Two Down.....
Iowa & New Hampshire
It was the narrowest of squeakers in Iowa, but Mitt did a bit better than expected. Maybe my calls the Saturday before to get out his supporters to the caucuses actually helped give him those several votes that made the difference. And yes, there was at least one Iowa “carcass” – Bachman. And for all the hoopla we heard 4 years ago about how many dollars per vote Romney spent, it was Perry by far with the dollars per vote this time – no doubt another soon-to-be carcass with a fraction of 1% in New Hampshire.
And a historic win for Romney today in New Hampshire – no non-incumbent GOP candidate has ever won both Iowa & New Hampshire! And I think that says a lot, that the people who know him best (New Hampshire) came out so strongly for him. Things will no doubt be tougher, though, in S. Carolina on Jan. 21 and Florida Jan. 31. Most agree that if he wins them, it’s over. But many are screaming about a too-early coronation. If the anti-Romney vote remains divided, it can well happen, so we’ll see if they can coalesce around their apparent last-best-hope, Santorum. That could stretch out the primary contest.
In his victory speech today, Mitt said the president has run out of ideas, is now running out of excuses, and asked the voters in S. Carolina & Florida to help him make sure he’s run out of time in 2012.
Santorum had a considerable showing, close behind Ron Paul’s 2nd (contrarian NH is his kind of place), but not terribly surprising, given he’s about the last best hope for the anti-Romney voters, after Newt’s demise. And his “flavor of the month” bump was very luckily timed to coincide w. the Iowa caucuses. Buoyed by his incredibly sudden jump in polls & the vote, he gave a very emotional & heartfelt speech. I’ve always liked him & what he’s said, but saying & ability to do are 2 different things. And saying comes a bit easier for a career politician. He lost his last PA re-election bid badly, has no executive or business experience, and is likely a bit too conservative to swing the critical independent vote in the general election.
Santorum sounded a bit cocky when he roared “game on!” To which I’d counter “Michelle Bachman” (won the Iowa straw poll & months later lost the caucuses badly). Or “flavor of the month,” or “easy come, easy go.” Nonetheless, if the anti-Romney vote can somehow consolidate around Santorum going forward in S. Carolina & Florida, where the evangelical influence is much stronger, he could hang around for a bit more than a month.
The Debates
While civility prevailed at the Jan. 7 NH debate (at least towards Romney), apparently the gloves started to come off the next day, and the gloves are now fully off towards Mitt. Newt’s saying Mitt’s no conservative (no, that he was the CPAC choice 4 yrs ago, and that he has a clean conservative record as governor in MA mean nothing). Apparently with little hope for his own victory, he’s out for bloody revenge after the PAC supporting Mitt attacked him in Iowa, and he took out full-page ads in NH attacking Mitt. Krauthammer said Newt is Ahab, hunting the great white Mitt. I keep hearing Newt supporters say we need somebody smart & who debates well (like Newt), but it seems we already have a “smart,” smooth-talking guy in the White House, surrounded by academics. “How’s that workin’ out for ya?” as Palin might say.
I liked Romney’s response to Stephanopolos’ citing recent 200,000 new jobs – “that’s good news, but not due to Obama -- rather despite him. Like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.” Santorum said we need a commander in chief, not CEO – and this from a guy w. no executive experience whatever? True to form, Perry forgetfully claimed only he and Huntsman were not Washington insiders (mental block about Romney). I (& Mitt) did agree w. Newt’s observation that there’s more anti-Christian bigotry than anti-gay, for instance regarding the gov’t shutdown of Catholic adoption agencies because of their policy of heterosexual marriage placement. Mitt cited the US’s GDP being 50% greater than Europe’s, and how Obama doesn’t understand the American principle of work, and life, liberty & pursuit of happiness – we lift ourselves. The spin was that Ron Paul was a one-man wrecking crew – took out Perry. Some say that the “fat lady’s all but ready to sing” on this primary race.
Huntsman (the “Manchurian candidate” according to Ron Paul, who showed video clips of him speaking Chinese in an ad) had a fairly strong 3rd place showing in NH, but he’s practically lived there the last month. Having played about all his cards, he’s likely also had his 15 minutes of fame (for this election), and will pass with the other flavors of the month. He took his turn of licks against Mitt, saying Mitt’s endorsements are establishment & mean nothing. This from the guy w. 1-2% in the national polls?
