January 23-24, 2012
Jan 23 03:08 Romney smear campaign reappears Jan 23 05:50 Perhaps Newt should send Steyn a thank you note? Jan 23 06:42 Capitalism is outdated? Jan 23 07:39 Newt news Jan 24 02:28 MNGOP majorities will press important reforms Jan 24 10:43 Mitt's conservatism problem Jan 24 10:59 Newt News 1/24/12 Jan 24 15:59 Newt disgraced? Not according to this
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Romney smear campaign reappears
What a coincidence. Mitt got his ass kicked Saturday by a superior candidate. Sunday, poll after poll showed Newt beating Mitt by 4-8 points. Suddenly, Mitt's smear campaign reappears.
Mike Sage, one of the voices of Mitt Romney Radio , is tweeting up a smear campaign storm for Mitt. Is Sage a paid smear campaign activist or is he doing this pro bono?
Mitt's known for quite some time that he can't defeat Newt by putting a better policy platform together. Tonight, predictably, the Romney campaign started their latest smear campaign against Newt. Tweets about illicit sexual affairs, Newt not reporting taxes and the like suddenly started appearing tonight.
This isn't surprising. In fact, it's predictable. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. Mitt's thin skin is his biggest vulnerability in the general election and the primaries. It's already gotten him in trouble. It's getting him into more trouble.
For instance, Mitt's concession speech was the most venom-filled concession speech in my lifetime. Rather than congratulating Newt on a hard-fought victory, Mitt bristled with vitriol borne from utter disbelief. In Mitt's world, tons of money and organization equals victory.
In South Carolina, the natives expressed their disagreement. That's why thin-skinned Mitt is pouting again. That's why his Romneybots are starting their latest smear campaign. They're desperate and it's showing.
Does anyone think that Mitt won't pout when the Obama/Axelrod blitzkrieg hits him in the face? That's foolish since we've seen how he reacts during adversity.
Michael Reagan sums the choice up perfectly in this tweet :
In the Race for the WH I would rather go dwn swinging with Newt then stuttering with Romney ..After 5 yrs MR should be able to debate.
After checking off all the Establishment's boxes, Mitt's missing the most important things: the ability to connect with voters and the ability to inspire.
That's what'd make him a loser this November.
Tags: BlogTalkRadio , Mitt Romney Radio , Mike Sage , Smears , Polling , Florida , Mitt Romney , Concession Speech , South Carolina , Vitriol , GOP , President Obama , David Axelrod , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 3:08 AM
No comments.
Perhaps Newt should send Steyn a thank you note?
Mark Steyn's post at NRO is an enjoyable read for me, mostly because he highlights Mitt's weaknesses. Here's a sample of Steyn's post:
Small: It's a good idea to get that telegenic gal (daughter-in-law?) to stand behind him during the concession speech, but one of those expensive consultants ought to tell her not to look so bored and glassy-eyed as the stiff guy grinds through the same-old-same-old for the umpteenth time. To those watching on TV last night, she looked like we felt.
GOP politicians are great at stagecraft, starting with Michael Deaver. It shouldn't be that difficult to get subtle details like that right.
It isn't that a bored "telegenic gal" in the background will cost him votes but it's certainly contributing to Mitt's image as a boring guy who isn't connecting with voters.
Big: Why is the stump speech so awful? 'I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love.' Mitt paid some guy to write this insipid pap. And he paid others to approve it. Not only is it bland and generic, it's lethal to him in a way that it wouldn't be to Gingrich or Perry or Bachmann or Paul because it plays to his caricature as a synthetic, stage-managed hollow man of no fixed beliefs. And, when Ron Paul's going on about 'fiat money' and Newt's brimming with specifics on everything (he was great on the pipeline last night), Mitt's generalities are awfully condescending: The finely calibrated inoffensiveness is kind of offensive.
It's time that he dumped the consultants, started thinking for himself and letting his thoughts shine through. That's what Newt did and look how it liberated him.
Mitt isn't dumb. It's just that he's never been subjected to main street's issues to any extent. That's part of Mitt's connectivity problem. Voters want their president to have great leadership qualities and to relate to them.
