The only thing worse than endless political ads is political ads being tossed back and forth in a debate format with no fact checker. Well, almost no fact checker. Romney himself got caught when he tried to famously disavow any political negativity coming from his side only to discover that he had indeed approved an attack ad against Gingrich.
What was lost in the mix was serious debate. The average listener might think that Romney and Gingrich’s stance on immigration actually differed. What we discovered instead is that they really are basically the same, making their attacks on each others immigration policy pretty funny. In fact, they all seemed to have the same view on illegal immigration except for Ron Paul who seemed to be saying that the problem is we have a bad economy and if we had a good economy we would all want illegal immigrants to come here and take the jobs Americans won’t.
Of course, with Paul sometimes it is difficult to differentiate his “this is what I would do as President” with his “this is the way things ought to be” with his “this is the way things are” rhetoric. It keeps him safe with both the radical constitutionalists and the ignorant populists in his base. Of course, I myself am a radical constitutionalist, but most of Paul’s constitutional rhetoric falls under the “this is the way things ought to be” column. I couldn’t have any alcohol last night because of an early morning medical procedure Friday morning, but if I had a drinking game it would have been how many times Paul redirected a question by making his answer about the war, how bad the fed has made the economy, or how small a constitutional government should be. The immigration question got both the war and the economy.
Paul did receive a great deal of respect from the other candidates. It was the sort of respect Romney showed to Bachmann early on in the race. It was that sort of “you have no shot of winning, but I would really like your supporters to like me down the road so I’ll smile and pat you on the back” respect.
Gingrich fell into a trap that I warned about a few months ago. He has big ideas, but he has also become more and more of a states rights conservative. Gingrich’s problem is communication in small soundbites. I understood that he was speaking about encouraging private ventures to establish a moon colony, but the three candidates up there either willingly or ignorantly seemed to think he was talking about NASA doing it.
Gingrich also dropped the ball on something he has done very well at in previous debates, not taking media bait. Blitzer played Romney and Gingrich all night long. In fact, it was Rick Santorum who had to bring the debate back to the issues. Unlike the early debates where Gingrich ran the show and the other candidates followed his lead, this time it was Santorum who reminded the other candidates what the debates and this whole process is all about. Because of it, Santorum shined last night.
Mitt Romney has hired Bachmann’s former debate coach and it shows. He laid down persistent attacks, mostly inaccurate, and was distracted from the issues all night. Newt attempted to rebut, but his responses were too involved for the average American viewer. Romney easily turned Gingrich’s responses on their head. A good example was when Newt brought up Romney’s investments in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I think Newt’s point was that Romney shouldn’t be attacking him for doing consulting work for Freddie Mac when in fact Romney himself is making money on Freddie Mac stock. In the end though, both sides lost that debate and viewers were left with a disgusting taste in their mouth.
I said that Jacksonville, Florida would be the most important debate of this election if one candidate could shine like Gingrich has in the past debates. In the end, Gingrich saw his shadow and this primary will continue far beyond Florida. And unfortunately, it will continue to get nastier. The candidates have already said many things about each other that they will not be able to take back in the general election. So in the end, Santorum won the debate, but the Republican party was the big loser.
What does that headline say to you? The description below the Bloomberg headline was “U.S. investors are rooting for Mitt Romney and those overseas are for Barack Obama. Newt Gingrich is generating little enthusiasm anywhere. “
From reading that, you might be fooled into thinking Bloomberg ran a poll of investors where Newt lost and Obama was the big winner. But if you read the story, and parse their words, you will discover a completely different story. Mike Dorning skips back and forth from the global stage to US investors to create some great quotable lines, while obscuring the real story behind dishonest turns of phrases and ambiguity.
Mixed in with all sorts of good news for Obama, the real story can be found here:
In a potential election match-up between Obama, 50, and Romney, 64, a former private equity executive, global respondents are split, with 41 percent choosing each as better for the world economy. U.S. investors sided 3-to-1 with the Republican and those outside the U.S. 2-to-1 with Obama.
Pay attention. While investors on the global stage are split evenly between Romney and Obama, Obama looses 3 to 1 with American investors. Now, let’s look at what they had to say about Newt who was “generating little enthusiasm anywhere” and being “resist(ed)” by investors:
Faced with a choice between the Democratic incumbent and Republican Gingrich, 68, on who would be better for the world economy, global respondents back Obama 52 percent to 25 percent. Those in the U.S. give Gingrich a 44 percent plurality against 35 percent for Obama with 21 percent unable to tell how they would resolve the dilemma.
Did you catch that? Among US investors Gingrich wins 44% to 35%. Or, as Bloomberg put it, a “44 percent plurality”. It should be no surprise that foreign investors like Obama better. In addition to supporting European economic policies, Obama has also done a great deal to bail out European banks and don’t forget when he gift-wrapped Chrysler and sold it for a huge discount to Fiat, an Italian company. If foreign investors didn’t like Obama, we would have to call them ungrateful.
So what should the headline have been for this story? Here are some thoughts. Feel free to add your own suggestions:
Romney and Newt Kick Obama’s Butt in Poll of US Investors
US Investors Prefer GOP, Non-US Investors Like Obama
America Likes Romney and Newt, Europe Likes Obama
Three Times As Many Investors Like Romney Over Obama in US
US Investors Like Newt Over Obama, Like Romney Even More
Today’s Trunkline 2012 discusses tonight’s presidential debate in Florida, the personhood amendment, Bob Dole’s freak out on Newt Gingrich, Bob McDonnell’s view of all the VP talk, Romney and paul running in Nevada, what Newt learned from Dick, and much more.
