Illinois, Uncivility, Etch-a-Sketch & the Supremes
Illinois
Mitt’s win in Illinois was bigger and more decisive than expected – 47% to Rick’s 35%. His delegate count is 554 (RCP, or 563 Politico). He’s still on track, despite Santorum’s less significant win in Louisiana, which was again courtesy in good part to Southern religious bias.
I only caught snippets of his victory speech – Prager, as he often does, replayed and commented on it, and had high praise. Some excerpts: “Day by day, bureaucrat by bureaucrat, this president is crushing the American dream....I spent 25 years learning about the American Enterprise system by doing it – you can’t learn that as law professor at U. Chicago.” Krauthammer noted he’s already pivoting against Obama as part of a general election campaign.
His opponents (GOP & Axelrod, the media, etc.) love to diminish this victory as others, by focusing on his 7-to-1 spending. He can’t help their lack of fundraising ability, which would weaken them in the general election. People vote with their wallets, too – would they disenfranchise us? Should he be forced to share his wealth with them, as Obama would have it, to make things more “fair?”
An Unusually Uncivil Primary
Prager notes that Mitt is maybe not lovable, but is likeable, and a good man. Someone said he's more of a private man who’d rather spend time w. his wife maybe than drinking or schmoozing w. the press, etc., which the press apparently did like McCain for. Prager noted Mitt has still shown respect for the other candidates, even when he went for the jugular on policy.
This is unlike Santorum, of whom I've personally had about enough -- he sneers, rolls his eyes, uses sarcasm, calls Mitt a liar and person without integrity or core, etc. – to his face in debates and even more at rallys – many times in a single speech. And adding to all his other gross exaggerations and stretches, he said this week that he thinks Mitt's the absolute worst Republican in the country to run against Obama. I agree with one observer who says he's acting like a spoiled child, and earned the nickname "Tantorum." He's lost his temper at the press also, recently, and several observers think he's stressed himself out and needs a rest -- I agree -- until November.
Several commentators including Huckabee have said this has been the most personally vicious campaign ever, and they don’t see how it will be possible, after some of the things said, for them to stand united at the same convention in support of the nominee. Gingrich hasn’t been much if any better.
I sometimes wonder if there isn’t a religious bigotry aspect to it – that Mormons (and their beliefs) aren’t viewed as worthy of basic respect. I’ve certainly gotten that clearly from some Evangelical circles, and maybe that’s how they can justify their apparent un-Christian behavior. Similar to the frequent liberal/Left treatment of conservatives. Or Islamist treatment of Christians or infidels or Jews – considered lower than dogs, ideologically unclean, inferior and deserving of any treatment. The parallels are interesting.
And I wonder if they haven’t so poisoned the GOP electorate against Romney that many Republicans will also be unable to support or vote for him in the general election. Santorum even said this week that there’s so little difference between Mitt & Obama, that why even bother changing presidents if Mitt’s the nominee! Krauthammer spoke well when he said that Santorum’s not a team player. If Mitt does lose against Obama, maybe Santorum (& Newt) would need to share some of the blame for dragging this out and through the mud, giving Obama all kinds of ammunition, and undermining potential GOP support.
Again, with fewer delegates than Santorum now has, 4 years ago Mitt dropped out of the race for the good of the party – a team player. But Santorum apparently feels he has a higher calling or mission. I wonder about the significance of his choice of Secret Service code name, “Petrus.” He himself emphasized the biblical significance of it -- “the Rock” as Catholics claim Peter to be. Of course there’s no grief over such things for a Catholic – but if Romney ever said anything analogously about his faith, we wouldn’t hear the end of it. He doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve as Santorum does, but Romney still gets attacked for his religion by the Left (see the link to Maureen Dowd’s article in my last post).
And the press seems to air much of his opponents' attacks on Romney, but you don’t hear anything proportional from Romney. The press seems to make up for their lack of fundraising, just to keep up the circus, and to the benefit of Obama, who they of course favor. They’ve run so many of Rick’s & Newt’s whining & complaints of attacks against them (apparently largely from the PACs that are beyond control of the candidates – and their PACs have been just as vicious against Mitt), that apparently they are immune from criticism for their own attacks – they’d have you believe they’re just getting even, and “David vs Goliath.” Though they keep saying they won’t do the same, and will stick to issues, they don’t.
