February 9-11, 2012
Feb 09 06:21 Mitt doesn't understand the Second Amendment Feb 09 07:21 Mitt's new attack line Feb 09 23:26 Tarryl's Grumbles Feb 10 07:14 TakeAction Minnesota's fearmongering Feb 10 12:44 Mitt's Alinskyite tactics biting his backside Feb 11 08:16 Newt's CPAC speech slams Establishment, rallies the movement faithful
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mitt doesn't understand the Second Amendment
Like most of Mitt Romney's past political positions, Mitt's publicly stated opinion on the Second Amendment has changed significantly through the years. This video does a fantastic job of showing Mitt's changing positions on the Second Amendment:
It also highlights Mitt's total misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment wasn't part of the Bill of Rights because the Founding Fathers wanted to guarantee outdoorsmen the right to hunt. It was put in place to let each family protect their families. It was also put in the Bill of Rights because families were part of the militia, the national defense team of their time.
After the backlash against the Brady assault weapons ban, Democrats got defeated as a direct result of their votes against the Second Amendment. After those defeats, Democrats started talking about how they weren't anti-Second Amendment, that they loved hunting, etc.
Second Amendment activists immediately spotted that as CYA politics. They spotted it immediately because they knew the history, importance and context of the Second Amendment.
Now Mitt's using the same happy talk that other liberals used in the past. What proof do we have that Mitt doesn't have a fervent disdain of the Second Amendment? He's now a lifetime member of the NRA but that's meaningless. Becoming a lifetime member of the NRA costs $1,000 .
That's pocket change for a presidential candidate worth $200,000,000. It's checking off another box on the checklist on becoming a viable GOP presidential candidate.
In that respect, it's no different than his epiphanies on AGW, pro-life and illegal immigration. These alleged epiphanies happened within a few months. Coincidentally, they happened after he'd announced that he wasn't running for a second term but before officially announcing his presidential ambitions.
Is that coincidence or Mitt playing the part of political chameleon?
The good news is that there's another option to Mitt. His name in Newt Gingrich. Whatever his faults, Newt's never been the finger-in-the-wind politician. Newt's run toward fights, not away from them.
That's why we had a government shutdown.
As a result of Newt's steadfastness, a budget passed that led to a run of surpluses that helped pay off $405,000,000,000 from the national debt.
We won't defeat President Obama with a phony like Mitt. What's needed to rally the GOP faithful is someone who'll fight for conservative principles. Thus far, we know that Mitt won't hesitate to fight his GOP opponents. Thus far, we know that Mitt will attack President Obama.
The troubling thing we don't know is whether he'll fight the tough, drawn out fight for foundational conservative principles. Until we have that proof, Mitt will be a grudging frontrunner at best.
Tags: Second Amendment , Assault Weapons Ban , Brady Bill , Mitt Romney , Epiphanies , Pro-Life , Immigration , NRA , Liberalism , Newt Gingrich , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:21 AM
No comments.
Mitt's new attack line
After getting rocked in three caucuses this past Tuesday, Mitt Romney is pulling out a new line of attack against his opponents. In my opinion, it's a 'who cares' argument. Here's Mitt's latest argument:
'Washington cannot reform itself,' Romney said at the University of Colorado's campus here. 'And Washington will never be reformed by those who have been compromised by the culture of Washington. This is a clear choice. I'm the only person in this race, Republican or Democrat, who has never served a day in Washington. In the world I come from, leadership is about starting a business, not trying to get a bill out of committee.'
He continued: 'We all know in our hearts that [the] soul is corrupted by a Washington culture of reckless spending, voting to raise your own pay and saying you support term limits but always running for reelection. It's that Washington that we must change.'
There's historical proof that Mitt's telling a whopper. Newt wasn't a newcomer to Congress when he pushed the reform-filled Contract With America . Here's the list of initial reforms contained in the Contract With America:
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
- FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
- SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
- THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
- FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
- FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
- SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
- SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
- EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
It's understandable that Mitt wouldn't know this about the Contract With America since he was running from it, and from President Reagan, as fast as his feet would take him. First, Mitt distancing himself from Reaganomics: Next, here's Mitt arguing against the Contract with America: The point is that it's more than possible for someone who's been in Washington, DC, to institute reforms that changed Washington, DC. You just can't be a spineless wimp who moistens his finger hour-by-hour. Newt had a vision of how he wanted Washington, DC to act. He published that plan, then he implemented that plan. Thanks to the Contract With America, America's economy grew, massive amounts of debt were paid off and Congress lived under the laws they'd passed. That's real reform from a veteran of DC's wars.
