The Comeback Kid -- The Blow by Blow
“A Thumpin’”
As Krauthammer said today after the Florida election results, it was “a thumpin’” (Mitt's 46% to Newt’s 32%). Romney won more votes than any previous GOP candidate, and dominated every category of voters. Some data from the Romney campaign “...that illustrate why the Obama campaign is worried about facing Mitt in the general election:
• Mitt had a broad base of support, winning among conservatives, Tea Party members, Evangelicals, women, men, and Hispanics.
• With over 770,000 votes, Mitt received the most votes in Florida GOP Primary history.
• The idea that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are splitting the conservative vote was proved wrong -- again. Not only did Mitt win more support from conservatives and Tea Party supporters than either candidate, Mitt garnered more votes than both candidates combined.
• Mitt won Hispanic voters, a key swing voting bloc in the general election, increasing his support of 14% in 2008 to 54% in Tuesday's results.
• Every GOP candidate who has won Florida has gone on to win the nomination.”
Krauthammer also thought while his victory speech was good, the best part was his wife’s introduction of him, and said she’s his best asset. All those speaking opportunities at church pay off – she looks much more comfortable on stage than the other wives who we never hear from & rarely see. Mitt always gets a good response when he reminds us of Obama’s saying that if he didn’t turn the economy around in 1 term, he’d only be a 1 term president, and that “we’re here to collect.” He said, “If this election is a bidding war for the amount of goodies promised, I’m not your man – but if it’s about restoring America’s greatness, I am.” There were repeated chants of “Mitt, Mitt, Mitt...”
I’ve always disagreed with all the MSM pundits calling it a weak GOP field – they’re only a bunch of self-serving liberals. All of the final 4 (well, 3) are much more accomplished and competent than the community organizer in the White House. Prager for one agrees with me. Mitt’s strengths came out under the contest – adaptability (improved debate performance when it counted most), fought even harder after a big loss in S. Carolina & being down in the polls, and he’s been the steadiest of all candidates in the entire campaign all this past year. And the team he assembled & led proved its mettle. They’ll need a lot of that against Obama.
I can never remember so many presidential primary debates, and am glad there’s only one in February. The next several states before Super Tuesday (March 6 – 10 states) look generally favorable for Romney, which should allow him to continue to build his lead and momentum. Most pundits are now saying it’s looking increasingly difficult to see a path forward for the other candidates, even Newt. Though captain Ahab – I mean Newt -- vows to press on to the convention. Maybe we’ll have a more interesting convention than a rubber stamp. But realistically, most are saying the fat lady has all but sung.
Another Blamer
I can’t remember a presidential candidate ever complaining so bitterly and incessantly about attacks against him as Newt. A bit like the squealing of a stuck pig. Whether the media, Mitt, or “the GOP Establishment,” he revels in playing the martyr, or maverick (hence Palin support?) and lashing out in indignation. And enjoying whatever political capital that brings with it – which was considerable in S. Carolina. And he clearly can be very indignant, angry and vengeful. How dare anyone call into question or demean the great intellect, professor Gingrich? Is that how he’d react to Obama’s attacks if he were the nominee? Obama will come down a lot heavier, and with a lot more money.
Newt is like Obama in his propensity to blame others (e.g., Mitt) for his shortcomings. If outspent, maybe he shouldn’t have alienated his first more traditional campaign team and gone on a cruise when Mitt and his team were working hard, including Florida. As they say, when you make your bed, you have to sleep in it – and the same goes for the rest of his past. And about that, there are too many corroborating witnesses for him to maintain those are lies. Newt’s ads were judged at least as negative as Mitt’s, for instance that Mitt caused Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher food – utterly ridiculous and clearly pandering to the Jewish voters.
