December 9-11, 2011
Dec 09 00:03 Mr. President, These jobs can't wait Dec 09 13:49 Let's talk conservative accomplishments Dec 09 14:22 Mitt's leftist roots exposed Dec 09 17:03 Mitt's outreach Dec 09 21:52 Obama administration delivering on its promise of expensive energy Dec 10 10:06 Another thing for Mitt to worry about Dec 10 15:20 The 99% Hoax Dec 11 02:30 Tonight's defining moment Dec 11 23:02 President Obama: 8% unemployment by Election Day
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mr. President, These jobs can't wait
There's a clear, unmistakable message coming from construction unions. It's aimed solely at President Obama. These unions' message is that the Keystone XL Pipeline's jobs shouldn't wait another minute :
'This project isn't just a pipeline; it is, in fact, a lifeline.'
'For many members of the Laborers, this project is not just a pipeline; it is in fact, a life-line. Joblessness in construction is far higher than any industry sector, with over 1.1-million construction workers currently unemployed in the United States. Too many hard-working Americans are out of work, and the Keystone XL Pipeline will change that dire situation for thousands of them.' (Brent Booker, Director, Construction Department, Laborers' International Union of North America, Testimony , 12/2/11)
Booker isn't the only union leader to testify about Keystone's importance:
'If the Keystone XL Pipeline isn't built, no jobs will be created.' '[I]f the Keystone XL Pipeline is not built, the socioeconomic benefits of the project will not be realized. And critically important to the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), no jobs will be created. That means there will be no employer contributions made to IUOE members' health care for their families. No contributions to retirement. And no investments in the labor-management training funds that support the skill development of future workers in the pipeline industry.' (Jeffrey Soth, Assistant Director, Department of Legislative and Political Affairs, International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), Testimony , 12/2/11)
President Obama isn't paying attention to these unions. In fact, it isn't difficult to make a persuasive argument that President Obama thinks that his re-election is more important than doing what's right for this nation's economy or making America more energy secure.
President Obama has accused Republicans of putting party ahead of doing what's right for America. That's now exposed as BS and projection. These men's testimony proves that President Obama is putting re-election ahead of doing what's right for America.
That isn't the only testimony that's been given supporting building the Keystone XL Pipeline project:
'These aren't just jobs we're talking about, but American families.'
'Keystone XL would generate a tremendous number of U.S. jobs. Over the last two years, we've seen construction industry unemployment reach upwards of 27 percent, including pockets of unemployment in some parts of the country that have far exceeded this number. We've seen working families lose their livelihoods, their homes, their children's college savings, and, in some cases, their dreams of building a better life for their families. These are not just jobs we're talking about, but American families.' (David Barnett, Special Representative with the United Association of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, Testimony , 12/2/11)
If President Obama doesn't get this project started ASAP, then we'll have definitive proof that he's more interested in his political future than he's interested in creating good paying jobs.
It's time that President stops wasting time and starts creating high paying private sector jobs. With unemployment in the construction industry nearing 13%, it'd be heartless not to fast track the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
Mr. President, the clock is ticking. These workers can't wait.
Posted Friday, December 9, 2011 12:03 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 09-Dec-11 09:06 AM
You would think our media would report how badly 0bama has his knickers in a twist over the Keystone issue. Unfortunately, our media is bought and paid for by a certain political party.
Let's talk conservative accomplishments
Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann are constantly talking about how they've fought principled fights against some very bad policies. Mitt's constantly talking about how he's more electable even though he's 1 for 3, going on 1 for 4.
Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are the only 2 GOP presidential candidates with genuine conservative accomplishments. Rick Perry has signed legislation that tells the federal government that they can't regulate what type of light bulbs Texans can use. While it's a strike against him that he signed a version of the DREAM Act, it's equally true that he's done more than any other southern governor to protect his state from getting overrun by illegal immigrants. He's signed real tort reform into law, too.
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. 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.
Frankly, Mitt doesn't have anything that could be considered a conservative accomplishment. That's what makes Ann Coulter's endorsement so puzzling. What's Ms. Conservative Movement doing endorsing a candidate that's this far removed from the conservative movement? Is this just another of Ms. Coulter's publicity stunts or is she that willing to endorse the least conservative top tier candidate?
