January 25, 2012
Jan 25 08:22 DC GOP Establishment bitter at Newt's success Jan 25 09:05 Newt News 1.25.12 Jan 25 09:33 Reaction to President Obama's SOTU Address Jan 25 10:15 Michele's back!!! Jan 25 11:05 Florida's crowds painting the picture Jan 25 17:51 Alinsky/Obama vs. Gingrich: what this campaign is really about Jan 25 21:58 If Chris Christie and Ann Coulter are Mitt's best, he's in trouble
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
DC GOP Establishment bitter at Newt's success
Dana Bash's article for CNN illustrates perfectly the type of angst that the TEA Party is fighting against:
Washington (CNN) -- Newt Gingrich might have led Republicans to their first House majority in 40 years in the 1990s, but the prospect of the former House Speaker becoming their presidential nominee is producing significant GOP angst.
"If he's the nominee, it's a disaster. There is no way to sugar-coat it," said one GOP congressional strategist describing the tension after Gingrich won South Carolina.
"There is a reason most people who know him best aren't supporting him," said a former House colleague still serving in Congress.
Asked why he had endorsed opponent Mitt Romney if he had served with Gingrich for so long, a House Republican replied with a smile, "Because I served with Gingrich for so long."
Those GOP congressional sources and many others spoke on condition of anonymity because they believe Gingrich, who is running against the "Republican establishment," will only turn the criticism into his advantage.
"The less they talk to the better," said one of the GOP sources concerned about Gingrich, "it only feeds into his narrative that the establishment is out to get him."
Whether these depraved people talk on or off the record is essentially irrelevant. That they're talking is what matters. We The People think highly of Newt. We don't think that highly of the DC GOP Establishment.
PS- There's alot more TEA Party activists than there are DC GOP Establishmentarians.
Now that money's pouring into the pro-Newt SuperPAC, Mitt will have serious competition on Florida's airwaves :
A super PAC supporting former House speaker Newt Gingrich has made a $6 million ad buy in Florida, underscoring the new dynamics of the presidential race.
A new ad from the group claims former Massachusett governor Mitt Romney 'invented government run health-care.' It paints the Republican candidate as an ally of Barack Obama through clever use of old clips. The spot repeats one 2002 clip in which Romney says 'my views are progressive' three times.
Up until this week, Romney and his supporters were alone in the Florida ad game. Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC, just bought $4.5 million of time in the Sunshine State; altogether the group is has spent about $9 million there.
That the DC GOP Establishment doesn't like Newt is a good thing for him. It isn't that being a politician is automatically negative. It's that the anti-Newt Establishmentarians aren't conservatives. It isn't that they're small government conservatives. It's that they want the money flowing to their cronies.
A high percentage of Newt's supporters are TEA Party, limited government conservatives. They want a United States that's committed to the principles of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.
That's the division that's driving things. The difference now is that Newt's catching up with Mitt in terms of staffing and funding. Newt won't catch Mitt's money but he's caught up with Mitt's staffing in Florida .
Tags: Establishment , Mitt Romney , TEA Party , Newt Gingrich , SuperPAC , Organization , Fundraising , Florida , GOTV , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:22 AM
No comments.
Newt News 1.25.12
Republican Primary Projections Nate Silver
6,000 cheer Gingrich in Naples Jane Musgrave
Sarah Palin: 'Teavangelical' shot caller Tony Lee
Gingrich organization starts to gel in Florida Patricia Zengerle
Style vs. Substance -- Newt Gingrich's wonkiness trumps Mitt Romney's platitudes Josh Kraushaar
Quinnipiac Poll
Nancy Pelosi's Evil Mind Games William Jacobson
What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case? Byron York
Tags: Newt , Florida , Naples , Sarasota , Sarah Palin , TEAvangelical , South Carolina , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:17 AM
No comments.
Reaction to President Obama's SOTU Address
President Obama's SOTU Address was predictable. Reaction to President Obama's SOTU Address was predictable, too. Here's what Chip Cravaack said:
'Simply put, the President's economic policies have failed. With over an 8.5% unemployment rate for the past 34 straight months, a $15.2 trillion national debt, and the lack of a Senate budget for the past 1,000 days, it's time to put American workers first not crisis politics.
We can and must do better. The President promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term, meanwhile the past three years have produced the largest budget deficits in U.S. history. The President says 'we can't wait,' but he then rejects the Keystone XL Pipeline and creation of 20,000 jobs. In the meantime, American taxpayers are on the hook for the $500 million he awarded to the bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra.
