Sunday January 15th 2012 Talking Heads

FOX NEWS SUNDAY

"Can anyone stop Mitt Romney?" asks Chris Wallace. So, today is going to be a day dedicated to finding out. Plus, a shoutfest over the private equity industry between someone from the Club for Growth and a guy who helped distribute that "King Of Bain" documentary. Later, maybe the id and the superego will try to murder one another.

But first, can we talk about Rick Santorum. In the least surprising thing to happen ever, a mysterious cabal of social conservatives met in Texas, slaughtered some farm animals, waded through their entrails in the blood-orgy of panicked decision making, and have decided that they will bring their full might behind Rick Santorum, as he fights off Mitt Romney. This probably would have been more useful many months ago!

So, Santorum is here now, to talk about it. The "practical effect" it will have on his campaign, he says, is that this group has anointed him as "the consistent conservative" who will fight debt and sharia law and Newt Gingrich. He'll benefit from a "network of grassroots leaders." Will he also benefit from getting money? Santorum isn't sure. Just that he's getting support, in the form of endorsements, support, maybe some money.

But shouldn't other people -- like Perry and Gingrich -- get out of the race, now? Santorum says "we've got to get down to a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney" but that he's "not going to tell anyone to get out of the race." Why not? You can at least start making fun of Gingrich and Perry, right? He says that once he gets this down to a two person race, he'll prevail.

Also, Romney's record is a "scarlet letter," because it had a baby with Arthur Dimmesdale. (It's name was "Obamacare.")

Santorum says that he's attracting all manner of conservatives. All of whom hate Mitt Romney. He also says that he's a truer conservative than Newt Gingrich because he was the guy that conservative organizations came to for leadership, and on the other hand, they all hated Gingrich.

But he voted against the National Right To Work law and for the Davis-Bacon Act, so is he some sort of union loving hippie? Santorum says essentially, "something, something, Pennsylvania" and that as President he'd support those things he didn't back then, and be against the stuff he was for. He needed to represent Pennsylvania as its Senator, as President, though, Pennsylvania can go suck it. Wallace points out that Mitt Romney has made similar excuses and explanations, and Santorum says oh, yes, but he was the GOVERNOR you see, I was a SENATOR. "I would have changed those laws within a state, but not have the Federal government change them." He just said, though, that he'd sign these laws as President -- he understands that the Presidency is part of the "Federal Government," right?

Wallace asks about his tax plan, which cuts corporate taxes to 17% except for manufacturing, which he'd cut to zero. National Review doesn't like it, but Santorum says that they're criticism is outrageous, and the high rates of taxation "are making our manufacturing base uncompetitive with the rest of the world." He says that if you ask the big lobbying group that represents manufacturers, they surprisingly support their tax rate being lowered to zero.

But isn't this "picking winners and losers?" (For instance, Santorum would triple the tax credit for having children.) Wallace points out that many conservatives hate his plan, because it basically makes the liberal argument that taxes can be deployed to achieve outcomes. Santorum, strangely, argues that if you "look at Europe" you'll see that their governments aren't doing enough to support people who have children. Huh? That's a big area for the government to intervene.

He goes on to talk about children as "a natural resource" and "human capital" and "wealth creators" and it all sort harkens back to when we were an agrarian society, and it's sort of creepy, hearing about children as if they were chattel.

How does Santorum feel about all the attacks on Bain Capital and Super PACs? Santorum says that he hopes that his super PAC will listen to him when he asks them to not do things that aren't true. He complains that a Romney ad has been slagging him with falsehoods in South Carolina. Clever, clever, turning this on Mitt. Wallace asks what can be done if the super PAC ignores the person it's nominally working for? Santorum says that if Mitt Romney can't persuade his super PAC to do something, how can he work as President. Clever, clever. That was a good bit of off-the-cuff improvisation, and he knows it.

Okay, time now for the segment on Bain Capital. If you've not read my recap of this awesomely over-the-top thing, "King Of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came To Town," please check it out. It is bonkers.

Here to yell at each other is Gingrich surrogate Rick "Billowing Tweets McGee" Tyler and Chris "Count Chocula" Chocola, from the Club For Growth. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT.

Why won't Tyler do what Gingrich has asked, which is to take down the ad? Because the whole point of having a super PAC is to lie and smear and make what are commonly considered to be "dick moves." Tweets McGee says that he is well within his rights to leave the ad up, that only Romney can answer the questions raised by the movie, and that if he can, they'll adjust the movie. But as it stand, Romney is a lying liar, and Tweets McGee stands by the movie. Tweets and Wallace talk about Glenn Kessler's factchecking as if Kessler loved the the mini-film. He did not! He said it was full of lies.

