Ace: aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
But hey, I'm sure the ads will get the dreaded "Four Pinocchios" from the Washington Post and maybe even a "Pants on Fire" rating from FactCheck.org. That'll even things up!
I get that people are annoyed with Newt (and now Perry is doing it) for going after Mitt's work at Bain but it's better to have it out there now and decide if it's baggage we want to carry into the general election.
I think this whole primary season has shown that reports of Mitt's "electability" are overrated but we are just now getting to his greatest vulnerability. Part of being "electable" is not saying dumb stuff that can be used against you. Just ask John "I voted for it before I voted against it". Kerry.
Yes, I know the theory, Bain's investors may have bought some companies with the idea that they would be downsized, broken up and sold off to make money but that just freed up capital that would invested in more profitable ones elsewhere.
That's a fantastic theory and creative destruction is a necessary part of a successful economy. It's also a losing political message. We can (and should) make the case for free market economics but let's not pretend that there aren't some real world downsides on the personal level that result from it. We also shouldn't pretend that people don't ever let emotion override a well made and rationale argument.
Again, maybe Mitt's going to be able to be a great ambassador for free market principles but let's not pretend he isn't also straight out the Democrats version of central casting of a fat-cat villain.
Just like the costs and benefits of what Romney did at Bain, we need to consider all the costs and potential benefits of nominating him, especially in this economy.
As Jeff Emanuel (who you should be following on Twitter) wrote:
So in a jobs & Obamacare election, the "inevitable" nominee made his $ eliminating jobs & his signature legislation is state health care
Just a reminder, Democrats have run this playbook on Romney before.
Yes, it was Massachusetts but it was also 1994, when plenty of Republicans were winning in unlikely places.
*I had the quote wrong in the headline. Thanks to Peej for the heads up.