January 19-20, 2012
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed
Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble:
SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the lid off the biggest scandal to hit the Congress in 50 years. You knew about it for 10 or 15 years because you told me you knew about it. And you did nothing because you didn't have the courage to stand up to your own leadership , the Democratic speaker of the House, take to the floor of the Senate, demand the releasing of the checks that were being kited by members of Congress, risk your political career, risk your promotion within the ranks and do what was right for America. And that had more or as much to do with the 1994 win as any plan that you put together.
GINGRICH: You know, campaigns are interesting experiences for all of us. And each of us writes a selective history that fits our interest.
As a freshman in 1979, I moved to expel a member who was a convicted felon, for the first time since 1917, against the wishes of our leadership. In the page scandal in the 1980s, I moved and threatened to expel them unless they were punished much more severely, against the wishes of the leadership. In the late 1980s, I initiated charges against the speaker of the House, Jim Wright, at rather considerable risk for a back-bench member. In 1990, I opposed the president of the United States of my own party when he tried to raise taxes. I said I actually thought he meant "Read my lips," and I led the fight against raising taxes, against the wishes of my party's leadership.
I think, long before Rick came to Congress, I was busy being a rebel, creating the Conservative Opportunity Society, developing a plan to win a majority in the Congress. And if you talk to anybody who worked at the Congressional Campaign Committee from December of 1978 on, for 16 years, I worked to help create the Republican Party nationally to become a majority. I worked to create GOPAC to train a majority. Those are just historic facts, even if they're inconvenient for Rick's campaign.
That's a lengthy list of undeniably conservative accomplishments that went against the grain of the GOP. Saying that Newt "didn't have the courage to stand up" against GOP leadership is foolish. Rebelling against Bush the Elder's tax increases was a demonstration of courage. Creating the Conservative Opportunity Society and GOPAC as steps to create the first GOP majority in the House took courage, too.
Let's remember that Minority Leader Bob Michel and the House GOP leadership at the time were more worried about getting invited to go golfing with Dan Rostenkowski than about fighting for conservatism.
That's why there were GOP rebellions against Newt in 1997 and 1998. These weren't, as Sen. Santorum characterized them, conservative rebellions. They were GOP rebellions.
If I were Newt, I'd wear those philosophical disagreements with less than conservative legislators as a badge of honor.
The truth is that Sen. Santorum acted more like a guy with a lengthy list of pet peeves than like a presidential candidate. He went too far. Newt made him pay with a detailed, verifiable listing of how Newt isn't a typical Washington insider and never will be.
Tags: Debates , Rick Santorum , Leadership , Courage , Bush the Elder , Read My Lips , Taxes , Jim Wright , Corruption , Newt Gingrich , GOPAC , Conservatism , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 5:12 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Jan-12 07:34 AM
Yeah, bringing up GOPAC will be something he regrets.No he won't. It's what helped create a GOP majority in the House. Liberals might hate it but that's life.
Comment 2 by eric z at 20-Jan-12 07:40 AM
Perry quitting and endorsing Newt was significant. His only two other real choices were Ron Paul or Romney. The dynamics of picking Newt, of the three, is something we can guess about, because once an endorsement choice is made an empty accolade-laden speech is made with ringing sound and little worthwhile content. It is the choice, the act of choosing that matters. I think it was a major win for Gingrich. The timing was major.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 20-Jan-12 10:37 AM
It sets up a Gingrich-Perry ticket, which ain't all bad.
I think Newt's rebel stance cuts two ways. It has a wide appeal when "the establishment" and "DC insiders" have a bad reputation as they do today. Unfortunately those folks individually hold a lot of sway in the Party and among voters.
Comment 4 by eric z at 20-Jan-12 12:23 PM
J.Ewing - Newt's NOT a DC insider? Sez who?
He did not make three million last year off book royalties.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jan-12 02:46 PM
He did not make three million last year off book royalties.I know you weren't paying attention but he & his wife wrote a book & did a documentary, both of which did pretty well.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing, at 20-Jan-12 08:22 PM
Newt's not a DC insider. Rick Santorum just gave Newt the golden opportunity to say so, and he did.
Comment 6 by eric z at 21-Jan-12 11:36 AM
GOPAC gavels. A lot of folks down south bought one, going along to get along with local politics, getting permits when needed, etc., and it was a shakedown. Plus the GOPAC memo was a low point for America. Shameful.
Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity
Minnesota Majority, Minnesota's premier election watchdog organization, has issued a scathing indictment against Minnesota's election integrity . There isn't any question but that Minnesota's election integrity has been compromised:
Minnesota Majority today released a report on voters flagged for challenge in the statewide voter registration system (SVRS) because of official election mailings to their listed addresses being returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. The mailings, commonly known as postal verification cards (PVCs) are sent to newly registered voters as a means of confirming their provided address and residence at that address. Thousands of voters were flagged for challenge following the 2008 and 2010 general election in Minnesota.
'The PVC is the only real test we have for confirming a voter's residence, and we often don't perform that verification until after a person has voted,' said Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis. ' After the 2008 election, over 6,000 Election Day registrants were found to have provided addresses that were undeliverable and after 2010 there were over 1,200 more that remain unexplained even after accounting for voters who moved shortly after voting. This is a strong indicator of the possibility of voter fraud.'
Not only does this call Minnesota's election integrity into question but it questions the advisability of same day registration. It's troubling that the USPS returned thousands of PVCs as undeliverable. At minimum, same day registrants shouldn't be given a standard ballot; they should be given a provisional ballot.
It's preferable though, that Minnesota ends the practices of vouching and same day registration. Similarly, Minnesota voters need to pass a Photo ID constitutional amendment next November. The DFL's declarations that Minnesota's recounts prove that Minnesota's election system is airtight doesn't make it fact.
All that a recount proves is that the people can add and subtract. It can't prove that the person who filled out the ballots were eligible to vote. Minnesota Majority's PVC report verifies that plenty of people, perhaps in the thousands of people, weren't eligible to vote.
If they were eligible to vote, 6,000 PVCs wouldn't have gotten returned in 2008. It's one thing if a dozen PVCs got returned. It's another thing if 6,000 PVCs got returned. A dozen might be explained away. 6,000 can't be lightly explained away.
This needs to be addressed, too:
Minnesota law requires voters to register at least 20 days before an election so that the information they provide and their eligibility to vote can be verified by election workers before they vote on Election Day. However, Election Day registration creates an exception. People who register at the polling place are given a ballot without first being subject to the same scrutiny.
Election Day registrants can account for as many as 25% of all votes cast in a typical election. For those voters, the postal verification card isn't mailed until after their ballots have been accepted and counted. Voters whose PVCs are returned as undeliverable will be flagged for challenge if they show up at the next election, but meanwhile, their ballots have already been accepted.
'This is an example of why creating two classes of voters is unacceptable,' said Davis. 'You shouldn't be subject to less scrutiny than everyone else, just because you waited until the last minute to register. Less responsible voters are allowed to cut in line and cast a ballot without being validated and this is what happens.
That's creating a system where voter fraud can run rampant. Hypothetically speaking, there isn't a way of stopping a union thug from Wisconsin from creating a fictitious identity and address, then registering to vote on Election Day. There's virtually no way that the criminal could be caught and punished.
Minnesota can't ignore voter fraud after this report. It's obvious that it's happening. This is what happens when a political party puts a high priority on ballot access while ignoring election integrity.
Tags: Photo ID , Voter Fraud , SVRS , PVC , Same Day Registration , Vouching , Minnesota Majority , Investigation , Post Office , Elections
Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:57 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Jan-12 06:35 AM
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Right now the law easily permits multiple voting, no questions asked, and doesn't even require that people show up to cast a ballot-- ballots are cast "for them" and often after the polls close. We don't even know that our hyperpartisan SOS (a fitting acronym) is properly maintaining the voter rolls, as required by law.
Comment 2 by Mike Dean at 19-Jan-12 09:49 AM
You do understand that photo ID won't solve this issue. The only way to stop any potential for voter fraud is to require a fingerprint scan. This would be the cheapest option too.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Jan-12 11:10 AM
You do know that fixing the problem is a multi-faceted problem, don't you, Mr. Dean? It's interesting that liberals have gone from saying that voter fraud doesn't exist to saying that Photo ID wouldn't stop felons from voting to saying that Photo ID doesn't solve the problem. Which tall tale will you opt for next?
It's time to eliminate same day registration & vouching. It's time we elected a SecState that did what U.S. federal law requires him to do. It's time that DFL activists like Mr. Dean stopped playing games with our elections.
PS- A fingerprint scan doesn't verify that the person actually lives in that precinct.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 19-Jan-12 04:22 PM
Mike:
If you have to show a photo id then you might actually catch some possible illegal voters.
Pedro Lopez (made up name by me) can show up with an utility bill and be allowed to register to vote even if he doesn't speak English (hint I'm describing a potential illegal voter from Mexico). If he can't show a MN Drivers license, a US birth certificate, or a US passport that's proof that he isn't a legal citizen able to vote.
