January 21, 2012
Jan 21 15:43 Hinderaker's puzzling statements Jan 21 16:35 Mitt's campaign morphs into Juveniles R Us Jan 21 17:21 Predictably, Mitt agrees to Florida debates Jan 21 18:15 WOW!!! That was quick
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Hinderaker's puzzling statements
I don't know what sparked John Hinderaker's latest anti-Newt statements . I might never know. What I do know is that John's usually a thoughtful blogger, one of my favorite reads.
John's statements about Newt Gingrich are perplexing. Here's a sample of John's statements:
Barack Obama is a terrible president and an unpopular one. He is ripe for defeat in November, but not by Newt Gingrich. It is painful to contemplate the extent of the GOP wipeout that would follow a Gingrich nomination. Would Newt carry a state? Wyoming, maybe? South Carolina? The Republican Party could kiss its hopes of retaking the Senate goodbye, and likely would lose control over the House, giving Obama carte blanche to devastate the country for another four years.
It's common for lawyers to make hyperbolic statements to sell their case. John's argument against Newt Gingrich borders on the ridiculous. Let's hope that John's just being sarcastic. If he isn't, then he's being intellectually dishonest.
Let's look at John's claims one at a time. First, let's examine the case for and against Newt causing the GOP to lose their majority in the House. It's a silly argument, especially after such a resounding victory in 2010. That's before factoring in the gains that'll happen through reapportionment and redistricting. Republicans hold the trifecta for redistricting in 15 states :
The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control, meaning both chambers, of 26 state legislatures.
That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.
Republicans now hold the redistricting 'trifecta', both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship, in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina, probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats, Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals.
That's before factoring in reapportionment. This map tells the tale on reapportionment:
According to the map, the GOP-friendly southeastern United States will gain 8 seats, including 4 in Texas, 2 in Florida and one each in Georgia and South Carolina.
That's before factoring in the fact that Democrats currently need a net gain of 25 seats to regain control of the House before reapportionment and redistricting. They'll be lucky to get 10 seats under the old configuration. After reapportionment, they'll be lucky to gain seats this cycle.
The argument that Newt will cost Republicans the Senate assumes that Mitt Romney will inspire great voter turnout. That's like expecting John McCain or Bob Dole to inspire great voter turnout. It's one thing to wish for it. It's another to expect it.
I'm not expecting it.
It isn't coincidence that Mitt's political hacks tried blaming Newt for Bob Dole's defeat .
Finally, assuming that Mitt will unite the GOP, fight for conservative principles during the campaign and defeat President Obama during the debates isn't a sure thing. All too often, Mitt was declared the winner of a debate because "nobody laid a glove on him."
That's hardly a stirring endorsement of Mitt's debate skills.
Let's be honest about Mitt's debate performances. Mitt's shown a propensity to get rattled when criticized. It isn't likely that President Obama's army of dirty campaign tricksters will sit idly by while Mitt waltzes through the general election campaign. It's almost certain that Mitt will lose his cool in those situations just like he's lost it this week.
What's more is that Mitt isn't a fighter for conservative principles. He's a status quo politician. That's clearly not what's needed right now. It's clear that we need a man with the ability and communications skills to make major changes.
There's only one person with that resume and his name is Newt Gingrich. He put together the plan to end the Democrats' 40 year majority in the House. He then passed all 8 legislative items on the Contract With America, then got them signed into law.
As a result of that work, the federal government ran surpluses 4 straight years, something that nobody thought possible at the time. Newt not only believed it was possible. He, along with John Kasich, insisted on it.
Together, they pushed it persistently and persuasively until Bill Clinton gave into their policies.
Mitt talks about how he balanced Massachusetts' budget each year he was governor. My reaction is simple: So what? There are 49 other governors each year who do the same thing. It's mandated at the state level because states don't have their own printing presses.
Newt worked with Kasich, Clinton and Santorum to get welfare reform passed. By comparison, Mitt's signed Romneycare, which is nothing more than a major expansion of Medicaid.
What's more impressive? Running surpluses at the federal level, welfare reform, which included a job training requirement, reducing regulations and cutting taxes while creating millions of jobs or signing Romneycare while imposing major major CO2 emission limits and price controls on power plants?
