En estos momentos votar por Obama es como darse un tiro en corazon y por Romney seria como darse el mismo balazo pero en la cabeza .....la muerte es la misma!!!

Cuando tu puedas aceptar a donde han llevado a este pais ambos partidos sin fanatismos solo ahi podras ser libre de criterio y pensamiento , pero como sabemos que eres un fanatico doctrinado de mente debil y bruto como centella pues no esperamos cambios en tu erratico comportamiento!!!

:brut:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
The Tea Party’s Not-So-Civil War

[b] By [url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/matt_bai/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]MATT BAI[/url][/b]




I met Karen Martin, a few days before New Year’s, at a cafe in Greenville, the hub of conservative politics in South Carolina. A 54-year-old refugee from the North Shore of Massachusetts, [u]Martin is the lead organizer of the nearby Spartanburg [url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier"]Tea Party[/url]. Another Tea Party leader described her to me as a grown-up, and in fact, Martin turned out to be the kind of activist — ideology notwithstanding — who makes you feel hopeful about the new age of political uprising[/u]. She recounted how she burst into tears at the moment she realized, watching the news in 2008, that children growing up today wouldn’t have the economic opportunities that she did. She talked about how the Tea Party would need to mature and become more politically sophisticated in the years ahead. “I think the movement is just too young and too emotional,” she said.
[b]Then our conversation turned to [url="http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/mitt-romney?inline=nyt-per"]Mitt Romney[/url], and Martin’s sunny countenance darkened. “I don’t know a single Tea Party person,” she said, slowly drawing out her words, “who does not despise Mitt Romney to the very core of their being.” I searched her face for levity or compassion, but found neither.[/b]
[u]Discussions about the Tea Party often miss the extent to which the movement is loose and leaderless, a disjointed collection of local chapters and agendas.[/u] But if the phenomenon has an epicenter, that place is South Carolina. The state’s junior senator, [url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/jim_demint/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]Jim DeMint[/url], is generally seen as the ideological forefather of the Tea Party, at least among elected officials. [b]Tea Party activism propelled South Carolina’s 39-year-old governor, Nikki Haley, into office in 2010[/b], along with four new Republican congressmen. There are, by some estimates, more than 50 autonomous Tea Party groups operating throughout the state, and according to a recent Winthrop University poll, 61 percent of South Carolinians say they approve of the movement — more than double the national figure, according to data from the Pew Research Center.
When you talk to activists around the state, as I did recently during a weeklong visit, you hear a lot about Romney’s record on health care, specifically, and about his ideological squishiness in general. But you also come to understand that the antipathy in Tea Party circles is more visceral. It’s a reaction to what they perceive as Romney’s synthetic and calculating persona, the sense that he somehow embodies everything that’s false and impenetrable about the parties in Washington. [u]And so South Carolina, which will hold its presidential primary Jan. 21, is the place where two powerful political vehicles — Mitt Romney’s establishment-backed campaign and the three-year-old Tea Party insurgency — will collide full force. It’s here where Tea Party activists have expected to assert their influence over the party’s nominating process[/u]. [b]For most of them, that means, above all, stopping Mitt.[/b]
[b]The problem is that they’ve had a hard time settling on any obvious alternative to Romney, in a way that might transform the primary into a clear, binary choice. After a startling finish in Iowa, [url="http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/rick-santorum?inline=nyt-per"]Rick Santorum[/url] seemed likely to steal significant votes from rivals like [url="http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/newt-gingrich?inline=nyt-per"]Newt Gingrich[/url] and [url="http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/ron-paul?inline=nyt-per"]Ron Paul[/url] and to fill the smallish void left by Michele Bachmann. But even as Santorum moved to consolidate conservative support, Tea Party organizers remained largely splintered among the rival campaigns. Their most influential leader, DeMint, declined to throw his support one way or the other. Haley, meanwhile, decided to endorse Romney in mid-December, a tactical decision that mostly drew derision from her Tea Party followers[/b].
After months of confusion and bickering over whom to support, a kind of unraveling has occurred at the upper reaches of the movement, in some cases causing friendships to fray and giving rise to charges and countercharges on Facebook. Officers have resigned. Angry statements have been issued. Reputations have been damaged.
