Brokered Conventions and Unicorns

Securitization of sub-prime auto loans in full swing -- Buy Here Pay Here is also being boosted by one of the sophisticated financial strategies that drove the nation's recent housing boom and bust: securitization. Big business
Buy Here Pay Here compared to other non-traditional lenders.

This spring, Moody's warned that the market for subprime auto-loan securities could get overheated. "New market entrants lured by profits and low-cost financing are susceptible to expanding 'too much too fast,'" the ratings firm wrote.

Expect birthers, baggers and conservatives to blame Frank-Dodd for this eventual free market meltdown!

Enron and the Gramms

Jan 17, 2002 - Senator Phil Gramm R-Texas, Chairman, US Senate Committee, Banking, Housing, Urban Affairs Jan-1995-Jan-2001

Gramm Leach Blilely Financial Modernization Act of 1999 Repealed key parts of the; Glass Steagall Act of 1933, Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.

Greatly boosted the Power-influence of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Wendy Gramm, Headed presidential Task Force on "Regulatory Relief" in Reagan admin. Chairwoman, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1988-1993.

In her final days with CFTC she helped push through a ruling, that exempted many energy futures contracts from regulation, a move that had been sought by Enron !

Weeks later, after resigning from the CFTC, Wendy Gramm was appointed to Enron's board of directors !

When Senator Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy danced, it was most often to Enron's tune. Senator Phil Gramm R-Texas, was 1 of the top recipients of Enron largess in the Senate.

And he was a demon for deregulation !

In Dec 2000 Gramm was 1 of the ringleaders who engineered the stealthlike approval of a bill: The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 that exempted energy commodity trading from govt regulation, public disclosure.

It was a gift for Enron.

How Gramm Did It, he resorted to sneaking the CFMA 2000 into the 11,000 page 2001 omnibus spending bill

Interesting analysis here. Personally I'd be happy with Santorum or Romney and think Santorum could weather the media deluge better than Hewitt thinks. My question is on what grounds is Hewitt so sure that Romney will win Michigan, aren't his poll numbers still behind Santorum there? Albeit, they are catching up. Ultimately, I like Santorum because of his views and the fact that he articulates them more forcefully than Romney. I like Romney because he has been a governor and I think would be more palatable to moderates. Either one has a chance as far as I am concerned.

Less than 72hrs. after Willard formally entered the race, and LONG before even the Iowa caucus, the MSM (including FOX) had bestowed upon Willard the titles of "frontrunner" and "presumptive nominee."

Based on WHAT exactly?

When Willard lost SC, the MSM sentiment seemed to be it was a "fluke."

Then a few weeks ago, when Santorum took all the states that Willard was supposed to win, at least on FOX we were hearing, "Well, there's still a long way to go..."

One MUST ask why, with Willard having been campaigning for at least six years, are his numbers not MUCH BETTER.

Perhaps Willard and his fans have to come to grips with the distinct possibility (or probability) that the American people do NOT see him as their president.

Brokered Convention?

Who knows!

It's a primary. Conservatives are looking for the perfect, as usual (and they disagree about what that is).
The landscape will be different in the general election.

This article brought to you by the good folks at the Romney For President Campaign

I guess Romney is best positioned because he is a Gay Rights promoter, agnostic on the 2nd Amendment and gun rights, pro big gov't healthcare (as long as it is a state), pro Cap and Trade and doesn't know how to grow the economy.

Another advantage is that he is so pro business that he wants to index minimum wage to inflation.

Obama has been looking for a running mate and I think he has found it in Mitt Romney.

As far as an opponent, we need a conservative. You don't win a deep blue state unless you are a progressive and that is what Mitt is.

Romney is the McCain for 2012

The problem is that Romney has not beat most of the other Republicans yet. Let's see what happens, If he wins then we get behind Romney, if not, then support the one who does. I am not so sure that the story that he is the only one who can beat Obama is true. First, win the nomination, then we will see. If Romney acts like McCain, we will be in the crapper. Santorum and Gingrich are the only two not mincing words about Obama presently. Get it?

Imagine an old Haitian woman a day after the earthquake in January, 2010. She lost everything she had in the earthquake except a loaf of bread. She shares that loaf of bread with a family that has lost everything.

Bill Gates donates a million dollars to a Haitian relief organization. Who gives more; the old woman or Bill Gates? What parable of Jesus would apply in this situation?

Gag. Another Romney love fest.