Right now we need leadership. We need a united America, a united people, to solve the pressing problems that face all of us. It is my sincere hope that the President will commit to common sense solutions with bipartisan results that put Americans back to work, and protect the prosperity of future generations.'
Here's John Kline's reaction:
'President Obama's inauguration was a historic day of hope for America. At the time, I expressed a desire shared by many for Washington to put principles above partisanship. Unfortunately, Americans have since grown accustomed to failed policies and broken promises from the White House as 14 million have fallen victim to 35 straight months of unemployment greater than 8 percent.
'The rhetoric of the past three years has not matched reality: This administration has given us stimulus spending that created debt, not jobs; health care 'reform' that has led to 10,000 pages of business-stifling regulations; an activist National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with the power to tell businesses where they can and cannot create jobs; and the audacity to circumvent the people's elected representatives by granting No Child Left Behind waivers to states with special strings attached.
Thad McCotter's statement was particularly harsh:
'Tragically for the American people, in our unfolding globalized century the President remains wedded to a failed 'Great Society' government: specifically, Washington elites dictating who gets someone else's money. For the sake of our country's economy and security, this President must learn that the great American tradition isn't redistributionism; the great American tradition is exceptionalism.
The sooner he does, or is relieved of the burden of governing, the sooner the American people will build a 21st Century of unprecedented liberty, prosperity and security.'
As harsh as McCotter's statement was, Sen. Rubio's statement was even harsher:
I'm actually very disturbed by the speech tonight. The President is on the verge of committing economic malpractice. How does raising taxes create jobs? How does raising my boss's taxes help me keep my job? Why is he advocating policies that will punish people that are investing in American businesses that are creating middle class jobs?
It just doesn't make a lot of sense. It's the kind of policies that have taken a bad economy over the last four years and made everything worse.
Mike Pence issued this statement:
Tonight, like millions of Americans, I was disappointed to hear more of the same from this president: more borrowing, more spending and more taxes, which stood in stark contrast to the common sense message of fiscal responsibility and reform from America's best governor. Gov. Mitch Daniels' plainspoken call for fiscal discipline and reform was the right message during these difficult times and must be heeded if we hope to put an end to the mountain range of debt that threatens the prosperity of our children and grandchildren.
Here's Speaker Gingrich's reaction:
We have a crisis of work in this country and tonight President Obama proposed nothing in the way of policy changes that will get us to robust job creation and dramatic economic growth.
Instead, the president described his conviction that his big government is built to last and should be paid for with higher taxes.
But bigger government and higher taxes will not lead to jobs and growth. Bigger government and higher taxes will instead lead to more people on food stamps, a situation which the President and his party defend as a fair outcome.
Here we have to confront the truth about President Obama. Economic growth and prosperity is not really at the top of his agenda. He will always prefer a food stamp economy to a paycheck economy and call it fair.
For the president and a large part of the political class, it's about their power, their right to rule. They just want to take money from Joe the Plumber, the small business people who makes over 90 per cent of the new jobs, and redistribute it to the government bureaucracy and their political friends and allies. That's why so much of that nearly trillion-dollar stimulus didn't create jobs but just went into the pockets of special interests who support President Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party.
No better example of this exists than in the crisis of American energy. President Obama and his political allies, not of few of whom love living in energy inefficient houses or driving gas-guzzling luxury vehicles, openly admit they want gas prices to remain high so that the rest of America will learn to live more modestly. They think it's good for rest of us. Only recently, the president canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline that would have created countless new jobs and helped America on the way to energy independence because he wanted to appease the far left of his party. And yet not a single word on the Keystone XL pipeline tonight.
To create jobs and growth in this country, we must start with dramatic tax reform that lowers taxes and maximizes capital investment and job creation. We must return to a dollar as good as gold whose purchasing power is the same in thirty years as it is today. We must dramatically expand American energy production. We must have smarter regulation at the same time we abolish destructive and costly regulatory systems beginning with Obamacare,Dodd-Franks and Sarbanes-Oxley. And finally, unlike the current administration, we must have faith in job creators.
With these policies the state of the union will be much better. They will create an explosion in job creation and lead to robust economic growth and a return to prosperity. Furthermore, a paycheck economy will put us on a path to balanced budgets and paying down our national debt.
My own impression of President Obama's speech was that he must've been beamed down from the Starship Enterprise to have made some of the statements that he made.
When he talked about the military returning home from WWII, he talked about soldiers using their GI Bill benefits to get the training to build a great an prosperous nation. What he did't say, though, was that the level of regulations then was miniscule then compared with now.
If President Obama wants to return to the policies of that era, then let's roll the regulations back, too. Otherwise, the comparisons don't fit.
