South Carolina & the State of dis-Union
The Gift that Keeps on Giving
Newt seems to be riding a second wave, this one in good part of the making of the liberal media running the debates. He’s now capitalized in 2 debates in a row on gimme questions providing the perfect segway to lashing out against the liberal media – a favorite target of conservatives. First was the Jan. 16 debate response to Juan Williams’ insinuation that his having poor kids work (e.g., school cleanup) was racially demeaning. Conservatives are tired of liberals’ overreach with the race card. The other Jan. 19 to King’s leadoff about his ex-wife’s public accusations of him asking for an open marriage. His indignant responses elicited wild applause and a standing ovation. Santorum has said that “I don’t know how much Newt paid King for that question, but it wasn’t enough.” He, too, felt it was a significant factor in his last-minute surge in the South Carolina polls, and his win there. An anti-mainstream-media vote.
Of course there were likely other factors as well, like as Santorum said that Newt won in his Southern back yard (as Mitt had in New Hampshire – his back yard). And there was a movement afoot espoused by some conservatives to unite about a single non-Romney to defeat Mitt, and Newt seemed to be the one put forward. And in the more Evangelical South, there’s no doubt unspoken anti-Mormon prejudice and preference for either of the Catholics (Newt, Santorum).
But Newt has had strong debate performances. Nonetheless, as Mitt’s pointed out, we’re not electing a talk show host (or debater-in-chief), but the leader of the free world. And Newt’s a Washington insider, with no executive and hardly any business experience, and demonstrated failure in the leadership roles he’s had – in keeping a team together. A man of great (“grandiose” according to Santorum) ideas and rhetoric, but more is required of a president than that – as evidenced in Obama’s abject failure. And a man of erratic ideas and temper.
Speaking of which, here's something my sister forwarded -- a test to see if you really know Newt:
"Welcome to the Supervillain or Newt Game, where you have to decide whether an idea comes from an indestructible megalomaniac hell-bent on ruling the world, or from a fictional supervillain.
http://supervillainornewt.com/
Newt beat Mitt over the head to release his tax records, apparently somehow thinking to play more subtly (than the Bain attacks) into the current Democrat-promoted prejudice against “the 1%.” The media meanwhile really played up Mitt’s legitimate 15% capital gains tax rate, which of course (now that he has relatively less earned income) is more than the typical earned income tax rates. Of course when he was earning the income that he put into investments, he was taxed the normal rate. So he has, in fact, been taxed double on that money (triple if you count corporate taxes). They ignore the same fact for so many Democrats, and that they are no more willing to pay extra to the IRS. All of the GOP candidates have acknowledged need to reform & simplify the tax codes – they at least direct their attacks at the problem, not the “deep pockets.”
One phenomenon I’ve noted more with Mitt than any candidate I can recall. There seems to be a fair amount of constructive advice/criticism by people pulling for him, not trying to tear him down. They wish he’d do this or that, or do it better. Most of the GOP seem to acknowledge that none of the candidates is perfect, that each has different strengths, and that it would be great to combine them. But the one they seem to lean towards thinking he’s closest to combining them already, and perhaps able to accommodate the rest, and with the least defects, seems to be Romney. Some of the advice doesn’t make much sense on deeper thought. For instance, Lindsay Graham saying he needs to appeal more to the heart (I agree that far -- he has the head), such as talking maybe of his missionary work. Not sure that’s a good idea in Evangelical country where they’d no doubt prefer no mission to a Mormon mission.
Oh, yes, and apparently Mitt's 8 vote lead in Iowa evaporated and is now a 34 vote deficit after "final" counting (5 precinct results still can't be found). It was so close as to not matter that much anyway. So history was not made, and Santorum can claim a "victory" -- one apiece for him, Mitt & Newt, now. And polling has Newt up now in Florida, though I believe some 200,000 absentee votes had already been cast before Newt's resurgence and presumed lemming effect. Please, Florida, come to your senses. Vote for a substantive presidential type, and not just against the media, or Mormons, or for a scintillating debater, or whatever other shallow motivation.
South Carolina Debate Hilights
Jan. 16. Newt explained why he’s gone negative, reneging on his earlier commitment – all’s fair. Mitt cited his work w. 100 business, creating over 100,000 jobs, experience as turnaround expert in Olympics, as governor, in business – experience in the real economy. Perry called for Mitt to release his tax records like the tradition his father started. Mitt cited 40 US steel mills closed due to unfair China practices.
Ron Paul didn’t regret scathing attacks (“one-man wrecking crew”) – only regrets not more time to expose Santorum. Santorum admitted his vote for No Child Left Behind was a mistake, said Mitt distorted his record. Santorum granted voting rights to felons who’d served time, Mitt against, but Santorum says he did little to change it in Mass. [I think you choose your battles, just as parents & spouses are counseled].