I bet over the years Mike a lot of Pedro Lopez's won't have voted if we had that standard.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 19-Jan-12 09:52 PM
And if the election judge doesn't check the license for immigration status, as our SOS does NOT train them to do, they get to vote. Also, state law REQUIRES that college students be allowed to vote twice. Most don't, but our SOS doesn't check that, either. Adding electronic validation to voter ID, as the original bill had, WOULD eliminate all these routes to fraud.
Comment 5 by Adam at 02-Feb-12 12:15 PM
So a typo on a registration card, or on the data entry in the state's computer system, indicated fraud? How?
Ron Paul's Logic
During Monday night's debate, Ron Paul was asked a foreign policy question about the Middle East. Paraphrasing him, he said that "America is bombing all these countries. Is it any wonder why they're attacking us?"
There's just one problem with Paul's theory: it isn't accurate. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden's second in command at the time was Ayman al-Zawahiri. al-Zawahiri is an Egyptian national.
Call me crazy but I don't recall the United States or its allies bombing either Saudi Arabia or Egypt recently.
The reality is that Ron Paul's foreign policy isn't based on reality. It's based on unicorns and pixie dust.
Tags: National Security , Middle East , Ron Paul , 9/11 , Hijackers , bin Laden , Saudi Arabia , Ayman al-Zawahiri , Egypt
Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:41 AM
No comments.
Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts
According to this article , the attacks launched by Mitt and his surrogates yesterday didn't have the affect they'd hoped for:
The seesaw Republican primary has tipped again in a poll conducted Wednesday night, giving Newt Gingrich the lead in the South Carolina primary.
Gingrich reversed the momentum of Mitt Romney who had an expanding lead in the same poll Sunday night.
Gingrich's 32 percent to Romney's 29 puts the two inside the poll's 3.8 percent margin of error, but the 11-point lead Romney held in the Sunday evening survey has evaporated. And Romney's strength had been building after wins in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.
The polls were conducted by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research. Wednesday's was conducted for the Augusta Chronicle and the Savannah Morning News of 718 registered voters who said they were voting in Saturday's GOP primary.
I wrote this post yesterday that Rep. Molinari and Sen. Talent unleashed a bitter, over-the-top attack against Speaker Gingrich:
Rep. Molinari characterized Newt's leadership style as 'leadership by chaos.' Later in her remarks, she blamed Newt for Bob Dole's defeat in 1996 and for House Republicans losing 5 seats in 1998.
When the NYTimes' Ashley Parker asked if Rep. Molinari was actually blaming Newt for Dole's defeat, Rep. Molinari quickly backpedaled, saying that turnout should've been better than it was. It's interesting that she blamed that on Newt, not the utterly unexciting Bob Dole.
There's no denying that Newt's time as Speaker was tumultuous. Similarly, there's no doubt that Bob Dole lost because he wasn't an inspiring presidential candidate. Blaming Sen. Dole's defeat on Newt is absurd.
That wasn't the only time that reporters questioned Rep. Molinari and Sen. Talent:
When a reporter said that the last they'd heard from Rep. Molinari and Sen. Talent was when Newt was riding high in the polls, Rep. Molinari and Sen. Talent tried explaining that it's just coincidence. When the reporter asked if their reappearance wasn't an admission that Mitt's losing ground in South Carolina, Rep. Molinari and Sen. Talent insisted that they were just worried that Republicans would lose on all levels if Newt became the nominee.
In Holly Bailey's opinion , their reappearance wasn't coincidental:
Romney's comments came a little more than an hour after his campaign hosted a conference call with two of Gingrich's former congressional colleagues - Jim Talent, a former senator and congressman from Missouri, and former Susan Molinari, a former representative from New York - who repeatedly trashed Gingrich as an "unreliable leader."
They went so far as to claim that Gingrich was responsible for Bill Clinton winning re-election in 1996 - suggesting Gingrich's "leadership by chaos" contributed to the poor public opinion of Republicans that year.
"He made himself the issue all the time," Molinari told reporters of Gingrich's tenure as speaker of the House. "The focus is always Newt, and when the focus is Newt the Republican Party loses."
This isn't the first time the Romney has hosted a conference call trashing Gingrich. On Dec. 8 - as Gingrich began to surge in the national polls - the campaign hosted a similar call with Talent and former Sen. John Sununu to criticize the former speaker's leadership in Congress.