Mitt's argument that you need someone that hasn't lived their life in DC to reform DC is as phony as saying only a CEO in the White House will know how to create jobs. Mitt won't answer when the last CEO of a major company was president. If he can't do that, Mitt certainly can't prove that it takes a CEO as president to create jobs.
Unfortunately, you won't hear Jennifer Rubin, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or others in the 'conservative chorus' highlighting this fact. What's worse is that Mitt shows an astonishing ignorance about getting things done in DC with this statement:
"In the world I come from, leadership is about starting a business, not trying to get a bill out of committee.'
How will that blinding ignorance help Mitt get important things accomplished in DC? In Mitt's world, the CEO gives an order and people ask when the deadline is. In DC, the president announces an initiative, talks with the bill's sponsors, then whips the vote when it gets close. Those aren't things CEOs are familiar with. It's time for more conservative bloggers to start taking Mitt's chanting points apart. We aren't doing him or the GOP any favors by pretending that his arguments are compelling.
Tags: Contract With America , Newt Gingrich , Reforms , Ronald Reagan , Leadership , Washington DC , Conservatives , Mitt Romney , CEO , Ann Coulter , Jennifer Rubin , Sean Hannity , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2012 7:21 AM
Comment 1 by JayDick at 09-Feb-12 09:52 AM
Romney's politics are "flexible". They adapt to the situation. If he has any core beliefs, it's hard to see what they are.
Is that what it takes to beat Obama? Maybe, but I would prefer someone who has core beliefs. Is there anyone like that who can beat Obama? It doesn't seem so.
Tarryl's Grumbles
If any CD-8 DFL activist was surprised by Tarryl's statement after their straw poll , I could've told them this would happen. Here's what Tarryl said via press release:
'Some have said there were significant irregularities last night and were hoping for much higher participation. The stakes are too high to let 'politics as usual' determine the fate of Minnesota and our country. Instead, I am committed to creating good jobs for Minnesota families and keeping America's promises to our seniors, veterans and children.'
This isn't about politics as usual. It's about people not warming up to Tarryl. That's partially because she's a carpetbagger, partially because she isn't that great of a candidate. She's bought into the fallacy that she's a rising star in the DFL.
The reality is that she was barely good enough to win a state senate seat. She might not have done that if not for 2006 being a terrible year for Republicans.
To be fair, Tarryl's fundraising abilities are excellent. Unfortunately for Tarryl, she's as phony as a $3 bill. It isn't difficult tripping her up.
Rick Nolan is somewhat of an elder statesman in the CD-8 DFL. That's polite for 'He's a fossil'. He's checked off all the right boxes. He's served in the House before. In fact, he was my congressman starting in 1975.
The bottom line is this: Neither Nolan nor Tarryl will beat Chip Cravaack in the 8th because he's accomplished so much in his brief time in office. There's no question that he'll be targeted by the DCCC. There's no question that Chip's alot tougher than the DCCC is giving him credit for.
The reality is that that district isn't as blue as people think. I quoted Charlie Cook's report in this post :
According to Charlie Cook's PVI index chart , Minnesota's Eighth District is a D +3 district, meaning there's a 3 point gap in registration between Democrats and Republicans. If that's accurate, and there's no reason to think it isn't, then Oberstar is in serious trouble.
Alot of GOP political veterans said that the only thing keeping the 8th a blue district was Rep. Oberstar. It turns out that that wasn't even right.