The sad thing for Mitt is that there isn't a short-term fix for his shortcomings.
If Mitt doesn't have a dazzling performance in tonight's debate, the whispers will start and the doubts about Mitt's inevitability will grow. It's too early to predict that Mitt's facing a must-win situation but it isn't too early to argue that he's in need of a major readjustment.
And where, among all the dough he's handing out, is the rapid-response team? Newt's 'spontaneous' indignation at John King was carefully crafted by Gingrich himself. By contrast, Mitt has a ton of consultants, and not one of them thought he needed a credible answer on Bain or taxes? For a guy running as a chief exec applying proven private-sector solutions, his campaign looks awfully like an unreformable government bureaucracy: big, bloated, overstaffed, burning money, slow to react, and all but impossible to change.
This might be the biggest difficulty for Mitt. Mitt's record in the private sector proved that he didn't hesitate in making decisions, most of them successful, quickly. His public record is another story.
Because he isn't the visionary Newt is, he's slow to act. Because he isn't committed to reforming government agencies and changing government itself, he misses opportunities. Newt hasn't experienced those difficulties because he's intellectually curious and constantly gathering and processing information.
They're entirely different personalities. Newt's built for the fast-paced life of the 21st Century. Mitt isn't. That's a big deal.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Tags: Organization , Speechwriters , Mitt Romney , Consultants , Campaigns , Rapid Response Teams , Newt Gingrich , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 5:50 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Jan-12 06:16 AM
What I fail to see, and I would like somebody to explain, is how Gingrich is different from Romney. Santorum is different in a twisted way, and Ron Paul is substantially and consistently different from business as usual. But Romney and Gingrich are system insiders, Wall Street vetted, and no different from Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. Why switch? Obama has done things that was feasible, given the GOP resistance to fixing things after the Bush 2 debacle, and after the concerted medical-industrial-lobbying-press assault on any true healthcare reform; and Obama for all his small-change is less offensive than Wall Street - Bain Street Mitt, or overreaching Newt. Both are lesser men than Obama, but neither would be much of a change. Ron Paul is all you have, and you are deliberately ignoring him. He favors curbing not expanding militarism, with all its drains on our economy, and he favors crubing rather than being from Wall Street, K-Street, Freddie Mac for $1.6 million, etc. Santorum is a nuisance, Ron Paul is legit, and the other two are mirror images of each other and of Obama. More jobs to China and India, with either.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Jan-12 07:01 AM
Eric, sit a spell & I'll explain the differences to you.
1. Mitt's economic plan is timid. It's a play-it-safe policy plan. Newt's 21st Century Contract With America is bold, outlining numerous reforms to prevent government overreach (think NLRB telling Boeing it can't create its South Carolina plant; think the EPA imposing MACT, which would cause energy costs to skyrocket.)
2. Newt is 100% committed to balancing the federal budget. We know this because he's been for balancing the federal budget all his political career. We don't know that about Mitt. Mitt talks about balancing Massachusetts' budget 4 straight years. Big deal. All governors do.
3. Anyone calling Newt a "Washington insider" is kidding themselves. Newt's spent alot of time near DC but he's been a rebel all his life. Even when he was under contract with Fannie & Freddie, Newt publicly stated that Congress shouldn't give them money until they were broken into 4-5 little companies.
4. BHO is a nasty, shameful man who should be run out of office ASAP. He broke the law by insisting that the secured bondholders who'd invested in GM at lower interest rates in exchange for a guaranteed payoff if things went splat.
It's shameful, too, that BHO succeeded, temporarily, in shoving health care expansion (I can't call it reform) down our throats when we told him we didn't want it.
5. It's time to kill the Democrats' sacred cows. 'The Environment' and 'working people', aka unions, are killing the US economy. Don't you wonder why companies are moving overseas or to right-to-work states?
It's because they don't attempt to kill industries like BHO has done.
Capitalism is outdated?
According to this article , "economic and political elites" will meet in Davos, Switzerland to talk about ending capialism:
Economic and political elites meeting this week at the Swiss resort of Davos will be asked to urgently find ways to reform a capitalist system that has been described as "outdated and crumbling."
