Mitt vs Newt & the Dems
Another few weeks pass by and we have another flavor of the month (black walnut is now passé) – Newt Gingrich. I’ve heard a proposal for another dynamic duo – Romney-Gingrich. A caller to Dennis Miller’s show spoke of “splatter politics” – a debate between Newt & Biden would be like clubbing pup seals. Most experts are in agreement that it’s coming down to Mitt & Newt. Some highly unusual names – on top of Barrack.
Newt is claiming to be more conservative and electable than Mitt, to which Mitt responds, “we’ll see in the course of the debates.” There doesn’t seem to be huge position differences between many of the candidates (certainly relative to Obama – except perhaps Ron Paul), and I’ve previously cited Mitt’s very conservative record in Massachusetts – despite a solidly liberal legislature. Many talking heads feel that Mitt may have a tougher time in the primaries, but do better in the general election with a greater appeal to independents/moderates.
And while much of Newt’s baggage is further in the past, it’s not forgotten, it is hefty (more than just his personal life -- $300,000 ethics fine, highly polarizing, etc.), and it will come up as the spotlight now turns to him. But interestingly enough, that spotlight will not come from the Democrat camp – Bill Clinton has endorsed Newt, and the Democrat attack ads & tweets are focused solely on Mitt. Some bullets from a Romney campaign email a couple weeks ago:
- Obama's press secretary, Ben LaBolt, has referenced Mitt Romney over 110 times on Twitter in the last month. On the other hand, he mentioned "jobs" 11 times and "Iran" twice.
- In the last five days, "Romney" has been mentioned 37 times on the Democratic Party's official Twitter feed, with no mention of any other GOP candidate.
- The DNC has released 26 attack videos on its YouTube channels. Unsurprisingly, all 26 videos have only one target - you guessed it, Mitt Romney.
This despite his not yet breaking about the 26% barrier in the polls (though he's been the most consistently high). But Mitt said today on Hannity that this attention from the Dems has invigorated him. Hopefully after each of the candidates have had their 15 minutes of fame and come up short, there'll be a consolidation and rallying around Mitt.
An ode to Mitt Romney’s campaign (to the tune of “Pumped up Kicks”):
All the other pols with the pumped up polls,
Better run, better run, outrun Mitt’s team.
All the other pols with the pumped up polls,
Better run, better run, faster than Mitt Romney....
Clearly they’d prefer running against Newt because they feel they’d do better against him. They fear Romney. All the more reason to back him. And with Obama’s polls now at an all-time historic presidential low – even lower than Jimmy Carter’s, the previous lowest – of course they’re resorting to attacks. He has no accomplishments to run on. Even his base is abandoning him.
Newt’s supporters are saying how he’s matured/mellowed now that he’s a grandfather. Fine and good – Mitt’s been a grandfather for some time, and in a single, stable, virtuous relationship his entire life (unlike Newt). His private life is much more consistent and reliable than Newt’s – one host (Medved?) said you know with confidence that you won’t get any surprises in that area from Mitt, unlike Cain. Mitt pointed out in the Nov. 9 debate his constancy – same wife and church all his life (a subtle contrast to Newt).
And once again regarding Mitt’s evolution on abortion, Newt, Reagan, Perry and many others have had at least the same evolution on that and/or other areas. Ann Coulter points out that’s not a big issue – the point is they’ve changed in the right direction, and we don’t need to worry that they’ll go back on us. Why trust and accept the evolution of the others but not Mitt, unless there are some other unspoken prejudices looking for an excuse? A recent post described Karl Rove’s long recitation of Obama’s flips, and how the Dems ought not to go there.
And I’ll repeat it until Mitt’s elected, but the existential threat to the nation currently is the economy, and Mitt is universally acknowledged as best-equipped to turn that around, with a more balanced combination of business and political & charitable experience than Newt. I think Mitt has the best combination for the problem at hand -- business turnaround experience, some gov't experience, and he can communicate and debate intelligently. And, moderate enough to appeal to more than the GOP base. Although Obama's polls & the economy are so bad that it shouldn't take much.