Tags: DCCC , Straw Poll , Jim Oberstar , Rick Nolan , Tarryl Clark , Status Quo , DFL , Chip Cravaack , Iron Range , MNGOP , Cook Report , Elections , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2012 11:26 PM
Comment 1 by Alan at 10-Feb-12 09:48 AM
(Tarryl) Have political ambitions for higher office . . . willing to travel to neighboring districts to run. Seriously, I cannot recall any other candidate so desperate to hold higher political office than Tarryl. She is a very good talker and her ability to raise funds is quite good. However, to move to a district you've never lived in before claiming to "represent" the views of residents you know very little about is, in my opinion, very troubling and speaks volumes about what Tarryl has become as a politician.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Feb-12 10:04 AM
Alan, I'd argue that Tarryl didn't just become this or that type of politician. I'd argue that she's finally exposing herself as the political hack she's always been.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 11-Feb-12 02:47 PM
Alan and Gary:
I think I'll question the statement that she has the ability to raise funds is quite good. In 2010 her ability to raise funds was that she was the democrat candidate running against Michelle Bachmann. That's all she needed.
If she puts out a fund raiser or talk to a contributor and can't say she's running against Michelle Bachmann I bet she can't raise anything close to what she did before.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 11-Feb-12 02:49 PM
Gary:
I'm having a technical problem. When I'm at home and try to post on Let Freedom ring it won't take the post at all. I'm allowed to go on the internet at work when I'm not working and can I post from a work computer. Any idea what the problem is?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 11-Feb-12 03:45 PM
Walter, Let's deal with both issues. First, there's no questioning that Tarryl is a skilled fundraiser. She's been that all her political life. It's continuing to this day against a candidate not named Michele Bachmann.
Second, I don't know what's happening that you can't post comments from your home computer but I'll look into it ASAP.
TakeAction Minnesota's fearmongering
If there's anything that's predictable, it's that the DFL's fearmongering campaign will result in some outlandish statements. This article is proof of that. Here's what Dan McGrath of TakeAction Minnesota recently said:
Dan McGrath, Executive Director of TakeAction Minnesota told reporters that 'over the past week, we've learned a lot about who would lose if photo ID becomes law, over 700,000 eligible Minnesota voters, including seniors, low-income persons, students, people of color, disabled and rural Minnesotans. What hasn't been discussed is who WINS when people can't vote. That's what this report outlines.'
The report's key findings were reduced to two large charts that shows how banking executives put members of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) in the House leadership with marching orders to push Voter ID legislation. ALEC member Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer dutifully agreed and introduced a measure as soon as the new majority took office.
The first chart showcased an extensive network of money flowing from banks down to bank-led political entities including Minnesota Forward, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the Minnesota Business Partnership, the Bankers' Association, and the Coalition of Minnesota Businesses, who then financed independent expenditure campaigns instrumental in electing the new Republican majorities. Jon Campbell, Wells Fargo Executive Vice-President, chairs the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Richard Davis, President of U.S. Bank, serves as President of the Minnesota Business Partnership.
That spin is dizzying. It's filled with Minnesota progressives' biggest boogeymen. It's devoid of facts. For what seems like the 8,322nd time, let's review reality, starting with the alleged 700,000 Minnesotans who'll be disenfranchised as a result of Photo ID. Here's what Judge Barker ruled in the Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections case:
After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners had 'not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.' Id., at 783.
She rejected 'as utterly incredible and unreliable' an expert's report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver's license or other acceptable photo identification. Id., at 803. She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver's license or identification card.
The Democratic Party of Indiana said that 989,000 people in Indiana didn't have Photo ID. The judge said that their statement was "utterly incredible and unreliable" before ruling that the total was 43,000.
Judge Barker then stated that petitioners had 'not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.'
In short, Judge Barker said that the Democratic Party of Indiana a) didn't present proof that anyone would be denied the right to vote and b) dramatically inflated the number of people who didn't have proper ID.
With the validity of voter suppression accusations in question, the rest of TAM's statement is fantasy mixed with hilarity. According to TAM's logic, if it can be called that, a cabal of bankers gave money to GOP politicians for the express purpose of suppressing the vote. That, in turn, would lead to GOP majorities in the Legislature, which, in turn, would lead to these banks unfairly profiting on the backs of the so-called 99%.
That logic is filled with more holes than Swiss cheese. This shows that the DFL and their special interest allies won't hesitate in creating boogeymen to peddle their propaganda.
TAM's statement doesn't explain how banks would profit from having a GOP legislature and a DFL governor. The only explanation that fits is if Gov. Dayton agreed with allegedly greedy legislators in helping banks make obsene profits.
That isn't just foolish. It's preposterous.
