December 21-22, 2011
Dec 21 08:56 Thomas Sowell, Chad the Elder get it exactly right Dec 21 10:37 Democrats' tax cut insanity exposed Dec 21 11:27 Why Mitch McConnell must go Dec 21 14:37 Mitt forgets 'other part' of Tenth Amendment Dec 21 18:40 Newt takes Mitt, Mitt's SuperPac to the woodshed Dec 22 01:23 Thissen's return is pure spin Dec 22 01:42 Ohio Mitt returns Dec 22 13:52 God bless Mark Levin & the history lesson he gave to Ann Coulter Dec 22 14:59 Mitt wimps out, can't take heat of debating Newt
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Thissen's return is pure spin
It's been months since I'd heard anything from Paul Thissen. Thanks to this op-ed , I'm reminded that Thissen is loved by progressives but disliked by thoughtful people. Thissen went from zero to annoying in less than 2 paragraphs:
Most Minnesotans would agree that we still have a long way to go on the road to economic recovery. The same is true when it comes to addressing our state's budget issues. But if you listen to Republican legislators lately, you are hearing a different story.
Across the state Republicans are trying to take credit for a short-term projected budget 'surplus,' claiming that it resulted from the budget they passed after taking our state to a 20-day state shutdown. Speaker Kurt Zellers praised their 'fiscal restraint.' Rep. Steve Drazkowski called it 'smarter spending.' Rep. Carolyn McElfatrick said it was 'prudent reform.' Rep. Mark Murdock said it was due to 'fiscal responsibility.'
When you look at the facts, their self-congratulating rhetoric does not hold up. The temporary surplus, which actually turns into billions of dollars in red ink a year from now, is not the result of the GOP budget passed last summer. In fact, the majority of the temporary surplus is the result of events that occurred in 2010, before the Republicans took over the legislature and a new budget was even passed.
The reality is the Republican budget didn't solve problems; it only created problems for middle class families while racking up irresponsible debt.
Thanks to Dan Fabian and House Republicans, militant environmentalists like Paul Aasen will find it more difficult to use the courts to limit economic growth. That's a fact and Thissen can't spin it. In fact, Thissen voted against Rep. Fabian's bill.
As for the line that the "temporary surplus" will "turn into billions of dollars in red ink a year from now:, that's typical Thissen drama queen stuff. It's important to remember that Rep. Thissen, along with Sen. Bakk, sabotaged the agreement between GOP leadership and Gov. Dayton :
Pg. 2 of this document tells quite a story. What it represents is an offer by Gov. Dayton, aka MBD, that doesn't include a tax increase.
It includes a shift in K-12 school payments, a $50 per pupil increase in overall spending and a restoration of funding to the Department of Human Rights, Trade Office.
According to Gov. Dayton's own document, this would've saved the state '$1.34 Billion.'
Also, Gov. Dayton's proposal included a 'signed agreement that tonight's special session of the legislature would be confined to passing a 'Lights On' extension of funding for all current operations and obligations of state government until 11:59 of July 11, 2011.'
Gov. Dayton rejected the GOP's counterproposal, saying 'However, I can not agree to both a tobacco bond issuance and a school shift, neither of which are permanent revenues.'
There were no additional revenues in Gov. Dayton's initial proposal. That means someone, possibly Sen. Bakk or Rep. Thissen, got to him.
What type of person sabotages an agreement that would've prevented the needless layoff of 22,000 state employees? That isn't a portrait of a man of integrity. It's the portrait of a man who's owned lock, stock and barrel by Alida Messinger and her special interest allies.
First, the Republican budget borrowed a record amount, more than $2 billion, from Minnesota schools, effectively reducing school funding this budget cycle alone by just over $1,000 per pupil. This excessive borrowing has forced schools to take out loans to cover their own costs, which hurts students by taking valuable resources out of the classroom.
Rep. Thissen is spinning his way past reality. The reality is that school districts are spending lots of money on things they don't need. Matt Dean is still trying to get the documents that explain this scandal :
House Majority Leader Matt Dean (R-Dellwood) is doing his own inquiry into how the Minneapolis Public Schools spends it money after reading this Star Tribune report . The story revealed Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson's decision to award $270,000 in retroactive raises to central office administrators at the same time the district cut more than 100 jobs including 52 teaching positions.
I'd love hearing Rep. Thissen explain how schools are underfunded when school boards are giving $270,000 in retroactive pay raises to "central office administrators." Rep. Thissen, might schools not be underfunded if school boards didn't waste so much money on administrators?