"We have a general morality gap, we are over-leveraged, we have neglected to invest in the future, we have undermined social coherence, and we are in danger of completely losing the confidence of future generations," said Klaus Schwab, host and founder of the annual World Economic Forum.
"Solving problems in the context of outdated and crumbling models will only dig us deeper into the hole.
"We are in an era of profound change that urgently requires new ways of thinking instead of more business-as-usual," the 73-year-old said, adding that "capitalism in its current form, has no place in the world around us."
Some 1,600 economic and political leaders, including 40 heads of states and governments, will be asked to come up with new ideas as they converge at eastern Switzerland's chic ski station for the 42nd edition of the five-day World Economic Forum which opens Wednesday.
The problem isn't capitalism. The problem is that we've had an overabundance of unethical CEOs. Isn't the real solution establishing sensible laws for corporations and CEOs, including serious prison time, not time in 'Club Fed'? Isn't part of the solution then enforcing those laws?
In his book " Capitalism and Freedom ", the late great economist Milton Friedman argued that you couldn't have political freedom without economic freedom.
This classic video of Milton Friedman's interview with Phil Donahue explains why capitalism is superior to socialism:
The last 30 seconds are priceless. Here's the transcript:
Friedman: Is it really true that political self interest is nobler somehow than personal self interest? You know, I think you're taking alot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us. Well, I don't even trust you to do that.
I'll trust a single Milton Friedman over a city filled with elites when it comes to capitalism vs. socialism.
Tags: Milton Friedman , Capitalism And Freedom , Freedom , Conservatism , Interview , Phil Donahue , Socialism , Davos , Elites , World Economic Forum
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 6:42 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Jan-12 06:57 AM
Ayn Rand took Social Security payments. And you say what Wall Street did to us, and then the bailout of the big banks who did it, after pension funds took a hit and people's future is more clouded - you are saying Wall Street running things is fine? No problem with that, continue business as usual per Bush, Obama, Romney, Gingrich? Then why do you oppose Romney? Isn't Bain the poster child of capital? What else would you call it?
Newt news
Starting this morning, I'll post the links to a list of interesting pro-Newt articles.
Insider Advantage crosstabs Brian Bolduc
Newt's surge Robert Costa
The man who gave us Newt Mark Steyn
GOP Establishment will have a meltdown if Gingrich wins Florida Steve Schmidt
Newt Gingrich Wants Freddie Mac Records Released Before Florida Primary George Stephanopoulos
Gingrich up nine in new FL poll Ed Morrissey
Rasmussen in FL: Gingrich 41, Romney 32 Ed Morrissey
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 9:26 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Jan-12 09:14 AM
What I find most interesting is the fourth one. If the GOP establishment "melts down" with the prospect of a Gingrich nomination, that can only HELP Gingrich in this anti-establishment year. What they OUGHT to do is recognize that his articulate defense of conservative policy and principle is what can get them elected.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Jan-12 09:28 AM
Jerry, What you say makes sense...if you think that the GOP Establishment is conservative. I don't think they are.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 23-Jan-12 06:35 PM
No, I don't think they are, either. They value "electability" above all else, not realizing that electability isn't a standalone. It COMES from an articulate defense of conservative policy and principle. See Reagan, Ronald W.
Comment 4 by eric z at 24-Jan-12 10:00 AM
A kind of Sodom and Gomorrah question: If Gingrich is anti-establishment, why does he live in DC?
MNGOP majorities will press important reforms
Gov. Dayton is chafing at the notion that GOP legislators will push reforms aimed at creating jobs and restoring election integrity:
The Republican rush to the ballot has drawn the ire of Dayton and legislative Democrats. Dayton can't block lawmakers from putting proposed amendments on the ballot, and he's been scathing as he considers the prospect of a November ballot packed with conservative aims.
'My concern about constitutional amendments except in very, very rare circumstances is that the design of our government is to have the legislative branch work in consultation and cooperation with the executive branch. There has to be a collaboration there, an agreement,' Dayton said.
That's a joke. Rep. Thissen, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Winkler have been pictures of obstructionism. Let's remember that Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk were the obstructionists that triggered the shutdown :
Gov. Dayton rejected the GOP's counterproposal, saying 'However, I can not agree to both a tobacco bond issuance and a school shift, neither of which are permanent revenues.'