Upon hearing about the brouhaha over a recent tarmac meeting between Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and President Obama, I couldn’t help but draw a connection between the now infamous photo of the Governor pointing a finger at the President’s face and a similar meeting between President Obama and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels on the tarmac at an Indianapolis airport back in early May of last year.
Back in May, Governor Daniels airport exchange with the President was never fully disclosed but apparently it was a very pleasant meeting, something which could not be said of Brewer and Obama’s meeting.
According to Governor Brewer, a very thin skinned President Obama took it upon himself to tell Brewer that he was not happy with her recent characterization of the President in her new book “Scorpions for Breakfast”. In it Brewer discusses the issue of illegal immigration, which she and the President disagree upon.
The interesting thing is that according to Brewer, she was quite pleased that the President was in her state and came there to sincerely welcome him. But according to the Governor, the President would have none of that. Instead he told he was not pleased with her opinions and walked away from her while she was in the middle of a sentence.
Given the President’s attitude and his failed policies, it is hard to believe that there are not more pictures of Governors with their fingers in the Commander-in-Chiefs face. Obviously they have many points that the President seems to be missing and that he needs to get.
Last night, Warren Buffet’s secretary occupied a place of honor as an invited guest of the Obama’s to the State of the Union address. She got to sit with the First Lady, sort of like the Iraqi woman who was invited by Bush and showed off her ink stained finger for voting. So what exactly did Buffet’s secretary symbolize? The downtrodden middle class who somehow pay more taxes than billionaires like her boss Warren Buffet.
There is one glaring problem with Obama using Debbie Bosanek, Buffet’s secretary, as a prop for class warfare. As Paul Roderick Gregory with Forbes Magazine calculates, Buffet’s secretary makes at least $200,000 a year. Fortunately, she can still call herself part of the 99% because at $200,000 a year, she only made the top 3% of income earners, not the top 1%.
But here is the best part: Obamacare raises taxes on individuals making more than $200,000. Because of Obamacare, starting next year Warren Buffet’s secretary will pay an additional 3.8% on investment income, and an additional .9% in Medicare taxes for a total tax hike of 4.7%. And if Obama gets his way and the Bush tax rates are eliminated for individuals who make more than $200,000, Obama will have effectively raised Buffet’s secretary’s taxes by 7.7%, or possibly as much as 9.6% if she is in the highest tax bracket.
Good job, Mr. President. Thank you for that ever-so-perfect State of the Union prop.
Speaking of Buffet
In case you were wondering why Obama canceled the Keystone pipeline, a move the Washington Post called “insanity”, we may get some clues by following the money. According to Bloomberg, Obama supporter Warren Buffet stands to profit big time from cancellation of the pipeline. Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway owns the rail companies who will transport the oil in lieu of a pipeline. Crony capitalism at its best, at the cost of thousands of American jobs. Oh yeah, and for you environmentalists who opposed the pipeline, what sort of impact do you think transporting that oil on trains will have on the environment? Maybe you should re-think this one.
Jacksonville TEA Party Straw Poll Picks Newt
In the first ever Angie’s Subs Caucus, TEA Party members from across the Northeast gathered at Angie’s Subs in Jacksonville, Florida to discuss local and national politics and have a straw poll. 323 votes were cast and the winner was Newt with 138 votes, or 43%. Second place? Ron Paul, gaining 26% of the vote. Romney finished third.
Thursday, Jacksonville will be hosting the last debate before voters in this key state hold their primary. Recent polls have wavered back and forth with Newt erasing a double digit deficit to now have a slight lead in most polls.
Rubio Flexes Influence
Newt Gingrich pulled an add calling Mitt Romney “anti-immigrant” after Marco Rubio called out the ad as deceptive. What this shows is the incredible respect the current Republican godfathers have for the 2010 class. And this is well deserved. Marco Rubio, Alan West, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and a host of Republican governors including Scott Walker, Rick Scott, and others, represent the type of conservatism that the TEA Party loves, but that also resonates with Americans. Part of the reason the 2012 Presidential field has been disappointing for some is because the giants of 2012 pale in comparison to the greatness of the younger Republican generation.
Trunkline 2012 delivers a dose of campaign trail news dealing with the president’s Fiction and Fantasy Economic Tour, Newt pulling ads and surging in Florida, Obama losing Florida, Pelosi’s secret secrets about Newt, Fidel Castro thoughts on Republican being idiots, and much more.
Today President Obama followed up his State of the Campaign Kickoff address with a visit to Conveyor Engineering & Manufacturing in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Conveyor Engineering & Manufacturing manufactures stainless steel screws like the one pictured to the left. They are screws that are used to run conveyor belts and screw presses used in wet corn milling, ethanol production, and manure and fertilizer manufacturing. Its customers include Cargill, Kellogg, Hormel Foods and Georgia Pacific and it is truly an American business to be proud of.
So pardon me for making a natural connection here, but while Conveyor Engineering & Manufacturing is a serious unsung hero in American life, on so many levels including agriculture, jobs, and the economy, I can’t help but see a remarkable symbolic connection between the screws they make and how President Obama has screwed America.
Despite his rhetoric regarding his three day, five-state tour of battlegrounds that are filled with electoral college votes that the Presidents badly needs, and in which officials say the President will use to lay out his vision for a “new era of American manufacturing with more great jobs and more products made in the USA”, what the President will not be admitting is that his policies have actually screwed America, its people, and the manufacturing industry he is trying to become a hero of.