Tags: President Obama , Regulations , Dodd-Frank , Economy , SOTU , Keystone XL Pipeline , Newt Gingrich , Thad McCotter , John Kline , Chip Cravaack , Mike Pence , GOP
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:33 AM
No comments.
Michele's back!!!
This morning, Michele Bachmann announced that she's seeking re-election to her Sixth District seat:
MINNEAPOLIS - Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann announced Wednesday she will seek a fourth term in the U.S. House following her failed presidential bid.
Bachmann declared her plans in an interview with The Associated Press. The Republican congresswoman had been mum on her plans since folding her presidential campaign after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses earlier this month.
'I'm looking forward to coming back and bringing a strong, powerful voice to Washington, D.C.,' Bachmann said.
Bachmann will be a formidable candidate in Minnesota's 6th District, where other Republican hopefuls had stood aside until she made a decision on running for re-election. Some experts had speculated that Bachmann might instead turn to a career in talk media.
That ends speculation that the DFL has a chance of flipping her seat. They don't. Take that seat off the radar.
Her announcement came in an interview to react to President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech. Just as she did on the campaign trail, Bachmann criticized Obama for 'doubling down on failures that didn't work.'
'We have to radically scale back on government spending, we have to radically cut back on debt accumulation,' Bachmann said.
It's refreshing to hear Michele back talking about cutting President Obama's reckless spending. What's even more promising is the likelihood that she'll have a gavel with which to start implementing that agenda.
Ed's on the case, too, with this post :
Bachmann won her last re-election bid against well-known Taryl Clark by twelve points, so redistricting is probably not a big concern for Bachmann. Minnesota's Congressional allocation did not change in the last census, although it only narrowly avoided losing a district. The redistricting plan will likely shift the margins around a little, perhaps moving a few precincts of very liberal MN-05 (Keith Ellison's district) into MN-06, but it's doubtful that MN-06 will change dramatically enough to endanger Bachmann in 2012.
Besides, Bachmann raised her stature considerably during the presidential campaign. She now has a broader base for fundraising, which builds on what had already been a strength for her in the past. While her hyperbole on Gardasil hurt her in the campaign (and will almost certainly be revisited by the DFL in the district), her overall performance dispelled the 'crazy eyes' image that the media had imposed on her during her rise in the House and with Tea Party grassroots. Bachmann ended up presenting the most effective debate attacks on Rick Perry and then later Newt Gingrich, and was a formidable force in those encounters throughout the race.
Ed later said that the DCCC would likely dump lots of money into Michele's race, something I question a bit. They dumped tons of money into her race in 2010 with a candidate they thought was perfectly suited to defeat Michele. They spent alot of money but Michele still kicked Tarryl's ass.
At some point, you'd think that the money people at the DCCC would say 'No mas'. This might be that year.
Tags: Michele Bachmann , Spending , TEA Party , Chairmanship , GOP , Tarryl Clark , DCCC , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:15 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 25-Jan-12 10:46 AM
I heard her hinting at such yesterday. It's good news in another way: it means she won't be challenging Doc for Amy Klobuchar's seat, and it positions her to take on Al Franken next time around. Yay!
Florida's crowds painting the picture
The opening paragraph to Paul West's LA Times article is the key to understanding Newt's momentum throughout Florida:
As Newt Gingrich draws large and enthusiastic Florida crowds ahead of next week's primary, Mitt Romney is appearing before significantly smaller throngs.
That's the big overview point. It goes on, though:
While Romney spoke Wednesday morning at a metal distribution facility in Orlando, 300 unused chairs remained stacked off to the side. That was more than the number of people he attracted, no more than 250 in all.
Though Mitt attracted more people than usual, it doesn't compare with Newt's crowds:
Gingrich is riding a spurt of momentum after his victory in last weekend's South Carolina primary. He has now passed Romney in polling ahead of next Tuesday's Florida primary, the first big-state test of 2012.
The former House speaker drew enormous crowds on Tuesday in the Sunshine State, the final one attracting more than 5,000 people. On the same day, Romney drew about 150 people to a closed speech in Tampa and addressed about 300 people outside a foreclosed house in southwest Florida later in the day.
The crowd of 5,000+ was in Naples. Let's remember that Newt attracted 3,000+ in Sarasota the same day. According to Mapquest, Sarasota and Naples are situated 115 miles apart. That means they're culturally different, too.
Those crowds are translating into strengthened national poll ratings , too:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely GOP Primary Voters shows Gingrich with 35% of the vote, representing an eight-point increase in support from last week. Former Massachusetts Governor Romney now draws 28%. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's support is little changed at 16%, while Texas Congressman Ron Paul picks up 10%.