Martin herself remained neutral when we met, though she said she was giving Newt Gingrich a longer look. “I’ve been forced to recognize that he might be the best weapon we have,” she said, though she was far more enthusiastic about the tomato soup on her tray. Martin was confident that her fellow Tea Partiers would, in the months after the primary, repair whatever wounds have opened, but she had all but given up hope that they might agree on a candidate before the voting starts. “I’ve talked to so many [u]Tea Party members who said, ‘I will never again hold my nose and vote for someone,’ ” she told me. “They will vote for the pure candidate who doesn’t have accomplishments and who’s just going to get chewed up.”[/u]
[b]The group of[/b] influential Republicans who came up with the idea for a South Carolina primary back in the late 1970s had a few goals in mind. First, they were hoping to bolster the Republican presence in the State Legislature, where they were then a perennial minority. Second, they wanted to give the emerging Republican South — with its mix of evangelicals, military families and states rights’ conservatives — an earlier and more influential voice in the nominating process.
They could hardly have met with more success. Three decades later, South Carolina is as reliably red as a state can be. And [u]when it came to picking a nominee, South Carolina emerged as the firewall for the new party establishment — more Southern and Western than the old, northeastern elites — that came into power with Ronald Reagan. In every presidential campaign since 1980, the presumed front-runner and establishment favorite has come into South Carolina bruised and imperiled, [b]having lost in Iowa or New Hampshire[/b]. And in every instance, that candidate has managed to win the primary and go on to win the nomination[/u].
This year, though, that dynamic has reversed itself, and South Carolina has become the only possible firewall for the conservative base that hopes to stop the front-runner.[b] If the discontented activists who stormed the party in 2010 can’t find a way to take out the establishment’s chosen nominee here, of all places, then they might as well slap those Romney/Rubio bumper stickers on their S.U.V.’s now and get it over with.[/b]
[u]There are plenty of reasons to think that Romney, in South Carolina, is eminently beatable[/u]. Four years ago, he wagered several million dollars in the state only to come in fourth. This time, Romney has only sporadically visited the state — much to the frustration of a lot of local politicos who might otherwise have jumped in on his behalf — and by year’s end he had only a handful of paid staff members in South Carolina.
But fortune has been kind to Romney in this campaign. Because the field took shape so slowly last year, and because no other candidate ever had the money needed to stage a truly national campaign, the contest never really made it to South Carolina in advance of the voting. Driving around the state, I saw few yard signs and heard no radio ads. Influential Republicans in Columbia note, with a hint of regret, that the personal malice and trickery that have so inflamed past primary campaigns — like the insidious rumor back in 2000 that had John McCain fathering an illegitimate black child — have been utterly lacking before next week’s vote. It’s as if South Carolina Republicans, having largely been bypassed by this year’s candidates, simply decided at some point to sit back, wait for Iowa and New Hampshire to finish voting, then pack the entire primary campaign into 10 days of mayhem.
[b]What all of this means is that Romney hasn’t missed much action by skipping the state up to this point, and with support for his more ideological rivals there so fragmented, he could easily win with a relatively low percentage of the vote[/b]. Four years ago, McCain stole a victory in South Carolina and cemented his hold on the nomination, winning with only 33 percent of the vote because Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Romney split most of what remained. There’s a good chance Romney will do the same.
[u][b]It’s generally assumed[/b] that a big part of Romney’s problem four years ago had to do with his Mormonism, which presented a hurdle for South Carolina’s sizable bloc of evangelical Christians. None of the Republicans with whom I talked, however, felt that it was much of a factor now. [/u]“If you want to debate whether Mormonism is a form of orthodox Christianity in South Carolina, then there is no debate here — it is [i]not,[/i]” said Oran Smith, who runs Palmetto Family, a group that lobbies on behalf of Christian conservatives. “But is that important to his doing well in South Carolina? No.” In fact, Smith told me, “I think there are a lot of people who are for Romney and who are just afraid to admit it right now.”
He also acknowledged what other Republican leaders had been telling me — that on the whole, religious conservatives, who once dominated South Carolina politics through the intervention of powerful figures and institutions like Pat Robertson and Bob Jones University, are just less engaged this time and are wielding less influence over the process. Leaning back on the upholstered couch in his office, Smith, dressed in a cream turtleneck sweater and black-and-green-plaid pants, hypothesized that the lapse in political urgency might have something to do with a corresponding drop in millennial angst.
“There are a lot of folks who believe that we are really in the end times,” he told me, “and the election of Obama was a signal that the end times were here.” But after Republicans came roaring back in 2010, he said, a lot of those conservatives decided that maybe the apocalypse was still a way off, after all.