President Obama will not be addressing the 30 jobs bills that Republicans in the House passed but thanks to the President and his Party, are still sitting over in the United States Senate. The President will not be mentioning that many of those Republican initiatives were endorsed last week by his own jobs council. And, he will not admit that for three years now, all he has done is regurgitate the same failed past policies of more spending, more taxes, and more regulations.
The President will not be pointing out how his policies have held back economic growth and stymied the ability of manufacturers to broaden their base and ability to increase production, which in turn would normally increases profits, and the hiring of new employees.
You will not hear about how President Obama’s decision to impose 35% tariffs on Chinese tire imports resulted in job losses for U.S. downstream industries, higher prices for U.S. consumers and led to an avalanche of similar trade case filings and other demands for protectionist measures, or how killing the Keystone Pipeline cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and diminished any immediate hope to alleviate our reliance on foreign oil and to lower the cost to for manufacturers to do business in our nation.
President Obama will not be admitting that the inability for him and his Party to present a budget in what is now more than 1,001 days, has helped to create an air of uncertainty that hangs over our economy like a sword of Damocles. Nor will he speak about how his policies to bailout out all his buddies in GM and in Fannie and Freddie Mac have burdened Americans and American manufactures with a driving need for the federal government to generate more tax dollars in order to pay for these bailouts. And you will not hear President Obama campaigning on the fact that his overspending, debt busting, crony capitalism, government depency promoting, pro-poverty policies, led to the first downgrading of the American bond rating in our nation’s history….a downgrade that made it even riskier to do or grow businesses in America.
You will not hear about any of these facts as President Obama tries to blame his destruction of the free market and stagnation of the economy on others. But I am grateful for the fact that the President chose the backdrop that he did to launch his financial fiction and fantasy tour of America. The backdrop of the giant screws which Conveyor Engineering & Manufacturing produces is much more fitting than the infamous Greek columns he used as a backdrop when he accepted his party’s presidential nomination three years ago. The backdrop of a big screw is much more appropriate for this President, a President who has screwed America more than any other President since Democrat Jimmy Carter compelled Americans to fumigate the White House with a dose of Ronald Reagan conservatism.
So as President Obama leaves the screw factory, all I can really say is thank you Mr. President, and screw you too.
Less than a month after ending her bid for the Republican presidential nomination, Minnesota Congresswoman Michel Bachmann announced that she will seek a fourth term in Congress.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Bachmann stated;
“I’m looking forward to coming back and bringing a strong, powerful voice to Washington, D.C.,”
The announcement hardly came as a surprise and was anticipated by White House 2012 as far back as October of 2011 when I wrote “while Bachmann may indeed be sincere about her desire to run only for President, she knows very well that she will probably be running for reelection to the House.”
Despite being a little slow, even Ken Martin, chairman of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer Labor Party, who admitted the announcement wasn’t a surprise and he told the Associate Press that his Party would take advantage of the time that Bachmann spent campaigning for President and attack he attack her for being absent from the district and for missing votes in Washington as she she pursued higher office.
Meanwhile, Bachman’s decision to drop out of the President race and run for reelection to her Minnesota congressional seat also came as little surprise to Minnesota Republicans. Several likely likely successors had been preparing to replace her as the Republican nominee for her House seat, but none had actually officially declared their candidacies because they all accurately anticipated the set of circumstances which lead to Bachmann’s running for reelection.
As for who Democrats will run against Bachmann, that is still unclear. While the Congresswoman has proved quite formidable in the past, she did only win by 53% in her last election, but at the same time she raised $13.5 million, a sum larger than that of any of her fellow House colleagues. Another advantage Bachmann will have in her reelection effort is that her 2010 Democratic opponent, Tarryl Clark, has decided to challenge freshman Republican Rep. Chip Cravaack and will not attempt a rematch with Bachmann. On the flip side, one disadvantage that Bachmann will have in 2012 is redistricting. Her current district will have to shrink in size and how that is done through Gerrymandering could make her new district a more liberal one than she currently has.
In the final analysis, I think conservatives will be able to count on Michele Bachmann having their back in the next Congress. Between her name I.D., fundraising strength, and tenacity as a campaigner, Bachmann should win at least a fourth term. The question is, will she actually get sworn in, or might she just accept a cabinet position in the next Republican presidential Administration?
Bachmann is not very liked by the establishment Republican leadership in the House and it is quite possible that John Boehner might push the idea of appointing Bachmann to a semi-high position in the next Administration for no other reason than to get her out of their hair and avoid her rocking establishment boat. It’s the type of thing that happens all the time and which I can easily see President Obama or President Gingrich saying to John Boehner, “alright, but you owe me big time for this one”.
CBS News recently posted an interview with former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in which he stated that he supports Mitt Romney over Newt Gingrich because the former Governor of Massachusetts has a much better chance at defeating President Obama than Newt does [see the interview below this post]
According to Lott;
“I think we would be better off with Mitt Romney as our president.”
He added;
“We don’t need a good speech. We don’t need a good debater. We don’t need rhetorical passion, What we need is leadership and direction for our country.”
Last year Lott stated that he was backing Romney, but he declined to openly criticize Gingrich. But with Newt’s surge in the polls comes a new approach by Trent Lott who now aggressively seeks the opportunity to denounce Gingrich.
In addition to telling CBS that he just doesn’t think that’s what we need in a President, when asked if Gingrich could beat President Obama in the election Lott bluntly states;
“I’m sure he wouldn’t, frankly,”
The former Senate leader also went sfter Newtt for a reprimand rewgarding a ethics charge and says;
“It raises questions about management style, and it raises questions about why did he wind up with the result where you get punished by your ethics committee and wind up having to step aside,”.