Tweets also says that some of the "hyperbole" that is complained about "isn't in the ad." Wallace says, "But, it's in the film you're running." "Yes," says Tweets. Is that how we are snaking this? The big 30 minute thing is filled with deception but the 30 and 60 second cutdowns they air on teevee aren't, so the whole enterprise is above board?

Well, Count Chocula doesn't agree with that, he says the ad is "disgusting" and "economically ignorant." He says that it reminds him of "Michael Moore and President Obama" and is about "looting rich guys." Capitalism, he says, "has done more for the soul of the human race than any other system." TOTALLY. Remember when Simon of Cyrene helped capitalism carry its cross to Golgotha? It's because Simon said, "now there's a system that will die for man's sins, and I just shorted sinfulness today."

Anyway, the Count says that the King of Bain thing has been discredited, the candidate who it nominally supports has disavowed it, the people in the movie have complained that the end product isn't accurate or fair, and that "there's no good reason to continue with it."

Where's the evidence that Bain was "looting" companies? Tweets McGee says that Bain made money shorting a pension fund, for instance. And then he says that he has no problem with "vulture capitalists," and that "vultures are good." BUT-BUT-YOU MADE A MOVIE...WHAT? Tyler says that the point it, Romney was not "a high-flying eagle of job creation," and that if he ran on the platform that he made great ROI, he'd have no dispute. He says that his only beef is that Romney presents himself as a job creator. (The mini-movie, goes way farther than this. It DEFINITELY criticizes Romney for vulture capitalism. It explicitly contends that it's immoral to be in the business that Bain is in, full stop.)

Count Chocula says that his experience with private equity firms was more positive than the way it's depicted in the "King Of Bain" movie, and that while "the real record of Mitt Romney" has many things that concern him, the Bain capital stuff isn't among them. He maintains that the movie presents a distorted view.

Wallace cites the UniMac section of the movie, which is being called a distortion. Glenn Kessler has a more detailed version of what Wallace summarizes:

In the film, three former employees of UniMac, which makes commercial washing machines, appear to suggest that quality went down under Bain Capital’s management and that a plant in Marianna, Fla., was closed because of Romney’s actions.

But the chronology is all jumbled. Bain Capital bought the business from Raytheon in 1998, and Romney left Bain a year later to run the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. In 2005, Bain sold UniMac (also called Alliance Laundry) to a Canadian entity known as Teachers’ Private Capital. The factory was moved from Marianna to Ripon, Wisc., in 2006, after Bain’s involvement ended — a fact made clear on the Web site of a laundry repair business co-owned by the people featured in the film.

In fact, Mike Baxley, who was interviewed for the film, said that he and his partner had “absolutely no idea” that the interviews were for a film about Romney and Bain. He said they thought they were being interviewed for a documentary about the factory closing.

“They said they wanted to know what it was like when the factory closed down,” he said, and he, his partner and his partner’s wife agreed to interviews after “they flashed a little money at us.” (Baxley, a Republican who said he had not yet thought much about the nomination contest, declined to reveal the amount.)

After watching “King of Bain” at The Fact Checker’s request, he said: “We were pretty shocked. Our quotes were seriously taken out of context. There is a real lack of facts.”

Indeed, Baxley, Tommy Jones and Tammy Jones barely mention Romney and Bain as they talk about their angst about the factory closing; the narrator of the film inserts suggestions that Romney was responsible.

The film suggests that UniMac is out of business, but Baxley noted that UniMac is still going strong at its new headquarters in Wisconsin. He said that the same upper management team ran the company during the course of the various investments by outside partners such as Bain, and that Bain appeared to have little involvement in UniMac’s management.

Tweets McGee says he has documentation that has Romney at Bain until 2001. Wallace points out that's not the point, that UniMac wasn't sold off until 2005. He also says that the people he talked to object to the way their statements were used. Then Wallace and Tweets argue over the timeline and what happened, and over Gingrich's own career in private equity. Tweets continues to say that he doesn't have a problem with private equity, he has a problem with Romney's record -- inclusive of all political issues and positions -- and that Newt's past is irrelevant. But the movie doesn't have anything at all to say about Romney's "record." It has to do with his time at Bain Capital, and that Bain Capital was an awful money-sucking lamprey of evil.