[u]Instead, the energy this year is with the Tea Party, whose members represent an amalgam of disparate groups — Christian conservatives, libertarians, disgruntled independents. At various moments over the past year, activists here, as in the rest of the country, found themselves enthralled with a rotating cast of candidates: Bachmann, Perry, Herman Cain, Gingrich and now Santorum. (“I expected by this time for Rick Perry to just be kicking fanny in South Carolina,” Smith told me. “He was going to ride in and lasso South Carolina, and he wasn’t going to be stopped.”) By the time I visited the state, the movement was still deeply divided among several far-from-perfect candidates.[/u]
All the activists I talked to agreed that if there was any one person who might have been able to break through the clutter and channel all of this energy behind a single candidate, it was Jim DeMint. “None of them impress me at all,” Karen Martin said of the Republican candidates, “but if Jim DeMint were to walk into the room, I’d just start crying.” Having endorsed Romney four years earlier, DeMint pointedly refused to do so again, which was seen as something of a statement in itself. But the senator didn’t find any of the other candidates inspiring enough to warrant an endorsement, either. In other words, he felt pretty much the same way as his most ardent constituents. It seemed very unlikely, though not impossible, that DeMint would insert himself into the primary before the votes were cast.
Absent some direction from DeMint, Tea Party leaders in South Carolina had settled into a standoff. Everyone agreed that it would be better for the movement to coalesce behind a single candidate who could topple Romney. But everyone seemed to be waiting for the moment when all the activists working for other campaigns would realize that his or her candidate was clearly the one they should rally behind. “It’s tough,” Mike Vasovski, who is Ron Paul’s state chairman, told me. “How do you compromise yourself if you’re really committed to someone?”
[u]Vasovski is an affable family doctor and a Tea Party activist in rural Aiken County, near the Georgia border. When I met him and his wife, Cindy, at their favorite pizza place, he told me that Paul was the first candidate for whom he ever worked, and he likened his passion — the campaign was taking up about 40 hours of his week — to the way liberals must have felt about Robert Kennedy.[/u] He was getting ready to pile a bunch of volunteers into his truck the next morning and drive the 1,000 miles to Iowa.
I asked Vasovski whether there were any other candidates he found intriguing, just as a backup.
“Huntsman is interesting,” he said. It’s hard to find a Republican candidate less like Paul than Jon Huntsman, and the puzzlement must have shown on my face. “He understands China,” Vasovski said, as if this explained the disconnect.
I wondered if any of the [i]other, [/i]more clearly conservative candidates might interest him — maybe Gingrich or Santorum?
Vasovski thought for a moment. “No,” he said. “Not in the least.”
[b]As in other states[/b], the story of the Tea Party in South Carolina is largely the story of newcomers to the political process, people who harbored conservative views but had never before felt moved to become involved in politics, or in some cases even to vote. In the months that followed the initial rallies in 2009 (at the Bi-Lo Center in Greenville, about 10,000 people came out to vent), organizers of the various chapters forged close friendships through e-mail and Facebook. It’s a familiar narrative, one I heard frequently while writing about leftist blogs during the Bush years and again while spending time with the founder of the Utah Tea Party in 2010. The modern, online movement is about more than politics; it’s about building community too, which is why it’s probably not a coincidence that several of the most involved activists I met had recently moved to South Carolina from someplace else.
[u]But South Carolina isn’t just another state with pent-up fury at the status quo. It’s also an early and crucial primary state, and so it was inevitable that the Tea Party movement there would attract the attention of Republican candidates looking to gain an organizational foothold. In the same way that big-time contributors and evangelical activists had always been highly sought as recruits by the various campaigns, so now were the Tea Party volunteers in demand. “[b]All of the campaigns, in one form or another, except for Romney’s, have contacted me[/b],” Karen Martin said matter-of-factly, as if we were discussing cellphone carriers offering special deals[/u].
The most aggressive candidates throughout the fall were Bachmann and Gingrich. As far back as 2009, Gingrich’s Washington-based advocacy group, American Solutions, employed a Tea Party liaison, a 26-year-old Connecticut native named Adam Waldeck, to connect Gingrich to organizers around the country. In October, Waldeck moved down to South Carolina full time to assume control of Gingrich’s statewide operation, working out of a Greenville strip plaza. He soon put three Tea Party organizers on his payroll, a move that caused some alarm inside the movement.
Still, things remained mostly copacetic until the endorsements started. In general, there was widespread disagreement inside and among the various chapters about whether to endorse candidates. And [u]then in December, a vocal Tea Party chapter in Myrtle Beach voted to endorse Gingrich. This might not have been so notable, except that the treasurer of the Myrtle Beach chapter was being paid by the Gingrich campaign.[/u] Several of Bachmann’s backers soon issued a statement accusing Gingrich’s Tea Party supporters of having betrayed the cause. Activists quickly chose sides. Bachmann inflamed the situation by echoing the allegations in an interview with CNN, suggesting that “money is changing hands” in South Carolina’s Tea Party.
