The editorial staff at National Review Online make a compelling argument for the former Speaker to quit the race for the Republican nomination:

At the moment Rick Santorum appears to be overtaking Newt Gingrich as the principal challenger to Mitt Romney. Santorum has won more contests than Gingrich (who has won only one), has more delegates, and leads him in the polls. In at least one poll, he also leads Romney. It isn’t yet a Romney–Santorum contest, but it could be headed that way.

We hope so. Gingrich’s verbal and intellectual talents should make him a resource for any future Republican president. But it would be a grave mistake for the party to make someone with such poor judgment and persistent unpopularity its presidential nominee. It is not clear whether Gingrich remains in the race because he still believes he could become president next year or because he wants to avenge his wounded pride: an ambiguity that suggests the problem with him as a leader. When he led Santorum in the polls, he urged the Pennsylvanian to leave the race. On his own arguments the proper course for him now is to endorse Santorum and exit.

My emphasis.

And yet high-profile conservatives like Sarah Palin continue to flirt with a Gingrich endorsement. One can only wonder at what would happen if Palin did publicly endorse Newt Gingrich…

I’m reading Crooks and Liars before bed. There’s this post about Mitt Romney’s dog that ends with:

Earlier this year, PolitiFact verified Collins’ version of the tale.

“Seamus was strapped to the roof of the family car, but in a carrier with a protective windscreen,” they wrote. “We rate Collins’ statement Mostly True.”

It’s odd, I think, that they’re using PolitiFact to confirm the truth of the story considering C&L has been up in arms with PolitiFact’s lie of the year for most of a week.

And then I get to the previous post:

Thursday, Politifact Editor Bill Adair probably ruined his outlet’s chances of ever being taken seriously again as an objective debunker of political spin.

Seriously? Can someone from C&L please explain why their partisan hackery is OK – but it’s OUTRAGEOUS when the Right plays like that?

Help CDPHP^® support the Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York’s BackPack Program. During December, CDPHP will match donations of $100 or more to the BackPack Program (up to $5K) and will donate $5 for every new “like” on the Food Bank’s Facebook page (up to $5K).

via Calling All Angels

Happy Holidays from me and mine to you and yours!

From the department of “The more things CHANGE…”

What does this sound like to you? – A high risk “bet the company” culture, huge leverage, “smarter than you” corporate arrogance, regulators asleep at the switch, a”rock star” CEO cozying up to the President of the United States, questionable accounting, bankruptcy, investigations, and criminal prosecutions.

Most of the mainstream media coverage of the MF Global failure has focused on the leverage and the highly speculative bad business bets made by CEO Jon Corzine. But with the SEC and FBI looking under the covers, Dan Primack of Fortune Magazine goes where the NYT fears to tread:

Video of CNBC interview with Primack linked HERE.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Dipping into MF Global client funds to backstop the firm’s heavily leveraged high risk bets on European debt is about as serious as it gets. We’re talking – Federal Felony / Criminal Fraud / Grand Theft / Go To Jail / Do Not Pass Go / Do Not Collect $200 / Throw Away The Key / – that kind of serious. If tapping segregated client funds at a broker dealer is not criminal fraud, then it at least rises to criminal negligence on the part of the CEO of that firm.

Then there is the special relationship with the President and the related special provisions of the “Investment Grade” debt offerings from MF Global only two months ago:

“The futures broker sold $325 million of five-year unsecured notes, the company said today in a statement. The notes will pay an extra percentage point of interest if Corzine is named to a federal post and confirmed by the Senate before July 2013, New York-based MF Global said yesterday in a regulatory filing.

“That seems crazy,” said William Larkin, a fixed-income portfolio manager who oversees $500 million at Cabot Money Management Inc. in Salem, Massachusetts, and has 22 years of experience. “I’ve never heard of something like this.”…

A Democrat, Corzine is among the biggest fundraisers for President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. He has been the subject of speculation about administration jobs such as Treasury secretary or White House economic adviser, said Christopher Allen, an analyst at Evercore Partners Inc. in New York…

Corzine’s employment contract is written with a view to future government service. It stipulates that he’ll be paid his $1.5 million retention bonus on a pro rata basis if he leaves to work for any “U.S. federal, state or local government” before March 31, 2014.”

I wonder if Corzine’s retention bonus and the bond interest kicker will be invoked if it turns out that Corzine’s federal employment is working in the laundry of a Federal Prison?

Meh – probably not worth worrying about that “Investment Grade” Bond Interest kicker. These bonds (which were sold in August and have yet to pay a coupon) were trading at 40 cents to the dollar on Monday. BTW – Thank you S&P for another great call. In the same time frame that S&P was downgrading US Debt early this summer, they rated this MF Global bond offering “Investment Grade”. U.S. Treasuries have increased in value since that rating. The MF Global bonds? Not so much.

UPDATE:
Jon Corzine resigned this morning and lawyered up.

The Bush Justice Department prosecuted and convicted Ken Lay. Let’s see what happens to Jon Corzine.

^{X-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.}

It certainly has been a long time since we had an open thread here at the Donk.

The Comment-ocalypse is over (we hope!) and folks think serious discussions are in order. So here you are: discuss.

Or maybe you live in NJ and you’d like to kvetch about the blizzard before Halloween.

Feel free. It’s your open thread. Enjoy!

From David Donar of Political Graffiti

So, as I was drinking my coffee and combing through my Facebook feed this morning (because I just don’t get the Google+ thing), I stumbled across this article and found it most interesting:

South Sudan has become the world’s newest nation, the climax of a process made possible by the 2005 peace deal that ended a long and bloody civil war.

Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon are among international dignitaries attending celebrations in the capital, Juba.

Sudan earlier became the first state to officially recognise its new neighbour.

The south’s independence follows decades of conflict with the north in which some 1.5 million people died.

Celebrations in Juba began at midnight (2100 GMT). A countdown clock in the city centre reached zero and the new national anthem was played on television.

South Sudan became the 193rd country recognised by the UN and the 54th UN member state in Africa.

However, despite all of the celebration, the new nation has some heavy challenges ahead:

The new country is rich in oil, but one of the least developed countries in the world, where one in seven children dies before the age of five.

Unresolved disputes between the north and south, particularly over the new border, have also raised the possibility of renewed conflict.

Still, independence rarely comes easily.

Now, call me crazy, but this seems like the type of news that I should have seen on the teevee or heard on the radio — not found haphazardly via a friend on Facebook.

Given our own nation’s tumultuous start in 1776, followed by a bloody war for independence against our colonial parent country, I would think that the story of South Sudan might have gotten a bit more attention in American media.

Then again, this was no Casey Anthony trial.

JinBmore tells me what I don’t want to hear:

I have two words for you: “President Bachmann”. They laughed about Reagan the same way they do about her.

My immediate feeling is that independents and centrists will never vote for her and they will decide the 2012 election.

After some consideration it seems that less-informed, conservative-leaning Independents might vote for her based on her Establishment creds (she’s been a Congresswoman since 2006), and well-informed, moderate Republicans might just ignore the Tea Party business, bite the bullet and vote for her.

She’s the only candidate thus far with a legitimate foot in each camp.

Great. Now I’m scared for America again.