This is just another example of the DFL's assinine priorities. In Minneapolis, R.T. Rybak cut police officers while keeping the bike trail coordinator on the city's payroll.
Second, Republicans engaged in Washington-style deficit spending, borrowing from the future by selling the projected dollars from the state tobacco lawsuit for one-time cash. As a result, the state will get $650 million worth of spending today at the price of $1 billion in lost future revenue. Paying $1.67 tomorrow in order to get $1 today isn't just fiscally irresponsible; it's a bad deal with real costs to Minnesota's future.
The thing that Thissen isn't talking about is that this money was used to implement Steve Gottwalt's health care reform, which will have a profound impact on future budgets by reining in health care spending.
I'd love hearing Rep. Thissen explain why passing long-term reforms that'll save Minnesota taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade is a bad thing. The truth is that he can't explain it. The best he can do is spin it.
The Republicans' stubborn insistence on protecting the very wealthiest does nothing to move our economy forward. The recipe for Minnesota's success and prosperity is to build a broad and prosperous middle class, where everyone plays by the same rules and has a fair opportunity to succeed. The Republican budget did the opposite, holding a select few harmless while raising taxes on the vast majority of Minnesotans.
The DFL's steadfast insistence on looking out for the unions (think DFL opposition to Keith Downey's 15 by 15 legislation) will add tens of millions of dollars of obligations for Minnesota's taxpayers to pay. The DFL's steadfast insistence on protecting their big government parasite special interest allies (think MnSCU university presidents and their bonuses) will add more tens of millions of dollars worth of obligations for Minnesota's taxpayers to pay.
Rep. Thissen can't explain why the DFL keeps supporting their entrenched political allies at the taxpayers' expense. Thissen sabotaged the budget agreement that GOP leadership had hammered out with Gov. Dayton.
There's nothing about Rep. Thissen that's honorable or hints at integrity.
Posted Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:23 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 22-Dec-11 07:26 AM
Just think how much of a surplus we'd have if the republicans hadn't added $4 billion to the budget. Then Thissen would really have something to complain about. As it is, it is just typical DFL spin that the state, no matter how much it spends on anything, will never ever spend enough to satisfy the DFL.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-11 11:35 AM
Chad, I saw this bumper sticker, whic summed things up perfectly:
The gap between more & enough never closes.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 23-Dec-11 10:22 AM
Imagine if a Gov. Hatch had been there to sign the $5-6 billion of new spending the DFL wanted in 2007. Zellers might have only raised spending $2 billion then and Thissen would still be just as unhappy.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-11 10:56 AM
Rex, Thanks for bringing that up. First, it's important that GOP candidates talk about the positive agenda that they'll push if elected or re-elected. Second, it's important that the DFL is exposed for who they really are: the party of spending too much. More importantly, it's important that the DFL is exposed as the party that spends money too recklessly.
Most importantly, it's important that the DFL is exposed as the party that doesn't give a damn about productive people's wallets.
If Gov. Dayton has a DFL legislature, this state will be damaged to the point that fixing the damage will be irreperable. Businesses will leave because class warfare will become the official economic policy of the Dayton administration.
Check back on this after Christmas. There's alot more of that to follow.
Thomas Sowell, Chad the Elder get it exactly right
Though I don't recall ever posting anything about Thomas Sowell, I've always been a huge fan of his clear-thinking conservatism. I don't think I've posted anything praising Chad the Elder from Fraters Libertas. That's about to stop. Chad's post focuses on Dr. Sowell's article on the fight between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
First, here's Dr. Sowell's analysis of the competition between Speaker Gingrich and Gov. Romney:
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Dr. Sowell is spot on with that analysis, which is standard with him. In fact, I wrote something on the subject here :
Newt helped push the Reagan tax cuts through Tip O'Neill's House. He pushed through the reforms that ended welfare as we know it in 1996. His policies, John Kasich's negotiations and Bill Clinton's signature produced 4 straight surpluses, including the biggest surplus in U.S. history.
Yes, Newt's said some stupid things but he's enacted tons of conservative-friendly legislation. At the end of the day, I'm infinitely more worried what's signed into law than what people say.
By comparison, Mitt hired John Holdren to be his environment czar. Holdren is the far left radical that advised Paul Ehrlich when Ehrlich wrote the Population Bomb, which was an early missive in the global warming/global cooling hoax. Then Mitt took Holdren's advice and proudly implemented the most stringent CO2 emission standards in the northeast.