“I took personal offense to that,” Allen Olson, wearing a khaki Tea Party hat and a gray Tea Party polo shirt, said when we met at a steakhouse on the outskirts of Columbia. Olson is a carpenter who moved here from Milwaukee about a decade ago, and served as chairman of the Columbia Tea Party before resigning last fall so he could endorse Gingrich. He recalled bitterly that he had once spoken to a high-school civics class taught by Kelly Payne, a Tea Party leader who was working for Bachmann and who had signed her name to the allegations. “There’s no way I’ll be able to work with Kelly Payne again,” he said, shaking his head in disgust.
I asked if he had lost other friends in the movement because of divisions over the campaign.
“Not really, because if they’re doing this stuff, then they were never really friends to begin with,” Olson said. “I’m losing acquaintances.” He sipped glumly from his Bud Light. “The only thing I want to do is just to cut all the bickering, realize it’s not going to be a single voting bloc and just stop burning bridges.”
Like some other Tea Party leaders I talked to, Olson posited that all of this started with Republican consultants, who were purposely infiltrating and dividing the movement. You could make a solid case that South Carolina is where the modern culture of the political consultant was born; Republican politics here have been heavily influenced by a generation of well-paid strategists and dirty tricksters, going back to Harry Dent, an architect of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” and Lee Atwater, who was most famous for devising the Willie Horton ad that helped sink Michael Dukakis. [b]Tea Party activists generally blame consultants for having bled the party of its conservative convictions. “They call themselves conservatives, but they’re not — they’re Lee Atwater-type Republicans,” Olson told me at one point, when discussing the party’s establishment politicians. When I asked what it was about Atwater, who played a significant role in moving the party viciously to the right in the 1980s, that seemed insufficiently conservative, he replied, “The way I understand it, he was more interested in numbers than in principle.”[/b]
Olson and other Tea Party adherents were now focusing their ire on Wesley Donehue, a Columbia-based consultant who advised Bachmann’s ill-fated campaign and who was the first to publicly raise the issue of Gingrich paying Tea Party members. Clearly, the Tea Party leaders said, Donehue had been whispering nefariously in Bachmann’s ear and was trying to turn real conservatives against one another.
Not surprisingly, Donehue rejected this theory. “That’s stupid,” he told me when we talked a few days before Bachmann flamed out in Iowa and left the race. “I’m just calling out the Tea Parties who have strayed from what the Tea Party believes in.” Then he added, for good measure, “Newt Gingrich is the antithesis of everything the Tea Party stands for.”
In fact, I had little doubt that Donehue had set out to do exactly the thing that political consultants often try to do, which is to “drive a wedge” between an opposing candidate and his potential supporters. But as I talked to Tea Party activists involved in the imbroglio, it seemed there was something else going on, too. The Tea Party leaders were getting a sense of what it was like to be real players in the process, and some of them, however sincere their beliefs, found themselves drawn to the idea of having the very same back-room influence that they criticized in the consultants. Like an earlier generation of Ralph Reeds and Gary Bauers, they were transforming themselves from activists into advisers and even candidates, and this was bound to strain a movement whose entire identity was based on disdaining the establishment.
“You’re starting to see some of the Tea Party folks getting into that realm, becoming political consultants,” Bill Connor, a Tea Party activist who’s backing Santorum, told me when I visited his home in Orangeburg. An Army Ranger who was the senior American adviser to local forces in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, Connor looks a bit like Roger Clemens and projects a stern sobriety. “Being around politics, it’s like a drug,” he said. “People love having their name in the paper, getting attention, having people suck up to them. And that’s happening with the Tea Party.”
I got some sense of what Connor was talking about when I called Gerri McDaniel, treasurer of the Myrtle Beach Tea Party. McDaniel was singled out by Donehue; she took a paid position with Gingrich just a few weeks before her chapter voted to endorse him.
“You know Rick Perry’s saying, when he first came to South Carolina, that the Tea Party was the ‘boots on the ground’ in South Carolina?” McDaniel asked me. I told her I did not, which seemed to surprise her. “That’s my saying,” she said. “I’m the one who said, ‘The Tea Party is the boots on the ground.’ They took that from me.”
McDaniel went on to tell me that she had not taken the process of making an endorsement lightly and that every one of the candidates had taken the time to meet her. “I had quite a few candidates who wanted me on board with them,” McDaniel said. “I chose the candidate who I thought could turn this country around. It wouldn’t have mattered if I was paid or not.”
