Romney seems to agree with you:

“We understood for a long time that the Obama people would come after free enterprise. (I’m) a little surprised to see Newt Gingrich as the first witness for the prosecution but I don’t think that’s going to hurt my efforts,” Romney said. “Frankly, if I can’t take a few shots coming from my colleagues on the Republican side I’m not ready for Barack Obama.”

I’m not really outraged by Newt’s attacks though. Actually, I think that he is doing Romney a favor. He is doing the job that the mainstream media won’t do … until the day after the Republican primary. It’s almost the equivalent of a spoiling attack. Don’t think for a moment that the Democrats and MSM aren’t preparing material like this for the general election. They are. What Newt is doing is wearing out the allegations. He is turning the accusations into old, tired, used up news. By the time the primaries are wrapped up and the general election begins, people are going to be sick and tired of hearing about Bain, Romney’s millions, “vulture capital” and all the rest of this nonsense. All this should be coming out now, and the MSM and Democrats are very deliberately and strategically not doing it. Newt, whether he intends it or not, is wearing out and defusing Obama’s potential arsenal of weapons to use against Romney. He’s certainly not scoring any damage against Romney. All of the condemnation is being aimed at Newt for bringing this stuff up against a fellow Republican. Whether he means to or not, he is the only one seriously vetting Mitt Romney. Republicans and independents need to decide now whether they are going to support Romney in spite of all of the negatives of the candidate.

If Mitt Romney cannot survive an attack by Newt Gingrich, then he will certainly not survive the combined attack of Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and the entire Mainstream Media, all of which will be fighting with full cooperation and operating in complete synchronization to defeat him in November.

I am not sure whether Gingrich has completely lost it and believes that this will somehow get him or Rick Santorum nominated for President. Perhaps. But in addition to any delusions he may have, I think he is irate at Romney for waltzing up to the front of the room and declaring that corporations are people. Republicans are not supposed to say that. Democrats are supposed to say that Republicans say that, and then Republicans are supposed to laugh and say “abortion” and “death panel” and “welfare queen”.

Gingrich fears that the Obama Chicago machine will be able to paint Romney as the cartoon capitalist villain. Perhaps he thinks that getting out ahead of such an attack will neutralize it. And perhaps it will. But perhaps it wont.

I think that Newt Gingrich is deeply committed to a particular vision of the GOP, where the Romneys of the world provide the funds but stay in quiet back rooms while people like Newt run the show. And perhaps he is so committed to this vision that he is willing to let Obama have four more years rather than give it up to Romney. If Romney wins and splits the Reagan coalition, the GOP is toast. If Romeny loses, Newt can say “I told you so” and continue to bellow against Obama for the next four years. Newt’s days as a candidate are over, but if he appears to succeed in warning the GOP of the dangers of nominating Romney, then he becomes a king maker. If Romney beats Obama, Newt becomes a footnote. And the next white guy to become the Democratic nominee wins the working class vote for a generation.

I don’t blame Romney for being a fox, either. It seems he played by the corrupt rules he found. There’s a parallel to a defense attorney for an admitted murderer. I do not blame the lawyer for doing his job using the details of law as a tireless advocate for his client.

As a rooster, however, I will always vote against the fox, no matter how virtuously he ate my family. There is something in the nature of foxes which I do not want in charge of the henhouse.

That’s not a fair characterization. It’s the same strawman nonsense I see trotted out against the Paulbots.

I am not mesmerized by a magical candidate. You have me confused for an Obama voter.

How long should I wait to see standing law enforced? Is it too much to expect government to attempt the job it set out for itself (most of it not authorized under the Constitution anyway)?

I refuse to keep participating in my own rape. Anyone who wants to lie there and take for four more years is welcome to dispose of their life and their body as they wish. You know he will stop beating you, he says he loves you, right?

Even when in nominal agreement on the major points, it always winds up with an attack on my maturity or intelligence. I hear, repeatedly, “You don’t want to vote the way I think you should. You’re a stupid baby.”

The thing is, when dealing with other adults, y’all have to come to terms with our different perspectives and different motivations. Y’all end up treating opponents as children, presuming you are qualified to parent another adult. It’s the same hubris that leads to the nanny state we all seem to despise.

[The foregoing rant was inspired by Parker, but is not aimed at Parker.]

Best. Blog-master. Ever.

…keep in mind, too, neo: I may not like nor approve of nor trust nor support the Rom’ at this point, but I don’t have history with him that is going to prevent me from voting the ticket should he – as I fully expect, as I don’t see Santorum having legs …and my prayers for a brokered convention that chooses Palin quite apparently aren’t going to be answered either – lead the fall ticket.