There were no additional revenues in Gov. Dayton's initial proposal. That means someone, possibly Sen. Bakk or Rep. Thissen, got to him. Or maybe it's that Tina Smith, Ken Martin or Michele Kelm-Helgen got to him and forced him to break his promise and back away from his initial offer.
That isn't all they sabotaged. They didn't lift a finger in terms of drafting a set of redistricting maps:
Sen. Bakk once went as far as saying that he 'wouldn't know why' the DFL would make a budget proposal of their own. (Because it would show you aren't being obstructionists, Sen. Bakk.) The DFL legislature, both in the House and Senate, refused to create redistricting maps. Instead, they offered to have hearings around the state this summer in the hopes of 'putting together a bill that Gov. Dayton can sign.'
Gov. Dayton, does that sound like the type of leadership that's interested in "consultation and cooperation"? I think not. Then again, Gov. Dayton's veto of the legislature's redistricting maps wasn't a picture in bipartisanship.
The DFL, like their national brethren, call for bipartisanship and collaboration when they're the minority party. When they're the majority party, they're about ignoring the GOP.
The DFL is horrified by the thought of real election integrity. Voter fraud cases are frequently reported by the alternative media, though that isn't reported by the Agenda Media .
As for creating jobs, Sen. Dave Thompson has announced that he'll introduce a right to work constitutional amendment . The reason why that's a job creation amendment is because right to work states have greater job creation rates because companies like the idea of not hassling with unions.
Here's what Sen. Thompson recently wrote:
EMPLOYEE FREEDOM
I am excited to tell you that I intend to author the employee freedom, or right to work constitutional amendment. States that allow employees to work for anyone without being compelled to join a union or pay union dues are leading the nation economically. But even more importantly, no American should be forced to join a group or pay dues to a third party in order to have a job.
Adding to what Sen. Thompson said, here's what the NILRR wrote about job creation rates:
Moreover, the Right to Work job-growth advantage has continued to be unusually wide even since the nationwide recovery began to gather steam in 2003. Between 2003 and 2005, aggregate private-sector job growth in forced-dues states was just 2.3%. Meanwhile, private-sector jobs in Right to Work states increased by 4.9%, or roughly 120% more.
Federally-sanctioned forced union dues have predictable economic consequences. Among them are Big Labor's use of rigid work rules and cultivation of the 'hate the boss' mentality to cement its power over employees.
Right to Work laws protect the freedom of both private- and public-sector employees to keep and hold a job without forking over dues or fees to a union that is recognized as their 'exclusive' (actually, monopoly) bargaining agent.
There are places where unions aren't just good, they're essential. I'm thinking specifically about the coal miners union. That union is essential in guaranteeing miner safety.
When unions first formed, most of them were private sector unions. Most were used to negotiate wages from large corporations who had the upper hand. The vast majority of today's jobs are in small- and mid-size businesses.
There's more competition between these sized businesses, both for customers and for talented personnel. That competition, not unions, creates opportunities for employees.
The reality is that DFL legislators and Gov. Dayton will be obstructionists because they'd rather talk about "Gov. Dayton's amazing jobs bill", aka Gov. Dayton's bonding bill. (The quote is from Carrie Lucking from the Jan. 13 Almanac roundtable discussion.)
In the past, I've called bonding bills debt bills as often as I've called them stimulus bills. They don't improve Minnesota's business climate but they're a great way of bringing the pork into downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis through new transit projects or studies.
Tags: Reforms , Photo ID , Right to Work , Dave Thompson , Mary Kiffmeyer , Job Growth , MNGOP , Mark Dayton , Paul Thissen , Tom Bakk , Ryan Winkler , DFL
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:28 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 24-Jan-12 06:57 AM
Why, exactly, should we trust GOP budgeting, after they horsed up their own party books while giving obscene amounts to insider-cronies. I expect exactly that from the legislative pack too. Let's wait and see. Brodkorb's former salary being but a single example.
Mitt's conservatism problem
One of last night's moments that people will notice more now than then was Brian Williams' question about what the candidates had done for conservatism. Mitt's reply was pathetic.
