You are browsing the archive for Mitt Romney.

by Peterr

Nomination Advice for President Obama

5:40 am in Elections, Government, Senate by Peterr

Scene: the Oval Office

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA and CHIEF OF STAFF JACK LEW are seated on the sofas facing one another, with a single sheet of paper in front of LEW on the coffee table between them. Neither looks happy.

POTUS: OK, you talked to Mitch McConnell first thing this morning. Where do we stand on nominations going forward?

LEW rolls his eyes.

LEW: Stand? As far as McConnell is concerned, we don’t stand anywhere. We’ve been kicked to the dirt.

POTUS’ eyes get narrow.

POTUS: Oh, really? (with an edge in his voice:) He said that?

LEW: Not in so many words, but it was pretty clear from the conversation.

POTUS: How so?

LEW shakes his head, and passes the sheet of paper across the table to POTUS

POTUS reads out loud from the paper: Richard Lugar for Secretary of State. John McCain for Secretary of Defense. (quits reading out loud, looks up) What is this?

LEW: That’s what I asked McConnell when he handed me that list of names. He just grinned, then said “Article 2, Section 2.” I looked at him, waiting for him to go on and explain his joke, and he didn’t disappoint me. He looked up at the ceiling and recited from memory: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Then he stopped, looked back at me, pointed to that sheet of paper, and said “here’s some . . . advice . . . from the Senate.”

POTUS (looks back at the paper, and begins to read again): Mitt Romney for Treasury Secretary? What — Phil Gramm wasn’t interested? Michele Bachmann for Attorney General. David Addington for CIA Director. Rick Perry for Secretary of Education. Todd Akin for Health and Human Services. (POTUS looks up at LEW) Beyond the ridiculousness of this list, some of the folks McConnell wants to replace aren’t even planning to leave, at least not any time soon. What an idiot.

LEW: I had a similar reaction, and McConnell’s grin got bigger. “They all serve,” he told me, pausing for dramatic effect, “at the pleasure of the President. If the President determines they should leave, they leave.”

POTUS (setting down the paper, humor turning to anger): He’s not just suggesting who I should nominate to replace Hillary, but he’s telling me to fire people?

LEW: Again, that was my reaction. I blew up at him, saying “elections have consequences” and he just laughed. “They sure do,” he said, and you and Ambassador Rice just lost.” (LEW pauses, then points to the paper) Did you see the last name on the list?

POTUS (looks down at the paper and reads): Jeff Sessions would still like an appointment to the Federal Judiciary?

The door to the Oval Office opens, and an aide enters.

AIDE: Your last appointment before lunch is here, Mr. President.

POTUS: Thanks. (to LEW) Jack, do you want to join me for lunch in about 20 minutes? (to the AIDE) What’s the soup of the day?

AIDE: I’m not sure. I think it’s Chicken and Rice.

POTUS and LEW look at each other and shake their heads.

LEW: Thank you, Mr. President, but suddenly I’m not all that hungry. Read the rest of this entry →

by Peterr

Romney’s Bain-Based Solution to Greece

6:43 am in 2012 election, Foreign Policy by Peterr

Mitt Romney, Mr. 1%

(I’ve been surprised by Mitt Romney’s forays into foreign affairs. Thus far, he’s done little but parrot tired GOP talking points, that have been used by candidates and pundits for ages. What’s missing is Romney’s personal touch. What’s missing is a foreign policy that draws on his strengths and builds on his own experiences of the world. Imagine the foreign policy approach that the founder of Bain Capital would bring to a situation like Greece . . .)

My friends, our great nation stands apart from the rest of the world, and requires a president unafraid to be the exceptional leader this exceptional nation deserves. Unfortunately, we have been saddled with a timid leader, who fundamentally misunderstands the way the world works. We stand at a unique moment in history, and the Obama administration is clueless about the opportunity they are missing.

I’m talking about Greece.

President Obama and his timid socialist allies in Europe look at Greece and all they see are problems. High unemployment, rising interest rates, teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and so on. My friends, I have spent my life dealing with situations like Greece. It’s not a problem; it’s an opportunity.

My plan is simple, and it starts like this: the United States should buy Greece.

