November 18-20, 2011
Nov 18 06:39 Reform 2.0, the spitting mad edition Nov 18 07:15 Cain Train, the no-show edition Nov 18 18:09 New Hampshire's in play? Nov 19 12:11 Next spring's OWS won't recognize this fall's OWS Nov 20 08:19 The portrait of media bias Nov 20 09:23 Newt's innovative education reform draws Weingarten's ire Nov 20 10:55 Blonds have more fun? Nov 20 17:51 Romney loses Thanksgiving Family Forum "by far"
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Reform 2.0, the spitting mad edition
I attended last night's Reform 2.0 meeting. It's understatement, based on what was said, to say that government is too imposing on private citizens.
For instance, Steve Rohlf, the former Zoning Administrator & Building Official for Elk River for 21 years, said that he's been "working in the private sector doing commercial building and land development for a person who owns several car dealerships" as well as "other commercial interests."
Mr. Rohlf typed out on a word processing document all the hoops he had to jump through while trying to turn a used car lot into a new car dealership. When Rep. Sondra Erickson asked where they're at in the process of converting the used car lot into a new car franchise, Mr. Rohlf said 'We started in March & we still don't have everything done.'
Mr. Rohlf said that he's familiar with the process after having served Elk River in that capacity. He admitted that there were times when he was even confused. Then Mr. Rohlf said "even city staff often seemed confused by their own processes."
When I looked at Mr. Rohlf's recommendations, one recommendation stood out from all the rest: "Require those who draft rules have expertise in what's being regulated or at least get input from people who have expertise."
That seems so obvious that it shouldn't require a private citizen to make that recommendation. That should be the expectation.
Mr. Rohlf said that the regulations on lighting cost him an additional $50,000. The original plans called for 700-watt light bulb but that had to be scrapped because of regulations limiting bulbs to be 400-watts or less. That increased the price of lighting from $175,000 to $230,500.
The amount of light on the showroom lot is exactly the same but the regulations cost him an additional $54,500.
House Majority Leader Matt Dean attended and took notes. Leader Dean said that they've "held 21 Reform 2.0 meetings around the state" prior to last night's meeting. Dean noted that they've "gotten over 350 great ideas" from those meetings.
Dean noted that people at all levels of government "know that government has to change" and that "[the executive branch] wants to partner with [the legislature]" on those changes.
Local businessman Bob Feuling talked about his audit by state auditors. The chief auditor told him he still owed $400,000 in backtaxes, penalties and interest before the audit began. Months later, he wrote them a check "for $1,400." Bob Feuling then stunned the gathering by saying that it cost the state almost $150,000 to conduct the audit and that it cost him $70,000 to contest the audit's conclusions.
Rep. King Banaian said that the biggest disgrace in the matter was that they'd gone after an honest person like Bob Feuling. He then said that they're scrapping this auditing system in favor of implementing a system of tax analytics.
Rep. Steve Gottwalt said 'I met an hour today with a county commissioner. I got a lot of great ideas on how to get government off their backs.' Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer said that they're working on a way to make sure businesses get the opportunity to testify on rules being made by executive branch agencies.
Rep. Kiffmeyer said that rulemaking was almost like another legislative process without the deliberations. Leader Dean said that regulations have exploded during his time in the legislature.
Leader Dean said that we have to be more competitive with business climate issues. He talked about a California-based company that decided to abandon California because California is an economic mess. They hired a company to do research into possible relocation sites.
At the presentation, the site location report listed 100 cities that met the company's criteria. Sadly, Dean said, "there wasn't a Minnesota city on the list."
Dean then said that 'Increasingly, we're losing companies to Texas & Florida.' He said that "when Gov. Dayton talks about raising taxes" on "the rich", companies like DigiKey, "which employs 2,300 people in a city of 7,000 people", know that they wouldn't hire people if their taxes got raised because DigiKey pays their taxes as an individual.
One gentleman in the audience said that the state needs to raise revenue without raising taxes. Rep. Gottwalt noted that the November forecast last year "called for a $6,200,000,000 deficit. After DC extended the Bush tax cuts, an additional $1,000,000,000 in revenue flowed into the state's coffers."
This was a serious audience. They still had more ideas for reform that they wanted to express but they couldn't last night because the library was shutting down for the night.
There's no doubt but that businesses are thirsty for changes in how government does business.