Tags: TakeAction Minnesota , Dan McGrath , 99 Percent , Bankers , Voter Suppression , DFL , ALEC , Crawford v. Marion County Election Board , Conspiracies , Judge Barker , MNGOP , Elections
Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 7:23 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Feb-12 07:58 AM
I believe a couple of people could be found, statewide, that do not possess valid ID nor the means to get one. A lot of people born before 1930 no longer drive, and their birth records were destroyed in a wave of courthouse fires during that era. If the law makes an exception for those few cases, it should easily stand up to everything but the outrageous lies of the left.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 12-Feb-12 01:31 PM
J.
The state and the federal government has a process where even if your birth isn't on the system you can jump through forms (some filled out by people who know you) to get a passport which then becomes a primary document. In terms of getting an ID (I assume they haven't been driving all this time) they can apply for ID by asking for a variance on the ID rules.'
It's quite possible even if one of these people claim that no birth record can be found for a person to go through a process to get proper ID.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 12-Feb-12 01:33 PM
Gary:
I had a thought on ID since unions oppose it. At our recent contract vote we were asking for ID to verify on our lists if the person was a member able to vote.
Um the unions ID more than they want regular voters to ID.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by tony baloney at 20-Feb-12 04:12 PM
Dan McGrath is NOT with Take Action Minnesota.
Dan is the spokesman and fact-digger-outer supreme for Minnesota Majority.
What you quoted him as saying was actually said by someone else, not Dan.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Feb-12 04:32 PM
Tony, Actually, there's a Dan McGrath with Minnesota Majority & a Dan McGrath with TakeAction Minnesota. It's confusing but that's the truth. Here's the proof on the 'Bad' Dan McGrath. Here's the proof on the Good Dan McGrath.
Mitt's Alinskyite tactics biting his backside
In the words of another famous Alinskyite, " The chickens are coming home to roost ." Mitt's showing the nation how inevitable frontrunners lose races. This WSJ Editorial Board editorial does a beautiful job laying out Mitt's steps in savaging his opponents while alienating potential political allies:
Conservatives don't trust Mr. Romney in part because he gives them little reason to do so. On the morning after his big Florida victory last week, Mr. Romney uttered his now famous line that he's not worried about the poor because they can rely on the government. Then he compounded the error by endorsing automatic minimum wage increases indexed for inflation.
Mr. Romney admits the comment about the poor was "a mistake," but the concern isn't that he misspoke. It's what the episode reveals about Mr. Romney's inability, or unwillingness, to defend conservative principles. He seems to retreat at the first sound of a liberal moral argument. This means he'd play defense against President Obama, who is distilling his campaign to a moral defense of taxing the rich and government redistributive justice.
The former Massachusetts Governor also isn't winning friends with his relentlessly negative campaign. He first chopped up Rick Perry by running hard to the right on immigration. Then his attack ads tore apart Newt Gingrich in Iowa and Florida - in part because they revealed truths about Mr. Gingrich's prodigal politics on Freddie Mac and other things.
Now his political team's instinct will be to dig into its oppo research and savage Mr. Santorum. This may get Mr. Romney to 50.1% of the GOP delegates, but he'd be a weaker nominee for it. The low GOP turnout in early primary states is one sign of his weakness. What Mr. Romney needs is to make a better, positive case for his candidacy beyond his business resume.
First, conservatives, especially TEA Party activists, shouldn't trust Mitt. He hasn't courted them because he's afraid he'll lose moderates. Mitt hasn't shown a willingness to fight for conservative principles, either.
His carpet-bombing of Newt in Florida help Mitt win that primary but it didn't help him in the long haul. In fact, it hurt Mitt badly in Missouri and Minnesota. Those states, along with Colorado, jumped up and bit Mitt's backside this week. That's due in large part to Mitt's carpetbombing of his opponents in previous states.
Mitt's problem isn't Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. Mitt's problem faces him in the mirror each morning. Until Mitt abandons the Left's class warfare and starts consistently fighting for conservative principles, Mitt won't convince the activists that the GOP nominee will need to win the general election.
I wrote earlier this week that Mitt got trounced in South Carolina and Missouri , two states the GOP nominee must win. He lost 157 of the 160 counties in South Carolina and Missouri.