The Op-Eds
David Brooks in the NY Times (Nov. 7) wrote an op-ed titled “The Serious One,” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/opinion/brooks-mitt-romney-the-serious-one.html). “...Romney continues to run an impressive presidential campaign. Last week, while the Twitterverse was entranced by Herman Cain, Romney delivered his most important speech yet. It was politically astute and substantively bold, a quality you don’t automatically associate with the Romney campaign. Romney grasped the toughest issue — how to reform entitlements to avoid a fiscal catastrophe — and he sketched out a sophisticated way to address it.” Brooks goes on to describe Romney’s experience turning deficits to surpluses, achieving greater organizational efficiencies, a “measured fiscal strategy.” Entitlement reform proposals laid out included Social Security, Medicare, etc.
“...it exemplifies the sort of big reformist vision that should be at the center of a serious Republican campaign. The U.S. is beset by sclerotic institutions: health care, the tax code and the education system among them. To thrive, these institutions need a burst of creative reinvention. The point, as Levin writes, is not to talk gloom and austerity but to confidently set the stage for an avalanche of innovation.
“Romney is running in an atmosphere in which it is extremely difficult to remain serious and substantive. Yet he is doing it. Democrats should not underestimate him.” And I note they’re not, with their attack focus on him.
Bill Keller, also in the NY Times, wrote “How Romney Could Win” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/keller-how-romney-could-win.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Keller%20how%20romney%20could%20win&st=cse). He begins, “Election Day is nearly a year off and the first primaries aren’t until January, but I’m ready to skip ahead to the main event. The last serious hope of the Tea Partiers, Rick Perry, and their last not-so-serious hope, Herman Cain, are in campaign death spirals. Unless God has a cruel sense of humor, Newt Gingrich will pass like a tantrum. That leaves us with a general election between two serious and certifiably sane candidates. Phew!!
"... let’s contemplate the choice that awaits: two confident, intelligible, no-drama, rather distant men, each of whom seems to have overcompensated for bigot-arousing origins (Obama’s race, Romney’s religion) by being rational to a fault.
"... in presidential elections the deciding vote still belongs to the middle. These voters have been drowned out lately by the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, but they are the main prize in 2012. ... about one in six voters are up for grabs. Obama won them in 2008. The Democrats lost them badly in 2010.
"We cannot know whose advertising arsenal will be most effective, which candidate will excel in the debates, or what blunders might tilt the outcome. We don’t know whether the MoveOn left or the evangelical right will simply stay home. We don’t know if Ron Paul will siphon off some of his libertarian devout into a third-party run. But we can, even at this distance, imagine the arguments that will be made to win over those decisive swing voters for Romney. Here are four. [He goes on to describe them: “The not-Obama case,....The CEO-president case,.... The taming-Congress case,... and the not-that-conservative case”]
More Debates
In the Nov. 9 GOP debate on the economy, Mitt said that Europe can handle its own problems – we shouldn’t bail out US banks w. Italy’s debt. Perry & Bachman echoed Mitt’s themes of letting the private sector choose winners and losers, the problems of the US having the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world, and the excessive burden of regulations. When asked whether public companies have the responsibility to create jobs or profit, Mitt replied that fortunately we don’t have to decide – profit allows companies to grow their business and hire. When asked why he didn’t have a flat tax proposal, he said there should be a flatter tax. Asked what he’d replace Obamacare with, Mitt replied he’d return care for the uninsured to the states, let individuals buy their own insurance, have market-based health savings accounts, and correct the malpractice system. Perry had his now well-known brain freeze to remember the 3rd agency he’d abolish. It seems contagious now with Cain’s similar one on Libya. Mitt called debt a moral issue, saying we can’t pass it on to the next generation, and must cut spending – to a cap of 20% of GDP, and link government wages to private. He said if elected president, he’d be true to his family, his faith and his country.