Wallace just goes on to straight wreck Tweets McGee, who comes off like a used car salesman. Count Chocula says that the King of Bain is "simply fiction." Wallace says that Newt himself turned down an offer to come on the show today.

Okay, panel time with Brit Hume and Kirsten Powers and Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

Hume says that this weekend's mega-endorsement of Santorum from social conservatives can't hurt Santorum's chances, though endorsements by themselves aren't things that necessarily move the needle. Santorum needs his fellow Not Romneys to drop out -- "Gingrich and Perry in particular." Powers says there's no guarantee that voters will listen to these social conservative leaders, and that they should have gotten involved in this much earlier. She goes on to note that the economy remains the key issue with voters, not social issues.

Kristol says he has no idea what will happen. Anything may happen. He thinks that Romney won't "close out the race" if he keeps getting a mere "35% of the vote."

Williams says that it's a big deal for Santorum to have this endorsement, because it restores some of his energy. That said, Williams thinks that Santorum would have been better off skipping New Hampshire and going right to South Carolina.

Hume says that there is some polling evidence that suggests that Gingrich may have hurt himself with the "King of Bain" ad, which is hilarious, because the only reason Gingrich ran it was because he thought he needed to batter Romney for all the damage Romney's super PAC did to him. (Powers, nevertheless, feels that Romney hasn't done a good job beating back the attack, and that the issue remains a potent weapon against Romney in the general election.)

Meanwhile, some Marines desecrated some bodies in Afghanistan, and it's put troops in danger and diplomatic resolutions to the war at risk. Naturally, Kristol thinks that the Marines erred and should be punished, but that all the reaction from officials like Hillary Clinton is "over the top" and "sanctimonious" and he doesn't understand why there's a need to "opine" on the matter. (Here's a hint: it's because the video has put their "work" at risk?) Kristol says that it would have been nice for Panetta or Clinton to have "said something nice" about all the other soldiers who didn't piss on dead people for fun. (It's because that line of reasoning is known as "a dodge" and that it sets a standard for criticism that Kristol himself would be hard pressed to follow.)

That said, okay, let's talk about how awesome most of our soldiers are, who are more likely to demonstrate tremendous character, as opposed to tremendous failings, like the awesome crew of Iraq War vets who responded to a hate crime being perpetrated against an Iraqi restauranteur in Lowell, New Hampshire by bringing their families to the restaurant to stage an "Eat In" in support of the owners. There! That's our small victory against cynicism.

Anyway, the Taliban called the actions "despicable." I will NOTE THE IRONY. Williams says that well, we should adhere to our own standards, and not pretend that the Taliban set the standard. Hume points out that we kill people with drones, all the time, and is that "despicable?" Williams says oh well that's war, whatchoogonnado? So, okay, kill a mofeaux from space, but don't piss on the corpse.

But what of the strain this places on peace talks? Well, Kristol thinks that peace talks are a bad idea and that we should totally stay in Afghanistan and it's crazy to want to leave, seeing that we're so successful. It's the sort of success that does not at all lead to the sort of psychic frustrations that cause a man to piss on a corpse!

What are the chances we can stop the Iranian nuclear program without an all out military attack? Hume says, "stop is a big word." But we can delay and obstruct them, and that's "a good thing."

FACE THE NATION

Face the Nation is getting to end of its days as a half-hour show, but today, it's still having to pack a lot of topic into a very short period of time. Santorum and Gingrich are on today, as well as Jim DeMint and Jodi Kantor. Let the breakneck begin!

First, we have Gingrich, in Charleston, South Carolina, home of Poogan's Porch, the best low-country yum-yums available when you're there.

Schieffer notes that Romney "dumped a load" on Gingrich (not confortable with the poo-play this early on a Sunday, but okay) in Iowa and now, in having his vengeance -- HIS SWEET SWEET VENEANCE -- critics say Gingrich is "doing Barack Obama's work for him." Gingrich says that no one complained when Romney was being a big old jerk, and now they're complaining and it's not fair, because he's a "good conservative" who can "draw a sharp contrast with Obama" and Romney can't, because he's terrible.

He goes on to say that "from the standpoint of the conservative movement" a guy who raised taxes and was "for gun control" and for Planned Parenthood wasn't fit to wear the mantle of Reagan and Goldwater, whereas he will "arouse" the conservative movement, with endless lectures and Lincoln-Douglas debates. He'll totally help Romney, if it comes to it, but he'll need a LOT of help, is his point. Because Romney is a Massachusetts moderate, and Gingrich is a guy who didn't even get on his home state's ballot.