Mitt raised taxes and he signed Romneycare into law. I'm surprised that he didn't find time to sign Card Check into law, too. Mitt's done more than President Obama did in enacting the progressives' agenda.
If Mitt wants to have an honest talk about his conservative legislative accomplishments, the conversation wouldn't last a full minute.
I'm astonished that the lemmings in the press haven't questioned Mitt's capitalist credentials in any serious fashion. Capitalists don't sign an executive order capping CO2 emissions. Mitt Romney didn't just sign an executive order that capped CO2 emissions. He took it a step further.
While dumping huge new costs on power plants, he also included price caps in his executive order to prevent these power plants from raising rates. That's what Nixon and Carter did with gas. That's what Obamacare does with health care.
The thought that Mitt is attempting to sell himself as a conservative is insulting. He is what he once said he is: a moderate, a progressive.
Here's Chad's closing argument ridiculing Mitt's conservatism of convenience:
If one chooses to, it's easy to find flaws with Gingrich's candidacy just as is with any of the other possible alternatives to Romney. But tearing down Newt doesn't make Mitt any more palatable to conservatives. It seems the strongest case for Romney is that he's not as bad as Gingrich with this or Perry with that or Bachmann with another thing. And it's true that Romney's carefully calibrated positions and cautiously worded statements have allowed him to make his way through the campaign while making few waves or offending anyone. The question remains whether that's what voters are looking for right now or if instead they'd prefer to take their chances with a candidate who's not afraid to upset an applecart or two along the way.
Chad's right in asking the key question: whether Mitt's the candidate that voters are looking for. Thus far, the data says that he isn't. At best, he's a plurality candidate.
As Dr. Sowell wrote, plurality, consensus candidates don't win elections. Just ask President McCain.
Posted Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:56 AM
No comments.
Democrats' tax cut insanity exposed
When it comes to tax cuts, Democrats look like idiots explaining themselves. They look worse when they play their political spin when conservatives call them on their machinations and do the right thing.
Yesterday, Democrats gave Republicans a Christmas gift. Actually, Democrats gave Republicans 2 gifts. First, Nancy Pelosi tried spinning things. Charles Hurt highlights in this article that she failed badly:
And then when it comes to explaining themselves, Democrats walk out with straight faces and blame - who else? - the tea party.
Yes, that would be that pernicious group of fed-up voters who banded together around the single premise that taxes were too high. Not too low, but too high. And so now, according to Democrats, they want to raise your taxes.
'Here we are, just a few days before Christmas, and the Republicans are just coming up with another excuse,' House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi told her liberal cohorts in the press. 'It's just the ridiculous tea party Republicans who are holding up this tax cut for the American people and jeopardizing economic growth.'
The three ways you know Nancy Pelosi is lying here are that she pays homage to 'economic growth,' a 'tax cut' and 'Christmas', all three of which her political career has been dedicated to destroying.
Ms. Pelosi is a despicable human being. When it comes to public policy, she doesn't have an honest bone in her body. Mr. Hurt rightly highlights the fact that TEA Party activists joined together to cut taxes because people had been taxed enough already.
Then he did something diabolical: he introduced truth into the conversation by highlighting the fact that Republicans did what President Obama initally told them to do. They passed a one year extension of the payroll tax holiday.
Only in Ms. Pelosi's world can TEA Party terrorists (terrorists in her mind) kill a tax cut by passing legislation that President Obama asked them to pass.
In Ms. Pelosi's mind, it can't be Senate Democrats' fault. Just because they passed, to use Charles Krauthammer's words, "a payroll tax long weekend" doesn't mean they didn't do the right thing. After all, they got a bunch of Republicans to vote foolishly, too.
The reality is that Republicans, especially the TEA Party terrorist-supporting wing of the GOP, got it right by rejecting the Senate's patchwork legislation.
Lost on the Democrats and their Agenda Media allies is the fact that the 2-month extension isn't workable. In other words, the legislation passed by the Senate isn't a viable policy option. Instead, it's a laughingstock with serious policy people.
In the end, the Senate will have to return and vote to approve the House Republicans' extension legislation. If they don't, House Republicans and the RNC should run a massive ad campaign against President Obama, Sen. Reid, Ms. Pelosi and Senate Democrats.
Those ads should highlight the fact that House Republicans voted to extend the payroll tax holiday for a full year but that President Obama, Sen. Reid, Ms. Pelosi and congressional Democrats opposed the GOP's middle class tax cut.
