It’s Monday, November 28th, 2011….and despite having gained 10 lbs. of TLJ’s finest turkey, sausage stuffing, sweet potatoes corn….here’s the Gouge!

First up, courtesy of the American Spectator and R.B. Diffenderffer, Quin Hillyer offers….

My Radio Assessment of Gingrich’s Chances Against Obama

Last week on my “Hillyer Time” radio show, my opening monologue explained why I think it’s ludicrous to think Newt Gingrich could possible win a general-election battle against Barack Obama – analysis that stands regardless of whether one personally likes the idea of Gingrich in the Oval Office if he should pull off the miracle and win anyway. Some people wanted to be able to read what I said.
So, slightly adapted from radio notes for reading ease, here’s what I said:

Welcome to Hillyer Time….

For now, I really need to vent. I am absolutely flabbergasted at what I see in the latest Republican polls for president. What I see looks like a mass political suicide attempt — so determined to commit suicide that it uses too many pills, plus a slit wrist, plus a gun, on the ledge of a 1,000-foot building, just to make sure that at least one of the methods succeeds.

What I’m talking about is the rise of Newt Gingrich to the front of the Republican pack. If this isn’t mass suicide, is mass amnesia of a particularly dangerous variety. And, politically speaking, if it continues it will be an absolute guarantee of Barack Obama’s re-election next Fall.

Why? Well, for months I’ve said… … that Mitt Romney was the only legitimate contender the Republicans could choose who could NOT make a case against Obama’s biggest area of weakness, which is Obamacare, because Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health plan was almost the exact model for Obamacare. It doesn’t matter how he spins it, Romney can’t make a cogent case against it.

But the reason I said Romney was the only one was because I didn’t consider Gingrich a legitimate contender. Well, if he is a serious contender, he becomes the second person who can’t make a case against Obamacare, especially against its individual mandate. Gingrich has supported an individual mandate for almost 18 years, has written in favor of it as recently as 2008, and even several times this year has defended it in concept.

So Gingrich can’t make a case against Obamacare.

He also can’t make the case against the liberals on the cause of the housing and banking crises. Why? Because he was selling out to Freddie Mac to the tune of more than a million dollars, and publicly advocating the Fannie Mae the whole time. He was on the wrong side of the system, the side that brought the system down.

So Gingrich can’t make the case against Obamacare or against Democratic housing policies. How about the case against all of the global warming alarmism and against corporate favoritism for ridiculous so-called green industries? Nope. Gingrich can’t make that case either. He was out there pushing ethanol mandates even after Al Gore himself had backed off ethanol, after the science proved that corn-based ethanol is in many ways more harmful than helpful. But none of that mattered, because Gingrich had sold himself to the ethanol industry as well, to the tune of more than 300 thousand dollars.

So take Obamacare and Freddie Mac and overregulation to fight globaloney for insider profits, take them all off the table. What’s left? How about making a real case for market-based entitlement reform? Oops! Gingrich can’t do that. He blasted those reforms as, quote, “right-wing social engineering.”

How about education reform, or how about ending racial grievance-mongering? Oops, can’t do that: Gingrich toured with none other than the vicious race-baiting felon Al Sharpton to push dubious education policies.

Gingrich can’t make the case against Obama’s growing ethics problems: As Speaker, he was found liable for ethical violations and fined several hundred thousand dollars.

How about effective leadership? Well, the one time Gingrich was in real power, his own side tried a coup against him in just the third year, in mid-year, and then Gingrich imploded so badly in the fourth year that he was pushed out after near-disastrous election results.

How about attracting independents? Oops: Polls have shown for 15 years that Gingrich’s persona badly turns off independents.

How about enthusing Tea Party volunteers, so at least he can have a good grassroots effort? Oops: Tea Partiers don’t like him much either: Not only did he support the hugely expensive Medicare prescription drug program without insisting on other reforms, and not only did he spit all over Paul Ryan’s free-market Medicare reform plan, and not only did he end up supporting the TARP bailout, but he also nearly nipped the conservative grassroots movement in the bud by supporting ultra-liberal Republican DeDe Scozzafava in a special congressional election in New York over conservative favorite Doug Hoffman.

Gingrich also has supported partial amnesty for illegals, and at one time even supported the Fairness Doctrine that let government dictate broadcast content.