If he wins the gen’ (don’t think he can, no resonance: the only hope FTW is the continued strength of the ABO vote, and an economy continuuing to perform below expectations) we’ll also give him some time to actually govern before we finally break-away to the New Whigs, heh.

Not that I wouldn’t vote for a quad-headed multi-humped crazy-eyed quasi-khamel** over Obama, mind you.

**Those are indigenous to Altair IV btw, and quite intelligent, actually. But no bottom to ’em in a bar-fight whatsoever: they blow through at the first inklingof a good stir-up. <–free pun, n/c

I agree. But, I recognize that it is the nature of the fox to try to enter the chicken coop. So I won’t condemn Romney for being a fox.

However, I think we both can agree the whole economic-political system is corrupt and requires serious overhaul. Where we differ is you appear to want everything to be resolved by your ideal candidate within a few weeks or months or years. Instead, I favor slow, excruciating reform and economic contraction spread out over a decade as the means to reform the financial system & the long, overdue reform of the federal government. I admit my preferred solution is also unlikely given the circumstances; but I want to give it a few more years with someone other than BHO in the Oval Office.

I’m getting tired of repeating the same things, and I’m pretty sure I’ve said before (somewhere!—and in greater detail) what I’m about to say here, but I’ll repeat it briefly:

If Gingrich/Perry had merely said that companies such as Bain sometimes do shady things, and accused Romney of doing a specific shady thing (names, dates, sources, describe it) while at Bain, and asked him to respond, it would be reasonable. What they did (and I’ve read a lot of direct quotes) was populist rabble-rousing of the worst, and most generically sophistic, sort. Just throwing a bunch of excrement against the Romney wall and seeing whether it sticks. The majority of their remarks were indistinguishable in substance and in tone from those of the Occupiers. It was not a pointed, focused discussion of what actually went on with Bain. And Bain is not responsible for the worst excesses of the financial industry as a whole, or what corporate raiders do in general. Gingrich and Perry cynically tapped into the free-floating hatred of rich people that Obama has been exploiting for much of his administration. That can only hurt Republicans and help Obama.

…what a bumbler. Sorry.

[note from neo-neocon: I fixed it.]

Actually, and “in effect”, I “pre-responded” to this tack (before I knew exactly with the exact “this” issue was going to be, other than based-on-Bain, if you will, in a comment at another house-blog to (which again, I would edit and emend, if I could, in the interest of clarity) viz your rationale (it’s worth a perusal …but I would say that, after all).

I happen to disagree a) that this is/was an attack on free market capitalism, b) with the assertion that there’s somehow a qualitative difference in a “politics is politics” environment which makes one form of negativism “legal” and another off-limits (in this campaign in particular), and c) that this act of justly pure reciprocity has even dis-served the Party OR conservatism (let alone somehow capitalism or jurisprudence or the fabric of western civilization …seems rather an over-blown drama-queenish assertion to my ears).

To the point: I find myself in sui generis disagreement with Rushbo (I’ve seen a successful family company or two “bled dry”, Rush: that IS what happens …granted, not always, and whether in this case, who knows: but let us see Romney effectively respond to the case, NOW and not later, when it’s too damn late, as he’s devoured by the Obama machine).

And too, rather apparently, others.

Neo, I really don’t think there’s much of case to be made for the shenanigans I’ve seen in the financial markets this past decade (and longer) to be defended as anything remotely resembling “free market capitalism”. Or even as economically valid “creative destruction”.

I’ve trusted these people to know what the hell they were doing …and it’s pretty damn apparent at this point that it’s all been smoke-and-mirrors …just lies, damn lies, and out-right bold-faced lies.

Enough is enough.

And so after negating (to my satisfaction, at least) the arguments of the mawkish omigawd-this-is-so-wrong POV, I’m left with this as simply another case of “a political attack is a political attack” coupled with the Party as having not been adequately served – i.e., by the Romney campaign being under-vetted – to date.

And one in which I would rather see NOW rather than later, the Romney response.

…to which, Patterico apparently agrees.

And though I understand your arguments & your concerns, I just think it’s disingenuous to complain about something (damn near anything now) as being off-limits for this reason

And especially as it calls into question the long-running “electability meme” which has often enough been the fallback for his inevutibility (IMHO …and granted, by some less-than-savvy supporters).

…and most especially after what I rather suspect I’ve been watching (through a glass darkly, if you will) for some time sourced from the Romney campaign …turn-about/fair play, and all that.

Last, re: my rhetorically witty [final] observation[s]. Truly that is not really considered a strawman these days, is it?

///whoa: there were a lot of comments while I was writing my response.