Asked if reporters should interpret Romney's remarks and this morning's call that the campaign sees Gingrich as a threat to Romney's bid for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney's aides dismissed the question. One aide, who declined to be named, insisted the campaign was merely using Gingrich's comments as a way to further contrast Romney's record with Obama's.
Mitt's thinly-veiled attacks didn't fool anyone. Well, hardly anyone . Newt started regaining momentum in South Carolina during Monday night's debate. That's the debate where Newt was fantastic and Mitt was defensive the entire night.
While it wasn't Mitt's worst night, it certainly was one of Newt's best nights. Newt's smackdown of Juan Williams will be talked about for a generation. His smackdown of Ron Paul was stellar, too.
Since then, Mitt's campaign has noticeably stumbled. Rep. Molinari's and Sen. Talent's over-the-top rhetoric was only surpassed in foolishness by Mitt's foolish argument that tax policies don't affect job growth and wealth creation.
If Newt wins the South Carolina Primary, he'll gain more momentum heading into Florida. With Gov. Perry likely dropping out after Saturday's primary and with Sen. Santorum starved for cash, Florida is essentially shaping up as a 2-man battle.
Tags: Polling , Debates , South Carolina Primary , Newt Gingrich , Conservatism , Mitt Romney , Jim Talent , Susan Molinari , Bob Dole , Hatchet Job , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 8:08 AM
No comments.
Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am
According to this tweet , CNN is reporting that Rick Perry will drop out today:
@PeterHambyCNNPeter Hamby
Rick Perry will drop out of the Republican presidential race today, two sources tell CNN.
If that happens, most of Perry's votes will go to Newt Gingrich. The two are good friends away from the campaign trail. Newt even wrote the forward to Gov. Perry's book.
Wow. Bill Jacobson is right in saying that things are moving fast:
Updates: Perry just scheduled an 11 a.m. press conference.
Via HotAir , Perry will endorse Newt .
Things are moving fast :
The Daily Caller has learned that 100 tea party leaders from 25 states will announce Thursday that they are supporting Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and will form a coalition called Tea Partiers With Newt.
It'll be interesting to see the media's reaction to Gov. Perry's endorsement. That said, the biggest thing, in my opinion, is the fact that tons of TEA Party organizations "from 25 states" will essentially pledge to be Newt's organization in those states. Potentially, the TEA Party's energy is a difference-maker. Look at the difference they made in last year's midterms.
The GOP nomination fight is still in the early stages so it's impossible to predict who the GOP nominee will be. Still, it's impossible not to think that there are alot of smiling people in the Gingrich campaign.
Finally, it's important to note that Rick Perry improved as a debater after his back recovered from surgery. It's equally important to describe Gov. Perry as a true patriot who's honorably served his nation, first in the military and, most recently, as the longest-serving governor in Texas history.
UPDATE: Here's the video of Rick Perry's speech announcing that he's decided to drop out of the GOP presidential race:
The Rick Perry behind the microphone today was engaging, appreciative to his supporters, many of whom he thanked by name. Gov. Perry also talked, rightly, that "the conservative movement is bigger than one person."
It wouldn't have been a Rick Perry speech without him mentioning the importance of the Tenth Amendment. All in all, a quite gracious speech, a speech that will benefit Newt Gingrich.
UPDATE II: Here's the text of Gov. Perry's speech :
Tags: Press Conference , Rick Perry , Patriot , Endorsement , Newt Gingrich , TEA Partiers With Newt , Organization , GOTV , Rick Santorum , Mitt Romney , GOP , Election 2012
Thank you. As I have stated numerous times on the campaign trail, this campaign has never been about the candidates.
I ran for President because I love America, our people and our freedom. But the mission is greater than the man.
As I have traveled across this great country: from New Hampshire to California, from Iowa to Florida, and to numerous states in between, I have discovered a tremendous purpose and resiliency in our people. They have never lost hope despite current circumstances.
They haven't stopped believing in the promise of America or the American Dream.
Americans are down, but we can never be counted out. We are too great a people. What is broken in America is not our people, but our politics.
And what we need is a Washington that is humbler, with a federal government that is smaller so our people can live freer.
I entered this campaign offering a unique perspective: a governor who has led a large state leading the nation in job creation, an executive leader who has implemented conservative policies, a son of tenant farmers born with little more than a good name, but who has experienced the great possibilities of freedom.
But I have never believed that the cause of conservatism is embodied by any one individual. Our party, and the conservative philosophy, transcends any one individual. It is a movement of ideas that are greater than any one of us, and that will live beyond our years.