He added
“People want to know what ended up happening there.”
Lott said the Ethics Committee wouldn’t have acted against him “if there weren’t some real problems.” He said the allegations and subsequent investigation gutted whatever hope Gingrich had to lead.
“We all make mistakes when you’re in leadership, we’re human beings,” Lott said.
“That was a very serious result and one that clearly undermined his ability to lead the House. “
Lott also accused Gingrich of taking too much credit for some of those things which were achieved during his four years as Speaker of the House, one of them being the balanced budgets that were passed. According to Trent Lott, those balanced budgets were more the doing of former Ohio Congressman John Kasich and New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici.
The former G.O.P. Senate leader also claimed that the now infamous government shutdown during Newt’s Speakership, was a big mistake and that it was based on the political goal of beating President Clinton, not the policy goal of getting the buf=dget under control.
“He was the leader. He was really pushing it. He said, ‘We’re going to do it. We can take Clinton on and we can beat him on this,’”
Lott recalled.
“To me it wasn’t about beating Clinton, it was about getting things done without causing an uproar and a chaotic situation that was very unsettling to a lot of people. We could have gotten it done without that.”
Trent Lott’s assessment of the Gingrich years is certainly worthy of consideration. I mean Lott was there and he was a part of the events which he speaks about. But at the same time, as leaders of two different chambers of Congress, what Lott says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, while he may have been their when Newt was in charge and established that he did not like what he saw, Lott was not their with Mitt Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts, so it is a little hard for Trent Lott to judge Mitt Romney the same way he does Newt Gingrich. If Lott were sitting in a leadership post within the Massachusetts state legislature, he might not have liked what he saw in Mitt Romney either.
Ultimately though, Lott’s endorsement of Romney does little to either help Romney or hurt Gingrich.
Trent Lott is seen as a former member of the establishment, and the establishment is not really appreciated by most voters. In fact, what many anti-establishment voters conclude from Lott’s remarks is that Newt Gingrich is a fighter who unlike the establishment, doesn’t just go with the flow. And they like that. So if anything, Lott actually helps Newt Gingrich, because by endorsing Mitt Romney, Trent Lott simply reinforces the negative impression that Mitt Romney is forced to combat,……the negative impression of being the establishment choice for President.
Ultimately, Newt might want to actually send a little thank you note to Trent Lott. By helping to put the establishment seal of approval on Romney, Lott did a lot of good for Newt.
Following President Obama’s third State of the Union address, three time presidential candidate Ron Paul issues a scathing assessment which accused the President offering rhetoric that contradicts with his policies.
In his statement Paul also criticized President Obama for perpetuating what he called establishment Republican policies and for neglecting to address balancing g the federal budget and bringing transparency to the federal reserve.
Ron Paul’s Rebutal to the President’s SOTU
“Tonight, President Obama once again showed that he does not represent the fundamental change this country needs. Instead of offering solutions to the problems our country faces, the President was intent on delivering a campaign speech, further dealing in the typical Washington political gamesmanship that has gotten us exactly nowhere close to improving the lives of the American people.
In a speech where much of the rhetoric was devoted to job creation, it was strange that President Obama would brag about his job-destroying national health care plan, Obamacare, and the Dodd-Frank bill, which, contrary to the President’s claims, guarantees future taxpayer bailouts of large institutions. Unfortunately, President Obama’s ‘job creation’ policies amount to little more than continuing to allow government bureaucrats to pick winners and losers, which is a recipe for continued economic stagnation.
President Obama claims to want an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. Yet he remains committed to the same old system of debt, deficits, bailouts, and cronyism that created our economic problems. The President speaks of giving us energy independence from unstable nations, yet he refuses to allow the type of development needed to achieve this goal, while at the same time his administration hands out favors to the politically connected – those given to the likes of Solyndra, who fail to produce jobs or energy but succeed in ripping off the taxpayers.
Of course, President Obama refuses to even mention the role the Federal Reserve plays in creating an economic system where some are denied a fair shot or even to support my efforts at bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. Also not mentioned by President Obama is the very crucial need for reining in spending and balancing the federal budget. What is called by some ‘the greatest threat to our national security’ seems not to be of great importance to this President, although I, like many Americans, believe it to be cause for immediate measures, like the $1 trillion in spending cuts that would take place in my first year as President under my Plan to Restore America.
In the area of foreign policy and civil liberties, President Obama’s rhetoric may be different, but the substance of his polices – as shown by his administration’s defense of the TSA’s treatment of my son, Senator Rand Paul, is hardly ‘change we can believe in.’ No wonder more and more Americans, especially young people, are rejecting the phony alternatives of Obama and establishment Republicans and embracing my campaign to Restore America Now.”
Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum made the following comments in reaction to President Obama’s State of the Union Address.
Rick Santorum said: “Tonight Barack Obama transformed the President’s annual State of the Union address into the kick-off of his re-election campaign. From beginning to end, the American people heard more of the same – empty promises and grand platitudes that will do nothing to help the millions of Americans who are unemployed or under employed find a good paying job.
Rather than call for decisive action in allowing projects like the Keystone Pipeline or reducing the regulatory burden his Administration has imposed, the President declared war on those who are most successful in our society. Barack Obama should realize he’s the President of all Americans, but sadly, he has instead chosen to govern and campaign as the Divider-in-Chief.
We need to unite America and create an environment that rewards hard work and success, allowing people the opportunity to rise in society. We need a President who will rebuild the sector that built American economic greatness – manufacturing. My plan is diametrically opposed to that of the President’s. Barack Obama speaks of raising taxes and imposing barriers to growth, my plan would eliminate the corporate taxes on manufacturers, eliminate the burdensome regulations of this Administration, and free our market to explore for the energy necessary to grow our economy.