Huntsman had earlier (before endorsing Mitt) called him a well-oiled weather vane. Mitt said he changed his mind as gov. about leaving a law in place, and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. How long to give unemployment benefits? – Newt notes it takes 99 weeks to get an associate degree. How far to go to save the financial system? – Mitt said we learned lessons from Obama’s bailouts – think about how to get gov’t out of the economy, not in. Already mentioned Newt’s standing ovation comeback against Jaun Williams. Santorum – best ways to avoid poverty are to graduate from high school, marry before children & (get a job?).
On the bin Laden hit, Ron Paul was against, Mitt says need to kill our enemies & said Obama’s withdrawals are politically based, negotiating from a position of weakness, we need a strong military so no one is tempted to test it. Biden’s wrong – the Taliban are our enemy. Mitt said joining Al Qaida is treasonous & should be treated as enemy combatants. Mitt’s plan to fix social security is similar to Congressman Ryan’s. Newt complained of PACs, Mitt said we need to get rid of PACs.
Afterwards, Mitt noted that Michael Moore said of Newt’s attacking Mitt on Bain, “I think he’s an escaped member of my staff.”
Jan. 19. Already cited Newt’s indignation over the opening question about his ex-wife’s accusations of him asking for an open marriage. Newt found fault w. Mitt’s performance at Bain, basically echoing Perry’s “Vulture Capitalism” charge. Mitt attacked Obama’s crony capitalism, favoring unions. Newt to parents – elect us & we’ll enable jobs so your kids can move out [now there’s a whole new GOP constituency!].
Santorum called Romneycare an abject failure, playing footsie with the Left. Mitt – not gov’t. run, the 8% bought private insurance, favored 3-to-1, rates dropped 40%. Newt claimed credit for making the business environment whereby Mitt succeeded -- Mittt said he was speaker only 4 years, Mitt in business 25 yrs, so surely can’t claim credit for most of that. He never asked for more government – better when it gets out of the way of business.
Obama State of the Union Hilights
I’m jumping the intervening 1st Florida debate, but will return to that in the next post (along w. the 2nd debate & election results Jan. 31). I can’t resist responding to Obama’s highly partisan campaign kickoff in the state of the union address today.
He took great credit for ending the war in Iraq, bringing troops home, and getting bin Laden. None of which would have been possible without the surge & policies/interrogations put in place under Bush. And then he says we ought to be as unified and productive politically as our troops are in their work. Of course the devil’s in the details – he wants unity about his policies.
“We won’t go back to the failed policies that caused this mess.” [We can’t go back to Dodd/Frank because we still haven’t abandoned it, and so he’s technically correct, although he clearly implies Bush & the GOP].
“I will not walk away from clean energy.” [So we can expect more Solyndras]
“No bailouts, no handouts” [Really? Less welfare? Different people will read different things into that statement.]
Again with the Buffett tax – saying millionaires should be asked to pay as much as their secretaries in taxes. Technically even under capital gains taxes they pay much more than their secretaries – in dollars. And have already paid the regular rate on earned income & corporate taxes, and will pay estate/death taxes.
He said he believes Abraham Lincoln when he said that government should only do what the people can’t do better themselves. Wow! Is he really a convert? Certainly sounds good, but as with all else spoken by Chicago politicians, the devil’s in the details – the sticking point is, what exactly is it that the people can’t do better themselves? I’m sure there are marked differences there. Listening to his speeches is like “yadda, yadda, yadda” on Seinfeld. It’s an exercise in Orwellian language skills.
No options are off the table in preventing Iran from getting nukes – agreed, but what other options has he seriously pursued, and will he actually pull the trigger when they haven’t worked? He only showed weakness in cancelling joint US-Gulf states military exercises & removed a carrier when Iran threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz – he doesn’t project strength or sound very serious to our enemies.
He claimed that our alliances are stronger than ever, including Israel !!!!????? I think he’s still in Fantasyland from his Disney World trip.
“America is back, and anyone who tells you it’s in decline doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” !!!!!!!!!!????????? Clearly a partisan shot at the GOP contenders’ debate statements, and conservative talk show hosts, columnists, authors, etc.. And again, Fantasyland. But it tries to hold on to his Kool-Aid drinkers. Again, Orwellian.
In the spin room, Jake Tapper called it a very political SOU. Peggy Noonan said he seems to have discovered some things in these 3 years – several areas common w. the GOP. But Mitt noted that he had both houses of Congress his first 2 years – if he believes these things, why didn’t he do them then? Seems to feed into my sense that he’s just trying to take some of the wind out of the GOP’s sails in an election year. Don’t buy it – his promises & actions have been hollow for 3 years (as even many of his former supporters note), and he’s only looking for 4 more years, where he’ll have no incentive to accommodate anyone, but only pursue further his socialistic agenda.