But for all of his calling Mitt’s ads (& those of the independent PAC supporting him) lies, he never seems to offer (that I’ve heard) any substantive refutation, but obfuscates and deflects. In the Jan. 26 debate, for instance, he complained of an ad quoting him decrying the language of the ghetto, but when Mitt asked if he said it, we never got an answer. And when I later heard the tape, he clearly said it. Which leads one to question who, really, is the liar or obfuscator? The candidates have no control over the independent PAC ads, and both candidates are supportive of changing the campaign finance laws to do away with them.
For all of the decrying of Mitt’s spending on ads, and Newt’s comment about “people power vs money power,” remember that those are donations from many individuals (like me) who’ve done their homework to know enough about Mitt & his positions to feel strongly enough to sacrifice and give voice with their wallet & support the campaign. That’s the American way & right (less so all the non-freewill union money going to the Dems). It also says something about Mitt as a leader of a team, able to organize and achieve – an important indicator of presidential ability. Maybe Newt should have demanded a higher fee from Freddie Mac.
And in keeping with his “grandiosity,” Newt now blatantly panders to the Florida voters on the Space Coast with a grand (and clearly unaffordable, unrealistic) scheme for a permanent lunar colony this decade – and the notion that populated with 13,000, it could petition for statehood. Puerto Rico goes to the back of the line. And they say Mitt's out of touch? Even someone in the space business like me has to draw the line somewhere. Having just seen "Hugo," I couldn't resist the following image, though to do it right, I'd morph the face into Newt's.
Newt continues to attack Mitt on state Romneycare, despite Newt being for a federal mandate, and Mitt consistently against?
Newt was characteristically ungracious in his post-election speech, not mentioning Mitt nor offering the traditional congratulations. Mitt was much more gracious in his praise of his competitors, saying “the competition is not going to divide us, but prepare us.” Connie Mack said it’s just a little family infighting, and we’ll all come together around the nominee. But he added that Newt had become a bit unhinged. Others say Newt’s gone too far in poisoning Republicans against Mitt in his accusations of lying, etc. I can relate to the disappointment I’ve sensed among the supporters of the other candidates – we Romney supporters felt the same 4 years ago. But we bit the bullet & rallied around the nominee (McCain) for the good of the country – as needs to happen this time. Even McCain has buried the hatchet after the harsh things he said about Mitt then. That’s what people of principle and not personal pettiness do.
Newt’s opposition has probably done Mitt a favor in helping prepare him for the Obama onslaught that awaits – something various pundits have been saying is one benefit of a more protracted primary race in sharpening all the candidates. Others complain there’s an unusual and unacceptable amount of negativity & vitriol from both of them, but I really don’t think it’s that unusual. And as Newt has said, facts are fair game (except of course those that he doesn’t like).
While the momentum Newt had coming out of the Jan. 19 S. Carolina primary initially had him several points ahead of Mitt in the Florida polls, that quickly eroded, and Mitt’s polls continued to climb to a 20 point lead the day before the Jan. 31 Florida primary. Yes, Mitt had more money to spend on ads, but clearly that hasn’t been the decisive factor in Iowa or S. Carolina. And Newt spent the same amounts in S. Carolina & Florida. What apparently was more decisive, was Mitt’s much more favorable debate performance in the 2 Florida debates (and Newt’s flat performance). Krauthammer concurs w. me. This included more apparent fire and passion, and willingness to press a counterattack more aggressively.
Florida Debate Highlights – the Story of the Turnaround
Jan. 23
One interesting feature was the prohibition against applause. I sort of liked it – it allows you to evaluate and react without the influence of the loud Ron Paul and Newt groupees/fanatics. Newt’s theatrics seemed to fall flat and appeared more like whining without his impressionable fans who are bedazzled and enchanted by his monumental intellect and rhetoric. They have too much in common with Obama zombies.
I enjoyed Mitt’s comment on how he’d react to news of Castro’s death – be grateful he’s met his Maker & gone to another land (Newt did have a good clarification, that that would be the “other place” – i.e., hell).