Rasmussen's Florida polling isn't comforting to Mitt, either:
Less than two weeks ago, Mitt Romney had a 22-point lead in Florida, but that's ancient history in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Following his big win in South Carolina on Saturday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich now is on top in Florida by nine.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Florida Republican Primary Voters, taken Sunday evening, finds Gingrich earning 41% of the vote with Romney in second at 32%. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum runs third with 11%, while Texas Congressman Ron Paul attracts support from eight percent (8%). Nine percent (9%) remain undecided.
Mitt needs a big debate performance Thursday night. He needs Newt to stumble, too. If that combination of events doesn't happen, Mitt's likely staring at another defeat next Tuesday.
Mitt could've shrugged off South Carolina if he hadn't gotten hammered so thoroughly there. Instead, this map tells the story of South Carolina. Mitt lost 43 of South Carolina's 46 counties. If Newt wins a solid victory in Florida, a state that's fairly dissimilar to South Carolina, Mitt's pitch to contributors will get more difficult.
It'd put Mitt's electability and inevability arguments on their death beds, too. Republicans that can't sweep the South and can't win in Florida can't win a general election. There goes Mitt's electability argument.
With only 3 states having voted, it's foolish to argue that we're at a tipping point, approaching a do or die moment for Mitt's campaign. That said, it isn't a stretch to say that we might be watching the slow motion, not-that-subtle picture of the dynamics to the race changing.
Tags: Turnout , Newt Gingrich , Naples , Sarasota , Polling , Rasmussen , Mitt Romney , Electability , Inevitability , South Carolina , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:05 AM
No comments.
Alinsky/Obama vs. Gingrich: what this campaign is really about
If anything is certain, it's that President Obama is a devout believer...in uberradical Saul Alinsky. This video shows Alan Colmes sitting like a potted plant and Monica Crowley explaining to Bill O'Reilly President Obama's affinity for Alinsky:
Thanks to Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit, we have this picture of then-community organizer Barack Obama teaching Alinsky 101 to college students:
GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has framed the debate that this election is about Alinsky vs. the Founding Fathers . Here's part of Newt's victory speech:
Let me just say that I believe the debate we're going to have with President Obama over the next eight or nine months is the outlining of the two Americas:
Those two choices, I believe, will give the American people a chance to decide permanently whether we want to remain the historic America that has provided opportunity for more people of more backgrounds than any country in history, or whether, in fact, we prefer to become a brand-new, secular, European-style, bureaucratic socialist system.
The America of the Declaration of Independence v. the America of Saul Alinsky; the America of paychecks v. the America of food stamps; the America of Independence v. the America of Dependence; the America of strength in foreign policy v. the America of weakness in foreign policy.
Peter Ferrera develops that further in his American Spectator article:
In so summarizing his South Carolina victory speech last week, Newt Gingrich framed the debate against President Obama with a clear vision that will sharply clarify the choice the American people will have to make this year.
Do we want the America of the Declaration of Independence? Or the America of radical Marxist revolutionary and social manipulator Saul Alinsky? One TV commentator indicated that most Americans do not even know who Saul Alinsky was. But that is exactly why Gingrich is so right to frame the debate this way, because with Barack Obama as their President, Americans need to know who Saul Alinsky was, and when Gingrich is done with his campaign, every American will.
President Obama is not only a follower of Saul Alinsky, and literally a practitioner of his strategies and tactics for the radical socialist takeover of America. After graduation from Harvard Law School, Obama was an instructor of fellow Marxist comrades in the Alinsky philosophy and methodology of social manipulation for the radical Marxist organization ACORN.
The American people need to know this, and all about Alinsky, to make an informed decision on whether to vote for Obama for reelection. That vote would represent a fundamental rejection of America, and all it has stood for since 1776.
What's heartening to me is that Newt gets it that this isn't just a fight of who has the better policies. The Democratic Party is filled with Alinskyite radicals that won't think twice about lying to the American people to get their way.
That's why Newt's standing up to the media is ultimately important. He won't let them get away with sloppy information. He won't let their false premises, which is foundational to Alinskyite tactics, go unchallenged. That's why President Obama, in his heart of hearts, doesn't want to run against Newt Gingrich.
He might get beat by Mitt but he'd get exposed by Newt. He doesn't like either option but getting exposed for being an Alinskyite radical would cripple the Democratic Party for at least a decade.
Newt will fight for the Founding Fathers' America. He'll fight against the Obama-Alinsky America. Mitt might or might not fight for good capitalist policies. Mitt won't attack Obama-Alinskyite radicalism because that's not what's done in polite society.