'
Romney will not beat OBAMA.

That should read:

"Romney will not beat OBAMA, unless Romney wins the GOP nomination."

What policies, exactly, will Obama run on that emphasize his success as a leader?
*chirp, chirp*
That's what I thought you'd say....

A brokered convention would at least be interesting political theater. Convention coronations are ridiculously BORING.

Nobody likes or trusts Romney. Gingrich is a fat, preening peacock obsessed with what he thinks is his own genius. Santorum is just your ultimate big-government, fake "conservative," who speaks vaguely about cutting the government budget while simultaneously expanding foreign wars and the welfare state.

Boy, the Republicans sure can pick 'em.

Of course, there IS a strict constructionist who has already published a first year budget that cuts a trillion bucks from the previous year's budget--NOT from some phony "projected increase."

He will withdraw troops from foreign countries as quick as legally possible (given that some commitments are under treaty obligation).

But of course, those ideas are "loony."

Ron Paul's ideas are making a valid contribution to the GOP primary conversation. His is a voice that should be taken seriously. If he continues to demonstrate he is a serious man with serious ideas, his voice will be a powerful voice in Congress - especially if the GOP candidate wins the Presidency.

However, if Ron Paul does what he did last time, endorsing fringe party candidates and "taking his toys to play somewhere else," his voice and his message will be ignored.

I think Ron Paul has finally matured and will be a serious player in helping to turn the Republican Party into a true conservative alternative in America. I don't think he'll repeat his lunatic actions of the past.

Ron Paul is the only one that has a clue about the deficit and the proper role of the Federal Government.

Romney is Obama without the basketball skills

Wow, this "duke" dude is a hardcore irrelevace generator. Bravo to those bright enough to avoid taking the bait.

"Irrelevance..." $#%! dinky phone keyboard.

1200, this twit is also a name thief...in addition to being a serial spammer and goes by more than one name simultaneously on these boards. You may see raelonda posting....same schumck.

"Romney will win Arizona and probably Michigan. He will do well enough on Super Tuesday and will almost certainly go on to be the nominee" - That's Hewitt trying to remain relevant...

Ain't he amazin'? He can count the votes, even before they're cast.

Romney has probably spent 60 million dollars in negative ads in Michigan and Arizona to about 2 million for his opponents.

Romney is gonna buy himself another election!!!

Hopefully you used today to reflect on how the right president can lead us back to our founding fathers' vision for this great nation. Happy Presidents Day!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Palin-Our-Brokered-Convention-Selection/219407098154932

No, when the dust settles and the party unites behind a candidate, all this blather from the primaries will pass. I do not care whom we pick, but it should be someone soon so we stop spending all this wasteful money on the primaries.

The object is to DEFEAT OBAMANATIONL

Laugh all you want, Hugh. You're not winning over the serious conservatives with Mitt and your going to lose the independent voters with Rick. Newt's a nonstarter, and with Ron Paul we might as well not even bother holding the election. You'd better find someone who can appeal to more than their base if you want any hope at all.

Here's a revised list of candidates / potential candidates in recent POTUS elections:

1. 1976 - Gerald Ford ("more electable than Reagan")
2. 1980 - George H.W. Bush ("more electable than Reagan")
3. 1984 - Walter Mondale (considered electable by Dem's)
4. 1988 - Michael Dukakis - Lloyd Bentsen (considered electable ticket)
5. 1992 - Bill Clinton ("centrist" Dem - "electable")
6. 1996 - Bob Dole ('nuff said)
7. 2000 - "W" (considered more conservative than McCain - not more electable)
8. 2004 - John Kerry (electable?)
9. 2008 - John McCain (electable?)

If Romney's "electability" is all he has going for him, he'd better rethink his strategy.

Once again, electability is a poor basis on which to make a choice for a Presidential candidate.

The difference here is that THIS election pits whoever wins the GOP nomination with the Marxist-Socialist-Progressive Anti-American Anarchist Barack Obama who is ignoring the Constitution and spending (OUR) money as fast as he can. I think "electability" has an entirely different meaning this year. If we don't boot this sorry putz out of office, this country may never recover. I'll vot for ANYBODY but Obama.

Well spoken. The ONLY alternative this year to Obama is the yet-to-be-named GOP nominee. Whomever that proves to be, he must receive more votes than Obama if our republic is to survive.