We should buy Greece, bring in new management to tighten things up, sell off some assets and build up others, let go of unnecessary workers, impose a new corporate culture of austerity instead of entitlement, clean up the corporate balance sheet, and put the nation back on its feet. And with my years of experience at Bain, I’m just the guy to do it.

But time is of the essence. Now is the time to strike a deal. Greece is in deep trouble with its creditors, and they have nowhere to turn but to the US. The maxim “buy low, sell high” tells you everything you need to know. The price will never be lower, and every day we wait is money we lose.

I know about turning around troubled companies, and I can see all kinds of opportunities with Greece. For instance, what corporate titan wouldn’t happily pay through the nose for a home address like 101 Avenue of the Gods, located on Mount Olympus? Can’t you hear Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein: “I live on Mount Olympus. Where else would a Master of the Universe reside?” If we carefully identify a small number of sites on that legendary mountain, we could set off a bidding war among the richest men on earth for the most exclusive address in the world. Yes, I know that Mount Olympus is a national park. That’s why this idea is possible — Greece already owns the mountain. But like failing companies all over the world, Greece isn’t taking advantage of what it’s got. By keeping the number of homes to a minimum, it keeps the exclusivity factor high, which means the prices will be astronomically high, and these few homes will not interfere with the park in the least. We could even prohibit roads and driveways to these Olympian retreats, and require helicopter access only.

This is but one example of how the United States can clean up the mess that Europe is in, and make money at the same time. Of course, it takes money to make money, so let me address the obvious question: where will the money to purchase Greece come from? Here, the answer is hidden in plain sight: sell Maine.

That’s right: sell Maine.

According to this 2007 state-by-state breakdown of federal revenues and expenditures, the federal government spent $4221 more per person in Maine than we collected in revenue. That kind of drain on the federal government is precisely why our deficit is running unchecked. There are other states that are more of a drain on the Treasury, but they have more historical value (Virginia), oil (Alaska), or beauty (Hawaii). Others, like the two Dakotas or Mississippi, might be candidates for sale, but they are much less likely to bring in a price anywhere near what Maine would attract. DC is the biggest drain of all, of course, but selling it would entail huge one-time expenses related to relocating much of the federal government, thus cutting deeply into the proceeds of the sale.

Who would buy Maine? Several nations come to mind. First, of course, would be Canada. There is a shared border, and many shared interests and industries. With a new Quebecois government making noises about secession, Ottawa might be interested in turning Maine into a new province, or adding it to an already existing province like Nova Scotia.

A second potential buyer would be Iceland. Their small nation is having pollution problems thanks to Alcoa, and Maine would be an attractive site for relocating their population while allowing Alcoa to continue using Iceland’s energy resources without impacting Iceland’s cities, towns, and villages. Icelanders could still lead their lives connected to the ocean, without the problems of their current location.

The third, and potentially best buyer, would be Qatar — a nation with money to burn. The emir has a couple of dozen children, and there are bound to be rivalries that need to be kept in check. Purchasing Maine might be the solution the emir needs, allowing him to set up new entities for them to administer. To those who say “but what would a desert nation want with a forested state like Maine?” the answer is simple. Relief. Temperatures are rising, and being able to get away from the heat for a while might be very, very attractive. In addition, if Qatar were to purchase Maine, it would give them a geographic presence much closer to Wall Street, which is the center of the world. Given Qatar’s wealth, it only makes sense that they would like to be as connected to our great financial capital as possible. Qatar also has the best dressage competitors in the Middle East, and a presence in North America would help them connect with our own great horse industry.

There might also be a dark horse bidder, in the form of a corporate buyer (or a consortium of companies). What would HSBC or ICBC pay to have their own country, with laws written by their own Board of Directors?  I don’t know, but I’d be willing to entertain whatever they might offer.

Buy Greece, and sell Maine. We unload an asset that is a drain on our balance sheet, and use the proceeds of the sale to buy an undervalued property elsewhere. This, my friend, is the kind of bold leadership that I would bring to the White House.

Buy low and sell high. It’s the American way, it’s the Romney way, and it’s the right way.