As a former Air Force pilot, I know we can't lose track of the ultimate objective in carrying out our mission, and that objective is not only to defeat President Obama, but to replace him with a conservative leader who will bring about real change.
Our country is hurting with more than 13 million unemployed, nearly 50 million on food stamps and a debt of more than $15 trillion and growing. We need bold, conservative leadership that will take on the entrenched interests and give the American People their country back.
I have always believed the mission is greater than the man. As I have contemplated the future of this campaign, I have come to the conclusion that there is no viable path to victory for my candidacy in 2012.
Therefore, today I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich for president. I believe Newt is a conservative visionary who can transform our country. We have had our differences, which campaigns inevitably bring out. And Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?
The fact is, there is forgiveness for those who seek God and I believe in the power of redemption, for it is a central tenet of my own Christian faith.
And I have no question Newt Gingrich has the heart of a conservative reformer, the ability to rally and captivate the conservative movement and the courage to tell the Washington interests to take a hike if it's what is best for the country.
As a Texan, I have never shied away from a good fight, especially when the cause was right. But as someone who has always admired a great Texas forefather, Sam Houston, I know when it is time for a 'strategic retreat.'
So I will leave the trail, return home to Texas and wind down my 2012 campaign organization. And I will do so with pride knowing I gave myself fully to a cause worthy of our country.
And as I head home, I do so with the love of my life by my side, a woman who makes every day a good one when she is by my side, my wife Anita. Thank you Anita for all you have done.
I also want to thank my son Griffin, my daughter Sydney, and my daughter-in-law Meredith for standing with us in this great effort. With a good wife, three wonderful children, and a loving God in my life, things will be good no matter what the future holds.
I'm proud of the policies we put forward to the American people and believe they provide the right path forward for our party and our nation: overhauling Washington and returning power to state and local governments and to the people, creating energy jobs and energy security, cutting spending and eliminating unnecessary federal agencies and cutting taxes to a flat, fair 20 percent.
And I will continue to fight for these conservative reforms because the future of our country is at stake and the road we are traveling today - President Obama's road - endangers our future.
I want to thank some wonderful individuals who have stood by my side in this state: Katon Dawson, Ambassador Wilkins, and a strong and good man serving you in Congress, Mick Mulvaney.
I want to thank all my supporters from across the country, in particular Governor Bobby Jindal, Steve Forbes and Governor Sam Brownback, as well as Senator Jim Inhofe, Congresswoman Candice Miller and Congressman Sam Graves.
And I want to say a special thanks to three distinguished veterans who have joined me on the campaign trail: Medal of Honor awardee and Navy SEAL Mike Thornton, Navy Cross recipient Marcus Luttrell and Purple Heart recipient, Marine Captain Dan Moran.
I began this race with a sense of calling. I felt led into this arena to fight for the future of this country. I feel no different today than I did then, knowing a calling never guarantees a particular destination, but a journey that tests one's faith and character.
So now the journey leads us back to Texas, neither discouraged nor disenchanted, but instead rewarded for the experience and resolute to remain in the arena and in the service of a great nation.
Our country needs bold leadership and a real transformation. We must rise to the occasion and elect a conservative champion to put our nation back on the right track.
And this I know, I am not done fighting for the cause of conservatism. In fact I have only begun to fight.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:37 AM
Comment 1 by ScreaminMime at 21-Jan-12 05:13 PM
... and then there were two; SanRomGrinch and Paul.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Jan-12 05:24 PM
And then there were three: Romney, Gingrich & PaulKucinich.
ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer
That title isn't entirely fair. National Enquirer has broken real news stories. Tonight, Bill O'Reilly interviewed ABC's Brian Ross. Less than a minute into the interview, Ross told a whopper. First, the video:
Here's what Ross said that deserves merciless ridiculing:
This campaign, character has become an issue and Mr. Gingrich has campaigned on a platform of a strong stand on family values and the sanctity of marriage.
I've watched all 16 debates. I've read Newt's 21st Century Contract With America. I've watched a handful of Newt's campaign speeches. Brian Ross wasn't telling the truth.
Newt's message has been about health care reform, regulatory reform, the repeal of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare, a robust domestic energy policy, stopping the crooks from stealing money through Medicare and Medicaid and toppling the Iranian regime.
What part of that extensive list of things fits into the category of running "on a platform of" "the sanctity of marriage"?
ABC's airing of the interview would've had more credibility had they shown a willingness to actually vet President Obama. ABC did this for ratings and to create a buzz for their network. Instead, they looked like attack puppies for the DNC, which they are.