“Who’s John Galt?”
Newt, and apparently some other desperate candidates like Perry, are now attacking Mitt for downsizing layoffs from Bain Capital-bought companies. They’re falling right into the Democrat/Left/Occupy Wall Street & Obama party line of anti-capitalism. Perry today called Mitt a “vulture capitalist” (as opposed to venture capitalist). Stuart Varney said it’s grossly unfair to call him a predatory capitalist – he made businesses more efficient & productive and saved and created many more jobs than were lost. Nonetheless, a recent Wall Street Journal article on Bain during Romney’s tenure there (’84-’89) said “Bain will be more problematic than his Mormonism.” Yes, Bain may become the new Haliburton bogeyman, the “bane” of socialism.
But how can Newt & Rick claim to be the TRUE conservatives, yet attack Mitt from the economic Left? Are economic conservatives splitting, swallowing the Left’s anti-capitalism/free-market Kool-Aid? I’ve heard callers to conservative talk shows disturbingly parroting them. Or is this just a last desperate, ill-considered & vengeful gasp from 2 desperados? Pawlenty pointed out on Fox today that if you want guaranteed jobs, that’s the failed Soviet system. Yes, the automobile put many horse-shoe-ers out of business, but that’s progress. And the Left call themselves progressive? Romney’s response to an Occupy person in Ohio asking about corporate greedy profits showed real passion. He emphatically said only free enterprise has ever lifted people out of poverty – profits go to retirement investments, to hire & grow businesses, etc.
Maybe this election will help educate & re-awaken an appreciation for our system, as the contrast w. the Obama Left & it’s path toward socialistic collapse (ala USSR, Europe, etc.) becomes ever more clear. The Dems are already taking Mitt way out of context when he said “I like firing people” – he was actually talking about changing from an insurance company that didn’t give good service, but could also apply to firing Obama.
Straightening out the Talk Shows
With the exception of Hewitt & Medved, the other conservative talk show hosts have so far remained either neutral or anti-Romney. One I’ve been a bit disappointed in (usually quite clear) in the former category is Dennis Prager. He seems to continue to struggle with the usual anti-Romney pablum of Romneycare, and hasn’t seen him express the vision/passion we need. He said he’s torn – his heart w. Santorum (stirring orator – hmmm, seems we have one of those already in the White House), and head (ability to win the election & turn around the economy) w. Romney. I actually think you get more of both w. Romney, and tried to straighten Dennis out with 2 separate short emails yesterday (he only has time for short ones – I doubt he even got to my several page one I sent on why extraterrestrial life isn’t necessarily anti-Creator). Here they are.
Romney HAS vision
Dennis, it pains me to continue to hear you speak as if Romney has hardly shown any vision or passion.
See for instance his “Faith in America ” speech in 2007.
Or his book,“No Apology: the Case for American Greatness.”
Or his leadership of the 2002 olympics, his church leadership, his family, etc.
I've heard him on various occasions wax inspiring and visionary -- but he's often more down-to-earth, practical & business-like, with his well-thought-out plans. Something we also need.
Romneycare vs Obamacare
Dennis, you seem to still struggle with reconciling Romney's support of Romneycare and opposition to Obamacare. Here are what I understand are significant differences:
The distinction between federal & state programs is important -- at the core of the pending Supreme Court case, and one Mitt has emphasized. Some other candidates acknowledged in a debate the legitimacy of states experimenting with such health plans.
Romneycare affected only 8% of Massachusetts – those without health insurance -- Obamacare affects all.
It is much more a private-run program, unlike Obamacare.
Yes, it has a mandate, but states also mandate car insurance, etc. Gingrich has endorsed a federal mandate.
It didn’t cut Medicaid (unlike Obamacare).
There are probably others, and Mitt has also said he didn't get exactly what he wanted in it with the Democrat legislature. And I understand the basic ideas originated in a conservative think tank (Heritage Foundation?).