Posted Friday, November 18, 2011 6:39 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 19-Nov-11 07:54 AM
The guy is lobbying for a used car dealer?
Or "consulting?"
The revolving door revolves.
Perhaps make it bipartisan and get Tinklenberg to help out.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Nov-11 10:06 AM
Mr. Rohlf isn't lobbying on behalf of the car dealer & he isn't consulting for them either. He's a contractor building the car dealership.
Cain Train, the no-show edition
Herman Cain was supposed to be interviewed yesterday by the New Hampshire Union Leader yesterday. When the Cain campaign was informed that C-SPAN wanted to tape the interview, the Cain campaign cancelled :
Herman Cain was a no-show for an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader this morning. The interview was scheduled last week and was supposed to last between an hour and about 75 minutes.
Initially, the Cain campaign agreed to the full hour or more but then told the newspaper it did not want C-SPAN to tape the interview. The news network had videotaped for broadcast and its website the newspaper's recent interviews with three other major presidential candidates.
After confusion arose over whether the interview had been cancelled, Cain's campaign apparently scheduled another event at roughly the same time and said Cain could appear at the newspaper for only 20 minutes.
Publisher Joseph McQuaid rejected the suggestion, telling the campaign that if Cain could not appear for the full 60 minutes, then there would be no interview.
McQuaid said today that 20 minutes was not enough time for a 'formal, sit-down interview' during which he and other newspaper staff 'size up' the candidates.
It's apparent that Cain can't take the heat. Yesterday, Cain complained about getting a gotcha question about Cuban policy while campaigning in South Florida, where American policies towards Cuba are important.
Cain loved the adulation when 9-9-9 was the rage. Now that he's getting a little criticism, he's a no-show? Harry Truman famously said "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." Apparently, Cain isn't fond of kitchens.
About 45 minutes after Cain's 10 a.m. appointment, Union Leader Senior Political Reporter John DiStaso received a brief telephone message from Cain New Hampshire spokesman Charlie Spano. 'I hope we can connect in the future,' Spano said. Spano did not return our additional call seeking further comment.
Cain and his staff later contended the newspaper cancelled the interview.
McQuaid responded, 'We had an hour-long interview scheduled. They, in effect, cancelled that, saying it could only be 20. 'It's kind of funny, I think, that with candidates complaining that the media doesn't give them enough time for depth, that Cain's camp blows off an in-depth interview,' he said.
The wheels are coming off the Cain campaign. The 'Cain Train' is running out of track. It's painfully apparent that Cain is being supercautious after botching his Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel interview.
Another thing that's disgusting is the fact that Cain's campaign quickly tried blaming the newspaper for cancelling the meeting. The NH Union-Leader has been conducting these interviews for decades. They're the go-to newspaper in the state by far.
The Cain campaign's accusation that the Union-Leader canceled says everything about the campaign. Cain's campaign is finding it difficult to portray their boss as not having thin skin.
Posted Friday, November 18, 2011 7:15 AM
No comments.
New Hampshire's in play?
Mitt Romney has had the New Hampshire Primary locked up since...well, since the day he announced his candidacy this past June. Gov. Romney might have a major problem if the latest polling is accurate:
In the shock poll of the day, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has pulled into a statistical tie with Mitt Romney in the former Massachusetts governor's backyard, New Hampshire.
The poll of likely Republican primary voters by Magellan Strategies for the online New Hampshire Journal shows Mr. Romney with 29% in the Granite State, within the poll's 3.6-percentage-point margin of error over Mr. Gingrich's 27%. Texas Rep. Ron Paul has 16% support, with former pizza company executive Herman Cain at 10%.
If this polling isn't an outlier, then the complexion of this race will have changed significantly, at least momentarily. In this environment, changes can and will happen with little warning.
According to the punditocracy, the biggest challenge Newt's facing is organization. On that front, Newt might have solved that problem :
Thanks to his solid performances in national debates, he has gradually gained supporters and donors, emerging at the top of some recent polls and flush with enough money to hire a new staff.
Last week he opened offices in New Hampshire and South Carolina. And on Thursday the campaign announced it had rehired Craig Schoenfeld, who had been state director in Iowa before the departures, and Katie Koberg, who had been deputy director. The hirings were first reported by The Des Moines Register.
As Newt solidifies his ratings in the polls, people will start gravitating towards him. His organization will get strengthened. Contributions will come in with increasing frequency. If Newt really is competitive with Mitt in New Hampshire, and if Newt is actually ahead in Iowa by 32% to 19% for Mitt, then Mitt's inevitability factor shrinks pretty quickly.