Electability. Mitt called Newt erratic, and that his nomination could result in an October surprise. Newt said Mitt was dancing on eggs. Mitt took his biggest shots to date, saying it’s a question of leadership, that Newt had to resign in disgrace as Speaker [a point I made in earlier blogs]. That Newt worked as an influence peddler in Washington at the time Mitt was saving the Olympics & Massachussetts. Newt said Mitt was saying a number of false things about him. Mitt said 88% of Newt’s colleagues voted him out & to reprimand him – the only time that’s ever happened. And that Newt was consulting for Freddie Mac that was the cause of much of Florida’s & the nation’s housing woes. Ron Paul piled on, saying Newt’s story of resigning voluntarily because he didn’t achieve what he wanted (rather than being forced out) was a lie.
Mitt announced release of his 2010 taxes and estimates of his 2011, and that there will be no surprises – all straightforward and legal. He said the question is not his taxes, but the American peoples’ – need to reduce rates, broaden the base & simplify the code. Regarding the attacks on him regarding Bain capital, he said he expected such attacks from the Dems, but not Republicans. He won’t apologize for his success or for free enterprise. Santorum fired back that if he supported destructive capitalism, why did he support government bailouts?
Newt said his Freddie work was consulting, not lobbying. Mitt pressed the attack, saying Newt was hired by the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac, and worked 15 years on K Street as a Washington insider. Newt said Mitt was using the same tactics as in the last election, and people will see through it (again, non-specific & deflecting). Beck said afterwards that Newt has the rhetoric of Reagan (“there you go again”), but not the core/substance to back it up.
More on the Dodd/Frank debacle. And Mitt spoke solidly in support of Cuban dissidents. Santorum pointed out that Cuba may still be a problem like the ’62 Cuban missile crisis, with Iran’s relationship w. Cuba & Venezuela, and the possibility of putting nuclear missile bases there – interesting point.
Asked how to transition in Afghanistan without talking w. the Taliban, Mitt said “by beating them.” Offshore oil drilling for jobs & energy. Agreement on English as official language, and Mitt pointed out bilingual education was tried and failed in Massachussetts [& California I’d point out]. On illegal immigration, Mitt emphasized self-deportation by e-verify and enforcement, and Santorum agreed that works. Asked if the space program should be a priority, Mitt said yes, that Obama has no vision [but later that Newt’s moon colony too much].
Mitt cited his family, work in private sector, as governor & book as promoting the soul of conservatism. Newt cited his Reagan ties [a Romney PAC ad pointed out how minimal they were]. Asked why he’s the one most likely to beat Obama, Mitt spoke of this critical time to choose whether to go like Europe or be great – that dramatic change in Washington requires an outsider – he’s competed in business, and succeeded as governor.
The spinners thought Newt was flat and Mitt stronger, and Santorum improving [not fast enough?]. Regarding Newt, one said “he who lives by the debate, dies by it.” Mitt “brought it on.” Mitt was then up several percent in FL poll, reversing Newt’s earlier lead. Afterwards Mitt said “when shot at, I’ll return fire.” In the debate he said he’d learned a lesson in S. Carolina about not attacking. Ari Fleischer thought Mitt showed more fire than before. Another said Mitt was like Rocky Balboa – after absorbing many punches, he finally hit back powerfully.
Jan. 26 Jacksonville
Illegal immigration – Santorum agreed w. Mitt on enforcement. Newt thought self-deportation a fantasy – might work for singles, not grandmas/families. Mitt said need to give deference to the 4-5 million wanting to come legally. Newt’s ad called Mitt the most anti-immigrant candidate, and would throw out grandmas. Mitt said that Marco Rubio called Newt’s attack inappropriate, and showing real indignation [Newt has no monopoly], said his father was born in Mexico & wife’s father in Wales, & he found the charge highly offensive, and that the problem is not 11 million grandmothers. Some powerful punches that had Newt reeling and again at a loss for words.