It's time to take the gloves off. The demagogic Democrats need to be, proverbially speaking, punched in the nose on this. They're doing their best to lie their way through this. The Democrats' deceit and the Democrats' shafting of Main Street should be hung around their collectivist necks like a millstone.
Posted Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:37 AM
No comments.
Why Mitch McConnell must go
The last thing we need in this payroll tax holiday fight is for a so-called leader to go silent. According to Politico's article , that's precisely what's happened with Mitch McConnell:
Speaker John Boehner stood before a band of fellow House Republicans on Tuesday and angrily demanded the Senate return to the Capitol and extend the payroll tax cut for a full year.
Left out of the photo op: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the co-architect of the Senate's two-month tax cut extension. He reached an agreement that has become a throbbing political headache for Boehner and has remained unusually silent as the partisan rancor and gridlock cause a year-end embarrassment for Congress.
While the two men have been remarkably united this year, the year-end package has prompted an unusual amount of confusion, disunity, frustration and increased finger-pointing, both publicly and privately, between House Republicans and Senate Republicans over who is at fault in the political fiasco.
It's the kind of situation McConnell and Boehner have long sought to avoid. And now some GOP insiders fear they've ceded the upper hand on taxes and the economy to President Barack Obama in the 2012 election year.
'This is a colossal fumble by the House Republicans,' said a senior Senate GOP aide, requesting anonymity to speak candidly about his own party. 'Their inability to recognize a win is costing our party our long-held advantage on the key issue of tax relief. It's time for Boehner and [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor to look these rookies in the eye and explain how the game is won or lost.'
First, the "senior Senate GOP aide" who didn't have the cajones to say this on the record should be fired immediately. This aide is the definition of gutless wonder. This aide might also qualify as someone as being totally out of touch with reality, too.
What's infinitely worse, though, is Sen. McConnell's silence. Frankly, it's unforgivable. Sen. McConnell is a gutless wonder and an idiot besides. What's puzzling to me is that he isn't bright enough to see that Republicans would win this fight if the Senate Republicans joined the fight.
Democrats have the media on their side. Senate Republicans shouldn't gift-wrap some political cover for them. The only thing that'll result from Sen. Mitch McConnell's capitulation is giving President Obama, Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid an undeserved political victory.
If Mitch McConnell won't stand with John Boehner and House Republicans in this important fight, then he's got to go. He isn't worthy of the title of Senate GOP leader because he isn't a leader.
What's worse is that Mitch McConnell didn't hesitate in sticking a knife in Speaker Boehner's back.
I don't doubt that many Senate Republicans voted for the Reid-McConnell bill in good faith. I have even less doubt that the facts of the case have changed so dramatically that Republicans would have an easy fight arguing that the legislation passed by the Senate isn't truly functional. That means, for all intents and purposes, that there isn't a functional Senate bill.
It's time Senate Republicans learned the lesson that compromising on terrible legislation isn't a virtue. It's stupidity masquerading as consensus.
Posted Wednesday, December 21, 2011 11:27 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 22-Dec-11 10:45 AM
I think you picked the wrong one of the two, for "must go."
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-11 11:18 AM
I'm certain I didn't. Mitch McConnell is spineless & unprincipled.
Mitt forgets 'other part' of Tenth Amendment
It isn't a secret that Mitt Romney has an individual mandate crisis with health care. Now it appears as though he's got a Tenth Amendment problem, too.
Romney is now attempting to defend the indefensible :
Requiring people to have health insurance is "conservative," GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.
The argument aims to improve Romney's appeal to Republican voters concerned about the healthcare reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama's healthcare law, which conservatives despise.
"Personal responsibility," Romney said, "is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government."
"There were two options in my state," he said. "One was to continue to allow people without insurance to go to the hospital and get free care, paid for by the government, paid for by taxpayers."
"The best idea is to let each state craft their own solution because that's, after all, the heart of conservatism: to follow the Constitution," he said.
Mitt's difficulties result from his selective reading of the Tenth Amendment. Here's the language of the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'd love hearing Gov. Romney's justification for the state determining what's best for families as opposed to families deciding what's best for families.
Is Gov. Romney willing to argue that government-imposed responsibilities on families are preferable to families crafting their own solutions? Doesn't that sound like Mitt thinks that government knows best?
Certainly, the Founding Fathers thought that the "government that governs least governs best." Families, not cities, states or the feds, should be the governance of first resort.
It's apparent that Mitt's a convenient conservative when it fits his needs. It's equally apparent that Mitt's comfortable with government dictating to families what they must do.
That isn't conservative. That's liberalism at its worst.