Our Party needs to provide a clear contrast with Barack Obama in the general election. Our campaign does just that by focusing a positive message of a resurgent American manufacturing sector, an Administration that will believe in American exceptionalism again, and valuing the dignity of each and every human life. America deserves better than what they heard from Barack Obama tonight. “
Shortly after the President delivered his 65 minute long, third State of the Union Address and set the stage for his reelection campaign, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, issued a rebuttal to the President’s remarks.
In his response, Gingrich aggressively characterized the President’s stated vision as one of big government, bureaucratic control, and as one strives to create a food stamp economy designed to make Americans dependent upon government.
Newt Gingrich’s SOTU Response
“We have a crisis of work in this country and tonight President Obama proposed nothing in the way of policy changes that will get us to robust job creation and dramatic economic growth. Instead, the president described his conviction that his big government is built to last and should be paid for with higher taxes. But bigger government and higher taxes will not lead to jobs and growth.
Bigger government and higher taxes will instead lead to more people on food stamps, a situation which the President and his party defend as a fair outcome. Here we have to confront the truth about President Obama. Economic growth and prosperity is not really at the top of his agenda. He will always prefer a food stamp economy to a paycheck economy and call it fair. For the president and a large part of the political class, it’s about their power, their right to rule. They just want to take money from Joe the Plumber – the small business people who makes over 90 per cent of the new jobs — and redistribute it to the government bureaucracy and their political friends and allies.
That’s why so much of that nearly trillion-dollar stimulus didn’t create jobs but just went into the pockets of special interests who support President Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party. No better example of this exists than in the crisis of American energy. President Obama and his political allies – not of few of whom love living in energy inefficient houses or driving gas-guzzling luxury vehicles – openly admit they want gas prices to remain high so that the rest of America will learn to live more modestly.
They think it’s good for rest of us. Only recently, the president canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline that would have created countless new jobs and helped America on the way to energy independence because he wanted to appease the far left of his party. And yet not a single word on the Keystone XL pipeline tonight. To create jobs and growth in this country, we must start with dramatic tax reform that lowers taxes and maximizes capital investment and job creation. We must return to a dollar as good as gold whose purchasing power is the same in thirty years as it is today. We must dramatically expand American energy production. We must have smarter regulation at the same time we abolish destructive and costly regulatory systems beginning with Obamacare, Dodd-Franks, and Sarbanes-Oxley.
And finally, unlike the current administration, we must have faith in job creators. With these policies the state of the union will be much better. They will create an explosion in job creation and lead to robust economic growth and a return to prosperity. Furthermore, a paycheck economy will put us on a path to balanced budgets and paying down our national debt.”
There will only be one American for president in 2012, and I am not talking about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
The 2012 election is in effect a Referendum on American Capitalism. If the Republicans choose Mitt Romney, as they surely must, he will represent American Capitalism. President Barack Obama will represent Europeanized State Capitalism. Go ahead America, make your choice.
President Obama wants the decision about who is too wealthy and who is not to be made by government. He wants a universal healthcare system. He wants a government-sponsored state capitalism to engineer poverty reduction. His “populist” agenda is nothing of the sort, it merely appeals to the lowest common denominator and will lead to European-style dependency and an entitlement culture.
What he doesn’t seem to want to do is create wealth. Who will create the wealth? His program can in no way be financed by the current parlous state of the nation’s finances, after all you can only print so much money and make so many promises. Look at the current state of Europe, do you want an America where states will be forced to bail out other failing states; a new republic of economic basketcases?
In President Obama’s “State of the Campaign” address, he sought to deflect from the campaign that on his watch there are now more than 13 million people out of work and the government debt stands at a record high of $15.2 trillion, up from $10.6 trillion when he took office. State? A complete mess!
Yet, conservatives in America have joined the baying OWS crowd in calling for equality, but in so doing they are asking the government to control the economy. There is a cultural shift which lies behind the attack on “big business”, “Wall Street” and “Fat cats.” This shift is best described as “resentment,”a well known emotion in Europe.
Whoever you support for the GOP nomination, the attack by conservatives on Romney’s wealth is the most absurd aspect of the current debate. I always thought doing well was to be admired in America. There was a good piece by David Brooks in the New York Times recently, where he made the wise observation of Romney: He may have character flaws, but he does not have the character flaws normally associated with great wealth. His signature is focus and persistence.The wealth issue is a sideshow.
Indeed, it is a sideshow! Front row spectator, with a wide grin, is President Obama. Think on that my friends.
The practical outcome is that “big business” becomes state-owned business instead, as it is in China, Russia, and the Middle East. The free market if not reaching an end becomes state-controlled markets. Who will defend the world against this State Capitalism if America, the paragon of liberal Capitalism, does not?
President Obama, OWS, and conservative attacks on Mitt Romney are all part of weakening America’s ability to ensure free markets, but, hey, if that’s what you want America, it’s a free country…but not for much longer.
The issue at the heart of the 2012 election will be whether America wants to continue with American Capitalism, in spite of its flaws, or embrace the intellectually flawed and alien European style State Capitalism. Get it right folks, President Obama is not a Socialist, and Europe is not Socialist. Communism and Socialism have failed, and they have been replaced by coalitions of single issue groups and state power interests.
President Obama is a statist. Europe is statist. The economy is the tool of state power and control over our lives, not in the interest of the working classes, and certainly not the middle class, but in the interest of the elite statists who “know better”.