_______

image h/t: DonkeyHotey

by Peterr

Why Todd Akin Stayed, and Why it Troubles Paul Ryan

4:14 am in Conservatism, Elections, Religion by Peterr

Mitt Romney doesn’t get Todd Akin. “Don’t you see what you’re doing to the Party? Don’t you see what you’re doing to The Cause? Get out of the race, so we can get a winning candidate in place!”

And Akin said, “No.”

Roy Blunt, Missouri’s junior senator, doesn’t get Todd Akin, and neither do Kit Bond, Jim Talent, Jack Danforth, or even John Ashcroft, former GOP senators from Missouri all. “Please, Todd, for the sake of our state and our party, get out of the race.”

And Akin said, “No.”

Karl Rove and the others behind the SuperPACS that have been pouring money into Missouri don’t get it, and neither does John Cornyn or the people at the NRC. “We’ll pull our funding and tell your donors not to give to your campaign. We’ll univite you to the Republican National Convention. Get. Out. Of. The. Race. NOW.”

And Akin said “No.”

Maybe Iowa’s favorite son, Rep. Steve King, can explain it to them. He gets Akin, as his (pre-rape comments) endorsement of Akin makes clear:

Congressman Todd Akin is my friend, he is running for the United States Senate and he is the man that will always stand on the principles that we believe in.  Too many people bend or sway in the wind or they get drawn into the mesmerizing idea that somehow someone can guide you up through a leadership channel if you just go along to get along.  He is not going to put up a vote for the sake of going along to get along and neither will I.  We have a sacred obligation to all of you, that’s to keep our oath of office.  That’s to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That’s Todd Akin, as local politician and reporters from around St. Louis know all too well, like Kevin Horrigan:

For nearly a quarter of a century, we had him mostly to ourselves. He was that little barbecue joint that nobody else had discovered. He was a secret fishing hole we didn’t have to share. We never knew what he would say next, but whatever it was, we knew that there was a good chance it would be ridiculous.

There was never anything as outrageous as the magical women-don’t-often-get pregnant during “legitimate rape” claim that now has him in hot water. But if he started talking about Sunday blue laws or the evils of sex education or the dangers of the state licenses for day-care centers or any of the other social issues that came before the Missouri Legislature in the 1990s, Todd would safely go off the deep end and only the Akinmaniacs would notice.

He was kept pretty well bottled-up during his 12 years in the Missouri House. In those days, Democrats still controlled the House and moderation wasn’t yet a sin within the GOP. Todd’s views were so extreme that most mainstream Republicans rolled their eyes when he got up to talk.

He didn’t care. He was a man on a mission.

A man that will always stand on principle. A man on a mission. That’s what Romney and the GOP senators from Missouri and the PTB in the RNC and the political operatives in the GOP don’t get. Or perhaps they get it, but were hoping they could get him, just once, to back off and tone it down.

Good luck with that.

From Akin’s perspective, he can end up in one of three ways. First, he could become a hypocrite. He could give up his principles, give up his mission, and give up his candidacy, which to him would be tantamount to giving up his faith. “When things got tough for God’s prophets in the Old Testament, or the early Christians under Roman persecution, some of them bailed on God. I’m not going to do that.” To leave the race like this would set the stage (in Akin’s mind) for years of nightmares: “how many abortions could I have prevented, if I had just remained firm, remained faithful, and remained strong?”

His second possible outcome is to become a martyr. “I held firm to my convictions, I remained faithful, and whatever happens in the election happens. If I lose, I lose — but I didn’t lose my faith.” In becoming a martyr, he will be a hero to the Fundy Faithful, and they will tell stories about him for generations to come. “When faced with choosing between his faith and what is ‘prudent’ and politically popular, Akin didn’t flinch. Sure, he went down in flames at the polls, but that didn’t matter to him. What mattered to him most was keeping the faith. And he kept it.”

His third possible outcome is to become a senator. By remaining faithful, Akin will proclaim to the Fundy Faithful in Missouri that he is putting this race in God’s hands. His prayer is that they will rally around him in numbers that will amaze the pundits, astound the GOP establishment, and send God-fearing people across the country into a religious frenzy of delight.

A hypocrite, a martyr, or a senator. Akin refuses to accept the first mantle, and will be perfectly happy with either of the other two.