On the question of the federal government’s contribution to the housing collapse, Mitt blamed Freddie/Fannie, and said we should have had a whistle blower, not a horn-tooter (clearly a direct hit on Newt – ouch!). Newt countered that he discovered that Mitt had shares of stock in Freddie/Fannie. Mitt explained his investments were in a blind trust – mutual funds and bonds, not stocks, and that Newt also had such investments in them. That Newt was a spokesman to promote them, and his 2nd contract had no anti-lobbying provision. Santorum wanted to stop the petty issues between Mitt & Newt & focus on national issues.
Newt suddenly thought taxes & transparency are now a nonsense issue – after he made it a big issue by insisting Mitt release his taxes. Mitt said yes, his blind trust apparently includes Swiss & Cayman Island accounts. He’s earned, not inherited his money, and is proud of free enterprise – it’s not a detriment but an asset to America. 40% of his earnings went to taxes, charity. Santorum wants 10-28% tax rates, not 0 capital gains. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the 16th amendment (income tax) & get rid of welfare & warfare systems. When asked if he’d release his medical records, said he’ll challenge any candidate to a 25 mile bike ride, and cited laws against age discrimination.
Regarding manned space flight, Mitt believes in a manned space program, but Newt’s idea of a permanent moon base this decade is not within budget. Santorum agreed that with $1.2T deficits that’s not responsible – must cut, not grow, programs. Ron Paul wanted government space investments only for military – leave the rest to private enterprise. Newt said 13,000 US colonists on the moon could petition for statehood, don’t let the Chinese take preeminence in space. Mitt said he’d fire someone wanting to spend $100B to go to the moon, that there are lots of local special interests in each state, but we must say no to this kind of spending.
Mitt agreed with the others on portable health insurance and growing the economy so there are more jobs. He said Obama’s SOTU speech was like groundhog day – he said a lot of good things, but doesn’t do them – Mitt will. Santorum said there was too much in common between Romneycare & Obamacare, and Mitt & Newt are both for top-down gov’t health care [Mitt didn’t get to respond, but clearly big differences as I’ve described before – Romneycare only required the 8% without it to get their own privately-run health insurance]
Asked why their wife would make a great First Lady, Mitt said his is a champion & fighter – cancer & MS, a passion for helping people, especially young women to marry before having children. Newt’s Callista [someone called her the “First Mistress”] is artistic. Santorum’s is a nurse, mother of 7, law degree, authored a book on manners.
Blitzer noted that Mitt criticized Newt for not being as close to Reagan as he claims, and asked if he (Mitt) could claim to be. Mitt responded no, when Newtt was in gov’t, he was in business, then Olympics (one of the great showcases of the human spirit), then governor & at that time became more conservative. Mitt said he never voted for a Democrat when a Republican was on the ballot (there was not always a Repub. Running in Massachussetts). As an independent, he could (and did) vote against Ted Kennedy.
On liberalizing trade w. Cuba, Santorum passionately said don’t reward Cuba for spreading Marxist cancer (Venezuela,...). Mitt said we’ve ignored Latin America too much, and need free trade agreements (Colombia, etc.), and that Obama is friendly/weak w. tyrants.
Asked how religious beliefs would affect you as president, Ron Paul said it gives character, and he’d be bound by the oath of office. Mitt said he’d seek the guidance of Providence in critical decisions, and that the Founders wrote of the relationship between God and man. He said that he carries in his heart the words “endowed by their Creator w. the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness” and the need to help other nations (through soft power) to have the same. Newt spoke of the war against religion, esp. Christianity. Santorum said faith has everything to do with it – rights come from God, not gov’t. – gov’t. should protect those rights.
Breaking Developments
Palin has all but endorsed Newt, which some think may be good for Mitt. But Mitt got a somewhat unexpected endorsement by Trump today – it’s unclear whether that’s a net positive or negative. Mitt clearly didn’t want to make too much of it. But that’s at least reassurance Trump won’t be running 3rd party & taking needed votes in the general election. Now if only Ron Paul could offer similar assurances. Today Mitt was given Secret Service protection for the duration.