In the Nov. 12 debate on foreign policy, regarding Iran and nukes, Mitt said he’d employ crippling sanctions, covertly support the insurgency, and use the military if all else failed – it’s unacceptable for Iran to have nukes. Whereas Huntsman said it’s time to come home from Afghanistan & focus on the US economy & education & build this nation, Mitt said we can walk and chew gum – a strong economy facilitates projected strength. Mitt said we don’t negotiate w. terrorists or Taliban, but should secure our victories – our commanders wanted a longer commitment than Obama – to 2014. Santorum agreed w. Bachman & Romney on Pakistan – we got over 9/11 w. Saudi Arabia (the terrorists came from there), and we should do the same w. Pakistan. Perry & Newt said foreign aid should start at 0 and each nation should justify anything above that. Bachman said she’d allow waterboarding, that Obama’s allowing the ACLU to run the CIA so that we’re running blind in the war on terror. Mitt said it was appropriate for the president to order the killing of a US citizen who’d declared war against us & was bearing arms. He said this must be an American century, and that we shouldn’t conduct foreign policy based on personal charisma but American strength. Newt echoed Mitt that US citizens lose their civil liberties when they go to war against the US – acts of war take them outside the realm of civil law. Mitt spoke again of the trade war China has already been waging against us, and the need to bring action against them through the WTO & tariffs.
My sister was picking up her husband at Boston airport shortly after the Las Vegas debate. Her husband was in first class on the same plane as Mitt, who was not in 1st class. Maybe Mitt was trying to contrast w. Obama's extravagant travels and bus entourages. Or just travel incognito occasionally. He shook hands with my 10-year-old nephew.
The Tea Party
I noted that Mitt didn't distance himself from the Tea Party in the debates -- he'll need their support, too. He pointed out how his views coincide. There are differences in strategy & organization -- they're rather ill-defined. I believe they serve as counterbalance to the Left -- they helped to stop their juggernaut in the 2010 mid-terms, and turn the debate to deficits & debt which really are existential threats (look at Europe). I agree some of their endorsed candidates have been less than capable, but some others are not so easily dismissed, and bring something to the table -- including a possible Romney administration. Need to harness some of their energy.
Not sure if he's a Tea Party favorite, but I have to agree w. Santorum in several areas, and plenty experience. If you listen to Bachman, she's pretty sharp, and experienced. Contrary to some thoughtless blanket lower-tax policy, she decried Obama's proposed payroll tax reduction because it would further weaken already troubled social security (or redistribute the burden). Which Mitt was careful to say we need to reform, and save, not eliminate (contrary to Perry).
Other News
The occupy wherever movement has worn out its welcome, even in Oakland! They’re being cleaned out of their former squatting grounds (don’t read too much into that, although you wouldn’t be too wrong to do so – compare w. the Tea Party leaving places cleaner than they found them), and now marching to disrupt every major bridge, intersection, bank, church they can to continue their tantrum. I heard that one professor (I forget where) recently had his students think about this question: if they could choose any country in the world to be born into, knowing that they’d be born into the poorest class, which would it be? That might help focus the occupy people on not only which system is best for even the lowest classes, but also which has the greatest upward mobility, rights, freedoms, etc. Gee, maybe they don’t have a better solution. Certainly the Communist and European socialist models have failed. Any 3rd world favorites?
And why aren’t these protesters protesting the universities that overcharged them and gave them irrelevant educations for the real world job market? The anti-semitic elements are fascist and Nazi-like .... oh, I forgot for a moment that those terms are reserved for conservatives and the Right. They’re anti-rich, anti- this and that – what are they for?
Hillary Clinton had an epiphany after some 7,000 Syrian protester deaths – Assad is not a reformer! Apparently there are rebel factions of the Syrian army that are threatening that they can go anywhere at any time. Civil war.
Comments
Post a Comment