Newt faces tough questioning but it's something that he can get through. Whether his polling stays high remains to be seen. That said, Mitt's path to the White House isn't a walk through the park. Mitt's refusal to admit that Romneycare was a mistake will hurt him. Saying that "it isn't perfect" is understatement. Saying that "it was the right thing to do" at the time is potentially devastating.
All of the GOP candidates have baggage. GOP voters will simply have to factor that into their decisions. They shouldn't get too disheartened, though, because the GOP nominee's opponent in the general election has to defend his record of shoving the stimulus and Obamacare down our throats, bailing out the UAW, shoveling the taxpayers' money to Solyndra and appointing an attorney general who's said that he wasn't informed of a major gun-running sting operation under his watch.
When the RNC and the GOP nominee start making the case against President Obama and Senate Democrats, life will get difficult for them in a hurry.
Posted Friday, November 18, 2011 6:09 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 19-Nov-11 07:50 AM
People seem to lack a sense of history on Gingrich.
I guess fewer in New Hampshire had to buy GOPAC gavels back then, in order to get effluent permits, etc., compared to how things were done in the deep south.
Gingrich has baggage. If Romney does not care to rattle the closet full of skeletons, fine, yet if Gingrich is the nominee there will be loud rattling because the Dems have no cause to accord Gingrich any favors.
Moreover, Karl Rove is walking in the footsteps of Newt, and while your side likes both, that fact will be aired, later, if needed.
Lots and lots of rattling. Follow the money rattling too.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Nov-11 10:13 AM
There's money in politics? Who knew? Seriously, people are worried about the future, not the past, especially this election. In this election, tons of people would rather erase the last 3+ yrs. than anything else. They'd rather look forward to having a real job instead of food stamps. They'd rather know that America is working towards true energy independence rather than hearing about Solyndra scandals.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 19-Nov-11 08:21 AM
Somewhat related, what do you expect the Supremes to do on the issue of the individual mandate? Several, in the past, were very,very unequivocally vocal about it being a necessary thing. Surely there are visions and revisions, and politics is in part about explaining things.
And then there is Barney Frank saying he thought the "Gingrich Group" were his wives. Aside from snide comments, Gingrich Group cash flows will get scrutiny if Newt does not fade like Perry, Bachmann and Cain.
Will Santorum be the next great non-Romney hope? No skeletons money-wise, just a dope. And yet, Ron Paul will not be allowed the nomination so only Romney is left standing. How it is.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 19-Nov-11 10:04 AM
I'm betting there won't be another ABM (Anybody But Mitt), mostly because Newt has an appealing vision for America. He has the communication skills to ward off the others' attacks & his understanding of the issues is stunnning.
Next spring's OWS won't recognize this fall's OWS
Much has been written about the OWS protests, especially their violent crime spree. For the crime spree reporting, there's no better website than Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit or Andrew Breitbart's Big Government. To hear the progressive spin on OWS, about how virtuous they are and how important their message about income inequality is, check any of the big progressive rags.
What isn't getting written about in the aftermath of the dismantling of the OWS crime scenes is the likelihood that next spring's protesters won't be the same bunch as this fall.
Don't bet that the unions won't put together next year's protests, with plenty of encouragement from Mssrs. Axelrod and Burton. The protesters that were just dispatched didn't put a coherent message together because a) most were too high on drugs, b) they were too busy committing crimes, c) they were too busy setting up "rape-free zones" or d) they didn't know what they were protesting about.
This week has seen Democratic strategists like Tara Dowdell and Christopher Hahn spinning things, saying that the message of income inequality was important. Based on that message, which didn't emanate from Zuccotti Park or Oakland or San Francisco, Ms. Dowdell and Christopher Hahn insist that the movement has been a success.
They're spinning things that way because they don't want the brand name destroyed so it can be used by next spring's astroturfed movement as a vehicle to push the Democrats' agenda.
We'll know that the 'movement' has changed if their signs look more professional, their marches more organized. The Democrats aren't sticking with the OWS movement because they think the current cast of human debris is helping them. They're sticking with the OWS movement because they're hoping to infiltrate, then take over, the movement.
Posted Saturday, November 19, 2011 12:11 PM
No comments.