As Krauthammer said today after the Florida election results, it was “a thumpin’” (Mitt's 46% to Newt’s 32%). Romney won more votes than any previous GOP candidate, and dominated every category of voters. Some data from the Romney campaign “...that illustrate why the Obama campaign is worried about facing Mitt in the general election:
• Mitt had a broad base of support, winning among conservatives, Tea Party members, Evangelicals, women, men, and Hispanics.
• With over 770,000 votes, Mitt received the most votes in Florida GOP Primary history.
• The idea that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are splitting the conservative vote was proved wrong -- again. Not only did Mitt win more support from conservatives and Tea Party supporters than either candidate, Mitt garnered more votes than both candidates combined.
• Mitt won Hispanic voters, a key swing voting bloc in the general election, increasing his support of 14% in 2008 to 54% in Tuesday's results.
• Every GOP candidate who has won Florida has gone on to win the nomination.”
Krauthammer also thought while his victory speech was good, the best part was his wife’s introduction of him, and said she’s his best asset. All those speaking opportunities at church pay off – she looks much more comfortable on stage than the other wives who we never hear from & rarely see. Mitt always gets a good response when he reminds us of Obama’s saying that if he didn’t turn the economy around in 1 term, he’d only be a 1 term president, and that “we’re here to collect.” He said, “If this election is a bidding war for the amount of goodies promised, I’m not your man – but if it’s about restoring America’s greatness, I am.” There were repeated chants of “Mitt, Mitt, Mitt...”
I’ve always disagreed with all the MSM pundits calling it a weak GOP field – they’re only a bunch of self-serving liberals. All of the final 4 (well, 3) are much more accomplished and competent than the community organizer in the White House. Prager for one agrees with me. Mitt’s strengths came out under the contest – adaptability (improved debate performance when it counted most), fought even harder after a big loss in S. Carolina & being down in the polls, and he’s been the steadiest of all candidates in the entire campaign all this past year. And the team he assembled & led proved its mettle. They’ll need a lot of that against Obama.
I can never remember so many presidential primary debates, and am glad there’s only one in February. The next several states before Super Tuesday (March 6 – 10 states) look generally favorable for Romney, which should allow him to continue to build his lead and momentum. Most pundits are now saying it’s looking increasingly difficult to see a path forward for the other candidates, even Newt. Though captain Ahab – I mean Newt -- vows to press on to the convention. Maybe we’ll have a more interesting convention than a rubber stamp. But realistically, most are saying the fat lady has all but sung.
Another Blamer
I can’t remember a presidential candidate ever complaining so bitterly and incessantly about attacks against him as Newt. A bit like the squealing of a stuck pig. Whether the media, Mitt, or “the GOP Establishment,” he revels in playing the martyr, or maverick (hence Palin support?) and lashing out in indignation. And enjoying whatever political capital that brings with it – which was considerable in S. Carolina. And he clearly can be very indignant, angry and vengeful. How dare anyone call into question or demean the great intellect, professor Gingrich? Is that how he’d react to Obama’s attacks if he were the nominee? Obama will come down a lot heavier, and with a lot more money.
Newt is like Obama in his propensity to blame others (e.g., Mitt) for his shortcomings. If outspent, maybe he shouldn’t have alienated his first more traditional campaign team and gone on a cruise when Mitt and his team were working hard, including Florida. As they say, when you make your bed, you have to sleep in it – and the same goes for the rest of his past. And about that, there are too many corroborating witnesses for him to maintain those are lies. Newt’s ads were judged at least as negative as Mitt’s, for instance that Mitt caused Holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher food – utterly ridiculous and clearly pandering to the Jewish voters.
But for all of his calling Mitt’s ads (& those of the independent PAC supporting him) lies, he never seems to offer (that I’ve heard) any substantive refutation, but obfuscates and deflects. In the Jan. 26 debate, for instance, he complained of an ad quoting him decrying the language of the ghetto, but when Mitt asked if he said it, we never got an answer. And when I later heard the tape, he clearly said it. Which leads one to question who, really, is the liar or obfuscator? The candidates have no control over the independent PAC ads, and both candidates are supportive of changing the campaign finance laws to do away with them.