Posted Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:37 PM
No comments.
Newt takes Mitt, Mitt's SuperPac to the woodshed
This morning, Laura Ingraham interviewed Newt Gingrich. Suffice it to say that Newt called Mitt out while ridiculing many of Mitt's statements. Here's the tape of the interview:
Here's the Ingraham-provided transcript of the interview:
Laura: The super pac back and forth...You said Mitt Romney should take down the super pac ads, tell them to stop, and Mitt Romney said well I technically could, but basically said if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen because Obama's going to deliver hell's kitchen in a general election. What's your response to that, you can't take the heat?
Newt: My response to it is, defending the right to lie as a candidate is a pretty bad idea. The Washington Post just gave the newest Romney ad four Pinocchios. Do you know how hard it is to write and run an ad that has four Pinocchios? That means there's no honesty in the ad, except maybe the tag line.
@0:41 - Newt: If Romney would like to take credit and admit these are his staffers, these are his donors, this is his negative campaign, and it's dishonest, fine I can take the heat. But all I have is some guy running around going 'oh me, I'm really innocent because I'm a businessman and I'm not a politician and I wouldn't do anything negative and gosh I wish those people weren't doing anything negative because gee I really feel bad but I can't tell them not to do anything negative because that would be a boo boo.' What he said yesterday morning on MSNBC insulted the intelligence of every American. Give us a break Mitt, just be honest!
@1:14 - Laura: Well isn't one of your former campaign guys Rick Tyler starting a super pac supporting you?
Newt: He is, and my message publicly is, it had better be positive. Because I will disown it and I will attack it if it isn't. And if Romney wants to disown the people who have given millions of dollars and he wants to attack his own personal staff for being negative, and, by the way, being dishonestly negative, that would be an honorable thing to do. That would show he's a leader. Right now he's proving he's learned politics pretty darn well.
2:13 - Newt: I have faith that the people of Iowa can see baloney, they understand baloney. This is baloney, they want the real thing. Newt Gingrich has actually balanced the budget, reformed welfare, cut taxes. I'm prepared to run a campaign of honesty and a campaign of facts and a campaign of positive ideas. And I think people are going to look up in this kind of economy with this kind of deficit and this kind of president--we don't need to replace Obama's dishonesty with a Republican who is equally dishonest.
@3:04 - Laura: Don't we need Newt the fighter in order to stave off some of these ads?
Newt: Laura, you've got Newt the fighter. What I'm fighting for is a campaign of honesty, directness, [inaudible] Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment. The only person helped by Mitt Romney's attack ads is Barack Obama. The only person who is better by the attack ads of the other Republicans is Barack Obama. If you look at the polling in the last two weeks Obama's positives are going up, Obama's head to head against Republicans are going up, and that's because the attack ads of Republicans.
@3:34 - Newt: Everybody who has watched the debates has seen me. I've said over and over in the debates, let's not fight each other, we have one opponent, it's Barack Obama.
@3:52 - Newt: Romney has $1.4 million in negative ads next week in Iowa. Now that is a level of drowning people in dirt that is an embarrassment to the American system.
@4:04 - Laura: Well why do you think you're going down in the polls?
Newt: Because I've had a whole number of candidates--when you are out here in Iowa and people say to you, 'I've gotten robo phone calls that are negative, I've gotten mail that is negative, I've gotten six ads in a row in an hour that are negative,' you take a temporary hit. And then you come back and you say to people 'alright, if this ad was honest, I wouldn't vote for me either, and here's what the Washington Post said, it's totally dishonest.'
@4:34 - Laura: And Newt I know you're losing sleep over the fact that Meghan McCain called Callista 'icy' and said that she was doing damage to your campaign. Meghan McCain now being touted by MSNBC as a conservative thinker.
Newt: Ha. Well, listen, let's be fair. By the standards of MSNBC she IS a conservative thinker.
I wrote in this post that Mitt's essentially admitted that his policies aren't selling and that people don't trust him. As for who's capable of taking the heat, it's Mitt that hasn't shown the ability to stand up to the heat. Twice, he's lost it when Rick Perry took him to task.
Newt is turning up the heat by challenging Mitt to a special debate :
'Look, I'll tell you what. If he wants to test the heat, I'll meet him anywhere in Iowa next week one on one, 90 minutes, no moderator,' he said.
'Let's test this kitchen,' he said. 'I'm happy. I'll go in the kitchen. Go back and ask Gov. Romney, would he like to play in the kitchen? I don't think so. I don't think he wants to do anything but hide over here and pretend it's not his fault that he is flooding the people of Iowa with falsehoods. That's his money and his staff and it's his responsibility.'