CNN is no better. Here's the exchange of Newt's opening minute smackdown :
KING: You've met the candidates. It's time now to begin the debate, an event that has quite a dramatically different feel than just a few hours ago.
Just this morning, as Senator Santorum just noted, we learned he, not Governor Romney, won the Iowa caucuses. There were five podiums on the stage when the sun came up. Four now because of Governor Rick Perry's decision to drop out.
And just as Speaker Gingrich surged into contention here in South Carolina, a direct fresh character attack on the Speaker.
And Mr. Speaker, I want to start with that this evening.
As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with "The Washington Post." And this story has now gone viral on the Internet.
In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage.
Would you like to take some time to respond to that?
GINGRICH: No, but I will.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?
GINGRICH: Let me finish.
KING: Please.
GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.
(APPLAUSE)
My -- my two daughters -- my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not -- I get your point. I take your point.
GINGRICH: John -- John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.
(APPLAUSE)
Here's the video of Newt's smackdown:
Frankly, I don't have any more respect for ABC News gossip columnist Brian Ross and CNN me-too artist John King than I have for the Enquirer. That isn't a particularly high hurdle to clear but it's one that Ross, ABC, King and CNN can't clear.
How pathetic is that?
Tags: Marianne Gingrich , Brian Ross , ABC , John King , CNN , Debate , National Enquirer , O'Reilly Factor , Newt Gingrich , Smackdown , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 12:56 AM
No comments.
Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit
The stakes just got raised in the child care small businesses vs. the Dayton administration, the SEIU and AFSCME. That's because the child care providers filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Gov. Dayton's executive order :
The federal lawsuit will contend the union effort authorized by Governor Dayton's executive order on November 15, 2011 violates the providers' first amendment right of free political expression and association. The National Right to Work Foundation, a nonprofit legal aid association based in Washington, DC, has offered free legal assistance to child care providers who are battling what they view as compulsory unionization.
'The allegation is going to be that it's unconstitutional, that the first amendment guarantees everyone the right to choose with whom they associate to petition government and that the government can't choose who's going to represent providers for lobbying the state,' said Bill Messenger, an attorney with the National Right to Work Foundation who's working on the case.
The case appears to have merit. A governor doesn't have the right to tell a small business that they have to join a union to petition government. The First Amendment gives people the right "peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't give it to a public employee union and it certainly doesn't give that right to a governor.
This isn't a prediction but this has the potential of blowing up in the Democrats' faces:
The federal court action takes a broader approach, raising constitutional issues that could have a far-reaching impact in Minnesota and across the nation. In recent years, labor unions have gone state-by-state seeking to find ways to bring home child care providers under union jurisdiction, gradually gaining a foothold in thirteen states.
'If they're allowed to get away with it, this type of scheme could be applied to almost anybody, virtually any kind of business in this state, from hair dressers to grocery stores that are regulated by the state or care for people who are on state assistance,' said Bill Messenger, an attorney with National Right to Work Foundation. 'I mean if you can do it to home daycare providers there's no reason you can't do it to a whole host of industries.'
The National Right to Work Foundation is helping child care providers in Michigan challenge former Gov. Jennifer Granholm's actions :
With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five Michigan home-based childcare providers have filed a federal appeal to win back forced union dues taken from tens of thousands of providers in the state.
Carrie Schlaud, Diana Orr, Peggy Mashke, and Edward and Nora Gross originally filed a federal class-action suit against then-Governor Jennifer Granholm and a United Auto Workers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) coalition, the Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM) union, for designating home childcare providers who accepted state assistance as public employees solely for the purposes of CCPTM "representation" and forcing them to pay union dues.
Under Granholm's direction, the Michigan Department of Human Services created the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council to provide union officials with an entity to negotiate with as the childcare providers' "management." Working with the council, CCPTM operatives staged a union certification election to acquire monopoly bargaining privileges over Michigan childcare providers.
This has overreach written all over it. Apparently, Gov. Granholm, in her last year as Michigan's chief executive, threw the UAW and AFSCME a bone to show her appreciation for her political allies. Now that bone might bite her allies in the backside.
Although only 15 percent of the 40,000 childcare providers receiving state assistance voted in the union certification election, CCPTM union bosses were then granted monopoly lobbying privileges and the power to collect union dues from home-based care providers.
The five childcare providers won a settlement with Governor Rick Snyder ensuring that Michigan will no longer be able to force home-based childcare providers into union ranks. However CCPTM union officials still possess forced union dues previously collected from tens of thousands of providers.