The portrait of media bias
This article is the picture perfect portrait of what world-class media bias is. This paragraph highlights Lawrence Lessig's total bias against Newt:
For as far too few remember, more than any other living American, it is Newt Gingrich who gave us the current version of our hopelessly dysfunctional Congress, an institution which, according to a New York Times/CBS poll, now has the confidence of 9% of the American people. That monster is his baby, and no one should deny him his parental bragging rights.
This is astonishingly biased. Mr. Lessig apparently didn't bother thinking that Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi might've screwed Congress up more than any trio of Americans to ever serve in Congress.
The Framers of our Constitution meant Congress to be a great deliberative body. It has become an embarrassment. Congress doesn't deliberate to resolve important national issues. Congress fundraises, and postures to fundraise, to support the next fight for control.
I haven't seen a Democrat in Congress since 2000 who could string 2 coherent sentences together. That's when the last great Democratic lawmaker served in the Senate. His name was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Nancy Pelosi's idea of great deliberations is cobbling a bill together in her office with only Democrats involved. Harry Reid did the same thing with the health care bill on the Senate side.
Together, they crammed the bill down Americans' throats. Pelosi had the gall to say that we'd "have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." Had it gone through the committee process, been worked out in a conference committee, then debated, that would've qualified as debating the issue. The Democrats didn't do that. Instead, they had their sights set on stuffing the bill down America's throat.
It's important to remember that they did the same thing with the stimulus.
Apparently, Mr. Lessig thinks that cramming controversial legislation down Americans' throats over their loud, repeated protestations is what great deliberative bodies do. He's entitled to his warped opinion but that isn't what I picture as great deliberative work.
Cramming controversial legislation down people's throat can't be blamed on anyone except President Obama, then-Chief of staff, then-Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Likewise, Harry Reid's stalling 15 House bills that would get jobs created isn't anyone's fault except Harry Reid's, Chuck Schumer's and President Obama's.
Gingrich concentrated the "work" of Congress into a three-day "work" week. He sent his caucus home for the rest of the week, in part so that they had time necessary to launch cross-country fundraising missions.
It's amazing the amount of impact the Gingrich GOP majority had with those short work weeks. Another thing that Mr. Lessig didn't grasp is that spending time home in their districts was a positive. Actually listening to constituents matters.
The reality is that the Gingrich House was one of the most positively impactful congresses in modern history. For the record, Pelosi's House was impactful, too. It just didn't have a positive impact.
Blaming Newt for the disfunction of the House from 2007-201 or the Senate from 2007-present is intellectually corrupt. It has nothing to do with reality. The current House is functioning quite well, in fact. The argument that Mr. Lessig makes is mostly fiction.
That's why he's earned this criticism.
Posted Sunday, November 20, 2011 8:19 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 20-Nov-11 04:27 PM
I wonder whether Cain's continued strength is that he's the ONLY candidate in that GOP bunch without a political record to draw scrutiny. He's the pizza man. Not the Romneycare man, nor the GOPAC man. As opposed to your mentioning Coulter, and the positive endorsements Romney's gotten, Dornan seems to have voiced a really strong dislike for Gingrich. Not that Dornan's much of a litmus test, but it's there. Is it a non-factor, or indicative that perhaps others who were longtime GOP members of Congress might be ambivalent toward Gingrich? Coulter did jump on the Calista business that Newt had going on in a not-too-private way while the Republican sport of the day was beating up on Clinton over extramarital woopie. Dornan's jumped all over that contradiction too. Can Newt seriously get away with trying to play the "finally a devout family man" card with that part of the GOP base that anguishes over such things? And in a general election where the Obama family integrity is a rock solid thing and has been over the years, will there be independents noticing a difference if Gingrich is the nominee?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-11 06:11 PM
1. Cain's "continued strength" is disappearing.
2. Romney's struggling because he isn't showing leadership & he isn't courting conservatives. Think of his disappearing without commenting on th Ohio ballot initiative.
3. Dornan who?
4. Coulter's endorsement of Romney is difficult to decipher. He isn't a conservative. She supposedly is. I think it's more about publicity than anything else.
5. What activists are thirsting for is a leader with a track record of accomplishments, who has a positive vision for America, who isn't afraid to duke it out in the streets with Team Obama & who will clean Obama's clock in the debates.
This isn't the year to think in terms of the typical liberal stereotype of conservatives. Social conservatism isn't dead by any means. It's just that, at the national level, social conservatives are paying more attention to pocketbook issues than on social issues.