When asked that question, Mitt replied that he'd raised a family, that he'd worked in the private sector, blah, blah, blah. It might've been the most pathetic reply I've heard during these debates. Don' get me wrong. Raising a strong family and creating wealth in the private sector are positive things.
That doesn't identify a person as a conservative.
This plays into Mitt's image of not being a conservative. Here's another thing that'll play into Mitt being a moderate/liberal:
Romney's 'Charlie Crist' problem is this: Romney's chief campaign strategist and several of his most senior campaign staff were Crist's top political advisers, the same ones who crafted Crist's moderate, ignore-the-tea-party strategy epitomized in Crist's famous 'hug' of President Barack Obama. That strategy led Crist, once the most popular Republican governor in the nation, to defeat.
Crist's erstwhile political team was led by controversial GOP strategist Stuart Stevens. Stevens and partner Russ Schriefer are the principals in the high-profile Stevens & Schriefer Group consultant firm and are playing the lead role in crafting Romney's primary and national campaign strategy.
According to the Stevens & Schriefer website, the firm had a long history with Crist, serving as chief strategists for his bids for education commissioner, attorney general, governor, and later for the U.S. Senate.
Mitt's strategic mistake from the outset has been that he's run a general election campaign. Pundits talk about Mitt's staying above the fray and looking presidential. Meanwhile, the voters in the Rust Belt and in the Heartland were looking for someone who identified the fight they were in and was willing to fight the ideological fight with them.
Mitt's never identified with that, which is why he's the weakest frontrunner in my lifetime.
By comparison, Newt's destruction of Juan Williams articulated conservatism with a Jack Kemp-like reply of 'A rising tide lifts all ships' conservatism. It wasn't just that Newt slapped the media. It's that he identified with main street conservatives.
I don't think that Mitt can bridge the gap with movement conservatives. I do think that Newt can identify, and win over, moderates because Newt's policies make sense to the vast majority of Americans, regardless of political stripes.
Campaigns still matter. Few of the delegates have been picked. Debates have fueled Newt's campaign thus far but February will be relatively devoid of debates.
Still, Mitt has some rather major adjustments to make, adjustments I'm not sure he'll make. If he can't make that adjustment, he's in deep trouble.
Tags: Conservatism , Charlie Crist , Mitt Romney , Moderates , General Election Campaign , Newt Gingrich , /Debates , Conservatism , Juan Williams , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:43 AM
No comments.
Newt News 1/24/12
WOLF: Tea Party rising for Newt Gingrich Dr. Milton Wolf
Perry fundraisers discuss how to help Gingrich campaign Gromer Jeffers JR.
Fred Thompson endorses Newt on Hannity
Pro-Newt SuperPAC gets $5,000,000 infusion Nicholas Confessore
Palin comes to the defense of Gingrich by going after Christie John Reitmeyer
Super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich makes $6 million ad buy in Florida Chris Cillizza
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:26 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 24-Jan-12 01:13 PM
Has the release of that one contract draft, with nothing else re 1999-2008 on the take from Freddie Mac, helped him, or hurt him? It seems questions are left begging, and he either needs to defuse them or face them on and on and on -- and on.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Jan-12 04:27 PM
Eric, Mitt's helped defuse the questions with his overheated rhetoric.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 25-Jan-12 07:40 AM
You have not said much about Fred Thompson. I know last presidential election you thought well of Thompson. I remember your posting.
Do you see the Thompson endorsement as being very helpful for Gingrich? Or is it more of drawing a line between parts of the party, making that difference more apparent, and possibly widening the gap? It seems a little of both, to me.
Off point, but somewhere along the line you should think over the dynamics within caucus states, and decide when to post that way. With Minnesota being one, it is relevant, and the dynamics differ from primary states.
I can see waiting to see how things exist after the super primaries happen, to see the numbers then, before getting vocal about caucus possibilities. However, it appears that of the present four there will be no further drop-outs, and four will go to caucus. Or is that not a sound assumption? I think the Ron Paul people are in it until the end - perhaps past that where there may be a three-candidate general election. I doubt that would happen, but Santorum seems to have a locked in 10-25 percent, depending on situations. So he likely will continue.