Newt seems to be riding a second wave, this one in good part of the making of the liberal media running the debates. He’s now capitalized in 2 debates in a row on gimme questions providing the perfect segway to lashing out against the liberal media – a favorite target of conservatives. First was the Jan. 16 debate response to Juan Williams’ insinuation that his having poor kids work (e.g., school cleanup) was racially demeaning. Conservatives are tired of liberals’ overreach with the race card. The other Jan. 19 to King’s leadoff about his ex-wife’s public accusations of him asking for an open marriage. His indignant responses elicited wild applause and a standing ovation. Santorum has said that “I don’t know how much Newt paid King for that question, but it wasn’t enough.” He, too, felt it was a significant factor in his last-minute surge in the South Carolina polls, and his win there. An anti-mainstream-media vote.
Of course there were likely other factors as well, like as Santorum said that Newt won in his Southern back yard (as Mitt had in New Hampshire – his back yard). And there was a movement afoot espoused by some conservatives to unite about a single non-Romney to defeat Mitt, and Newt seemed to be the one put forward. And in the more Evangelical South, there’s no doubt unspoken anti-Mormon prejudice and preference for either of the Catholics (Newt, Santorum).
But Newt has had strong debate performances. Nonetheless, as Mitt’s pointed out, we’re not electing a talk show host (or debater-in-chief), but the leader of the free world. And Newt’s a Washington insider, with no executive and hardly any business experience, and demonstrated failure in the leadership roles he’s had – in keeping a team together. A man of great (“grandiose” according to Santorum) ideas and rhetoric, but more is required of a president than that – as evidenced in Obama’s abject failure. And a man of erratic ideas and temper.
Speaking of which, here's something my sister forwarded -- a test to see if you really know Newt:
"Welcome to the Supervillain or Newt Game, where you have to decide whether an idea comes from an indestructible megalomaniac hell-bent on ruling the world, or from a fictional supervillain.
http://supervillainornewt.com/
Newt beat Mitt over the head to release his tax records, apparently somehow thinking to play more subtly (than the Bain attacks) into the current Democrat-promoted prejudice against “the 1%.” The media meanwhile really played up Mitt’s legitimate 15% capital gains tax rate, which of course (now that he has relatively less earned income) is more than the typical earned income tax rates. Of course when he was earning the income that he put into investments, he was taxed the normal rate. So he has, in fact, been taxed double on that money (triple if you count corporate taxes). They ignore the same fact for so many Democrats, and that they are no more willing to pay extra to the IRS. All of the GOP candidates have acknowledged need to reform & simplify the tax codes – they at least direct their attacks at the problem, not the “deep pockets.”
One phenomenon I’ve noted more with Mitt than any candidate I can recall. There seems to be a fair amount of constructive advice/criticism by people pulling for him, not trying to tear him down. They wish he’d do this or that, or do it better. Most of the GOP seem to acknowledge that none of the candidates is perfect, that each has different strengths, and that it would be great to combine them. But the one they seem to lean towards thinking he’s closest to combining them already, and perhaps able to accommodate the rest, and with the least defects, seems to be Romney. Some of the advice doesn’t make much sense on deeper thought. For instance, Lindsay Graham saying he needs to appeal more to the heart (I agree that far -- he has the head), such as talking maybe of his missionary work. Not sure that’s a good idea in Evangelical country where they’d no doubt prefer no mission to a Mormon mission.
Oh, yes, and apparently Mitt's 8 vote lead in Iowa evaporated and is now a 34 vote deficit after "final" counting (5 precinct results still can't be found). It was so close as to not matter that much anyway. So history was not made, and Santorum can claim a "victory" -- one apiece for him, Mitt & Newt, now. And polling has Newt up now in Florida, though I believe some 200,000 absentee votes had already been cast before Newt's resurgence and presumed lemming effect. Please, Florida, come to your senses. Vote for a substantive presidential type, and not just against the media, or Mormons, or for a scintillating debater, or whatever other shallow motivation.
South Carolina Debate Hilights
Jan. 16. Newt explained why he’s gone negative, reneging on his earlier commitment – all’s fair. Mitt cited his work w. 100 business, creating over 100,000 jobs, experience as turnaround expert in Olympics, as governor, in business – experience in the real economy. Perry called for Mitt to release his tax records like the tradition his father started. Mitt cited 40 US steel mills closed due to unfair China practices.
Ron Paul didn’t regret scathing attacks (“one-man wrecking crew”) – only regrets not more time to expose Santorum. Santorum admitted his vote for No Child Left Behind was a mistake, said Mitt distorted his record. Santorum granted voting rights to felons who’d served time, Mitt against, but Santorum says he did little to change it in Mass. [I think you choose your battles, just as parents & spouses are counseled].