Let's see if Mitt has the cajones to go mano-a-mano with Newt in a debate. I'm betting Mitt doesn't have the spine to do that. I'm betting Mitt understands that there's only one candidate in this race with gravitas and that candidate isn't Mitt.
During the interview, Laura Ingraham said that Mitt's trying to distance himself from the deceitful ads. Newt was more than a little upset with Mitt's deceitful defense. There's no doubt that people are writing that Newt lost his temper.
That's BS.
Newt's showing that he's the candidate with sharp elbows, that Mitt's just a blowhard, that Mitt's great giving but he's wimp when he's taking.
Mitt isn't a conservative. I don't even think he's center-right. I think he's a typical northeastern Republican. In other words, Mitt's a little to the left of center.
If Mitt wants the nomination, which he clearly does, he'll have to show that he can take as good as he gives. Otherwise, people will know that Mitt's the candidate with the glass jaw.
Posted Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:40 PM
No comments.
Ohio Mitt returns
The first thing I thought after reading this article is that 'Ohio Mitt' is back. First, let's refresh people's memories of Mitt's bailing on John Kasich :
Campaigning in Ohio today, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney stopped by a Republican Party phone-bank making calls in support of Gov. John Kasich's government union reform referendum, but refused to endorse the actual referendum. CNN's Peter Hamby called the scene an 'incredible moment in politics.'
But Romney would not say specifically if he supports S.B.5, which Ohio voters oppose by a 57-32 margin, according to a Quinnipiac poll out Tuesday
Instead, he issued only generic support for GOP efforts to control spending in Columbus.
'I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues,' Romney said, after being pressed by reporters. 'Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party's efforts here.'
Got that? Mitt stopped at a call center to get out the vote in support of "Gov. John Kasich's government union reform referendum" but he wouldn't take a stand on the ballot issue. Fast forward to today:
"I'm not going to get into the back-and-forth on the congressional sausage-making process," Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said in Keene, N.H., as the day began. "I hope they're able to sit down and work out a solution that works for the American people. My hope is that the solution includes extension of the payroll tax holiday."
That's right. Mitt didn't stand with conservatives on another important issue. Unfortunately, this isn't surprising. Mitt isn't a leader. Mitt's a slick-sounding fake. Compare that with a real leader:
In Iowa, Gingrich called a two-month extension "insufficient" and scolded the Democratic-controlled Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama's administration for "lurching from failure to failure" and marveled: "They can't figure out how to pass a one-year extension, so the Senate leaves town?"
When the going gets tough, Mitt's hidden. He's run rather than be a leader.
By comparison, Newt didn't hide. He jumped into the fight after analyzing the situation. Then he highlighted the Democrats' spinelessness and duplicitousness.
That's what real leaders do.
Posted Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:42 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 22-Dec-11 10:41 AM
Good for Mitt. BRAVO. In no uncertain terms.
Kasich is an ass.
Union busting is for Kasich, Scott Walker, their ilk.
You are promoting Mitt in the eyes of progressives and independents when you say that he's distanced from the likes of Kasich and the soon-to-be-recalled Walker.
I realize it is said for "the base" but you are making Mitt more attractive in general, not less so, which probably will prove a good thing for you and the other Gingrich boosters when you and they will later have to close ranks with Mitt as the nominee.
Of course, I could be wrong, but would have no problem eating MY words, if so ... about who ends up GOP nominee, not about Kasich and/or Walker. Those words will ring true for eternity.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-11 11:33 AM
Spinelessness seems to run in the gene pool for East Coast politicians. See Romney, Mitt & McConnell, Mitch. We couldn't get a real spine if we combined the best parts of their spines.
As for union-busting, I'll cheer Scott Walker & John Kasich for their attempts to limit the things that unions can bargain on. In Wisconsin, the public employee unions would insist on WEA Trust to be their health insurance carrier, which is owned by the Wisconsin Education Association. WEA Trust was a total ripoff to taxpayers, which I wrote about here:
Bernie Nikolay should be happy. His school district; he's the superintendent in Milton, had a good November.
The girls swim team won the state title, a first for Milton girls athletics. And an arbitrator said the district could switch health coverage away from the insurer owned by the teachers union. That'll save the district as much as a million bucks a year.
For a district with a $33 million budget, that's cheery. For the rest of the state, it means a tide may have turned.Eric, I triple dog dare you to defend the union's right to extort an additional $1,000,000 a year from a tiny community. Their actions are despicable.