There's a good possibility that alot of child care providers will have the final say in who, if anyone, represents them in the capitols of Michigan and Minnesota. Things certainly aren't turning out the way Govs. Dayton and Granholm, AFSCME, the SEIU and the UAW were hoping it would.
Tags: First Amendment , Small Businesses , Child Care , Lawsuit , Mark Dayton , Jennifer Granholm , SEIU , UAW , AFSCME
Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 4:00 AM
No comments.
Mitt's biggest policy blunder
Thursday night's debate brought into focus the myth Mitt's tried creating: that his health care reform plan was a free market work of art. Sen. Santorum exposed that myth beautifully with this exchange :
KING: I want to bring Congressman Paul -- bring you into the discussion in just a moment. But Senator Santorum directly challenged the governor and then the speaker. Governor, you first.
ROMNEY: Well, so much of what the senator said was wrong. Let me mention a few of the things. First of all, the system and my state is not a government-run system. Ninety-two percent of the people had their own insurance before the system was put in place and nothing changed for them. They still had the same private insurance. And the 8 percent of the uninsured, they brought private insurance, not government insurance.
And the people in the state still favor the plan 3-1. And it certainly doesn't work perfectly. Massachusetts, by the way, had the highest insurance costs before the plan was put in place and after. But fortunately, the rate of growth has slowed down a little less than the overall nation.
And one of the things I was proud of is that individuals who wanted to buy their own insurance saw their rates -- when they were not part of a big group -- saw their rates drop by some 40 percent with our plan.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But I do believe that having been there, having been in the front lines, showing that I have compassion for people that don't have insurance but that the Obama plan is a 2,700-page massive tax increase, Medicare-cutting monster. I know how to cut it. I'll eliminate it. I will repeal it. And I'll return to the -- I'll return the power to the states, where the power for caring for the uninsured ought to reside constitutionally. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Senator Santorum, he says your facts are wrong.
SANTORUM: Well, they're simply not wrong. The fact is that, yes, you're right, Governor Romney. Ninety-two percent of people did have health insurance in -- in Massachusetts. But that wasn't private-sector health insurance. A lot of those people were, as you know, on Medicare and Medicaid. So they're already on government insurance , and you just expanded.
In fact, over half the people that came on the rolls since you put Romneycare into effect are fully subsidized by the state of Massachusetts. And a lot of those are on the Medicaid program.
So the idea that you have created this marketplace in, with this government-run health care system, where you have very prescriptive programs about reimbursements rates. You have very prescriptive programs just like what President Obama is trying to put in place here.
You're arguing for a plan; you're defending a plan that is top-down. It is not a free-market health care system. It is not bottom-up. It is prescriptive and government. It was the basis for Obamacare.
(APPLAUSE)
And you do not draw a distinction that's going to be effective for us just because it was the state level, not the federal level.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: If you want, Governor, quickly?
ROMNEY: Sure, absolutely. First of all, as you probably know, Medicaid is not a state program.
SANTORUM: Of course it is. It's a state and federal program.
This wasn't picked up on by the TV pundits but it's the type of thing that'll make great advertising fodder. Mitt's advisors know that he stepped in it Thursday night with that answer. It's impossible to square that circle, first stating that "the system in my state is not a government-run system", then admit later that many of the people in the plan are enrolled in a government-run program like Medicare or Medicaid. Those fit together like big round pegs and tiny square holes.
Now it's just a matter of whether the TV punditocracy notices.
Tags: Romneycare , Medicare , Medicaid , Mitt Romney , Rick Santorum , Free Markets , HSAs , Government Run Health Care , Debates , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 4:41 AM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 20-Jan-12 07:44 PM
"ROMNEY: Sure, absolutely. First of all, as you probably know, Medicaid is not a state program."
But it is a program that is BANKRUPTING many states....
One way to reduce medical costs is something that MUST be dealt with on the federal level. Total portability. Interstate portability. The state by state mandates are one of the things that drives costs through the roof. The only way to deal with them IS on the federal level which is why turning all health care over to the states is wrong. That is why Governor Romney is wrong on health care reform.
LL
Gingrich, Reagan re-united
Michael Reagan's time as silent observer is over. This afternoon, Michael Reagan endorsed Newt Gingrich. Here's Reagan's endorsement statement :
I am endorsing Newt Gingrich for President and here's why:
Newt understands that we must reject and fundamentally change the course that Barack Obama has set for America.
Newt is our only chance in 2012 to contrast a Reagan conservative with Obama's European' styled socialism. Newt exemplifies the conservative principles my father championed. Strong national defense, lower taxes and smaller government.