It was the narrowest of squeakers in Iowa, but Mitt did a bit better than expected. Maybe my calls the Saturday before to get out his supporters to the caucuses actually helped give him those several votes that made the difference. And yes, there was at least one Iowa “carcass” – Bachman. And for all the hoopla we heard 4 years ago about how many dollars per vote Romney spent, it was Perry by far with the dollars per vote this time – no doubt another soon-to-be carcass with a fraction of 1% in New Hampshire.
And a historic win for Romney today in New Hampshire – no non-incumbent GOP candidate has ever won both Iowa & New Hampshire! And I think that says a lot, that the people who know him best (New Hampshire) came out so strongly for him. Things will no doubt be tougher, though, in S. Carolina on Jan. 21 and Florida Jan. 31. Most agree that if he wins them, it’s over. But many are screaming about a too-early coronation. If the anti-Romney vote remains divided, it can well happen, so we’ll see if they can coalesce around their apparent last-best-hope, Santorum. That could stretch out the primary contest.
In his victory speech today, Mitt said the president has run out of ideas, is now running out of excuses, and asked the voters in S. Carolina & Florida to help him make sure he’s run out of time in 2012.
Santorum had a considerable showing, close behind Ron Paul’s 2nd (contrarian NH is his kind of place), but not terribly surprising, given he’s about the last best hope for the anti-Romney voters, after Newt’s demise. And his “flavor of the month” bump was very luckily timed to coincide w. the Iowa caucuses. Buoyed by his incredibly sudden jump in polls & the vote, he gave a very emotional & heartfelt speech. I’ve always liked him & what he’s said, but saying & ability to do are 2 different things. And saying comes a bit easier for a career politician. He lost his last PA re-election bid badly, has no executive or business experience, and is likely a bit too conservative to swing the critical independent vote in the general election.
Santorum sounded a bit cocky when he roared “game on!” To which I’d counter “Michelle Bachman” (won the Iowa straw poll & months later lost the caucuses badly). Or “flavor of the month,” or “easy come, easy go.” Nonetheless, if the anti-Romney vote can somehow consolidate around Santorum going forward in S. Carolina & Florida, where the evangelical influence is much stronger, he could hang around for a bit more than a month.
The Debates
While civility prevailed at the Jan. 7 NH debate (at least towards Romney), apparently the gloves started to come off the next day, and the gloves are now fully off towards Mitt. Newt’s saying Mitt’s no conservative (no, that he was the CPAC choice 4 yrs ago, and that he has a clean conservative record as governor in MA mean nothing). Apparently with little hope for his own victory, he’s out for bloody revenge after the PAC supporting Mitt attacked him in Iowa, and he took out full-page ads in NH attacking Mitt. Krauthammer said Newt is Ahab, hunting the great white Mitt. I keep hearing Newt supporters say we need somebody smart & who debates well (like Newt), but it seems we already have a “smart,” smooth-talking guy in the White House, surrounded by academics. “How’s that workin’ out for ya?” as Palin might say.
I liked Romney’s response to Stephanopolos’ citing recent 200,000 new jobs – “that’s good news, but not due to Obama -- rather despite him. Like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.” Santorum said we need a commander in chief, not CEO – and this from a guy w. no executive experience whatever? True to form, Perry forgetfully claimed only he and Huntsman were not Washington insiders (mental block about Romney). I (& Mitt) did agree w. Newt’s observation that there’s more anti-Christian bigotry than anti-gay, for instance regarding the gov’t shutdown of Catholic adoption agencies because of their policy of heterosexual marriage placement. Mitt cited the US’s GDP being 50% greater than Europe’s, and how Obama doesn’t understand the American principle of work, and life, liberty & pursuit of happiness – we lift ourselves. The spin was that Ron Paul was a one-man wrecking crew – took out Perry. Some say that the “fat lady’s all but ready to sing” on this primary race.
Huntsman (the “Manchurian candidate” according to Ron Paul, who showed video clips of him speaking Chinese in an ad) had a fairly strong 3rd place showing in NH, but he’s practically lived there the last month. Having played about all his cards, he’s likely also had his 15 minutes of fame (for this election), and will pass with the other flavors of the month. He took his turn of licks against Mitt, saying Mitt’s endorsements are establishment & mean nothing. This from the guy w. 1-2% in the national polls?