For all the union's talk about "standing up for working people", they don't hesitate in sticking it to the taxpayers. Eric, siding with the PEU's is siding with power-hungry, win-at-all-costs, thugs.
God bless Mark Levin & the history lesson he gave to Ann Coulter
Thanks to the Right Scoop's tape of last night's Levin show , Ann Coulter got put in her place. Thanks to their tape, America got a history lesson and a lesson in constitutional law. If there was any doubt about whether Mark Levin was a patriot before last night, and there wasn't for me, this 10:30 long tape of Levin settles that discussion.
Of all the things that Levin brought up, his mentioning that the district courts and the appellate courts were created by acts of Congress, not by the Constitution, was the most informative and important of his anti-Coulter diatribe.
Mr. Levin challenged his listeners, and by extension those watching the tape, to pull out their copies of the Constitution and find where the creation of the lower courts is discussed. Then he saved them the trouble, saying that they were created through acts of Congress.
Another direct hit on the Sinking Ship Coulter was Levin's criticizing her for saying that Newt's too bombastic. Levin's first shot at the Sinking Ship Coulter was that she supported the cool-as-a-cucumber governor of New Jersey. Levin's next shot at Coulter was calling her bombastic, something that I suspect she'd accept as a compliment.
Here's yet another hit on Coulter:
She won't even give the man credit for what he has achieved! Taking back the House from 44 years of Democrat monopoly was never thought possible and in doing so he had to defeat the Republican establishment! You can't even give him that? No they can't, because they have a hate-on. They have a hate-on.
I wrote here that Newt has a lengthy list of conservative accomplishments. I said that Mitt doesn't have a list of conservative accomplishments because he isn't a conservative:
Newt's list of conservative accomplishments is lengthy, too. Newt helped push the Reagan tax cuts through Tip O'Neill's House. He pushed through the reforms that ended welfare as we know it in 1996. His policies, John Kasich's negotiations and Bill Clinton's signature produced 4 straight surpluses, including the biggest surplus in U.S. history.
Yes, Newt's said some stupid things but he's enacted tons of conservative-friendly legislation. At the end of the day, I'm infinitely more worried what's signed into law than what people say.
By comparison, Mitt hired John Holdren to be his environment czar. Holdren is the far left radical that advised Paul Ehrlich when Ehrlich wrote the Population Bomb, which was an early missive in the global warming/global cooling hoax. Then Mitt took Holdren's advice and proudly implemented the most stringent CO2 emission standards in the northeast. Mitt raised taxes and he signed Romneycare into law.
Despite these facts, Ms. Coulter insists that Mitt is the most conservative candidate in the race .
Apparently, the bombastic Ms. Coulter will say anything to keep the headlines coming.
I'll take the words of real conservatives like Thomas Sowell over the bombastic diatribes of Ms. Coulter. I wrote that Sowell got it right :
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts , compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Sowell later said this in Newt's favor:
Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.
Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
If we want to put this nation on the right path, we'll need a fighter and a visionary. Ann Coulter is peddling the nonsense that Mitt's that guy.
Mark Levin and Thomas Sowell, 2 real conservatives, disagree. I'll side with Mssrs. Sowell and Levin over Ms. Coulter every time. In fact, that isn't a difficult decision.
Posted Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:52 PM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 23-Dec-11 09:10 AM
While I like a lot of Ann's ideas, she has ALWAYS been too caustic for me, so for HER to accuse someone else of being bombastic????? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
LL
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 23-Dec-11 10:58 AM
Coulter is jumping ship, from the RINO Chris Christie to the ultimate RINO, Romney. She has jumped the shark.
Our Cleanest Dirty Shirt, Newt, is a poor choice but may be the best we've got. Sigh.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-11 11:26 AM
Bob, don't buy into the media's narrative. Newt isn't "the cleanest dirty shirt." Other than Reagan, no conservative has a lengthier list of conservative accomplishments than Newt. The twisted media wants conservatives to focus on things Newt's said rather than focusing on things he's accomplished. After 3 years of a smooth-sounding president sound good but do much damage, isn't it time that we told the twisted media that we care about solutions, not who sounds pretty?
For that matter, shouldn't GOP caucusgoers & primary voters tell Mitt that we're rejecting his poised answers because he's a flipping liberal that's reciting focus group-tested lines just long enough to get elected?