Newt's innovative education reform draws Weingarten's ire
Newt Gingrich's education reforms, as outlined in this post , has drawn the ire of Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers. That's proof to me that he's heading in the right direction. Here's Newt's proposal:
'This is something that no liberal wants to deal with,' he told an audience at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard on Friday, according to Politico.
'You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine,' Mr. Gingrich said. 'You're totally poor. You're in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I've tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising.'
Here's Ms. Weingarten's unhinged response:
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called Mr. Gingrich's proposal 'absurd.'
'Who in their right mind would lay off janitors and replace them with disadvantaged children, who should be in school, and not cleaning schools,' Ms. Weingarten said. 'And who would start backtracking on laws designed to halt the exploitation of children?'
Having kids sweep floors is exploiting children? Since when? Only a mind-numbed hag like Ms. Weingarten would think it's exploitation.
It's one thing to have young teens work long hourse in a sweatshop. That'd qualify as child exploitation. It's quite another to have students doing menial tasks like sweeping hallways and classrooms. That isn't the definition of child exploitation.
As far as impoverished inner city schools shortchanging children, that's been going on for far too long. Though I vehemently disagree with NCLB, I strongly agree with President Bush's statement that children are hurt by "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
I actually think that kids would benefit from having a work ethic instilled in them. I definitely benefitted from working off most of my high school tuition to Cathedral by working in the school cafeteria during lunch hour.
Other lower middle class classmates of mine worked off part of their tuition by staying after school and helping sweep hallways.
That certainly didn't psychologically scar any of my classmates. Only Ms. Weingarten's peanut-sized intellect would think that young teens doing menial labor is child exploitation.
It isn't surprising, given Ms. Weingarten's attitude, that students aren't getting the education they need.
Posted Sunday, November 20, 2011 9:23 AM
No comments.
Blonds have more fun?
Last week, conservative bombthrower Ann Coulter endorsed Mitt Romney. People are still trying to figure out what, if any, thinking went into Ms. Coulter's declaration. Just when you though it was safe to listen to pundits again, though, up pops Meghan McCain to criticize Newt again :
MSNBC contributor Meghan McCain sat down with Jay Leno on Friday's Tonight Show and spoke candidly on the Republican candidates, comparing the process of picking a nominee to speed dating. McCain slammed Newt Gingrich's campaign as a 'vanity project' and slighted him as 'this week's fling' for Republicans, lamenting how the process has turned into an 'anybody but Romney' affair. 'He seems to be rising; hot air balloons do that,' Leno snarked.
McCain dished on how she got into a feud with the former Speaker of the House. 'I said that he was running for president purely for vanity purposes, to sell books, to sell DVDs, which I still believe. Someone told him that, and he was like 'What would she know?' and his implication was, like, 'dumb blond chick, get off TV, what do you know?' And he just was so, I'm so sick of being talked to like that.'
Ms. McCain should get used to getting to like that. Reality hasn't sunk it with Ms. McCain that she's a gossip on a disreputable 'news' organization. She isn't taken seriously because her chief contribution to a nothing news network is that she's got name recognition.
She's the famous, albeit ill-informed, daughter of a true American hero. That doesn't entitle Ms. McCain to any respect. Respect is earned, not given.
It isn't like she's a serious news correspondent like Shannon Bream or Jennifer Griffin. It isn't like she's a serious pundit like Nina Easton or Dorothy Rabinowitz.
Ms. Rabinowitz and her fellow WSJ pundits think that Newt isn't the latest flavor of the month :
Gigot: Let's ask Wall Street Journal editorial board members Dorothy Rabinowitz and Joe Rago and senior economics writer Steve Moore.
So Dorothy, what's behind this Gingrich surge?
Rabinowitz: Realization. It's really the perception of a mass of people at what they're looking at. And I think it was pretty pat of all of the commentators to say, "Well, this is the latest flavor of the month." I doubt that this is the latest flavor of the month.
Gigot: Well, what--what is his appeal, though, at this moment?
Rabinowitz: His appeal is simply; it's not simple, it's the genuine concentration on issues that has been absent, his capacity to engage people on issues. By issues we mean foreign as well as domestic, the depth of his reporting on the meaning of issues, and there is the X factor, the feeling that people have that they're listening to something different and substantial, some kind of very hearty meal, as opposed to a kind of mind-numbing repetition of "Government is broke, Washington is broke." How many times can you hear that and--
Gigot: So he can think on his feet and is doing well in the debates.