Etch-a-Sketch
Their latest desperate grasping for straws and red meat came this week after a Romney advisor on CNN was asked how their campaign would change tack in the general election after having campaigned on the right against opponents in the primary. He said they’d just need to reset like an Etch-a-Sketch. Immediately Rick & Newt were seen holding up the devices and saying how this was just emblematic of Mitt’s changeability on issues. If the advisor was talking about resetting on issues, they’d have a point, but he was talking about what needs to happen after every primary election – turning to a broader audience and addressing also the concerns of the general electorate – not changing stands on the issues of the primary.
Prager said about the Etch-a-Sketch issue, “Poor Mitt Romney, after a convincing Illinois victory and a great speech, his advisor didn’t articulate well. He wasn’t talking about changing policies, but tactics and presentation mode.” Medved agrees – you always start anew with the general vs. primary campaign – a new audience & opponent. Mitt himself put concerns to rest (among reasonable people) that he’s not changing his positions or policies going into the general election or in office, that the nature of a campaign changes (organization, funding, etc.) after the primary.
An advisor should of course be sensitive and careful of anything that can and will be misinterpreted and used against his candidate. But as said before, Mitt’s “inconsistencies” have been greatly exaggerated and even twisted. And how about Santorum, who 4 years ago called Mitt the most conservative candidate, and endorsed him? If anything, Mitt has become even more conservative since then, not less. Who’s the inconsistent, Etch-a-sketch candidate? Oh, yes, and earmarks, etc. Coulter has pointed out that as governor of the most Democrat state in the union, Mitt did conservative things even Reagan didn’t achieve (balanced budget – even surpluses -- without raising taxes, etc.)
Medved agrees that the media in the last month or more has been extremely biased against Romney – they can’t relate to a religious, rich, conservative man who doesn’t drink and has a 43-year marriage. He’s disliked more by the Left than Evangelicals. He’s serious, hard-working and not a drinking buddy type – he’d rather spend time with his wife.
Speaking of whom, Ann Romney was interviewed on Medved, and she described how she & Mitt have fairly often gone horseback riding, as part of her therapy for MS. And apparently he sings Western songs to her along the way.
Late-breaking Romney endorsements by Sen. Marco Rubio (also on the A-list of possible VP's), George H.W. Bush & Carly Fiorina. And a call by Rubio for Santorum & Newt to drop out for the good of the party and country -- Mitt's earned it & stands head & shoulders above Obama.
Obama Watch – What’s Good for the Goose... and Obamacare Goes to Court w. the Supremes
Obama said this week, when presenting Jim Kim to head the world bank, “We should have a development professional head the world’s development agency.” I would ask if the same shouldn’t apply to the person heading the U.S. economy, especially in time of economic crisis – the president? I.e., one with professional business & executive experience – not a professional lawyer (with his cadre of professional academicians and activists) who couldn’t even get his own big law (Obamacare) right as we’re learning more and more now that we’ve passed it.
Some of the audio of the Supreme Court justices hearing on it is pretty harsh against Obamacare -- "can you create commerce in order to regulate it? [Kennedy]," "Today you're arguing it's not a tax [rather a fine], but tomorrow your argument is that it is a tax," "fundamentally changing the relationship between government & citizen," and "everyone's also in the market for food -- does this mean you can force people to buy broccoli?" [Scallia]. Also, Kennedy said that severing part of the bill (the individual mandate) would involve much more judicial activism than striking down the entire thing -- all kinds of unintended consequences. And that's a key provision that basically funds the rest.
Van Sustern noted that the severability clause was intentionally removed by the legislature -- so the intent was to not be severable (i.e., it either stands as a whole, or falls as a whole). Scalia asked if they really expect them to go through all 2700 pages of the bill, if they don't believe in the 8th ammendment (cruel & unusual punishment). They do have a sense of humor. The solicitor general seems to be twisting himself and his arguments like a pretzel, justifying imposing a requirement even before the point of sale. Levin argues how far does that go -- to one's birth? Several have pointed out that either way the court decides, Obama loses -- if struck down, a clear defeat for his landmark legislation, and if sustained, will add even more fire to the drive to get him out of office.
Obama was also overheard speaking w. Russia's president, asking him to pass a message on to Putin -- on missile defense, he asked to table the issue until after the election when he'd have more flexibility. Mitt called that alarming and a troubling development.
