Still Waiting On My "New" Computer...

Well, folks, Newt clearly won last night's Republican presidential candidates' debate from Charleston, S.C.

As to Romney...

Gerald Seib of the WSJ asked ol' Mitt the following question:

Governor Romney, let’s look a little deeper at the business record that you’re talking about. In a nutshell, what your opponents here are saying is that Bain Capital and other private equity firms, buy companies, load them up with debt, take the profits and then head for the exits.

Let’s look at another example and allow you to respond through that. America Pad and Paper is a company that Bain Capital bought with $5 million, took on more debt to expand, couldn’t pay back the loans, went bankrupt and several hundred people lost their jobs.

Bain Capital though, took $100 million in profits and fees.

Does that show a flaw in the Bain Capital model?

Or is that just the rough and tumble of America capitalism?

Folks... if you want Mitt's answer then read the transcript. I'll just cut to the chase by noting that his answer sure as hell didn't satisfy me.

Not all "capitalism" is equal, folks. There's the "capitalism" of Jeff Immelt. We call this crony capitalism.

Solydra was also crony capitalism.

Remember Hillary Rodham Clinton's amazing "beginner's luck" with regard to Cattle Futures - turning a $1,000 "investment" into a nearly $100,000 profit in ten months back in 1978-1979?

Jon Corzine... another great... er... "capitalist?"

Folks... you get my drift. I'm not suggesting that Bain Capital is synonymous with Worldcom or Enron or that Mitt Romney has anything in common with Bernie Madoff... I'm just saying that Mitt Romney isn't Horatio Alger nor does his "business experience" have much in common with the likes of a Henry Ford or a Steve Jobs.

Bottom line... I'm just not all that impressed with Mitt Romney "businessman." (I mean... if my daddy had left me $37 million I might have done pretty well myself - as would most of you, I'm guessing!)

The other spotlight I'll shine on Mitt Romney's performance last night was when he choose to stand shoulder to shoulder with... er... President Barak Hussein Obama... in terms of showing utter contempt for the Constitution of the United States, our Bill of Rights, and subsequent Amendments to our Constitution.

Here's the question posed by Kelly Evans of the WSJ:

Governor Romney, when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, he enacted a provision allowing him to indefinitely detain American citizens in U.S. military custody, many, including Congressman Paul, have called it unconstitutional. At the same time the bill did provide money to continue funding U.S. troops.

Governor Romney, as president, would you have signed the National Defense Act as written?

Here's how Romney answered the question, folks:

Yes, I would have.

* Folks... (*SHRUG*)

And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda.

* American citizens. SUSPECTED members of al Qaeda.

* One... more... time...

* American CITIZENS.

* SUSPECTED members of al Qaeda.

* "Yes I would have...[claimed for myself as president the right to indefinitely detain American citizens in U.S. military custody...]

Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that is killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail.

* Funny... first of all the Constitution itself sets up the rules regarding what's Treason and what's not and how to deal with it; but second of all, this same Constitution - the one Romney would have a swear an oath to defend and preserve if elected - is pretty clear about TRIAL FIRST... CONVICTION SECOND... PUNISHMENT THIRD!

* Folks... I simply can't stress enough how far off the reservation Mitt Romney is here!

And I recognize, I recognize that in a setting where they are enemy combatants and on our own soil, that could possibly be abused. There are a lot of things I think this president does wrong, lots of them, but I don’t think he is going to abuse this power and I that if I were president I would not abuse this power. And I can also tell you that in my view you have to choose people who you believe have sufficient character not to abuse the power of the presidency and to make sure that we do not violate our constitutional principles.

* In a nutshell, Romney's position seems to be: "I will burn the Constitution if necessary in order to defend it!"

* Folks... saying "oh... well... I don't think Obama will abuse these unconstitutional powers and I don't plan to either" isn't exactly what I'm looking for in a candidate for President of the United States.

But let me tell you, people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants.

* Folks... American CITIZENS who are SUSPECTED of criminal activities - or treason - must be arrested, tried, and convicted if they're to be punished. The Constitution is pretty frigg'n clear on this...!!!

* Folks... we have a real problem on our hands.