If Mitt gets the nomination, which I don't think he will, I won't vote for him. I won't work to get him elected, much less work hard to get him elected. I'll focus my attention on keeping the GOP majorities in the state legislature. I'll do whatever I can to strengthen the GOP's majority in the U.S. House of representatives.
Mitt wimps out, can't take heat of debating Newt
There's something I've noticed about Mitt that's worth noting. When he isn't getting challenged, he sounds like a take-charge leader. The minute he's asked to take sides , though, he turns into Mitt the Wimp.
Nowhere has that played itself out than when Mitt told Newt that he should get out of the kitchen if he couldn't stand the heat. Now that Newt's challenged Mitt to a debate, Mitt the Wimp has returned :
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Thursday spurned a challenge from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, his chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, for a one-on-one debate in the run-up to the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, but he dismissed the notion, suggested by Mr. Gingrich, that he was afraid to participate in such a faceoff.
'We've had many occasions to debate together, and we'll have more, I presume quite a few more, before this is finished,' Mr. Romney told the Associated Press. 'But I'm not going to narrow this down to a two-person race while there are still a number of other candidates that are viable, important candidates in the race. I want to show respect to them.'
Mitt isn't trying to show respect to other candidates. He's wimping out because he's protected when it's Mitt and a cast of thousands. The last thing Mitt wants is to go mano a mano with Newt. Mitt knows that Newt would expose him as a liberal the minute they go toe-to-toe on taxes, creating jobs and prosecuting the war on terror.
Mitt's gotten generally decent reviews in the debates because he hasn't gotten seriously challenged. The minute Mitt has to answer the 2nd and third questions on an issue, he knows that he'll get exposed as the liberal that he is.
It's easy sounding like a conservative if you only have to recite the focus-group tested lines that he's been rehearsing since 2008. What happens if Newt challenged him to explain why states should tell families what's best for them instead of letting families make their own decisions on health care?
Mitt wouldn't have a dodge in that situation.
Mitt couldn't dodge his sanctioning of the dishonest ads being run by Mitt's former staffers and funded by his contributors.
This is typical Mitt:
Mr. Romney also distanced himself anew from the standoff in Washington between the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-run White House over a two-month extension of a cut in payroll taxes.
'I really don't think it's productive for me to describe which of all of the compromises within the sausage-making process is my favorite compromise position,' Mr. Romney said, adding that presidential candidates getting involved only will complicate the process, not help it.
Ohio Mitt has returned.
It isn't surprising that conservatives don't trust Mitt. They're looking for a fighter, even if that fighter isn't perfect. Conservatives don't see Mitt as a fighter. They see a smartalecky wimp whose resume is filled with getting liberal things accomplished :
Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.
Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants . The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation.
In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers. They allow power generation companies to implement CO2 reductions at their own facilities or fund other reduction projects off-site through a greenhouse gas offset and credits program.
Mitt wouldn't be protected from Gingrich's questions on why he a) limited CO2 emissions, b) piled tons of new regulatory costs onto power plants through those regulations and c) imposed price controls on the power plants after significantly raising their costs through executive fiat.
If Mitt isn't frightened by the prospects of a one-on-one debate with Newt, he should be. While Newt isn't perfect, his list of conservative accomplishments dwarfs that of all the other GOP presidential candidates combined. Mitt's list of 'accomplishments' reads more like President Obama's first term agenda.
That's the true reason why Mitt won't debate Newt. His 'inevitable' coronation as GOP nominee wouldn't last long if he's seen as a liberal wimp who won't take a stand on important conservative issues.
Posted Thursday, December 22, 2011 2:59 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 23-Dec-11 11:01 AM
George H. W. Bush has now formally endorsed Romney.
I doubt anybody is seeking an endorsement from George W., but this really seems to nail down the divide.
G.H.W. Bush is of the Chamber of Commerce, Rockefeller Republican camp, vs. the Tom Pritchard, Tea Party faction, with the former seeming to favor Romney and the latter favoring Gingrich. In general I think this is true.
Your post on Brodkorb - I think you'd agree that Gingrich is closer to Brodkorb in outlook and manner, while few would liken Romney and Brodkorb as to style or outlook.
I think it is fair to say that, again, in general.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 23-Dec-11 11:06 AM
A brief diversion. I again took a look at your Site Meter. You are getting admirable numbers, and I believe it is good when people look at what you say and think. Whether disagreeing or agreeing, in whole or in part, having a chance to learn what you and others think is invaluable. So keep writing into the new year.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-11 11:09 AM
Thanks Eric & Merry Christmas.