And that probably makes Paul Ryan very sad.

It’s not because Akin might lose to McCaskill, costing the GOP control of the Senate. It’s not because the focus on Akin might derail the careful planning for next week’s Republican National Convention. It’s not because the focus on Akin might spill over into the presidential race, forcing Romney and Ryan to talk more about social issues than the deficit, the budget, and the economy, and perhaps costing them the White House.

It’s because Akin chose what Ryan did not.

Robin Marty of RH Reality Check lays out quite clearly who Ryan is, as she wades through years of his statements and votes:

Rep. Paul Ryan is against abortion, no exceptions. Paul Ryan would allow an exception for rape. Ryan doesn’t believe in birth control. Ryan only has three children, he must believe in birth control. Ryan is pro-life “from conception to natural death.” . . .

[snip]

We may not be entirely sure where Ryan stands at this moment, but anti-choice activists have absolutely no doubt that Ryan is in fact their “pro-life” hero. CatholicVotes announced their endorsement of the Romney/Ryan ticket, saying, “Paul Ryan will be the first pro-life Catholic to appear on a Republican presidential ticket since Roe v. Wade. Paul Ryan understands his faith. He understands Catholic social teaching, and prays and works to apply his faith to the practice of politics, including his economic and budget proposals.”

Exactly what are those social teachings?  Well, it comes as no surprise that CatholicVote does not believe in abortion in any instance, including for victims of rape.  “The rapist… is forever guilty of rape. The child conceived as a result of the rape was not guilty of the crime. The child did no wrong. The child ought not get the death penalty for his father’s rape.” but once again, Ryan is endorsed by supporters who claim he feels the same way, but avoids saying as much himself.

Winks. Dog whistles. Carefully nuanced statements to preserve an image. Playing coy with the press to present two faces to the world. In that respect, Ryan is the anti-Akin.

Which makes this information from Politico about Ryan’s phone call yesterday to Akin very, very interesting:

The call, first reported by NBC, did not entail Ryan asking Akin to drop out, the source said.

But he echoed the comments Mitt Romney made condemning the comments, as well as those from Senate officials who have said Akin needs to think about the impact of his remarks on the party and other candidates, the source said.

It was “not a brief call,” the source said.

Something tells me Ryan didn’t ask Akin to drop out because he knew it would never happen. Given a choice between being a hypocrite on the one hand or a martyr or senator on the other, he knew that there was no way that Akin would choose to be a hypocrite.

But for Ryan, it likely got worse. The more Akin talked, the more it probably bothered Paul Ryan, because while Akin was remaining firm and sticking to his principles, the more Akin talked about publicly witnessing to his faith, the more it hit home with Paul Ryan that he was hiding his own principles and downplaying his faith.

That had to hurt. And it will hurt all the way to November.

by Peterr

Todd Akin, Rush Limbaugh, John Ashcroft, and Mark Twain

5:55 am in Conservatism, Elections by Peterr

Attaturk, that Iowan to the north, had much fun mocking Missouri’s GOP senate nominee, Representative Todd Akin for his comments on “legitimate rape.” And those comments were truly worthy of mockery.

To people here in Missouri, Akin’s comments were not terribly surprising. Akin is a known commodity — known to be highly conservative and well in keeping with a non-trivial slice of the Missouri electorate.

Like Br’er Rabbit telling Br’er Fox not to throw him in the briar patch, Claire McCaskill ran ads on Fox News during the GOP primary fight, calling Akin “too conservative for Missouri”. With an endorsement like that, conservatives in the GOP primary race were happy to hand Akin a victory with 36% of the vote. His two challengers were John Brunner (a conservative businessman trying to run a Romney-style “I know how to run things” campaign) who got 30%, and Sarah “I Want to be a Palin” Steelman who got 29%. The GOP primary was always going to go to the candidate who could best appeal to the most conservative elements of the Missouri GOP, and that was Akin.

And it wasn’t even close.

News flash to the rest of the nation: the 36% who supported Akin are neither surprised nor bothered by Akin’s comments. He may have said publicly what perhaps (for political reasons) ought to have been kept private, but make no mistake. The far right wing of Missouri’s republican party likes this guy and likes what he said. Period. If Akin were to quit the race because of pressure from Romney or Mitch McConnell, they’d be beyond angry. Akin is their guy, and they would not take kindly to outside agitators forcing him to quit.