It isn't just the statistics that should alarm Mitt. It's that Mitt didn't appeal to social conservatives and evangelical voters in South Carolina. It's that Mitt didn't appeal to Midwest voters in Missouri and Minnesota. That's a recipe for electoral disaster.
That's a recipe for 4 more years of Obama.
GOP voters should jump off the Mitt bandwagon because he's a weak candidate who doesn't inspire anyone but his most loyal supporters. That isn't enough to win this November.
Tags: Florida , Attack Ads , Mitt Romney , Alinsky , Jeremiah Wright , Progressives , Rick Santorum , Minnesota , Missouri , Social Conservatives , South Carolina , Newt Gingrich , Evangelicals , GOP Nominee , Election 2012
Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 12:44 PM
No comments.
Newt's CPAC speech slams Establishment, rallies the movement faithful
After Tuesday's defeats, questions started popping up about whether Newt was political history. I didn't take those questions seriously because I knew CPAC was right around the corner. I knew that, if anyone was capable of a comeback, Newt at CPAC was the right combination. This speech proved I was right:
From the outset of the speech, Newt distanced himself from the DC GOP Establishment while aligning himself with the conservative movement's activists. In doing so, he reminded people that he's still the smartest man in the room on policies and solutions.
Reminding the faithful of all the things that the GOP Establishment deemed unrealistic, Newt riffed into a great set of 'unrealistics' but not until reminding his audience that CPAC was founded in the 1970s "to challenge the GOP Establishment." Here's the transcript of Newt's 'unrealistic' riff:
GINGRICH: When Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1980, you could see the gap between the Establishment and the conservative movement. Reagan campaigned on supply side economics, lower taxes, less regulations, more American energy, praise for people who created jobs. The Establishment called it "VooDoo Economics."
The GOP Establishment has a single word they use with contempt for conservative ideas. They say they're 'unrealistic'. So creating 16,000,000 new jobs under Reagan? Unrealistic. Ending the Soviet Union? Unrealistic. The 1994 Contract With America? Unrealistic. The 1994 House majority, which, by the way, was elected with the biggest single party increase in American history, 9,000,000 new voters? Unrealistic. Reforming welfare so that 2 out of 3 people either went back to work of went back to school? Unrealistic. Cutting taxes, including the biggest Capital Gains tax cut in American history and the first tax cut in 16 years? Unemployment drops to 4.2%, 11,000,000 new jobs? Unrealistic.
Not only was that list of things not unrealistic, they were accomplished because the ideas made too much sense to the American people. Reagan understood that the American people thirsted for inspiration. He supplied it in large doses.
The GOP Establishment doesn't understand the American people. They can't comprehend the power, enthusiasm, grit and determination of the TEA Party movement because it's something happening beyond Washington's Beltway. The DC Establishment of both parties doesn't understand the identity of America throughout history.
The America that they don't understand is the America President Reagan and Speaker Gingrich understand because they came from humble beginnings. That's the America that Mitt Romney can't tap into, not because he's evil but because it's totally foreign to him.
Rick Santorum is a fine man who understands America, just like John Kasich and Paul Ryan do. Of that group, only Congressman Ryan understands the greatness and genius of America like Newt Gingrich knows it.
It's that greatness that intellectually seperates Newt Gingrich from the rest of the GOP presidential field. That Newt's been MIA recently.
After Friday's speech at CPAC, it's safe to say that the special Newt is back.
Tags: DC GOP Establishment , VooDoo Economics , Mitt Romney , George H.W. Bush , A Time For Choosing , Reagan , Supply Side Economics , Evil Empire , Energy Independence , Contract With America , Newt Gingrich , CPAC , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 8:16 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Feb-12 07:29 PM
Is it realistic that Gingrich would be the GOP candidate?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Feb-12 07:49 PM
Eric, It's an uphill climb at this point but it's getting more likely that none of the top 3 will catch fire. The TEA Party influence has prevented a McCain-like romp.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 12-Feb-12 02:12 PM
I'm not sure what "realistic" means in this context. Is it possible? Yes, but at this stage certainly not a sure thing, and you would have to rate him in third place in the "horse race." Is it DESIRABLE that he be the nominee? A matter of opinion but absolutely, in my mind. Is it realistic to imagine Newt defeating Barack in the general election? I think he may be the best able to do so, in fact, although any of the four, intellectually, would clearly be a superior choice.