For all of the decrying of Mitt’s spending on ads, and Newt’s comment about “people power vs money power,” remember that those are donations from many individuals (like me) who’ve done their homework to know enough about Mitt & his positions to feel strongly enough to sacrifice and give voice with their wallet & support the campaign. That’s the American way & right (less so all the non-freewill union money going to the Dems). It also says something about Mitt as a leader of a team, able to organize and achieve – an important indicator of presidential ability. Maybe Newt should have demanded a higher fee from Freddie Mac.
And in keeping with his “grandiosity,” Newt now blatantly panders to the Florida voters on the Space Coast with a grand (and clearly unaffordable, unrealistic) scheme for a permanent lunar colony this decade – and the notion that populated with 13,000, it could petition for statehood. Puerto Rico goes to the back of the line. And they say Mitt's out of touch? Even someone in the space business like me has to draw the line somewhere. Having just seen "Hugo," I couldn't resist the following image, though to do it right, I'd morph the face into Newt's.
Newt continues to attack Mitt on state Romneycare, despite Newt being for a federal mandate, and Mitt consistently against?
Newt was characteristically ungracious in his post-election speech, not mentioning Mitt nor offering the traditional congratulations. Mitt was much more gracious in his praise of his competitors, saying “the competition is not going to divide us, but prepare us.” Connie Mack said it’s just a little family infighting, and we’ll all come together around the nominee. But he added that Newt had become a bit unhinged. Others say Newt’s gone too far in poisoning Republicans against Mitt in his accusations of lying, etc. I can relate to the disappointment I’ve sensed among the supporters of the other candidates – we Romney supporters felt the same 4 years ago. But we bit the bullet & rallied around the nominee (McCain) for the good of the country – as needs to happen this time. Even McCain has buried the hatchet after the harsh things he said about Mitt then. That’s what people of principle and not personal pettiness do.
Newt’s opposition has probably done Mitt a favor in helping prepare him for the Obama onslaught that awaits – something various pundits have been saying is one benefit of a more protracted primary race in sharpening all the candidates. Others complain there’s an unusual and unacceptable amount of negativity & vitriol from both of them, but I really don’t think it’s that unusual. And as Newt has said, facts are fair game (except of course those that he doesn’t like).
While the momentum Newt had coming out of the Jan. 19 S. Carolina primary initially had him several points ahead of Mitt in the Florida polls, that quickly eroded, and Mitt’s polls continued to climb to a 20 point lead the day before the Jan. 31 Florida primary. Yes, Mitt had more money to spend on ads, but clearly that hasn’t been the decisive factor in Iowa or S. Carolina. And Newt spent the same amounts in S. Carolina & Florida. What apparently was more decisive, was Mitt’s much more favorable debate performance in the 2 Florida debates (and Newt’s flat performance). Krauthammer concurs w. me. This included more apparent fire and passion, and willingness to press a counterattack more aggressively.
Florida Debate Highlights – the Story of the Turnaround
Jan. 23
One interesting feature was the prohibition against applause. I sort of liked it – it allows you to evaluate and react without the influence of the loud Ron Paul and Newt groupees/fanatics. Newt’s theatrics seemed to fall flat and appeared more like whining without his impressionable fans who are bedazzled and enchanted by his monumental intellect and rhetoric. They have too much in common with Obama zombies.
I enjoyed Mitt’s comment on how he’d react to news of Castro’s death – be grateful he’s met his Maker & gone to another land (Newt did have a good clarification, that that would be the “other place” – i.e., hell).