The Italian Marxist writer Antonio Gramschi stated: “The revolutionary forces have to take civil society before they take the state, and therefore have to build a coalition of oppositional groups united under a hegemonic banner which usurps the dominant or prevailing hegemony.” What he argued was that leftists don’t need a revolution, they need to get their hands on the levers of power, which they have done in Europe for a number of decades…and now in the White House.
The constant whining “civil society” approach of Leftists is the tactic they use, and it is being used to usurp American Capitalism. President Obama has been reading Gramschi’s playbook, and conservatives are falling for it.
If one were to look at Florida, the answer is yes.
Since his exceptionally strong, first place, landslide victory in the South Carolina Republican presidential primary, Newt Gingrich has at least temporarily established himself as the only candidate with momentum on his side.
Ron Paul, and his supposed ever growing massive number of supporters doesn’t seem to be quite as massive or as rapidly growing as once thought, since his last place showing in South Carolina, and he has all but conceited the election and admitted that he is just in this thing not win, but to pick up enough delegates to finally become politically relevant.
Rick Santorum, has gone from being the surprise underdog winner of the Iowa Caucus to being the man who many question why he is still running. And Mitt Romney has seen himself gone from a frontrunner and the inevitable nominee, to being the candidate who many are beginning to feel that if he hasn’t locked up the nomination yet, he may never do it.
But Newt Gingrich’s recent resurrection, from political death which propelled him to become the winner of the first in the South Primary has clearly set the stage for him to finally hit a stride that will make this a two man race between himself and Mitt Romney.
In less than 24 hours of his winning South Carolina, Newt raised a million dollars and since than he has more than doubled that total. Furthermore; in Florida, Gingrich has opened seven offices with two more yet to be opened, hired 14 paid staffers and signed up 5,000. By contrast, Romney’s campaign had just five staffers and three offices in Florida by early this week. And on top of that, when it concerns the polls, Gingrich has gone from 27% last week, to 35% this week, a swing of eight percent which now finds Romney falling two percent and in to second place. Such dramatic numbers would certainly indicate that Newt has the wind at his back, while Romney and the others are now encountering strong headwinds in Florida.
Normally, even though these are solid signs for Newt, I would not be very confident in his ability to keep this recent turn of events moving in his direction. In the past Newt’s proclivity for the untraditional has forced him to rely on instincts which motivate him to go with unconventional strategies, strategies which, like his previous attempt to attack Mitt Romney from the left and go off the deep end by distorting Mitt’s record of success in the free market, have hurt him. However after Monday night’s debate, Newt demonstrated a degree of political maturity which he has not often displayed prior to now. He carried himself as a humble frontrunner and held back any desire he may have had to respond to Mitt Romney’s own distortions with any exaggerated flare that could have undermined Newt’s credibility. Instead it was Mitt Romney who appeared to be desperate and stretching to find any fatal flaws in Newt Gingrich’s record.
In addition to that, up to now, Newt has not had the type of financial resources that permitted him to to take proper advantage of media advertising which helps to carry his message beyond the audiences that may sit and watch the debates which he typically excels in. And at the same time, even though Mitt Romney has already spent upwards of $10.5 million on Florida advertising, he is losing ground. This bodes quite well for Newt who with his coffers filling up, and with the aid a $5 million single donation to a Gingrich Super PAC in Florida, can now chip away at the dominance of Romney’s campaign in the Sunshine State.
But that’s not the only reason I remain optimistic for Newt at least in Florida.
In his attempt to stop the newtmentum, Romney seems to be making some of his first strategic stumbles. In the most recent debate, while hoping to paint Newt as a Washington insider and influence peddler, he brought up the issue of Medicaid Part D and claimed that Newt was paid by health companies that could benefit from a piece of legislation, to lobby Congress Medicaid Part D’s passage. During Monday’s debate he said to Gingrich;
“If you’re getting paid by health companies, if your entities are getting paid by, and you then meet with Republican congressmen and encourage them to support that legislation, you can call it whatever you like. I call it influence peddling” .
The argument could potentially have legs, but not in Florida, where the nation’s largest population of senior citizens benefitted from the program and where Gingrich successfully dismissed Romney’s claims and accused Mitt of being a serial twister of the truth. Gingrich countered Mitt’s charge in part by stating
“I think it’s pretty clear to say that I have never, ever gone and done any lobbying,”
He also added that he was proud of the fact that he publicly, openly advocated the prescription drug program.
That last statement was essentially the punch that ended and won that round for Newt. It successfully appealed to the very large senior citizen voting bloc in Florida, the voters who when it’s time to cast their ballots, happen to turn out in the largest numbers .
Additionally, Romney seems to be counting on tieing Newt Gingrich to the tide of foreclosures in Florida.
Florida took a hit second only to Nevada in the housing crisis and by claiming Newt made money from Freddie Mac which essentially oversaw the creation and bursting of the housing bubble, he is hoping that Floridians who lost their homes will see Newt Gingrich as the villain who profited from their losses. The problem is that Republicans are not buying what Mitt is trying to sell in that area of political campaigning. And another thing to note is that those individuals who lost their homes because they provided mortgages that they were not qualified for in the first place, are not voting for either Newt or Mitt. So clearly, Mitt Romney is throwing a wildly wrong pitch and throwing it to the wrong people.
Then there is something else working against Mitt in Florida.
Unlike the previous three contests, Florida is a closed primary.