Our Congressional representatives no longer fight to protect the American people; therefore we must all join the fight to have our rights restored and to have the federal government restricted by the powers enumerated in the constitution.

To join in a class action lawsuit again Obamacare please go to

http://libertylegalfoundation.org.

This organization if fighting for our rights as individuals.

Go to their website and read about the amicus brief they have submitted in the upcoming SCOTUS case that the states have brought and the other class action law suits they are bringing to restore our rights.

"Elite media is –at best—10 to 1 opposed to Santorum’s world view."

but then,

"... the Manhattan-Beltway media culture [is obsessed] with being relevant to a process to which most of them are at best remotely connected."

So, a good candidate might be elected, even without the approval of the media elite.

Jeez- another stupid column.

Once again- Hewitt. We don't believe Romney would make any effort on behalf of conservative legislation BECAUSE HE DIDN"T.

WHAT IS IT WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT ARE SO AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN YOU SIT BACK AND LET IT?????

Sorry about the shouting people- columns like this just irritate me

I can make a pretty good guess who that anonymous Senator might be, but the one I'm thinking about doesn't carry much relevance with me and I'm sure not a lot of other people as well.

I think that "anonymous" Senator should stop be a coward and reveal himself. But I guess he doesn't want to look stupid should he be wrong.

Whether or not Mitt has it in the bag is yet to be determined. What can be said is that if the Chicago gang does not want him in there - I want him in there.

In many ways their extreme lack of endorsement is the one endoresement that carries the most weight with me.

Now the Chicago gang is running ads against Santorum. Does that mean they don't want Santorum either - and therefore you want him 'in there'?

I dunno! I don't think Mittens has it in the bag! Rick is still on top in Michigan, gaining in AZ, and Texas , although a way off yet, looks to be solid Santorum country. Mitt best do well Super Tuesday or it'll be all over. Personally, I don't like him! He hasn't convinced me he's a conservative!

Where do the individual candidates stand on the Global Government issue? Anyone who promotes that is a traitor to our country's sovereignty, from my perspective. Of course, they're not going to own up to it before an election....just afterwards. It's the nature of a politician to withhold evidence of any vote destroying beliefs. We need a new book: "Global Government for Dummies." It's hard enough to get elected officials to listen to the public, let alone Global Government Officials in some undisclosed location.

He hasn't convinced you he is a conservative because he isn't.

A couple of more commons -not directed at Boat though. The worst part about this campaign is that after thrashing people like me for having doubts then turning around and demanding that I support the people treating me in November.
I have not been a Romney supporter but had assumed voting for him if he wins the nomination. But the Party is convincing me to sit it out.
And DON'T sit there and tell me I am voting for Obama if I sit it out. Tell the REPUBLICAN PARTY to stop making enemies out of its own voters instead.

Here's a short list, off the top of my head, of candidates / potential candidates touted as "electable":

1. 1976 - Gerald Ford
2. 1980 - George H.W. Bush
3. 1984 - Walter Mondale
4. 1988 - Michael Dukakis - Lloyd Bentsen
5. 1996 - Bob Dole
6. 2004 - John Kerry
7. 2008 - John McCain

If Romney's "electability" is all he has going for him, he'd better retool and rethink his strategy. Electability is a poor basis on which to make a choice for a Presidential candidate.

No wonder we hear rumblings of a "brokered convention."

Quite so,

Especially if the candidate's "electability" is just as imaginary as the "brokered convention" bit.

NOBODY can really say right now who of the four is most electable versus Obama. Maybe the least is Ron Paul. But Romney on substance? He is hardly what we can call most electable. There is no substantial feeling about Romney. He elicits no absolute conviction in the voters.

Mitt's two primary wins were not versus Obama. He would quickly implode in a campaign against Obama. If Hugh Hewitt knows otherwise, why doesn't he write us THAT column? Don't just inveigh against somebody's brokered convention megillah.

No GOP candidate was electable in 76, and understandably so. GHWB was not the nominee in 80. No one other than Bob Beckel called Mondale electable in 84, and he was the campaign mgr, so he had to say it. I'll give you Dukakis (who lost to that other electable guy GWHB). You ignore GWB in 2000, and in 2008, like 76, no GOP candidate was electable...the economy guaranteed that. Sometimes the orthodox wisdom is wrong, but it's right more often than not.

Hugh,
you shoulda written a book about a conservative instead of mittens, then you could champion the nominee to increase your book sales and not have to pander against the bases better instincts.