"I think it's very hard to differentiate RomneyCare from ObamaCare," says Gingrich. Four years ago, the WHOLE POINT OF ROMNEY was that he created RomneyCare. Conservatives loved it, and didn't call it "moderate."

Schieffer recalls that time that Gingrich called Romney a liar, and comes back with a question that comes from having thought about that moment a lot since then: when he called Romney a liar, was it referring to what Romney said about him, or was is referring to Romney's entire record. Gingrich says it's the total record, and that he doesn't equivocate. When you look at his record, he says, it's simply more liberal than the average South Carolinian would be comfortable with -- which isn't really the basis of an accusation of lying. Gingrich goes on to cite various Glenn Kessler "four Pinocchio" ratings...but this "King of Bain" ad that Gingrich has launched has ALSO gotten lots of Pinocchios.

Aren't you glad about the not-at-all cartoonish way we talk about lying in politics?

What about that ad, by the way? Will they comply with Gingrich's wishes to take the ad down. Gingrich says that it's a "public conversation" because it's illegal to coordinate with the super PAC and HE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE COORDINATED with his super PAC, run by his pals! Gingrich says he is setting a standard -- of pretending to be outraged about the ad -- that Romney hasn't met.

In case you haven't guessed, I take the extreme position that anyone who says they are not coordinating with their super PAC is a liar. I am comfortable taking this extreme position because it also happens to be the correct position. You literally have to be a STONE IDIOT to believe it's not going on. Don't be a stone idiot, is my recommendation.

Is Gingrich only helping the Obama re-elect team? Gingrich launches into a reverie about the NFL and the playoffs and says that the Superbowl contenders will be seasoned and tough, and he supports the Packers, because of all of Aaron Rodgers' advertisements filled with lies! He says that it's his way of "raising the questions" in advance of "the Obama onslaught," only to "collapse." Scheiffer asks, "So you are referring to Romney?" And Gingrich says, essentially, yes.

Now we move on to Rick Santorum. Santorum agrees with Newt that Romney does not allow for a "stark contrast" with Obama, and Romney's ties to ObamaCare are disqualifying. He goes on to say, "To have the two of them up against each other...would be a case of malpractice on the part of primary voters." Yeah, well, none of you Not-Romneys have been worth a damn in making a case against Romney and keeping voters convinced of it, but this is definitely the fault of the voters. It'stheir malpractice.

So, would Romney be the worst candidate that the GOP could put forward? Santorum doesn't go that far (probably because he hates Ron Paul even more!), but he says that Romney is terrible, compared to him. Romney's record makes it hard for others to support him, and it makes it harder to govern with a conservative mandate.

Santorum rages against the "establishment" being "comfortable with a little bit of change" and anointing an "electable" candidate early, when they could be getting behind someone who wants a lot of change, like, say himself. America, he says, does not need a candidate who will make the establishment comfortable and that he will be the guy who will make them uncomfortable. He will totally creep them out. He'll follow the conservative establishment to the grocery store and stare at them. And when he passes the conservative establishment in the halls, he'll mutter, "You know what you did."

Schieffer asks why he'd be better than Ron Paul and Newt. Santorum says that he agrees with Ron Paul on fiscal matters, but hates that he is "part of the Dennis Kucinich wing" on national security. As for Gingrich, he says that he's a better leader, for conservatives, than Gingrich. There was a coup against Gingrich, he reminds us. (There was also an election in Pennsylvania, drumming Santorum out of office, but never mind, I guess!)

All of the sudden, interview over, and now Senator Jim DeMint is here, to talk about stuff.

As for Romney ending up the nominee, DeMint says he'd be fine with Mitt, and that Republicans will unite behind Romney if he's the nominee. Schieffer cites this part of this recent Matt Bai article:

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, Martin is the lead organizer of the nearby Spartanburg Tea Party. 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. 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.

Then our conversation turned to Mitt Romney, 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.

DeMint says that there's no one who can speak for the Tea Party. But that's not really what this lady is saying. She's a witness to the discontent of people speaking for themselves. But I'll let it go, because it can't be "proven" one way or the other.

DeMint says he has no plan of offering an endorsement prior to the South Carolina primary, and is more conserned with the Senate.