My opinion for this campaign is simple: It's time to think of this election for what it is: a bare-knuckled street fight between Alinskyite radicals that hate America and freedom-loving constitutionalists.
Mitt can't rise to that occasion. He's never thought about fighting that fight. Mitt's temperament isn't suited for fighting that fight. Every part of Newt's being, his temperament especially, is geared toward fighting this fight.
It's time to start fighting this fight so we can vanquish Alinskyite radicalism for a generation.
Tags: President Obama , Saul Alinsky , Radicalism , Rules for Radicals , Alan Colmes , Democrats , Newt Gingrich , Founding Fathers , First Principles , Mitt Romney , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 5:51 PM
No comments.
If Chris Christie and Ann Coulter are Mitt's best, he's in trouble
If Chris Christie and Christie stalker Ann Coulter are his best high-profile advocates, his campaign is in serious trouble. Mark Levin takes Gov. Christie to the proverbial woodshed, lawyer vs. lawyer, on the Romney campaign's attacks against Newt's 'ethics violations' on yesterday's radio program:
During his 7+ minute monologue, Mark Levin eviscerates Chris Christie, mostly on Christie's using the left's tactics on Newt. Levin also questions whether Gov. Christie is a real conservative, asking what Christie's "top 10 conservative achievements are." Levin said that taking on the teachers unions was a conservative achievement before asking "What are the other 9"?
Ann Coulter has been flighty for a decade or more. She isn't stupid but she's more enamored with hearing the sound of her voice than she's interested in being a thoughtful, intelligent contributor to the conservative movement. Coulter's latest column is the latest installment in a series of jump-the-shark moments:
To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as "Romneycare" is just a word game, on the order of acting like a "gun" has the same properties as a "gunny sack," or "fire" is the same thing as a "firefly."
Coulter's arguments run into difficulty when they run into these stubborn things called facts. Like these , for instance:
Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney's landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney's own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as 'Obamacare.'
The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.
'The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we'd done in Massachusetts,' said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. 'They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.'
In short, this is proof that Ms. Coulter isn't the reliable, albeit exotic, conservative she used to be. She's essentially stalked Gov. Christie, praising him to the point of looking like a school girl with the worst crush imaginable, in the hope of talking him into runing for president. It's proof that there's a strong connection between Romneycare and Obamacare. Arguing otherwise is foolishness.
It was particularly enjoyable listening to Levin explode the myth that Gov. Christie could favor gun control, believe in global warming and still be a conservative. Gov. Christie certainly gained points with conservatives with his gruff talk towards the teachers unions. That said, Mr. Levin is right in questioning if he's got other conservative accomplishments.
Gov. Romney isn't being served well by his surrogates, whether we're talking about Chris Christie or Ann Coulter.
Tags: Ethics , Newt Gingrich , Debate , Talk Radio , Mark Levin , Chris Christie , Global Warming , Gun Control , Ann Coulter , Mitt Romney , Surrogates , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:58 PM
Comment 1 by ARay at 26-Jan-12 01:34 AM
The hyper ventilating about Newt's past isn't important. Neither is Romney's or Santorum's. What is important is who is going to fight for our side and our ideas? Who's going to fight the regime and its twin brother the Obama-media? Who's going to bypass the army of strawmen employed by the regime and the non sequitur soldiers of the lamestream media? All the whining about whose "electable" is another unknowable at this point.
All of them have won and LOST elections. Let the candidates persuade us through the process. If Romney's so electable, why isn't he prepared to stick it to the media? Why is Bain Capital like an albatross for Romney instead of a crown? Didn't his handlers and vast organization and money forsee this? How about his tax returns? What no one in his 'strategy team' prepared for this? He's been running for years and he's getting ambushed by the media and counter punched by the "baggage laden, no fire in the belly" candidate whose campaign staff abandoned at the beginning of this process?
It looks like the "next in line" mentality set into team Romney. Just like Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, John McCain, John Kerry, Bob Dole they were the front runners who believed they were "next in line" and acted accordingly. Meanwhile someone else 'campaigned' and persuaded voters that they would be better than the "next in line" candidate. The candidate who wins is the one that is fighting against the odds and conventional wisdom. He also knows who the enemy is..the regime and his media hitmen. He also knows how to fight them rhetorically and with answers disdainful of their false premised questions. Who's doing it now and until election day? Whoever does that will get my vote and support. Not the "next in line".
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-12 02:28 AM
Great comment ARay. Great comment!!! There's an old truism that hasn't changed in 50 years minimum: campaigns are about the future. Not who's the sturdy technocrat? The great presidents are visionaries who demolish the media's false premises.
Mitt doesn't fit that description.