It's time for Republicans to admit that "looks presidential" is worthless when paired against the Obama smear machine. It's time Republicans admitted that Newt's willingness to challenge President Obama's and the media's (ptr) false premises is what'll be needed this fall.
UPDATE: Erick Erickson's post nails it:
The buzz in Washington now is that the Republican Establishment fears Gingrich will cause them to lose the House and not get the Senate. Put another way, the current Republican leadership fears that the man who helped the GOP take back the House for the first time in 40 years and his allies in the tea party who helped take back the House in 2010 will cause the GOP to now lose.
That sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Tags: Tax Cuts , Welfare Reform , Federal Surpluses , Regulatory Relief , Newt Gingrich , Blogs , Mitt Romney , Romneycare , CO2 Emissions , Power Plants , Price Controls , Regulatory Overload , Regulatory Relief , Price Controls , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:07 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Jan-12 06:54 AM
Bob Dole, and his tobacco-money spouse were responsible for Bob Dole's defeat. Or blame Barry Goldwater, since he's dead and cannot defend himself, and since nobody calling himself or herself "a Conservative" has bothered to read Goldwater, to be able to refute any such assertion. The FOX talking heads only blather, as usual, with no anchor in history or thought. Clear Channel radio is similar, but worse.
Goldwater is a forgotten man. What's really forgotten, per Newt, is the "Conscience" part of "Conscience of a Conservative."
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-12 07:01 AM
Goldwater isn't forgotten around here. I know, too, that King's a huge fan of Conscience of a Conservative because he let me read his copy.
Mitt's campaign morphs into Juveniles R Us
If there's been a more childish, juvenile stunt pulled by a presidential frontrunner's campaign than this , I wouldn't know what it is:
The Romney campaign today will deliver an anniversary cake to Gingrich HQ in SC today marking the 15th yr (to the day) that Gngrich became the first Speaker of the House ever reprimanded for an ethics violation.
Here's Greta's opinion:
I don't know about you but with all the serious issues confronting our nation and for our next President to address, whether it be President Obama or a Republican, I find this gesture (below) from the Romney campaign to make them look very junior high. If Governor Romney even knows about this (and he may not), he should pull the plug on this prank. It doesn't make his campaign (and thus him) look presidential. He wants to appear Presidential right now. It is one thing to point out and emphasize differences and experiences, it is another to ridicule.
Mitt knows about this stunt :
Romney's campaign manager tweeted about it today, linking to a page at Romney's campaign site titled Happy 15th Anniversary, Mr. Speaker .
This isn't just amateurish. It's proof that Mitt can't handle not doing well. When things don't go his way, like they did in Monday's debate, Mitt's "looks presidential" facade disappears. It didn't take long for Mitt to revert to his spoiled brat ways.
This stunt screams "I don't look presidential." How appropriate.
Tags: Eric Fehrnstrom , Mitt Romney , Looks Presidential , Childish Prank , Newt Gingrich , Ethics , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 4:35 PM
No comments.
Predictably, Mitt agrees to Florida debates
Ed's reporting that Mitt's 'surprisingly' agreed to the Florida debates:
Mitt Romney may not look inevitable after tonight's South Carolina primary results - and that's why this decision was, well, inevitable:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) said during a visit to campaign headquarters here Saturday morning that he will participate in the debate scheduled for Monday in Tampa.
His chief strategist, Stuart Stevens, told reporters Romney would also participate in Thursday's debate in Jacksonville.
'Yeah, yeah, I'll be doing the debate on Monday,' Romney said in response to a reporter's question as he worked the phones calling voters at his Greenville headquarters. 'Yeah, I'm in.'
I predicted in this post that Mitt would participate in the Florida debates:
I won't take Mr. Stevens' comments seriously. Mitt will participate because to not participate will make him look like a wimp. Substantive accusations would fly that Mitt couldn't stand the heat so he's abandoned the kitchen.
It's easy picturing Winning the Future buying ad time in Florida for an ad showing an empty podium with Mitt's name on it, followed by video of a beaming Mitt talking about having broad shoulders. That type of ad would be devastating. Mitt's inevitability factor would instantly plummet.