Akin is not an aberration in the Missouri GOP. This is the state that gave the nation Rush “She’s a slut” Limbaugh, after all, as well as John “cover up the lady parts on that statue in the lobby” Ashcroft.

But this is also the state whose internal political debates over slavery — conducted with the same sense of nuance and humility as Limbaugh, Ashcroft, and Akin discuss sex — shaped the pen and wit of young Samuel Clemens. If Missouri’s politicians were reasonable folks, Clemens might never have taken up political commentary and satire as Mark Twain.

I look at my kid and his classmates and wonder which of them will grow up to be the next great political satirist. God knows that with folks like Akin around, there’s plenty for them to work with as they learn the fine art of political snark.

UPDATE: County by county primary results are here. Looking at the map, you can see a couple of things. (1) The big dark blue patch just west and north of St. Louis is Akin’s conservative home district. (2) The blue patch in the southwestern corner of the state is John Ashcroft country. (3) The blue patch in the southeastern corner of the state is where Rush has his roots.

by Peterr

Ann Romney Rejects Her Own Very Sensible Idea

8:54 am in 2012 election, Religion, Wall Street by Peterr

Robin Roberts of ABC News has a new interview of Ann Romney that begins (around the 1:00 mark of the video) with the topic of Mitt’s refusal to release more of his tax returns, in keeping with the practices of many presidential candidates of both parties. Ann’s response included a very interesting suggestion. “You know, you should really look at where Mitt has led his life, where he’s been financially. He’s a very generous person . . .” said Ann (with emphasis in the original).

You know, Ann, that’s a good idea.

A really good idea.

I’d really, really love to look at where Mitt has led his life, and where he’s been financially.

But where to start? Oh, I could read biographies of Mitt or listen to his speeches, or listen to his friends or family talk about him, but those are words. Instead of just words, let’s try a little applied moral theology, as I explained it last October:

Read the rest of this entry →

by Peterr

Is James Dobson Repenting for His 2007 Interview with Newt Gingrich?

9:17 am in 2012 election, Religion by Peterr

James Dobson’s slam on Newt Gingrich at the recent behind-closed-doors meeting of evangelical Christian leaders grabbed a lot of attention in the press — almost as much as the group’s eventual vote to get behind Rick Santorum. Grace Wyler at Business Insider described Dobson’s comments like this:

Influential evangelical leader James Dobson set off the fireworks at this weekend’s Christian Right summit, giving a speech that lavished praise on Karen Santorum and asked whether Americans really wanted Callista Gingrich — “a woman who was a man’s mistress for eight years” — as their First Lady, according to sources who attended the meeting.

Sources told Business Insider that Dobson’s speech was a “startling moment” that left many in the audience — particularly those who support Gingrich — floored. One source described Dobson’s tone as “angry,” and said it seemed like Dobson was blaming Callista Gingrich for the couples’ affair, which began while the former House Speaker was still married to his second wife (this is Callista Gingrich’s first marriage).

“It was clear that, to him, the villian in this story is Callista Gingrich,” the source said. “And he was announcing it to 170 ministers with huge mailing lists and television ministries.”

That’s gotta sting. What no one seems to remember — not Wyler or anyone else — is that five years ago, when Gingrich was looking to reenter the political fights but knew he needed to address the adultery issue, it was to James Dobson that Gingrich turned. Gingrich and Dobson had a memorable radio conversation in which Newt admitted his adultery publicly for the first time (you can listen to the audio at the link). Folks like the late Jerry Falwell clamored to commend Gingrich for his confession:

“He has admitted his moral shortcomings to me, as well, in private conversations,” Falwell wrote in a weekly newsletter sent Friday to members of the Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance. “And he has also told me that he has, in recent years, come to grips with his personal failures and sought God’s forgiveness.”

CNN’s Bill Schneider speculated at the time that this was a signal from Gingrich that he wanted in the presidential race and wanted the whole adultery question neutralized. In contrast to Rudy Giuliani’s interview with Larry King admitting his own rather substantive marital problems, Gingrich went to a major — perhaps the major — figure in the TheoCon movement, looking for absolution and a blessing.