Schieffer asks how Congress can work without compromise (a chapter of his book is titled "No Compromise with Democrats). He just doesn't want to, basically! Asked why conservatives can't even agree on a candidate, he says it's not unusual -- but that the nominee will have to put together a "platform to unite us."

Now, Jodi Kantor is here to talk about her book, The Obamas. Schieffer says he's surprised at the reaction from the White House, because to his mind, Michelle Obama is depicted very positively. Kantor says that it surprises her as well, after all, it's a book about adaptation and adjustment and success and failure, and I don't imagine that the White House is objecting to the "success" part! Kantor says that Michelle is protrayed as a "strong woman" whose "inital landing in Washington" was "quite difficult," and that it wasn't an attempt to portray her as "angry." "She came to Washington with low expectations and exceeded them."

She goes on to say that the small circle of advisors that forms the administration's core are "not as united" as they've been made out to be, and it raises the question as to whether Obama has demonstrated the requisite management skills as president, and whether or not they can get it together to win a re-election campaign.

Schieffer says that he thinks it's weird that people share their feelings on Facebook and Twitter but didn't expect the Department of Homeland Security has been monitoring these communications. "Well, of course they have," says Schieffer, "and of course, they went too far." Interesting idea, though. Schieffer suggests that now, the monitors will be reined in. Not sure they will! Anyway, it's all weird to Schieffer, but it's probably true nonetheless that in some way, our social media habits probably make us beggars to our own demise. I WILL TWEET SOME MORE FEELINGS ABOUT THIS, OBVIOUSLY.

THIS WEEK, WITH WHOEVER THEY NOW HAVE DOING THIS SHOW, WHATEVER

Apparently, Stephen Colbert has gotten top billing over Rick Perry, which is pretty hilarious. Colbert latest venture into super PAC criticism was really superlative, by the way. Joined by Trevor Potter and Jon Stewart for a ceremonial passing of the control of the super PAC, Colbert created some terrific satire. The way Stewart and Colbert giddily laugh and the leniency of the super PAC regulations is just wonderful. And this all spun out of a poll that had Colbert ahead of Jon Huntsman! What they created from that little news tidbit -- which is funny enough on its own, is just terrific, high-level, bend-the-joke comedy.

Now, I guess we'll find out if Stephanopoulos is able to yank out the seriousness behind the satire, or if he's just going to point and laugh. (In fairness, this is what you risk, with satire.)

Hey, are we not at the Newseum anymore? I guess not.

Good news for Perry, he actually gets top-billing. Or, is this actually like Rick Perry opening for Colbert? And here's a better question: why is Rick Perry still running. And will I accidentally type "Steve Perry" and fail to correct it?

GSteph asks Perry if South Carolina is his "Alamo," referring to the popular car rental company. He says that he "doesn't think so." He goes on to say that he talks to people about jobs, and being a consistent conservative, and that his retail politics are "awesome." GSteph points out, however, that Perry did not win the endorsement of this weekend's confab of social conservatives. Perry responds by saying, "That's what they said about Ronald Reagan." Totally true! Can't count the number of times I heard, "Pffft. If Ronald Reagan is so great, why doesn't he have the support of social conservatives who will meet in Texas many years after his death?" Well, there are no easy answers to that question! (Of course, with Perry, there are no easy answers to the question, "What comes after two?")

Perry says his message, this week, is "jobs" and "experience" and "jobs" and "Texas" and "low taxes" and "military history" and "commander in chief (of a few troops in Texas)."

Perry, like Gingrich, has been slammed for piling on Romney with the Bain Capital attacks. Perry says that it's not new to call someone a venture capitalist and that some random guy from Team Romney said something similar about Meg Whitman (presumably not recently, as Whitman is a Romney backer). "If it is a fatal flaw, then we need to talk about it now," says Perry, who reminds everyone that he is the job creator, and Romney is not. (He cites support from Sarah Palin, who would like Romney to answer the job creation question with a straight answer.)

Argh. Somehow Arsenal managed to lose to Swansea today. This fact is probably of no interest to any of you.

Anyway, back to Perry. What does he plan to do if he doesn't finish first or second in South Carolina? He says he doesn't have one, but his plan is to win the state. (SPOILER ALERT: He won't.)

And that's it! Perry gets three or four minutes, and it's on to Colbert, who I guess has a more realistic chance of winning the Palmetto State, because South Carolina is uniquely prone to improv comedy. (Lots of people don't know this, but the whole Fort Sumter thing was actually just a Second City sketch that went horribly wrong.)