Rabinowitz: And expansively.
Gigot: Steve, in the summer, as you know, the Gingrich campaign was really given up for dead. His staff had quit. He had all kinds of troubles, couldn't raise any money, still not raising a lot of money, although that has improved. What's your reading on the revival of Gingrich?
Moore: Well, I think Dorothy has it right, that what, the reason you're seeing this revival of Newt Gingrich is that he has looked presidential, Paul, in these debates. He can play the part, and that's something the Republicans really want. You and I have known Newt Gingrich for over 20 years. We know that, you know, you walk around with Newt Gingrich, and he always has a live hand grenade in his pocket. So you never know when it's going explode. But you know, for the last--
Gigot: You want that in a president, Steve? Do you want a president with a live hand grenade in his pocket?
Moore: I'm not so sure, but you know, for the last couple of months, it has not detonated. He's looked very good. And I, one last thing, Paul. I've really gone through his economic program, and I think it's excellent. He sounds very much like a modern-day Jack Kemp, and it's a very appealing message.
Gigot: You mean it's a pro-growth message with substantial tax cutting as part of it.
Moore: That's right.
These are substantive analyses as opposed to Ms. McCain's analysis, which amounts more to things that you'd read on Page 6 than hear on a substantive news show.
It's easy to understand why a liberal like Meghan McCain would attack Newt. That's what liberals do. It's disturbing to think that a consistently conservative pundit like Ann Coulter would endorse a liberal like Mitt Romney.
Perhaps it's because she hasn't gotten enough attention lately. She's been known to say stupid things to get attention. I take Ms. Coulter more seriously than I take Ms. McCain.
That isn't a particularly difficult hurdle to clear, though.
Posted Sunday, November 20, 2011 10:55 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 20-Nov-11 03:49 PM
Do you have a link for Coulter?
I will Google "coulter romney" and see if I find anything.
Are you expecting too much, in saying you've not seen a cogent reason for the Coulter decision?
Comment 2 by eric z. at 20-Nov-11 04:01 PM
I had a look at the anncoulter.com item. Other than the Freddie Mac $1.6 million in lobbying fees, she did not make the strongest case to be made against Gingrich, ans was more tooting a RINO horn. She did mention GOPAC, but favorably. Not for what it was. A slushpool for Rovian methodologies, before Rove became well known for adding nuances to the art of propagandized nastiness.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 20-Nov-11 04:10 PM
Vin Weber being an early public Romney endorsee was a thing that surprised me. He could have straddled the fence and yet, if I recall correctly, he leaned toward Romney before either Coleman or Pawlenty. Gary is there any story you or readers know of that, or was it simply a desire to not get too much movement going in violation of Reagan's Eleventh Commandment? Bachmann kind of went that anti-Reagan way. I doubt it will help her national ambition, and it might not play well in CD6. You posted of it a few days ago. I would guess if she drops that approach after a first trial, she'll not be hurt too badly but if she pushes it, there are GOP people in the district with ambition and worry and attentiveness.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 21-Nov-11 10:47 AM
Newt was the greatest conservative not named Reagan -- prior to 1998. He's gone soft since leaving the Speaker's chair. If he is the nominee I'll vote for him but will hold my nose.
He's a great debater, but his baggage makes him simply unelectable unless Barack's policies mean $4.50 per gallon gas like I've read is possible next summer.
Fannie/Freddie, individual mandate support for those earning more than $50,000/yr (now scrubbed from his old 'think tank' website, pure squish on the AGW scam, support for Dede Scozzafava...Newt's the consummate Beltway Republican/Karl Rove insider now. No thanks.
Meanwhile, we have Herman Cain, who, while far from perfect, has come out and said that as a Stage 4 cancer survivor, he'd be dead today under ZeroCare. Or RomneyCare. Or NewtCare. Give me the strongest conservative in the field, please. Right now for me, that's Cain.
Romney loses Thanksgiving Family Forum "by far"
Bob Vander Plaats is a undeniably a heavyweight amongst social conservatives in Iowa. That's why his statements this weekend sting Mitt Romney . Additionally, it says Mitt isn't a serious contender in Iowa. Here's what Vander Plaats said:
'Romney was the only one who stiffed us,' influential Iowa social conservative leader Bob Vander Plaats complained after a presidential candidate forum organized by the family values-focused organization he runs in the state.