Electability. Mitt called Newt erratic, and that his nomination could result in an October surprise. Newt said Mitt was dancing on eggs. Mitt took his biggest shots to date, saying it’s a question of leadership, that Newt had to resign in disgrace as Speaker [a point I made in earlier blogs]. That Newt worked as an influence peddler in Washington at the time Mitt was saving the Olympics & Massachussetts. Newt said Mitt was saying a number of false things about him. Mitt said 88% of Newt’s colleagues voted him out & to reprimand him – the only time that’s ever happened. And that Newt was consulting for Freddie Mac that was the cause of much of Florida’s & the nation’s housing woes. Ron Paul piled on, saying Newt’s story of resigning voluntarily because he didn’t achieve what he wanted (rather than being forced out) was a lie.
Mitt announced release of his 2010 taxes and estimates of his 2011, and that there will be no surprises – all straightforward and legal. He said the question is not his taxes, but the American peoples’ – need to reduce rates, broaden the base & simplify the code. Regarding the attacks on him regarding Bain capital, he said he expected such attacks from the Dems, but not Republicans. He won’t apologize for his success or for free enterprise. Santorum fired back that if he supported destructive capitalism, why did he support government bailouts?
Newt said his Freddie work was consulting, not lobbying. Mitt pressed the attack, saying Newt was hired by the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac, and worked 15 years on K Street as a Washington insider. Newt said Mitt was using the same tactics as in the last election, and people will see through it (again, non-specific & deflecting). Beck said afterwards that Newt has the rhetoric of Reagan (“there you go again”), but not the core/substance to back it up.
More on the Dodd/Frank debacle. And Mitt spoke solidly in support of Cuban dissidents. Santorum pointed out that Cuba may still be a problem like the ’62 Cuban missile crisis, with Iran’s relationship w. Cuba & Venezuela, and the possibility of putting nuclear missile bases there – interesting point.
Asked how to transition in Afghanistan without talking w. the Taliban, Mitt said “by beating them.” Offshore oil drilling for jobs & energy. Agreement on English as official language, and Mitt pointed out bilingual education was tried and failed in Massachussetts [& California I’d point out]. On illegal immigration, Mitt emphasized self-deportation by e-verify and enforcement, and Santorum agreed that works. Asked if the space program should be a priority, Mitt said yes, that Obama has no vision [but later that Newt’s moon colony too much].
Mitt cited his family, work in private sector, as governor & book as promoting the soul of conservatism. Newt cited his Reagan ties [a Romney PAC ad pointed out how minimal they were]. Asked why he’s the one most likely to beat Obama, Mitt spoke of this critical time to choose whether to go like Europe or be great – that dramatic change in Washington requires an outsider – he’s competed in business, and succeeded as governor.
The spinners thought Newt was flat and Mitt stronger, and Santorum improving [not fast enough?]. Regarding Newt, one said “he who lives by the debate, dies by it.” Mitt “brought it on.” Mitt was then up several percent in FL poll, reversing Newt’s earlier lead. Afterwards Mitt said “when shot at, I’ll return fire.” In the debate he said he’d learned a lesson in S. Carolina about not attacking. Ari Fleischer thought Mitt showed more fire than before. Another said Mitt was like Rocky Balboa – after absorbing many punches, he finally hit back powerfully.
Jan. 26 Jacksonville
Illegal immigration – Santorum agreed w. Mitt on enforcement. Newt thought self-deportation a fantasy – might work for singles, not grandmas/families. Mitt said need to give deference to the 4-5 million wanting to come legally. Newt’s ad called Mitt the most anti-immigrant candidate, and would throw out grandmas. Mitt said that Marco Rubio called Newt’s attack inappropriate, and showing real indignation [Newt has no monopoly], said his father was born in Mexico & wife’s father in Wales, & he found the charge highly offensive, and that the problem is not 11 million grandmothers. Some powerful punches that had Newt reeling and again at a loss for words.