In a closed primary or caucus, only registered members of a Party may vote in that Party’s primary and Independents, those not registered with either major Party, are not permitted to vote in either major Party’s primary. Democrats who may like Mitt Romney’s moderate image, will not be able to influence who Republicans nominate as their Party’s candidate. This is the way I believe it should be. It is also one of the reasons why Ron Paul has written Florida off. Since his hero worshippers from outside of the G.O.P. and within the sphere of liberal-tarian lunacy, can not sabotage the Republican process, they are picking up their toys and not playing in the Sunshine State. All of this is good news for Newt, who if he keeps it together, just might be able to extend his good fortune into the forseeable future.
But even if he does hold it together in Florida, he will still forced to confront some very rough seas.
Following Florida will be two contests that Mitt Romney so far looks unbetable in….Nevada and Michigan. This will provide at least a psychological sense of momentum that swings back towards Mitt and away from Newt. When that time comes, Newt will have to confront his challenge, a challenge that will force him to prove he has the staying power to comeback, and put Romney back on the ropes. So far Newt has proven that he has considerable political stamina, but if he wins Florida, he will have to turn that stamina in to a knockout punch that he can land sometime after Nevada and Michigan. If he can’t land such a punch, Republicans could very easily end up seeing this race last longer than the 2008 Democrat nomination between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or worse…….maybe even the first brokered convention since 1976 when President Gerald Ford was almost dumped by the Party in exchange for future President Ronald Reagan.
Today’s campaign trail news gives us a glimpse at how Billion Buck Barry intends to campaign for President, thoughts on Mitch Daniels’ entry in to the presidential race, news about how Ann Coulter and Chris Christie are sharing bunched panties, and news about Romney pulling even with Gingrich in favorable ratings, Democrats taking charges against Newt too far, and much more. All in White House 2012′s Trunkline 2012.
Much of today’s news was dominated by the fact that Mitt Romney released his taxes for the last two years and that it proved he has money, and it was also consumend by speculation about the State of the Union address that President Obama will be delivering tonight. These two dramatic (he writes with tongue-in-cheekily) overshadowed other events on the campaign trail, such as Newt’s continued rise in the polls over Romney and the rest of the G.O.P. field. It also overshadowed a very special endorsement for Gingrich.
It came from former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson [see the video of the endorsement and a transcript of it below this post].
Thompson’s endorsement may not actually make many Republicans turn around and say that Thompson’s support of Gingrich finally gives them a reason to support Newt over Romney and Santorum, but what it does do is provide many conservatives with enough cause to seriously consider jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon that is now commonly referred to as “Newtmentum”.
Despite his failure to show up for owen presidential campaign in 2008, Fred Thompson is considered a true voice of commonsense conservatism. The actor turned politician in the late 90′s, has been a consistent advocate of anti-establishment leadership and conservative fiscal and social values. Part of his draw was his commanding ability to articulate conservative solutions with a dose of down-to-earth, folksy common sense that cut through the bureaucratic jargon that overwhelms the Beltway and attempts to complicate the issues with distractions and distortions.
It is that style and ability which was responsible for initially unleashing the greatets amount of spontaneous enthusiasm for any single Republican presidential candidate in 2008, when Thompson made a late Summer entry in to the contest. But conservatives lost their enthusiam for Thommpson just as quickly as they became enthused by him, after he ran what, to put it nicely, was a lethargic campaign that had few campaign events, little money, and a candidate who was less energized than his supporters. Some have suggested that Thompson’s entry in to the race was merely a political stratgey meant to take enough support away from Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, to allow John McCain to squeak by and win the nomination. Having been there myself, I tend to believe that.
While that is quite disappointing if true, it still does not take away from the favorable opinion that many have of Fred Thompson, myself includeded. In fact, I dare say that if Thompson had wanted the nomination in 2012 and actually wanted to run a real campaign for it, he would be the frontrunner today. Which is why his endorsement of Newt Gingrich matters. Especially now.
As Floridians prepare to nomiante their choice for President, Thompson’s endorsement carries more weight than others do, perhaps even more so than Jeb Bush. While Jeb is certainly popular in Florida and would have a very substantial conservative candidate in his own right if he ran for the nomination, he is still largely perceived as a part of the establishment. Fred Thompson is not. And it is the anti-establishment vote which is largely driving the momentum behind Newt Gingrich.
The anti-establishment vote drove the historic Republican takeover of the House in 2012 midterm elections, and while some on the left try to deny that anti-establishment sentiment represented by the TEA movement is still alive and well, it continues to have a significant effect on politics. Ask Romney, and off the record, he will confirm that. On the record of course, he will tell you that his support from the TEA Party is strong, Unfortunately for him though, South Carolina proved that not to be true. Based on the exit polls in that race, you can rest assured that Romney would not bet $10,000 on whether the TEA Party supports him over candidates.
What Fred Thompson’s endorsement of Gingrich does is make it more difficult for Romney to gain the support of anti-establishment Republicans. While it may not be the determining factor that makes Floridians flock to Gingrich, it adds to the positive psychological atmosphere that is growing around Newt Gingrich and reinforces the Newtmentum that according to the latest polls, is building.
For that reason, Fred Thompson’s endorsement of Gingrich is quite valuable.
And the way the endorsement was delivered happens to have been odne extraordinariliy well. It was based on more than just platitudes. In his 5 minute pro-Newt testimonial, Fred Thompson articulates an extraordinarily deep rationale for supporting Newt.
At one point in the endorsement video, Thompson even strikes upon the chord that is critical to what differentiates Gingrich from all the other candidates and is one of the key elememts to his succes. Thompson states;
“We don’t need to just manage the way Washington works. We need to fundamentally change Washington. It would be a major setback for our party and our country if we elect a president who is not up to that challenge. We need someone who has the courage and ability to communicate the truth to the American people.”