In the 90's Newt's leadership brought us the Contract with America which changed Washington. I'm confident Newt can do it again.
We cannot afford a candidate backed by the same Washington insiders who repeatedly tried to undermine my father and the Reagan revolution.
It's time to choose.
Do we go forward with bold ideas or continue with failed policies? So I ask my fellow Republicans and conservatives to join me in supporting Newt Gingrich for president.
What's key, in my opinion, is that Michael Reagan took aim at "the same Washington insiders who repeatedly tried to undermine my father and the Reagan revolution." That's clearly directed at Mitt.
It sounds like, in Michael Reagan's mind, it's 1980 all over again, with Mitt playing Bush the Elder and Newt is the man who most resembles his father.
Clearly, Newt's leadership isn't in question with Reagan. I suspect that's because he's looking at Newt's accomplishments, including the passing of his father's tax cuts, Newt's plan that wiped out the Democratic majority in the House after 40 years in the majority and Newt's helping pass the welfare reform.
This endorsement means something more than the usual endorsement because a) it's Michael Reagan, heir to the Reagan legacy endorsing Newt and b) it's from an anti-establishment outsider.
Couple that with Chuck Norris's endorsement and you've got something that the casual observer will notice. Here's what Chuck Norris said in his endorsement:
'I'm tired of watching our country being torn to shreds by those who think the answer is more government debt and control. I'm tired of being in bondage to a tax system that robs U.S. citizens like the King of England did before the Revolution,' Norris writes.'I'm tired of watching our sovereignty being sold by foreign loans and loose borders. And I will not sit back and merely watch this decay and degradation of the U.S. and then hand it over to my children and grandchildren to deal with.'
Norris continued, 'That is why my wife Gena and I have committed the rest of our lives to help Old Glory rise again to her heights of splendor. And that is why we are endorsing and standing with Newt Gingrich, because we believe he can lead all of us who have committed to the same.'
There's no question what the message behind these endorsements is: America was great under Reagan. We've stumbled since then. Now it's time to right the ship and Newt's leadership is what's needed to straighten this ship out.
Tags: Endorsements , Michael Reagan , Ronald Reagan , Chuck Norris , Reaganomics , Job Growth , Newt Gingrich , Conservatism , Bush the Elder , Mitt Romney , Establishment , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 6:58 PM
Comment 1 by Corey at 20-Jan-12 11:16 PM
Chuck Norris endorsed Ron Paul. Reagan Endorsed Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p68OG-PM7sU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jan-12 11:53 PM
In the interest of accuracy, Chuck Norris essentially said he'd use RP as a consultant to find out who's honest in Congress.
In the interest of accuracy, Ron Paul treasured President Reagan's endorsement so much that RP officially quit the GOP:
In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.
Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.
Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981. Later, RP tears it:
After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be
carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government's best friend.
If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.
I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.
I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.Ron Paul's love of President Reagan is as phony as Mitt Romney's conservatism. Ron Paul's love of President Reagan is as real as Chuck Norris's & President Reagan's endorsement of RP's presidential candidacy.
Comment 2 by eric z at 21-Jan-12 11:30 AM
Gary, who really cares? Chuck Norris? Get real.
Michael Reagan? Ditto.
Who's Nancy Davis endorsing, if any, this early? She was the power behind the throne anyway, she and GHWB.
Perry, that endorsement has weight. But Chuck Norris. Come on. Has Huckabee endorsed anyone? McCain? Fred Thompson? Rubio? Paul Ryan? Boehner?
Beyond that, it's the individuals, not the size of the endorsement list that matters. It is still, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and the idiot. A three horse race.
Comment 3 by eric z at 21-Jan-12 11:43 AM
Mitt and Newt are each fighting for the "I am the one who can beat Obama" mantle. For now, you may be right, it could be Newt, How I read the crystal ball, it's a toss-up. Romney has all the money, and that's a major factor. Many, many people have a visceral hate for Gingrich. Triple A has little love for the man. However, looking behind smoke screens -- Ron Paul IS the one who has a chance to beat Obama. Romney? He would not polarize things the way Gingrich would. But would he energize many to even bother to go vote for his uber-wealth distance from the 99.9% of us?
It IS interesting, and once Santorum quits, it will be more interesting. Santorum is only a drag on what will be the ultimate result among/with/regarding the other three.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Jan-12 03:46 PM
RP would be lucky to get 50% of Republicans to vote for him. Suggestions that he'd unite people is ridiculous.