Newt disgraced? Not according to this
Mitt's been peddling the notion that Newt's sanctions were proof of a fatal character flaw. This video, featuring Brooks Jackson, says the opposite:
First, Brooks Jackson is the most trustworthy, no nonsense campaign finance reporter in the business. Second place behind him doesn't exist.
David Bonior, one of the most partisan Democrats ever to be part of leadership is quoted as saying "Mr. Gingrich engaged in a pattern of tax fraud." John Lewis said " We cannot have a Speaker who is under investigation for lying to counsel investigating his involvement in a massive tax fraud scheme."
The problem with their coordinated attacks is that they aren't based on anything resembling reality. That isn't opinion. That's the Clinton IRS's ruling in the matter.
There's no doubt but that Mitt wants to continue this narrative. Similarly, there's no proof that substantiates Mitt's attacks. In short, Mitt is being as dishonest as the Agenda Media. In the eyes of conservatives, it's one thing to attack a man's character or his record. It's another to be as deceitful as the Agenda Media.
In fact, Mitt's arguments mirror Nancy Pelosi's arguments. First, here's Mitt:
'Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,' the former Massachusetts governor said. 'He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace. I don't know whether you knew that, he actually resigned after four years, in disgrace.
Romney continued: 'He was investigated over an ethics panel and had to make a payment associated with that and then his fellow Republicans, 88 percent of his Republicans voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich. He has not had a record of successful leadership.'
The IRS found that the initial allegation leveled by Pelosi, Boniors and others didn't have merit.
Here's what Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection said about Mitt's attacks:
So Romney is going on attack. The centerpiece will be Newt Gingrich's consent to a single ethics violation (out of 84 charged) in the 1990s. The process was highly politicized by Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi. Newt ultimately was vindicated by the IRS on the issue, but you wouldn't know it from Romney's speech yesterday in Florida.
If Mitt is going to buy into Pelosi's and Boniors' propaganda, then he'll further damage his credibility with conservatives. People didn't trust him before Mitt's deceitful attacks. They'll trust him less after this.
Newt isn't Mitt's biggest problem. Mitt is. Mitt's seen by the base as artificial, plastic. Attacking Newt won't solve Mitt's conservative crisis.
Tags: Ethics , Investigation , IRS , Newt Gingrich , Florida , Mitt Romney , Nancy Pelosi , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:59 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 25-Jan-12 07:16 AM
Wasn't it a bipartisan panel that imposed the sanctions?
It was not Nancy Pelosi alone, was it?
There were equal numbers of Republicans as Democrats on that panel, or am I wrong?
It was contemporaneous when memories of fact and law were most fresh, not years after the fact.
Newt paid.
He did not take things to the courts to exonerate himself. As an innocent politician, wanting to protect his future as scandal free would have.
Have I misstated anything, are my questions valid?
Comment 2 by eric z. at 25-Jan-12 07:27 AM
In fairness, looking at the other side of the ledger, Newt has lobbied but never been a corporate raider; a Gordon Gecko. He does not buy 8-figure waterfront to tear down and build bigger. He is not excessive in wealth but only in rhetoric, where three of the four can be faulted that way. The lobbying, however, needs more sunshine. 1999-2008, and one contract made public. No reports, no billing statements, no contact reports, no letters or email. What kind of "consulting" is so intent on leaving no paper trail, or was the paper trail sanitized with only this single document allowed out by counsel, as if that would silence the questioning? As with Mitt's tax return, it is disclosure, but is it enough? I surely would like to know if Santorum ever lobbied? I would think he and Ron Paul now need to release tax returns, if they have not already. None of these guys is a Barry Goldwater conservative. Ron Paul goes further than Barry did, especially on war-mongering. Barry was respected by his peers, in a bipartisan way. Is there any cause to doubt Ron Paul's saying what he said about Newt's ceasing to be speaker, in rebuttal? Ron Paul's statement seems the more credible. Newt did not have the votes. I think Newt needs now to push much harder the corporate raider charge, to put Romney on the defensive. Romney can dish it out, can he take it?