'I think that's gone with his persona and how he's treating, Iowa, which happens to be a swing state. And he wants to win the presidency, which tells me that he lacks judgment,' Vander Plaats told reporters. 'And if he lacks judgment I think people all across America have to say, 'is he the right candidate?'
Vander Plaats isn't the only Iowa Republican who isn't happy with Gov. Romney:
Romney's absence was also felt at an event hall in nearby Altoona, Iowa where the state's Republican Gov. Terry Branstad was celebrating his 65th birthday at a fundraising dinner.
'I would've preferred if Mitt Romney had came, had come to the event,' Branstad told ABC News at his party where he mingled with the same six candidates who spoke at the earlier forum.
It was the latest in a torrent of criticism directed at Romney by Branstad, who has been scolding the former Massachusetts governor for spending far less time in this state than he did as a presidential candidate four years ago. The governor said he was 'assured that Romney is intending to be back this coming week and spend a lot more time here,' but offered no words of praise for the candidate who ranks third in support among Republican voters here, according to a poll released last week.
Mitt's hiding from Iowa voters is stupid. Whether he realizes it or not, he's writing Iowa off, both for the caucuses and in the general election.
Shame on Mitt for not embracing a robust 50 state strategy. That's what confident candidates do. Hiding from serious talk shows, starting with Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, Meet the Press with David Gregory and the other Sunday talk shows says that he's too intimidated by the media.
Whoever is the GOP nominee will get hit with the Obama smear campaign barrage. Newt gets that and isn't hiding from it. Instead, he's preparing himself for the inevitable barrage.
By comparison, Mitt's strategy has been timid, like the weakling who's afraid of his own shadow. Mitt's defense of his strategy is timid or worse:
In an interview at the party, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, hardly mentioned Romney's name, but the influential congressman ticked off a list of reasons why several of his opponents were better positioned to chart a path to victory here. Iowa holds the country's first presidential caucuses, the results of which will help shape expectations for the rest of the primary season.
From more than 1,000 miles away, Romney defended his decision to skip both Republican events in Iowa on Saturday.
'We've had a couple of events in Iowa I've been there several time I'll be there this coming week,' Romney said after a campaign event in New Hampshire, which took place at roughly the same time his rivals assembled together in Des Moines. 'I've said form the very beginning we intend to play in Iowa and I want to do very well there.'
People understand that Mitt's actions don't automatically match his words. Saying that "from the beginning, we intend to play in Iowa and I want to do very well there" is meaningless if it isn't backed up by actions. He's only made 4 appearances in Iowa since jumping into the race since June. What's with that?
Mitt's unwillingness to take a stand or to lead is infamous :
"Whether it's the debt ceiling debate, the Ohio ballot initiatives, or military action in Libya, Mitt Romney has been either unwilling or unable to offer a clear position on issues important to voters," said Tim Miller, candidate Jon Huntsman's spokesman. "Leadership requires taking a stand on tough issues, even if it carries political risk."
Huntsman's campaign isn't the place where Mitt's taking criticism from:
For as long as he's been the Republican front-runner, Mitt Romney has avoided taking firm positions on high-stakes Washington spending debates.
This week's example: The former Massachusetts governor's refusal to endorse or oppose a deficit-cutting plan introduced by members of his own party, with a key deadline looming. Romney's cautiousness builds on the play-it-safe approach he has employed on issues ranging from Medicare overhauls to debt-ceiling negotiations, drawing criticism from GOP rivals and raising questions among uncommitted Republicans.
"It's a risky move to not take a position," said Michael Dennehy, a New Hampshire-based Republican operative who led Sen. John McCain's presidential bid four years ago. "When there's going to be intense scrutiny in these final seven weeks, voters are going to want to see someone who is showing their capacity to lead."
Mitt could continue with his general election campaign strategy because the previous non-Romneys didn't have the talent and staying power and star presence that Newt has. Now that activists are making final decisions or are preparing for making their final decisions, people will focus on three things: vision, fight and leadership.
Saying that Mitt isn't a leader isn't accurate. It's more than accurate to say that he hasn't displayed an overabundance of leadership during the campaign. Saying that "and I'll get it done" during debates sounds nice but where's the proof?