“Who’s John Galt?”
Newt, and apparently some other desperate candidates like Perry, are now attacking Mitt for downsizing layoffs from Bain Capital-bought companies. They’re falling right into the Democrat/Left/Occupy Wall Street & Obama party line of anti-capitalism. Perry today called Mitt a “vulture capitalist” (as opposed to venture capitalist). Stuart Varney said it’s grossly unfair to call him a predatory capitalist – he made businesses more efficient & productive and saved and created many more jobs than were lost. Nonetheless, a recent Wall Street Journal article on Bain during Romney’s tenure there (’84-’89) said “Bain will be more problematic than his Mormonism.” Yes, Bain may become the new Haliburton bogeyman, the “bane” of socialism.
But how can Newt & Rick claim to be the TRUE conservatives, yet attack Mitt from the economic Left? Are economic conservatives splitting, swallowing the Left’s anti-capitalism/free-market Kool-Aid? I’ve heard callers to conservative talk shows disturbingly parroting them. Or is this just a last desperate, ill-considered & vengeful gasp from 2 desperados? Pawlenty pointed out on Fox today that if you want guaranteed jobs, that’s the failed Soviet system. Yes, the automobile put many horse-shoe-ers out of business, but that’s progress. And the Left call themselves progressive? Romney’s response to an Occupy person in Ohio asking about corporate greedy profits showed real passion. He emphatically said only free enterprise has ever lifted people out of poverty – profits go to retirement investments, to hire & grow businesses, etc.
Maybe this election will help educate & re-awaken an appreciation for our system, as the contrast w. the Obama Left & it’s path toward socialistic collapse (ala USSR, Europe, etc.) becomes ever more clear. The Dems are already taking Mitt way out of context when he said “I like firing people” – he was actually talking about changing from an insurance company that didn’t give good service, but could also apply to firing Obama.
Straightening out the Talk Shows
With the exception of Hewitt & Medved, the other conservative talk show hosts have so far remained either neutral or anti-Romney. One I’ve been a bit disappointed in (usually quite clear) in the former category is Dennis Prager. He seems to continue to struggle with the usual anti-Romney pablum of Romneycare, and hasn’t seen him express the vision/passion we need. He said he’s torn – his heart w. Santorum (stirring orator – hmmm, seems we have one of those already in the White House), and head (ability to win the election & turn around the economy) w. Romney. I actually think you get more of both w. Romney, and tried to straighten Dennis out with 2 separate short emails yesterday (he only has time for short ones – I doubt he even got to my several page one I sent on why extraterrestrial life isn’t necessarily anti-Creator). Here they are.
Romney HAS vision
Dennis, it pains me to continue to hear you speak as if Romney has hardly shown any vision or passion.
See for instance his “Faith in America ” speech in 2007.
Or his book,“No Apology: the Case for American Greatness.”
Or his leadership of the 2002 olympics, his church leadership, his family, etc.
I've heard him on various occasions wax inspiring and visionary -- but he's often more down-to-earth, practical & business-like, with his well-thought-out plans. Something we also need.
Romneycare vs Obamacare
Dennis, you seem to still struggle with reconciling Romney's support of Romneycare and opposition to Obamacare. Here are what I understand are significant differences:
The distinction between federal & state programs is important -- at the core of the pending Supreme Court case, and one Mitt has emphasized. Some other candidates acknowledged in a debate the legitimacy of states experimenting with such health plans.
Romneycare affected only 8% of Massachusetts – those without health insurance -- Obamacare affects all.
It is much more a private-run program, unlike Obamacare.
Yes, it has a mandate, but states also mandate car insurance, etc. Gingrich has endorsed a federal mandate.
It didn’t cut Medicaid (unlike Obamacare).
There are probably others, and Mitt has also said he didn't get exactly what he wanted in it with the Democrat legislature. And I understand the basic ideas originated in a conservative think tank (Heritage Foundation?).
So true, not a single talk show host approves of Romney. Only Hannity tries to stay neutral, but Beck, Limbaugh can't find anything right in him. Anxious for them to finally come together and let Romney do what he is good at.
ReplyDelete