Huntsman had earlier (before endorsing Mitt) called him a well-oiled weather vane. Mitt said he changed his mind as gov. about leaving a law in place, and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. How long to give unemployment benefits? – Newt notes it takes 99 weeks to get an associate degree. How far to go to save the financial system? – Mitt said we learned lessons from Obama’s bailouts – think about how to get gov’t out of the economy, not in. Already mentioned Newt’s standing ovation comeback against Jaun Williams. Santorum – best ways to avoid poverty are to graduate from high school, marry before children & (get a job?).
On the bin Laden hit, Ron Paul was against, Mitt says need to kill our enemies & said Obama’s withdrawals are politically based, negotiating from a position of weakness, we need a strong military so no one is tempted to test it. Biden’s wrong – the Taliban are our enemy. Mitt said joining Al Qaida is treasonous & should be treated as enemy combatants. Mitt’s plan to fix social security is similar to Congressman Ryan’s. Newt complained of PACs, Mitt said we need to get rid of PACs.
Afterwards, Mitt noted that Michael Moore said of Newt’s attacking Mitt on Bain, “I think he’s an escaped member of my staff.”
Jan. 19. Already cited Newt’s indignation over the opening question about his ex-wife’s accusations of him asking for an open marriage. Newt found fault w. Mitt’s performance at Bain, basically echoing Perry’s “Vulture Capitalism” charge. Mitt attacked Obama’s crony capitalism, favoring unions. Newt to parents – elect us & we’ll enable jobs so your kids can move out [now there’s a whole new GOP constituency!].
Santorum called Romneycare an abject failure, playing footsie with the Left. Mitt – not gov’t. run, the 8% bought private insurance, favored 3-to-1, rates dropped 40%. Newt claimed credit for making the business environment whereby Mitt succeeded -- Mittt said he was speaker only 4 years, Mitt in business 25 yrs, so surely can’t claim credit for most of that. He never asked for more government – better when it gets out of the way of business.
Obama State of the Union Hilights
I’m jumping the intervening 1st Florida debate, but will return to that in the next post (along w. the 2nd debate & election results Jan. 31). I can’t resist responding to Obama’s highly partisan campaign kickoff in the state of the union address today.
He took great credit for ending the war in Iraq, bringing troops home, and getting bin Laden. None of which would have been possible without the surge & policies/interrogations put in place under Bush. And then he says we ought to be as unified and productive politically as our troops are in their work. Of course the devil’s in the details – he wants unity about his policies.
“We won’t go back to the failed policies that caused this mess.” [We can’t go back to Dodd/Frank because we still haven’t abandoned it, and so he’s technically correct, although he clearly implies Bush & the GOP].
“I will not walk away from clean energy.” [So we can expect more Solyndras]
“No bailouts, no handouts” [Really? Less welfare? Different people will read different things into that statement.]
Again with the Buffett tax – saying millionaires should be asked to pay as much as their secretaries in taxes. Technically even under capital gains taxes they pay much more than their secretaries – in dollars. And have already paid the regular rate on earned income & corporate taxes, and will pay estate/death taxes.
He said he believes Abraham Lincoln when he said that government should only do what the people can’t do better themselves. Wow! Is he really a convert? Certainly sounds good, but as with all else spoken by Chicago politicians, the devil’s in the details – the sticking point is, what exactly is it that the people can’t do better themselves? I’m sure there are marked differences there. Listening to his speeches is like “yadda, yadda, yadda” on Seinfeld. It’s an exercise in Orwellian language skills.
No options are off the table in preventing Iran from getting nukes – agreed, but what other options has he seriously pursued, and will he actually pull the trigger when they haven’t worked? He only showed weakness in cancelling joint US-Gulf states military exercises & removed a carrier when Iran threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz – he doesn’t project strength or sound very serious to our enemies.
He claimed that our alliances are stronger than ever, including Israel !!!!????? I think he’s still in Fantasyland from his Disney World trip.
“America is back, and anyone who tells you it’s in decline doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” !!!!!!!!!!????????? Clearly a partisan shot at the GOP contenders’ debate statements, and conservative talk show hosts, columnists, authors, etc.. And again, Fantasyland. But it tries to hold on to his Kool-Aid drinkers. Again, Orwellian.
In the spin room, Jake Tapper called it a very political SOU. Peggy Noonan said he seems to have discovered some things in these 3 years – several areas common w. the GOP. But Mitt noted that he had both houses of Congress his first 2 years – if he believes these things, why didn’t he do them then? Seems to feed into my sense that he’s just trying to take some of the wind out of the GOP’s sails in an election year. Don’t buy it – his promises & actions have been hollow for 3 years (as even many of his former supporters note), and he’s only looking for 4 more years, where he’ll have no incentive to accommodate anyone, but only pursue further his socialistic agenda.
Comments
Post a Comment