McDaniel said she was trying to ignore all the controversy. “You have to keep your head up,”she said. “Just don’t get pulled into areas that can change you as a person.”
[b]The Capitol in Columbia[/b] was closed the week after Christmas, but I found Curtis Loftis, South Carolina’s treasurer, puttering around his office in a blue oxford shirt and khakis. The 53-year-old Loftis, heir to a local pest-control business, never ran for office before 2010, when he decided to take on the incumbent treasurer and caught the same Tea Party wave that swept Haley into the more august office across the hall. He’s now serving as Romney’s campaign chairman in the state. That [u]both officials endorsed Romney would seem to signal some kind of coordinated decision at the highest levels of the Tea Party leadership in South Carolina, but such is the danger of thinking about the Tea Party as a single, cohesive entity.[/u] It’s well known in Columbia that Haley and Loftis are disinclined to stand in the same room together, much less coordinate their political decisions.
As we sat in leather armchairs on either side of a coffee table, Loftis explained to me that, now that he was actually serving in elective office, he had come to understand how important it was to choose a candidate who could actually do the job in question, rather than one who said all the right things about slashing government and all of that.
“Before, when I was strictly looking at it as a partisan from the outside, I could understand exactly why people are working themselves up over these other candidates,” Loftis said. “And these people who are actively engaged in such heated debates — they’re my brothers and sisters, you know? I get them, and I understand them, and I appreciate them.” But, he added, “I’m just not interested in this ongoing conversation about first principles and this heated rhetoric.”
According to Loftis, Romney was the only Republican running with real expertise. “Every time I’m with him, I bring him a financial problem from my desk and let him solve it,” Loftis said, motioning toward the accordion files stacked on his table. At another point, he guiltily described for me marching Romney through a roomful of contributors at a Loftis fund-raiser: “I felt like he was an old mule that I had ridden hard and put up wet.” I found myself imagining how stoked Mitt Romney must be to see Curtis Loftis pop up on his schedule.
Loftis told me he liked a lot of the other candidates too. “I love Rick Santorum,” he said. “I spent a good amount of time with Rick. He’s a [i]good[/i] [i]guy[/i].” But neither Santorum nor any other of Romney’s rivals, he said, was going to be able to win in pivotal, more moderate states like Ohio and Florida. And Loftis seemed confident that as Primary Day approached, more and more of the Tea Party members who supported him in the treasurer’s race — maybe even those who angrily canceled fund-raisers after they heard he was going to work for Romney — would get their heads around that reality.
“If you want four more years of Barack, then go off on a flight of fancy and vote your constitutional conscience,” Loftis said. “But if you want to stop Barack Obama, Mitt Romney is your guy.”
Of course, [b]most ardent Tea Party activists would tell you that this kind of calculation is exactly what drove them out of their homes and into parking lots and public squares in the first place. The way they see it, “big-government conservatives” and “crony capitalists” have been doing whatever it takes to get elected and re-elected for decades, while Republicans in Washington caved on the small-government principles that were supposed to guide the party. [u]For a Romney supporter to preach pragmatism and electability only confirms for your average Tea Party member everything he or she already suspected about the candidate. You might as well try selling an Escalade to Greenpeace[/u][/b].
And yet, it’s precisely this aversion to political calculation that may relegate the movement to the margins, at least as far as the 2012 nomination is concerned. The pragmatic thing, after all, would have been for the various Tea Party leaders to coalesce around a single conservative candidate who might beat Romney in South Carolina. But such machinations would have been antithetical to the decentralized, uncompromising nature of the movement. Instead, activists followed their own impulses and their own agendas, the result being that they may yet find themselves flattened by a less energized but more cohesive establishment.
It’s not as if they can’t see this. In the days after the Iowa vote and just before New Hampshire, as polls showed Romney surging in South Carolina, activists in the state seemed ready to embrace Santorum in hopes of turning the primary into a referendum on Romney, rather than a multiple-choice test with several right answers. “My sense is there will be a very large coalescing of forces around Rick Santorum,” Stephen Brown, a conservative activist and Bachmann supporter, told me on the day his candidate withdrew from the race. “I think he’s going to be the guy.”
When I called Karen Martin, though, she sounded less sure. “I’ve had some e-mails from Tea Party people today saying, ‘Look, can we just put our emotions aside and get behind the candidate who has the best path to victory?’ ” she said. “But I just don’t know if that’s possible.”
I asked her which candidate had the best path to victory. There was a pause on the line.
“And that’s the question,” she finally said.