At some point, Mitt will have to show he's willing to go all in. He'll have to prove that he'll take fight for conservative principles. Signing Ted Kennedy's health care legislation into law isn't proof that Mitt will fight for conservative principles.
Not staking out detailed principles on the debt ceiling fight isn't proof that Mitt will fight for conservative principles, either.
Posted Sunday, November 20, 2011 5:51 PM
Comment 1 by Linna at 20-Nov-11 07:01 PM
I can say this because I'm from Iowa.
I am totally disgusted with Iowa voters who will vote for theatrical tears rather than someone who can elevate our country and restore the American Dream like Governor Romney.
Everyone knows that Romney was stiffed in 2008 after Huckabee's attack on mormons. It is insane in this serious market that the so-called religious right will judge another person's religious freedom. This is immoral! Freedom of religion is our constitutional right. Michael Reagan said "We're not electing a minister, we're electing a President." Romney could be the next Reagan.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-11 07:10 PM
First, Michael Reagan is right. We aren't electing a pope or a minister. We're electing a president. Second, Romney isn't the next Reagan because a) there's only one Ronald Reagan & b) Mitt isn't the leader that Reagan was or that Newt is. Mitt's list of conservative accomplishments can't be viewed without a microscope. Newt's conservative accomplishments are Welfare reform, balancing the budget 4 straight years, including the biggest surplus in U.S. history, assisting Jack Kemp in enacting the Kemp-Roth tax cuts that were the centerpiece of Reagan's revolution & putting together the coalition of candidates that led to the 1994 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1954.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing, at 21-Nov-11 03:15 AM
I guess I don't read all that much into what you quote here. Up until very recently, Newt Gingrich didn't have much of a campaign in Iowa, and had not spent s great deal of time there. I don't think Romney needs to do that well in Iowa, either. Finishing in the top three or four will be good enough, so long as he can win in New Hampshire, where he has a natural advantage of being from Massachusetts next door. It is like the advantage Michelle Bachmann supposedly enjoyed in Iowa.
Oh, and I will point out that Bob Vander Plaats is not universally popular in Iowa. He is a polarizing figure and has been defeated in at least some of his elections. He is obviously more bold than Mitt Romney. You may be right that Romney's lack of boldness, based on his presumptive front-runner status, may quickly become his undoing if he ceases to be the front runner after Iowa. And if he loses New Hampshire, as it now appears he may, I think he's toast.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 21-Nov-11 10:28 AM
Linna, the only way Myth Romney could be the next Reagan is if he changes his name. Though I did hear he was considering changing it to "Generic Republican".
Comment 4 by Adam T. at 21-Nov-11 01:10 PM
This blog post is ridiculous and completely biased. It is too bad that it is expressed as fact rather than opinion - otherwise it might be excusable as a work of opinion. As it is, this is categorically false and skewed.
Those who want another 4 years of Obamination should vote for someone other than Romney. The crazy (so-called) "christian" conservatives should get over themselves and their judgmental nature and go read their scriptures again. I think that they may have missed a few key verses.
If you want change and improvement, with a conservative christian leader, and no more obamination - vote for Mitt Romney.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Nov-11 02:17 PM
Adam, you're sounding a bit overjudgmental. Take a valium or something.
First, prove that my post "is categorically false & skewed." Next, prove that Mitt's the only Republican who can defeat President Obama. Third, prove that Mitt won't revert to Massachusetts Mitt. Massachusetts Mitt is the one who signed Obamacare into law & who hired radical environmental activist John Holdren to help write his environmental laws, including Mitt's signing an executive order that "imposed the toughest CO2 emission caps in the nation'. That's also the EO that "imposed price caps to keep power companies from passing the cost along to the consumer."
Comment 5 by MJ Stan at 21-Nov-11 10:24 PM
obama will Body Slam mitt if Rom wins the nomination.
Newt will Body Slam obama if he gets nominated.
Comment 6 by eric z. at 22-Nov-11 02:36 PM
Ron Paul is the only Republican with a chance to win.
The GOP regulars will never let him be the candidate.
They'd fear the ghost of Nelson Rockefeller would arise to haunt them if they ever ran Ron Paul.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Nov-11 03:03 PM
Ron Paul won't be the next POTUS for a simple reason: POTUS is also the commander-in-chief. Ron Paul wants to unilaterally disarm the United States. Sane people fear that he'd leave the U.S. totally vulnerable. That's why he won't be the next POTUS.