For true conservatives, there's only 2 candidates with substantial lists of conservative accomplishments. Those candidates are Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Newt's already leading in 3 of the first 4 states. Gov. Perry is putting up a major ad buy in Iowa for the rest of the month.
While Newt is the favorite of the moment, that doesn't mean Rick Perry can't make a serious move in Iowa. If Gov. Perry takes 2nd in Iowa, that has the potential to significantly change the dynamics of South Carolina's primary.
While I still think that Newt and Mitt are the 'finalists', I still think that Gov. Perry has a shot at nosing his way back into this fight.
Posted Friday, December 9, 2011 1:49 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Dec-11 01:19 AM
Hmmm. Seems you have left out Michele Bachmann from your list of accomplished conservtives, and failed to take a swipe a Mr. Pawlenty for misdeeds similar to Romney's? Other than that, spot on, but any explanation for the radical difference in the polling for these 5 candidates-- Pawlenty, Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Dec-11 10:32 AM
Jerry, I love Michele dearly but she doesn't have any conservative accomplishments. I agree with Michele on 80+ percent of the issues but she hasn't passed something that's gotten signed into law that's making a difference.
I didn't mention TPaw because he isn't in the race right now. (I'll bet he's kicking himself for that decision.)
Romney's polling is lackluster because the 800-pound gorilla in the room, that being people don't trust him. Mitt's attacks on Newt might've worked if people trusted him. They won't work because they don't trust him. Mitt's problem is Mitt, not Newt.
Frankly, I'm disappointed that Santorum isn't polling better. He's a conservative through & through but it isn't registering with people getting polled. He was the senator that carried the welfare reform bill that temporarily changed the welfare system.
Comment 2 by A.Williams at 15-Dec-11 09:59 AM
Well, if Perry and Newt are the best options, the GOP is screwed. Ideologies, no matter how good, cannot stand on their own. You need a leader to prosecute the ideology.
Perry simply lacks the comprehensive intelligence to handle the presidency. Too many misstatements, gaffes, screwups. If you can't even remember your own agenda, how can you sell others on it?
Gingrich:
He clearly has a disdain for those not part of his elite ideology or circle. And his dysfunctional personal life voids him of any chance of being the US President. If you can't lead and keep your own house in order, you cannot possible run the country.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Dec-11 11:27 AM
Aubrey, Calling Newt an elitist is total BS.
Mitt's leftist roots exposed
Matt Lewis's post highlights Mitt's leftist tendencies. This, coupled with Mitt's taking advice from John Holdren , President Obama's Science Czar, puts Mitt in a difficult position for the primaries.
As you probably heard, some Mitt Romney surrogates hosted a conference call today to attack Newt Gingrich. Because Romney is attempting to win a Republican primary, and cast Newt Gingrich as unacceptable to conservatives, you probably assume that center-right journalists or conservative bloggers got to ask some questions, right?
Wrong. Here's the list of reporters and media outlets who were permitted to ask questions:
JOHN DICKERSON, CBS NEWS
MARK HALPERIN, TIME
LLOYD GROVE, THE DAILY BEAST
EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO, TPM
DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES
PHIL RUCKER, WASHINGTON POST
That's it. No Townhall.com, HotAir, Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, or Washington Times : you get the picture.
And it's not as though they limited it to august, mainstream publications. I mean, they took a question from Talking Points Memo:
This is not a complaint or an example of sour grapes; I wasn't even on the call today (I had a previous engagement.)
But isn't it pretty stupid politics?
Matt, that's more than stupid politics. It's another tidbit of proof that Mitt doesn't get it when it comes to movement conservatives or the TEA Party, the 2 most dominant forces in this year's GOP primaries.
It's one thing to invite someone onto a conference call from the Washington Post. Depending on who's invited, it's a defensible position; if it's George Will or Charles Krauthammer, it's good thinking. If it's Eugene Robinson or E.J. Dionne, it's a political disaster.
Conservative activists will react to Mitt inviting people from Mother Jones, TPM and the Daily Beast the way that #OWS organizers would react to Joseph Lieberman inviting Erick Erickson, Ed Morrissey and Michelle Malkin to participate in a conference call.