On the question of the federal government’s contribution to the housing collapse, Mitt blamed Freddie/Fannie, and said we should have had a whistle blower, not a horn-tooter (clearly a direct hit on Newt – ouch!). Newt countered that he discovered that Mitt had shares of stock in Freddie/Fannie. Mitt explained his investments were in a blind trust – mutual funds and bonds, not stocks, and that Newt also had such investments in them. That Newt was a spokesman to promote them, and his 2nd contract had no anti-lobbying provision. Santorum wanted to stop the petty issues between Mitt & Newt & focus on national issues.
Newt suddenly thought taxes & transparency are now a nonsense issue – after he made it a big issue by insisting Mitt release his taxes. Mitt said yes, his blind trust apparently includes Swiss & Cayman Island accounts. He’s earned, not inherited his money, and is proud of free enterprise – it’s not a detriment but an asset to America. 40% of his earnings went to taxes, charity. Santorum wants 10-28% tax rates, not 0 capital gains. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the 16th amendment (income tax) & get rid of welfare & warfare systems. When asked if he’d release his medical records, said he’ll challenge any candidate to a 25 mile bike ride, and cited laws against age discrimination.
Regarding manned space flight, Mitt believes in a manned space program, but Newt’s idea of a permanent moon base this decade is not within budget. Santorum agreed that with $1.2T deficits that’s not responsible – must cut, not grow, programs. Ron Paul wanted government space investments only for military – leave the rest to private enterprise. Newt said 13,000 US colonists on the moon could petition for statehood, don’t let the Chinese take preeminence in space. Mitt said he’d fire someone wanting to spend $100B to go to the moon, that there are lots of local special interests in each state, but we must say no to this kind of spending.
Mitt agreed with the others on portable health insurance and growing the economy so there are more jobs. He said Obama’s SOTU speech was like groundhog day – he said a lot of good things, but doesn’t do them – Mitt will. Santorum said there was too much in common between Romneycare & Obamacare, and Mitt & Newt are both for top-down gov’t health care [Mitt didn’t get to respond, but clearly big differences as I’ve described before – Romneycare only required the 8% without it to get their own privately-run health insurance]
Asked why their wife would make a great First Lady, Mitt said his is a champion & fighter – cancer & MS, a passion for helping people, especially young women to marry before having children. Newt’s Callista [someone called her the “First Mistress”] is artistic. Santorum’s is a nurse, mother of 7, law degree, authored a book on manners.
Blitzer noted that Mitt criticized Newt for not being as close to Reagan as he claims, and asked if he (Mitt) could claim to be. Mitt responded no, when Newtt was in gov’t, he was in business, then Olympics (one of the great showcases of the human spirit), then governor & at that time became more conservative. Mitt said he never voted for a Democrat when a Republican was on the ballot (there was not always a Repub. Running in Massachussetts). As an independent, he could (and did) vote against Ted Kennedy.
On liberalizing trade w. Cuba, Santorum passionately said don’t reward Cuba for spreading Marxist cancer (Venezuela,...). Mitt said we’ve ignored Latin America too much, and need free trade agreements (Colombia, etc.), and that Obama is friendly/weak w. tyrants.
Asked how religious beliefs would affect you as president, Ron Paul said it gives character, and he’d be bound by the oath of office. Mitt said he’d seek the guidance of Providence in critical decisions, and that the Founders wrote of the relationship between God and man. He said that he carries in his heart the words “endowed by their Creator w. the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness” and the need to help other nations (through soft power) to have the same. Newt spoke of the war against religion, esp. Christianity. Santorum said faith has everything to do with it – rights come from God, not gov’t. – gov’t. should protect those rights.
Breaking Developments
Palin has all but endorsed Newt, which some think may be good for Mitt. But Mitt got a somewhat unexpected endorsement by Trump today – it’s unclear whether that’s a net positive or negative. Mitt clearly didn’t want to make too much of it. But that’s at least reassurance Trump won’t be running 3rd party & taking needed votes in the general election. Now if only Ron Paul could offer similar assurances. Today Mitt was given Secret Service protection for the duration.
Comments
Post a Comment