Those words sum of the very sentiments that tens of millions of Americans have when it comes to politics and our government. They articulate the thinking of a vast majority of Americans who are disatsfied by, and disgruntled with the status quo and seeking not fundamental change in American values, but fundamental change in an American government that seeks to enforce its bureaucratic values on Americans.
What Thompson’s words do is help to shape the debate and articulate the rational for supporting Newt Gingrich and while Newt may not have the money it takes to turn Thompson’s video endorsement in to a 5 minute ad that runs across the conservative rich Northern and Western section of Florida, he can take Thompson’s words and target these regions with the Thompson’s message. And if Thompson is willing to put a little more energy in to it that he did for his own 2008 presidential campaign, hitting the campaign trail with and for Newt in the Sunshine will also help open up minds to the thought of supporting Newt while helping to add to Newt’s existing momentum.
Transcript of Thompson’s Endorsement;
I am one of the countless number of Americans who know firsthand that, in this country, a person may be born into modest circumstances, but that he comes into the world blessed in ways that have been unimaginable to the vast majority of people who have ever lived. We are born with the birthright of freedom and opportunity – free to make our own choices about the important things in life and the opportunity to fulfill our God-given potential.
The greatest fear that I have for my country is that our government now has us on a different path. Instead of freedom and opportunity, it is one of debt, dependence division and decline – a path that will weaken our country and sap the vitality of the American people. We have moved from an era of balanced budgets, to a time of debt as large as our entire economy and of lost credit ratings. In 2001, when I was chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, I released a report “Government On the Brink,” in which I laid out the extent to which our government was bloated, growing, wasteful, subject to massive fraud, and basically out of control.
A decade later, it is worse. Today, federal bureaucrats think they can tell a family where they can build their home and a business where it can locate. I believe that how one views the condition and trajectory of our country determines how one views the strengths of our presidential candidates. For me, I believe that we are at a tipping point, one from which we may not return. To avoid these disastrous consequences, our country needs leadership that is fearless and confident – a candidate who can give voice to the concerns and frustrations of the American people …someone who understands – and will never apologize for American Exceptionalism.
We don’t need to just manage the way Washington works. We need to fundamentally change Washington. It would be a major setback for our party and our country if we elect a president who is not up to that challenge. We need someone who has the courage and ability to communicate the truth to the American people. Someone who will explain the hard choices that we must make if we are to give our children and grandchildren the same opportunities our forefathers bestowed on us and avoid the fate that other great nations have suffered throughout history. I believe that person is Newt Gingrich. And that is why I strongly support him. I came to Washington in 1995, in part as a result of the political revolution that Newt conceived and led. Over the next few years we were able to balance the budget, pass welfare reform, and begin to rebuild a weakened military. So we know it can be done.
Unfortunately, some on our side lost their way, became divided, and fell into recriminations and finger pointing. Sometimes, success is a difficult thing to handle. I believe that most of us have learned from our mistakes and are now focused on the future and the dangers and opportunities that lie ahead for our country. President Obama’s strategy is simple…avoid the hard realities his failed policies have created over the past three years, divide the country, pander to and organize his various constituencies, and eek out another victory. I believe he fails to see what so much of the political establishment and the Washington insiders on both sides of the aisle fail to see – that these past few years have changed our people and our country.
People in America don’t want to be told what to do, and they certainly can’t be told what to think. They see for themselves what is happening in Europe with Greece, Spain and the lot, do not want it happening on our shores and are spontaneously organizing in towns all across America. They realize that on our present course we may not recognize our country in a few years. They are waiting to be inspired and energized to a cause that will conserve those first principles that made us the envy of the world. This cause cannot be led by glossy flip charts, processing data, or reams of talking points poll-tested by a roomful of consultants.
It must be led by someone who can forcefully make our basic case for the economy … for example … how lower taxes benefit all Americans, and can raise revenue for the legitimate and limited functions of the federal government. Someone who is able to articulate the message of growth, free enterprise and freedom. Someone who knows that bold ideas have preceded every major achievement of mankind – including the United States of America. I believe that Newt Gingrich is that person.
Please join me and Newt in this effort to renew America’s Exceptionalism. Go to Newt.org and show your support.
Click on the images of the individual candidates to be taken to their White House 2012 page for biographical information and links to their websites, Youtube Channels, FEC campaign financial filings, speeches, voting records, and position papers
The Constitution is there to do one thing: protect God-given rights. That's what makes America different than every other country in world. 4 hours ago
No Longer Running
Suspended her campaign o 1/4/12 after a 6th place finish in The Iowa Caucus
Tune in to CNBC this morning- I'll be chatting with Becky Quick and Carly Fiorina about the Florida primary- 8 am ET 2 days ago
Announced his candidacy on 8/13/11. Ssupended his campaign on Thurdsday, January 19, 2011, two days befoire the South Carolina and immediately endorsed Newt Gingrich for President
Read Will's column in today's Washington Post on the escalating problems caused by the National Labor Relations Board. http://wapo.st/iyDGDr8 months ago
Kempite
jsmashmouth
ikefriday
mduminiak
dfcowan
Aprill Shines
worldviewtonight
Steve Deace
The Des Moines Register
The Iowa Republican
The Concord Monitor
WMUR's Political Scoop
Online Conservative Talk Radio
Poitics 24/7
The Bulldog Pundit
The Right Scoop
To Be Right
Mark Levin
Michelle Malkin
The Hugh Hewitt Show