The #OWS organizers would see that as additional proof that Sen. Lieberman isn't a true liberal. The difference is that Gov. Romney's record is far more liberal than Sen. Lieberman's record is conservative.
Most importantly, this isn't a great way for the Romney campaign to reach out to conservatives. At a time when Mitt's biggest vulnerability is his alienation of the conservative base, the last thing he needs to do is make the conservative base suspicious.
That's precisely what Mitt's surrogates just did.
Posted Friday, December 9, 2011 2:22 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Dec-11 07:31 AM
"The difference is that Gov. Romney's record is far more liberal than Sen. Lieberman's record is conservative."
I find that hard to understand.
It seems too subjective a thing to say that, as if it were objective. How exactly is the measure made?
Also, I understand mainstream media has problematic dimensions, but is that cause to suggest obscure and heavily biased boutique journalism would be better?
I find that hard to believe, although I understand the contention - a friendship and comfort thing, in part.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Dec-11 10:13 AM
First, the MoveOn.org types think that Lieberman's a conservative. He isn't. The only issue where he's more aligned with Republicans is on national security. Second, Mitt's more closely aligned with progressives on CO2 emissions, Romneycare (which he's still defending even though insurance premiums have shot through the roof since its enactment) and on tax cuts (Mitt only wants to cut capital gains for the middle class.)
Mitt's outreach
I just wrote that Mitt's reaching out to Mother Jones and TPM probably wasn't the brightest thing his campaign's ever done. Then again, getting Rep. Jerry Lewis's endorsement isn't exactly a great feather in Mitt's cap either. Here's Mitt's announcement of Lewis's endorsement:
Announcing his support, Congressman Lewis said 'Mitt Romney has the conservative credentials to lead our economy out of this recession. His experience in the business world gives him a keen understanding of our economy and of job creation. He is the best prepared to take on President Obama and turn around our economy.'
According to Legistorm's website, Rep. Lewis requested tens of millions of dollars in earmarks . During the 2008-2010 sessions, Rep. Lewis requested $266,306,000 in earmarks.
That's a trifecta few campaigns can appreciate. Mitt followed John Holdren's, now President Obama's science czar, advice in imposing stringent, job-killing CO2 emission levels . Mitt's enacted Romneycare. Now he's granting interviews with lefty websites like Mother Jones and TPM.
If Mitt keeps moving leftward like this, it won't take much time for this nomination fight to become a Newt vs. Rick Perry fight.
I share Jazz's frustration that Mitt seems to be ignoring conservatives:
If you want us to take you seriously, you might field some of our questions. Then again, maybe Mitt thinks Mother Jones and Talking Points Memo will give him the key endorsements he needs to win big in the GOP primary.
Who's running Mitt's campaign? Bob Shrum? YIKES.
Posted Friday, December 9, 2011 5:03 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Dec-11 07:26 AM
Dan Quayle endorsed Romney.
Any thoughts?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Dec-11 10:09 AM
Here's my opinion: Dan Quayle is a nice man with a great family. His endorsing Mitt isn't surprising but it isn't a gamechanger, either.
Obama administration delivering on its promise of expensive energy
Jazz Shaw's post is another nail in this administration's political coffin. It should infuriate everyone, at least those whose minds aren't militant environmentalists. Here's what I think should be considered the first count in Jazz's indictment against this administration:
Under President Obama's watch, the Environmental Protection Agency has set up the first national standards for mercury emissions and other dangerous chemicals from coal and oil-fired power plants.
The new rules will help to clear our skies of pollutants that can make health problems like asthma and bronchitis worse, saving up to 17,000 lives each year.
What's interesting is that this information came from President Obama's re-election website. What's more important is Jazz's insights into the heart of the matter:
Wait a minute: the EPA is supposedly in the process of reviewing more than a million comments from citizens, energy producers, workers and everyone else. There allegedly isn't a decision yet. But somehow Barack Obama already knows the outcome? Was this question ever seriously being looked at, or was it a fait accompli before the first screams emerged about the lost jobs to come and the strain on the energy grid, particularly in Texas and adjoining states?