Mitt’s win in Illinois was bigger and more decisive than expected – 47% to Rick’s 35%. His delegate count is 554 (RCP, or 563 Politico). He’s still on track, despite Santorum’s less significant win in Louisiana, which was again courtesy in good part to Southern religious bias.
I only caught snippets of his victory speech – Prager, as he often does, replayed and commented on it, and had high praise. Some excerpts: “Day by day, bureaucrat by bureaucrat, this president is crushing the American dream....I spent 25 years learning about the American Enterprise system by doing it – you can’t learn that as law professor at U. Chicago.” Krauthammer noted he’s already pivoting against Obama as part of a general election campaign.
His opponents (GOP & Axelrod, the media, etc.) love to diminish this victory as others, by focusing on his 7-to-1 spending. He can’t help their lack of fundraising ability, which would weaken them in the general election. People vote with their wallets, too – would they disenfranchise us? Should he be forced to share his wealth with them, as Obama would have it, to make things more “fair?”
An Unusually Uncivil Primary
Prager notes that Mitt is maybe not lovable, but is likeable, and a good man. Someone said he's more of a private man who’d rather spend time w. his wife maybe than drinking or schmoozing w. the press, etc., which the press apparently did like McCain for. Prager noted Mitt has still shown respect for the other candidates, even when he went for the jugular on policy.
This is unlike Santorum, of whom I've personally had about enough -- he sneers, rolls his eyes, uses sarcasm, calls Mitt a liar and person without integrity or core, etc. – to his face in debates and even more at rallys – many times in a single speech. And adding to all his other gross exaggerations and stretches, he said this week that he thinks Mitt's the absolute worst Republican in the country to run against Obama. I agree with one observer who says he's acting like a spoiled child, and earned the nickname "Tantorum." He's lost his temper at the press also, recently, and several observers think he's stressed himself out and needs a rest -- I agree -- until November.
Several commentators including Huckabee have said this has been the most personally vicious campaign ever, and they don’t see how it will be possible, after some of the things said, for them to stand united at the same convention in support of the nominee. Gingrich hasn’t been much if any better.
I sometimes wonder if there isn’t a religious bigotry aspect to it – that Mormons (and their beliefs) aren’t viewed as worthy of basic respect. I’ve certainly gotten that clearly from some Evangelical circles, and maybe that’s how they can justify their apparent un-Christian behavior. Similar to the frequent liberal/Left treatment of conservatives. Or Islamist treatment of Christians or infidels or Jews – considered lower than dogs, ideologically unclean, inferior and deserving of any treatment. The parallels are interesting.
And I wonder if they haven’t so poisoned the GOP electorate against Romney that many Republicans will also be unable to support or vote for him in the general election. Santorum even said this week that there’s so little difference between Mitt & Obama, that why even bother changing presidents if Mitt’s the nominee! Krauthammer spoke well when he said that Santorum’s not a team player. If Mitt does lose against Obama, maybe Santorum (& Newt) would need to share some of the blame for dragging this out and through the mud, giving Obama all kinds of ammunition, and undermining potential GOP support.
Again, with fewer delegates than Santorum now has, 4 years ago Mitt dropped out of the race for the good of the party – a team player. But Santorum apparently feels he has a higher calling or mission. I wonder about the significance of his choice of Secret Service code name, “Petrus.” He himself emphasized the biblical significance of it -- “the Rock” as Catholics claim Peter to be. Of course there’s no grief over such things for a Catholic – but if Romney ever said anything analogously about his faith, we wouldn’t hear the end of it. He doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve as Santorum does, but Romney still gets attacked for his religion by the Left (see the link to Maureen Dowd’s article in my last post).
And the press seems to air much of his opponents' attacks on Romney, but you don’t hear anything proportional from Romney. The press seems to make up for their lack of fundraising, just to keep up the circus, and to the benefit of Obama, who they of course favor. They’ve run so many of Rick’s & Newt’s whining & complaints of attacks against them (apparently largely from the PACs that are beyond control of the candidates – and their PACs have been just as vicious against Mitt), that apparently they are immune from criticism for their own attacks – they’d have you believe they’re just getting even, and “David vs Goliath.” Though they keep saying they won’t do the same, and will stick to issues, they don’t.