Si gana Romney en SC, lo hara no venciendo, sino por el voto fracturado de los Perry's y Gingrich de lacontienda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Warren Buffet , Bill Gates , Steve Jobs y cuanto corporativista americano se han llevado los empleos a China ....jajajajajajaja....y ni les quieren pagar a los Chinos por su trabajo.....que clase de buitres!!!!



12 Enero 2012
1:15 p.m.

[b] Obreros de Xbox amenazan con suicidarse[/b]

Los ensambladores están en disputa laboral porque les redujeron la compensación

Por AP


BEIJING — Decenas de ensambladores de las consolas de videojuegos Xbox en China amenazaron con suicidarse saltando de un dormitorio en la fábrica en una disputa por una compensación que fue desactivada pero que puso de relieve la creciente inquietud laboral mientras se desacelera la economía nacional.
Los trabajadores dijeron el jueves que la semana pasada los colegas en la planta del fabricante Foxconn Technology en Wuhan se subieron al techo del edificio de seis pisos y amenazaron con suicidarse.
Los empleados indicaron que sus colegas se enfadaron después de que Foxconn anunció el cierre de la línea de ensamble de Xbox y se negó a compensarlos.
[color=#ff0000][size=5]Un representante del gobierno los tranquilizó. Foxconn, que también fabrica iPads para Apple, Xboxes para Microsoft y otros dispositivos electrónicos, se negó a opinar al respecto.[/size][/color]


Las huelgas y otras acciones laborales han aumentado en meses recientes mientras las fábricas con los crecientes gastos y la caída en los pedidos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Esperemos que nuestro Republicano a la Lee Atwater venga a defenderse...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Esto se parece aDesafiando a los Genios.....
Prefieren darle al voto a Barack si el candidato no es el viejito psicopata de Texas...increible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Mobutu Sese' timestamp='1326413017' post='2944954']
Esto se parece aDesafiando a los Genios.....
Prefieren darle al voto a Barack si el candidato no es el viejito psicopata de Texas...increible!
[/quote]


Y cual es tu solucion???.....Creo que Charlie ha dicho que no le dara el voto a Obama y yo tampoco pienso hacerlo!!!....tanto Romney como Obama son 2 ñames!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0