Jazz, the answer is simple. This administration gave us their blueprint during the 2008 campaign. Let's remember this golden oldie :
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
President Obama isn't reining in the EPA because he's loving what they're doing. This isn't surprising if it's viewed through history's lens.
In fact, President Obama's EPA is giving the GOP nominee a tremendous gift for this year's campaign. The GOP nominee will be able to highlight the exorbitant energy prices. He'll also be able to highlight the fact that this administration is attempting to do its best to derail the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
This administration's regulators, whether they're EPA or NLRB regulators, are the mother lode of political targets.
With $3 gas, with construction unemployment hovering around 14%, unemployed union workers and average families won't be forgiving to an administration that's intent on making their lives more expensive.
To be fair, Newt and Mitt would be able to make a strong case that this administration's decisions are disastrous. It's my belief that Newt would do better at making the case but that's my opinion.
Actually, another person who'd be fantastic at making this case is Rick Perry. I'm not saying he'd be fantastic at debating President Obama on a wide range of issues but Gov. Perry would beat him to the proverbial bloody pulp on energy and EPA issues.
Posted Friday, December 9, 2011 9:52 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Dec-11 07:20 AM
I remember when Newt started that "Drill here, drill now, pay less," thing, and Bachmann jumped on the bandwagon at the time, the part neither could sustain was the "pay less" part. It did not then and does not now follow the other two. In a concentrated oligopoly where world supply of crude is less a domestic factor than tight control and restriction of supply of refinery capacity it is the Koch brothers [here] and their ilk who have the strangle hold. Where the oil is pumped from is collateral to the fact that during some of the crude oil price hikes the pump price went up proportionately, but the refinery costs were fixed and did not escalate with the price of crude. It was naked profiteering. How exactly do you propose Newt or Mitt could, or would even be inclined, to rein that in?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Dec-11 10:25 AM
When Newt introduced Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less, the national average gas price was more than $3.50 a gallon. Michele predicted that that price would drop to less than $2.00 a gallong if we lifted the moratorium. Liberals ridiculed her for making an "absurd prediction." When President Obama was inaugurated, the national average gas price per gallon was $1.83.
While it's true that oil supply is fungible, the benefits of domestic drilling are substantial. First, we wouldn't be sending money to nations that hate us. Second, domestic drilling would cause a massive shift in our trade differential because we wouldn't be buying as much oil from the Saudis, etc. Third, the jobs that would be created by tapping the OCS, ANWR and building pipelines would be an incredible boost in tax revenues to our gov't, which, last I looked, was running $1,000,000,000,000 deficits.
An abundant supply of oil would limit speculation & would benefit manufacturers. It'd also cost schools less to heat their buildings. It'd cost less to harvest crops & getting them to markets, too. That means the price of groceries would plummet.
The American economy won't expand with expensive energy. It's a huge drag on the economy.
Another thing for Mitt to worry about
Mitt didn't have a great week. This poll certainly won't cheer Mitt up:
GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has pulled slightly ahead of favorite son Mitt Romney among voters likely to participate in Michigan's Feb. 28 presidential primary election, according to a poll released today.
Gingrich was the choice of 30.75 percent of likely voters, passing Romney, the choice of 28.74 percent, according to the survey of Michigan voters likely to participate in the open primary, said John Yob, CEO of Strategic National, a Grand Rapids political consulting firm.
There's over 2 months and a bunch of primaries between now and the Michigan primary. Still, this poll must be discouraging to Team Mitt. If Newt wins Iowa and South Carolina like expected, then Florida will likely tip in Newt's favor, too.
Mitt's always seen Nevada and Michigan as his firewalls, Nevada because it's home to lots of Mormons and because he won there 4 years ago, Michigan because it's his home state. Mitt likely will still win Nevada. However, if he doesn't defeat Newt handily in Michigan, he'll have a difficult time convincing supporters that he's the inevitable GOP nominee.
If Newt defeats Mitt in Michigan, this contest is essentially finished. While Newt wouldn't have mathematically clinched the nomination, he'd have momentum and it's likely that he will have built an organization by then.