Etch-a-Sketch
Their latest desperate grasping for straws and red meat came this week after a Romney advisor on CNN was asked how their campaign would change tack in the general election after having campaigned on the right against opponents in the primary. He said they’d just need to reset like an Etch-a-Sketch. Immediately Rick & Newt were seen holding up the devices and saying how this was just emblematic of Mitt’s changeability on issues. If the advisor was talking about resetting on issues, they’d have a point, but he was talking about what needs to happen after every primary election – turning to a broader audience and addressing also the concerns of the general electorate – not changing stands on the issues of the primary.
Prager said about the Etch-a-Sketch issue, “Poor Mitt Romney, after a convincing Illinois victory and a great speech, his advisor didn’t articulate well. He wasn’t talking about changing policies, but tactics and presentation mode.” Medved agrees – you always start anew with the general vs. primary campaign – a new audience & opponent. Mitt himself put concerns to rest (among reasonable people) that he’s not changing his positions or policies going into the general election or in office, that the nature of a campaign changes (organization, funding, etc.) after the primary.
An advisor should of course be sensitive and careful of anything that can and will be misinterpreted and used against his candidate. But as said before, Mitt’s “inconsistencies” have been greatly exaggerated and even twisted. And how about Santorum, who 4 years ago called Mitt the most conservative candidate, and endorsed him? If anything, Mitt has become even more conservative since then, not less. Who’s the inconsistent, Etch-a-sketch candidate? Oh, yes, and earmarks, etc. Coulter has pointed out that as governor of the most Democrat state in the union, Mitt did conservative things even Reagan didn’t achieve (balanced budget – even surpluses -- without raising taxes, etc.)
Medved agrees that the media in the last month or more has been extremely biased against Romney – they can’t relate to a religious, rich, conservative man who doesn’t drink and has a 43-year marriage. He’s disliked more by the Left than Evangelicals. He’s serious, hard-working and not a drinking buddy type – he’d rather spend time with his wife.
Speaking of whom, Ann Romney was interviewed on Medved, and she described how she & Mitt have fairly often gone horseback riding, as part of her therapy for MS. And apparently he sings Western songs to her along the way.
Late-breaking Romney endorsements by Sen. Marco Rubio (also on the A-list of possible VP's), George H.W. Bush & Carly Fiorina. And a call by Rubio for Santorum & Newt to drop out for the good of the party and country -- Mitt's earned it & stands head & shoulders above Obama.
Obama Watch – What’s Good for the Goose... and Obamacare Goes to Court w. the Supremes
Obama said this week, when presenting Jim Kim to head the world bank, “We should have a development professional head the world’s development agency.” I would ask if the same shouldn’t apply to the person heading the U.S. economy, especially in time of economic crisis – the president? I.e., one with professional business & executive experience – not a professional lawyer (with his cadre of professional academicians and activists) who couldn’t even get his own big law (Obamacare) right as we’re learning more and more now that we’ve passed it.
Some of the audio of the Supreme Court justices hearing on it is pretty harsh against Obamacare -- "can you create commerce in order to regulate it? [Kennedy]," "Today you're arguing it's not a tax [rather a fine], but tomorrow your argument is that it is a tax," "fundamentally changing the relationship between government & citizen," and "everyone's also in the market for food -- does this mean you can force people to buy broccoli?" [Scallia]. Also, Kennedy said that severing part of the bill (the individual mandate) would involve much more judicial activism than striking down the entire thing -- all kinds of unintended consequences. And that's a key provision that basically funds the rest.
Van Sustern noted that the severability clause was intentionally removed by the legislature -- so the intent was to not be severable (i.e., it either stands as a whole, or falls as a whole). Scalia asked if they really expect them to go through all 2700 pages of the bill, if they don't believe in the 8th ammendment (cruel & unusual punishment). They do have a sense of humor. The solicitor general seems to be twisting himself and his arguments like a pretzel, justifying imposing a requirement even before the point of sale. Levin argues how far does that go -- to one's birth? Several have pointed out that either way the court decides, Obama loses -- if struck down, a clear defeat for his landmark legislation, and if sustained, will add even more fire to the drive to get him out of office.
Obama was also overheard speaking w. Russia's president, asking him to pass a message on to Putin -- on missile defense, he asked to table the issue until after the election when he'd have more flexibility. Mitt called that alarming and a troubling development.
Comments
Post a Comment