Skipping Florida's debates was never a plausible option for Mitt Romney. Not participating in the debates would've been seen as wimpy. Having Campaign Manager Eric Fehrnstrom whine about how the debates had turned into 'bash Mitt exercises' is another sign of weakness.
The campaign's wearing on Mitt and Mitt's team. It's something that I'll track for the next 3 weeks.
To be fair, Mitt has a significant advantage in Florida because of early voting. Having alot of people vote for a candidate when he's peaking is alot smarter than voting for him when he's cratering.
That said, winning Florida now isn't the big delegate cache that it would've been had it held when it was initially scheduled.
Tags: Debates , Mitt Romney , Early Voting , Florida , Newt Gingrich , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 5:21 PM
No comments.
WOW!!! That was quick
FNC has declared Newt Gingrich the winner of the South Carolina GOP Primary. I expected Newt to win but I didn't see this coming.
UPDATE I: Newt's scheduled to be on 3 Sunday shows. According to this article , he isn't going on ABC or FNS:
UPDATE II: WHOA. When FNC went into their last break, Mitt was leading Newt 38%-33%. When they returned from break, Newt was at 36%, Mitt at 33%.
ABC's "This Week" - 2012 GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
---
NBC's "Meet the Press" - 2012 GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J.
CBS' "Face the Nation" - Gingrich; former Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
---
CNN's "State of the Union" - Gingrich; Santorum; Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.
---
"Fox News Sunday" - House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; Stuart Stevens, campaign strategist for 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
I know that polls fluctuate as vote totals come in but that's a major shift. It's an indication to me that Newt must've done exceptionally well in the conservative part of the state. That isn't good news for Mitt.
PS- Stuart Stevens has been replaced with Mitt himself tomorrow morning.
UPDATE III: Mitt's unravelling onstage. This is tragic. He's now attacking Newt for "not having run a business and not having run a state." This won't play well. There will be a backlash against Mitt's spoiled brat attitude. He should've been gracious.
UPDATE III: I'm not alone in thinking Mitt's speech was ill-received :
Romney launches into the usual Obama-bashing, saying he wants to "fundamentally transform" the United States. He says he'll finally balance the U.S. budget. It all gets the requisite applause - the promise to repeal Obamacare, the rage against his strategy of "appeasement" - but it feels fairly rote. Now Romney is tying President Obama with an unnamed candidate - Gingrich - who "has not run a business and has not run a state." He accuses people who attack him - Gingrich - as attacking free enterprise. "We have seen a frontal assault on free enterprise," Romney says, adding we expected it from Obama, but not from within his party. "The Republican Party doesn't demonize prosperity, we celebrate success within our party."
Americans will demand "a real choice," Romney says, between the forces of freedom and prosperity and Obama, "and I think they'll choose us." He says the battle over job credentials is "a battle we can win." Obama says other candidates - Gingrich - who "demonize" prosperity are doing Obama's work. Then he promises to fight "in every state."
And that's basically it. Wow. Earlier tonight, I said that I thought Romney needed to turn in some sort of a humanizing performance tonight, that he had to give a little something extra of himself to defuse the characterization of him as an emotionless money-raising machine. He surely didn't do that. In the minutes since the speech, the Romney campaign has already announced more appearances for Romney in the media, including a Tuesday speech intended to counter President Obama's State of the Union address, laying out his plan for the nation. I'm not so sure that any of that matters, unless Romney can manage to change the way he delivers his message.
Mitt's spoiled brat side is showing and it isn't appealing. If Mitt doesn't adjust his presentation, he'll lose the support of alot of independents.
UPDATE IV: Here's the video of Mitt's spoiled brat 'concession speech':
Mitt's bad-mouthing of Speaker Gingrich starts about 4:20 into the video. If Mitt's right in thinking that conservatives want a candidate with a fighting attitude. Mitt's crazy if he thinks that conservatives want a candidate who's in fight mode against the primary winner during what's supposed to be a moment of humility and graciousness.
Tags: Tags: South Carolina Primary , Newt Gingrich , Mitt Romney , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:44 PM
No comments.