With most Republicans wanting to just defeat President Obama, they'd just consolidate behind Newt so he could start raising the money that'll be needed to fight President Obama. Newt wouldn't have to match President Obama dollar for dollar because most of President Obama's ads will be of the slash and burn variety. This cycle especially, people are looking for sensible-sounding solutions. That's Newt's forte.
If Mitt loses one of his firewall states, he doesn't have the intellectual firepower to play catch-up. Once things start coalescing, Mitt's moderation will hurt him.
For that matter, Mitt's going negative with Talent and Sununu is a mistake. Their playing the 'Newt can't be trusted' card seems incredibly vindictive. You don't win GOP presidential nominations by being vindictive.
I've watched enough of these things to know that hitting hard is one thing, getting vindictive is another story. Mitt's in a difficult place. This poll proves it.
Posted Saturday, December 10, 2011 10:06 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Dec-11 11:04 AM
Will the "Palestinians are an invented people" remark hurt Newt? There really are not that many people of Palestinian origin in the early primary states. Will his numbers go up from that, as if he'd been courting Zionist voters? It does look that way. Otherwise why would he be talking about Palestinians at all?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Dec-11 11:25 AM
It'll help Newt. Historically speaking, Newt's 100% right on the issue.
Newt was talking about the Palestinians because he was asked about them during an interview with The Jewish Channel.
As is often the case, Newt didn't hesitate in talking with interviewers. (He & Mitt are polar opposites on that, aren't they?) When the subject of Palestinian statehood came up, Newt gave a brief history lesson on where the Palestinians came from.
It's that simple.
The 99% Hoax
When doesn't 99% equal 99%? That's simple. It's when Rasmsussen's polling shows #OWS's popularity disappearing :
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Votes hold at least a somewhat favorable view of the Occupy Wall Street protesters while 55% have an unfavorable view.
The OWS criminals have been calling themselves the 99% for far too long. The reality is that they don't represent the mainstream of American politics. The vast majority of them are significantly to the left of Ms. Pelosi. That's why Americans don't have a high opinion of OWS thugs.
This is a major problem for Democrats wanting to wrap themselves in the OWS' protests against "the 1%".
The Democrats' class envy campaign is turning people off. Most people don't begrudge "the rich" for their success. Most people either would be satisfied with doing well or by following in "the rich's" footsteps.
Democrats are betting this election on the hope that Americans will suddenly change their minds and become bitter people who begrudge other people's success. That isn't our national character. Because we're a nation of doers, we'd rather create success than begrudge those that are successful.
OWS doesn't represent the 99% because they're whining, sniveling 'the world owes me' whiners. This poll proves it.
If President Obama wants to attach himself to OWS and incorporate their class warfare message into his stump speech, something that appears to have happened, then he'll inflict pain on his campaign. While it might solidify his base, this rhetoric hurts him with independents.
The dirty little unspoken secret, except on this website alone, is that a president that's struggling to rally his base is in deep re-election trouble.
When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, his base was solidly behind him. When George W. Bush ran for re-election, his base was enthusiastically working to get him re-elected. When President Reagan ran for re-election, he won 49 states. Need I say more?
OWS isn't popular. It's a curse on the Democratic Party. It's worth noting that it's a curse that the Democratic Party created. If President Obama wants to wrap himself in OWS's type of populism, we'll gladly bury him politically in that OWS coffin.
Posted Saturday, December 10, 2011 3:20 PM
No comments.
Tonight's defining moment
Tonight's defining moment came during a heated exchange between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich on the subject of Newt's statements to The Jewish Channel on the Palestinians.
Newt said that his statement was historically accurate. When Mitt attempted to make points, here's what Mitt said :
"If I'm president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability, and make sure that in a setting like this, anything I say that can affect a place with rockets going in, with people dying, I don't do anything that will harm that process," Romney said in reference to Israel.
"And therefore before I made a statement of that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend [Israeli Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu and say, 'Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do? Let's work together because we're partners.'"
"I'm not a bomb-thrower, rhetorically or literally," Romney said.
Newt immediately threw that back in Mitt's face, saying:
"I think sometimes that it's helpful to have a president of the United States who has the courage to tell the truth," Gingrich said, arguing that then-President Ronald Reagan went around his national security advisers to call the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and "overruled" the State Department to utter his famous "Tear down this wall" line.