And he got it.

But three weeks after that radio broadcast, Dobson made an unsolicited phone call to author and blogger Dan Gilgoff (then at US News), adding another layer to the conversation with Gingrich:

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

“Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson said of Thompson. “[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian; at least that’s my impression,” Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party’s conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

At the time, Fred Thompson was the up-and-coming flavor of the month. Very Serious People asked questions like “Will he get in the race or won’t he? Can he save the GOP from the likes of Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain?” A couple of days later, Dobson’s spokesperson tried to backpedal a bit on the Gilgoff interview, saying

[Dobson's] words weren’t intended to represent either an endorsement of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich or a disparagement of former Sen. Fred Thompson. Dr. Dobson appreciates Sen. Thompson’s solid, pro-family voting record and his position that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.

In his conversation with Mr. Gilgoff, Dr. Dobson was attempting to highlight that to the best of his knowledge, Sen. Thompson hadn’t clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him.

Still, the implications were clear. For whatever reason, Dobson was clearly more comfortable supporting Newt Gingrich, a repentant serial adulterer, than Fred Thompson.

That was then, but my how things have changed.

Today, it seems as if Dobson is repenting a bit for his 2007 comments about Gingrich. In that Business Insider piece that I linked to at the top, Wyler goes on to describe a division among the participants:

In the wake of the conference, Christian Right leaders have publicly split into two camps — a bad sign for a coalition whose strength has always come from its solidarity. In one camp, powerful evangelical scions like Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Family Research Council President Tony Perkins; and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, have thrown their support behind Santorum. On the other hand, influential California megachurch pastor Jim Garlow, evangelical activist David Lane, and Christian marketing guru George Barna have teamed up to support Gingrich.

So what’s changed?

(a) Not much. In 2007, Dobson used Gingrich as a way to undercut Fred Thompson, hoping to energize the TheoCon community to get behind someone more religiously acceptable. He wasn’t praising Gingrich as much as slipping a knife into Thompson, to try to build up support for a candidate the TheoCons could really get behind. Not necessarily Gingrich in 2008, mind you, but perhaps someone like Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback. In 2012, Dobson’s found a more acceptable candidate, and is quite willing to use Gingrich again, this time to derail Mitt Romney’s campaign.

(b) Everything. In 2007, Dobson allowed Gingrich to use Dobson’s radio show as a means to reenter politics, proclaiming himself to be a reformed, repentant, and renewed Christian. Those are words to warm every TheoCon’s heart. But in the five years since then, what has Gingrich done to show his faith credentials? What has he done to promote the TheoCon cause? He’s done lots of lobbying and consulting, promoting the bank account of Newt and Callista Gingrich, but nothing to get the TheoCons cheering. Neither Dobson nor Gingrich has said much publicly about the other since then (until recently, that is), but there is one little public thing that might be in play. In 2009, Gingrich left the Baptist church and became a Roman Catholic — not something that went down well with many TheoCons. If this was part of Dobson’s problem with Gingrich, it’s not as simple as saying “TheoCons don’t like Catholics.” After all, Dobson recently endorsed the very Roman Catholic Rick Santorum. Instead, it may be that Dobson sees Gingrich’s conversion to Catholicism as yet another sign that Gingrich views religion as a political tool to be used to manipulate others, not as a way of life for one’s self, and yet another indication that the 2007 interview was more calculated than sincere. In other words, Dobson now sees that he got played in 2007, and doesn’t like that one bit.

(c) Both of the above. Dobson used Gingrich in 2007 to torpedo Thompson, and wants to do the same now to torpedo Mitt Romney. If Dobson thinks he was played by Gingrich in 2007, that would certainly explain the anger with which Dobson spoke out against Newt and Callista last week. Being able to pay Gingrich back for being fooled by him in 2007 while at the same time trying to boost a “real Christian conservative” like Santorum as the alternative to Romney is icing on the cake.

It’s mostly a wild guess, but put me down for (c).

_______

photo of a portion of the John the Baptist window in Glasgow Cathedral h/t to Glasgow Amateur