"Reagan believed the power of truth restated to the world and reframed the world," Gingrich said. "I'm a Reaganite. I'm proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it's at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid."
Plenty of GOP presidential candidates have called themselves Reagan conservatives. Newt's the first GOP presidential candidate to fully appreciate what a Reagan conservative is and to act like a Reagan conservative.
Newt's exactly right. Timid people like Mitt don't change the world. They just manage it until handing it of to the next guy. People like Reagan change the world in a positive way.
After that, the wind left Mitt's sails. He turned in one of his most tepid debate performances of this cycle. Mitt's reaching his hand across to offer Rick Perry a $10,000 bet was stupid, exposing him to ridicule as a rich fat cat who doesn't understand the middle class and the working poor.
I'm not buying into that characterization. I'm just saying that he'll now lose support because of that gesture.
That isn't the bad news. The night's really bad news is that he got abused by Newt on an important issue.
I'll predict right now that Mitt's numbers will take a significant hit by next week's end and that Rick Santorum will pick up alot of Mitt's lost support.
In fact, I'd argue that, at best, Mitt finished third in the debate behind Newt, then Rick Santorum.
Finally, I think Mitt's team will retool their Iowa strategy after tonight's performance. After tonight, Mitt doesn't stand a chance of winning Iowa. If he goes all out, he's likely to finish third or possibly even fourth in Iowa.
It's one thing to finish a respectable second. It's another to fade fast and finish a disappointing third or fourth. That'd kill his momentum and demolish his air of inevitability.
UPDATE: Here's the partial video of Newt demolishing Mitt on national security:
I saved the debate on my DVR. While this video is powerful, watching the back-and-forth between Mitt and Newt was more powerful.
It wouldn't be fair to say that Mitt looked like a deer in the headlights. It's totally fair to say that Mitt got schooled by Newt the professor.
Posted Sunday, December 11, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment 1 by Eric Simpson at 11-Dec-11 03:27 AM
Good analysis. Newt was sharp, and Mitt seemed slower, stiffer, and frankly, he had the look of someone who knew he was beaten.
But what really got me -- I mean took Romney 100% out the question as I had been undecided -- was Mitt's Moon attack. Why? Because I want us to go back to the moon!!!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Dec-11 08:23 AM
Yes, Obama has let Putin run roughshod on him. Yes, Reagan changed the world because, of the old Soviet bloc, only Russia is still repressed. Tons of Eastern bloc nations are now free. Doesn't that count for anything with you?
Comment 2 by joe at 11-Dec-11 05:38 AM
How did Reagan change the world? Perry said we are still worried about Russia getting our technology from Iran. Seems like the name has been changed but little else.
Also, you need to distinguish Reagan's words from his actions. Reagan became the leading "dove" in his administration while anti-Communist hardliner Howard Phillips called Reagan "a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda" and "an apologist for Gorbachev." William F. Buckley complained that, "To greet it [the Soviet Union] as if it were no longer evil is on the order of changing our entire position toward Adolf Hitler." George Will complained that "Reagan has accelerated the moral disarmament of the West by elevating wishful thinking to the status of political philosophy."
Comment 3 by Adumbrate at 11-Dec-11 09:38 AM
My read was exactly the same as yours. We need a leader (Newt) not a manager (Romney) and this exchange was a huge opportunity to see and hear the difference. BiBi is a leader. My sense is, after hearing the exchange, he donated to Newt's campaign.
Comment 4 by Jack Okie at 11-Dec-11 09:41 AM
Gary Gross @8:23 am:
Exactly! Also Soviet machinations in Afghanistan and Grenada were thwarted.
Events proved Reagan right and Phillips, Buckley and Will wide of the mark.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 11-Dec-11 01:39 PM
That was certainly a telling moment, but I have said about Newt all along that he has such a solid understanding of the issues, and command of the language, that you can never tell if he has made a gaffe or not, since he can talk his way out of it from a basis of solid principle. That's very important, because it gets you through the media's liberal filter. It gets through once when you make the statement they think is a "gotcha" and again when you explain it in simple, common sense terms making the media look like idiots. It's great.
Almost as telling for me was Mitt's wager offer, which as a good Mormon he's not supposed to do. I don't know whether that helps or hurts him, or whether anybody much noticed his "sin." Before writing Mitt off, though, let's see what he does in the debate in Iowa on Thursday; see if he recovers and finds a new line of attack that works.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 11-Dec-11 04:42 PM
There's one thing that's worth noting about Newt's national security understanding & that's that he's studied these issues right before making documentaries. This isn't something that he's likely to mess up on. He's a historian but he's also a thorough researcher who's done some wonderful documentaries.
If you're Newt's opponent, the best you can hope for is that he mispronounces a word or two. He won't get the policy wrong. Let's remember that he did a documentary on how Reagan, Lady Thatcher & Pope John Paul II defeated the Soviet Union.
As for Mitt's wager, his opponents don't care about the sin thing. Democrats are using that clip to bloody him as an out-of-touch rich fat cat.
The other thing that's worth noting is that Newt ate Mitt's lunch on the capital gains tax issue. Mitt's plan includes zeroing out the capital gainst tax rate for those making $200,000 or less. Newt rightly highlighted the fact that that's a smaller capital gains cut than President Obama. Then Newt lowered the boom, saying that the capital gains tax should be eliminated so people with enough capital can put it to use in creating jobs.
Comment 7 by eric z. at 12-Dec-11 12:08 PM
If that was your defining moment, all you guys, you probably live really boring lives. My defining moment was having a glass of beer and wholly ignoring the GOP dog and pony circus. Good luck, with having better defining moments, guys.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Dec-11 12:12 PM
I'm a political nerd & proud of it. It's ok if you aren't watching the GOP right now. That'll make it that much easier to steamroller the D's in 11 months. You won't know what hit you.
President Obama: 8% unemployment by Election Day
President Obama isn't the brightest stategist to be president. In this article , President Obama says that it's possible we'll have unemployment down to 8% by Election Day:
He announced during a television interview that the number of people out of jobs could drop to eight per cent by next year's election, the lowest since he moved into the White House in 2008.
"I think it's possible,' Obama told CBS's 60 Minutes in an interview set to air on Sunday.
The only chance of getting the unemployment rate down to 8% is if 300,000-500,000 people quit looking for work per month through Election Day. Getting unemployment to 8% through consistent economic growth won't happen. I'd bet the proverbial ranch on that.
This is why it's useful to ignore politicians' unrealistic economic predictions. (The sole exception to that would be King's predictions because he's a professional economist.)
President Obama doesn't have much choice at this point, though. His policies have failed. His job creation record is pathetic. Long-term unemployment is through the roof. Exploding deficits are proof that the Democrats' and President Obama's policies have failed.
At this point, raising expectations won't appreciably hurt people's opinions of President Obama's handling of the economy. Scott Rasmussen's latest polling paints a grim picture:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters rate Obama's handling of economic issues as poor.
In other words, people have solidified their belief that President Obama's handling of the economy should earn him a pink slip. The GOP nominee will finish that task.
The other facet to President Obama's campaign strategy is lying through his teeth and having surrogates like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz lie through her teeth :
DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz underscored the new line of messaging in a statement following the debate, calling the former Speaker 'a Tea Party politician even before there was a Tea Party.'
'He supported gutting funding for education and Medicare to fund a tax cut for millionaires and shut down the government over it and those are the same policies he supports today,' she said.
If Rep. Wasserman-Schultz's statement was rewritten using truthful statements, she'd have to say that Newt supported gutting the DoE's regulations that come attached to federal education funding. She'd have to admit that Newt shut down the government to force through legislation that reformed Medicare, which extended Medicare solvency.
And yes, Newt supports cutting taxes on the 100% because Newt doesn't agree with President Obama's and the Democrats' advocacy of class warfare. President Obama introduced himself to the nation as the man who deplored red states and blue states but who loves the United States. Eight years later, he's the despicable president that's fueling class warfare because his economic record is the worst in modern American history.
What did the Democrats do to the man that electrified the Democratic National Convention? Will they return that man and swap out this disgusting imposter?
Posted Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:02 PM
No comments.