Even on foreign policy, Gingrich can’t make a coherent case that Obama will have any trouble exploding. In just a few weeks earlier this year, he shifted from being for military intervention in Libya to being against it, based entirely on which way the political winds seemed to be blowing.

And none of this even touches the megalomania of a man who used to write notes to himself describing himself as “definer of civilization, Teacher of the rules of civilization,” – those are direct quotes – and who also would refer to himself, in the presence of other people, as a, quote, “world historical figure.” (OUR personal favorite!)

This is a man who, if he gets the Republican nomination, has less chance of defeating Barack Obama than the Tulane Green Wave football team would have this year of defeating the Alabama Crimson Tide.

The Gingrich surge is madness, sheer madness.

And don’t think for a minute that doing well in debates will make a difference. It’s easy to do well in debates when you are one of eight and none of the other eight is attacking you. Watch what happens when he gets offended in a two-way debate and loses his cool, snapping some snarly remark to Obama. It won’t work. And even if it does, it won’t matter much because debates will make less difference next fall than they seem to be doing now. Right now, almost nobody is advertising. Next year, Barack Obama will have $800 million to pour into an effort to define Gingrich in the public mind….

Or, rather, to reconfirm the definition of Gingrich that has prevailed for most of the past 16 years, which is that of a brilliant but disagreeable and somewhat smarmy, overwhelmingly cynical political operative.

Yes, folks, start putting the cyanide in the Kool-Aid – because that’s what millions of Republican voters will be drinking if they choose Newt Gingrich for their nominee.

So there. Never let it be said that we don’t lay it on the line, here in Hillyer Time.

Any questions?

Meanwhile, as Pete DuPont, writing in the WSJ suggests, Team Tick-Tock may be contemplating saying….

Bye Bye Biden?

Why Obama may be eyeing Mrs. Clinton for the 2012 ticket.

The coming political year, with presidential, House and Senate elections, will be one of the most interesting (and important) ones we have seen in a long while. The main challenge President Obama faces is persuading voters to re-elect him in spite of the disastrous results of his economic policies.

The declining economy has hit people on both ends of the economic spectrum, with the number of taxpayers with more than $1 million of income declining from from 400,000 back in 2007 to just 235,000 in 2009, and the number of people 16 older who have been unemployed over a year going from an average of 1.3 million in the last three recessions to 4.3 million in 2010. The Obama economy is the worst America has seen in four decades, with payroll employment today 5% lower than it was 41 months ago. Over the past three years, federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has been higher than at any time since World War II, adding $4 trillion to our national debt.

So what to do if running for re-election in these terrible times? Many people have asked if I think President Obama will be re-elected. No, as long as the Republicans pick a viable candidate, he stands likely to be defeated. But it seems possible that the Democrat Party will pre-emptively decide that the time has come for some fresh thinking about its ticket.

Democratic pollsters Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen have urged the president to forgo re-election for the good of his party and the nation. But those don’t seem like factors that would necessarily influence this president. Instead we might see him decide to switch to a vice presidential candidate who will be stronger, better, and change the thinking of a majority of the Democrats–namely, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Last December a USA Today/Gallup poll found Mrs. Clinton to be the most admired woman in politics. A poll in March found that 66% viewed Mrs. Clinton favorably and just 31% unfavorably. Mr. Obama’s numbers, which have since declined, were 54% and 43%; Vice President Joe Biden’s, 46% to 41%. An October Time poll of last October pitted Mrs. Clinton against Republican candidates. She led Mitt Romney by 17%, Rick Perry by 26% and Herman Cain by 22%. Mr. Obama’s leads in the same poll were 3%, 12% and 12%, respectively.

Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a liberal-left magazine, has observed that 45 percent of the people who disapprove of Mr. Obama’s performance view Mrs. Clinton favorably. It is fair to say that Mrs. Clinton’s addition to the ticket would be a substantial gain for President Obama that he badly needs next November, since she is, as Mr. Starr notes, a member of the part of his administration that has the highest approval rating, and more important she has not at all been a part of the disastrous economic policies that have caused the Obama drop in popularity. Even better for Election Day, she would gain support among older white voters, who did not support Mr. Obama very much in 2008. Mr. Starr also cites a Suffolk University Florida poll that shows that Mrs. Clinton on the Obama ticket would win Florida for the two of them, even if Sen. Marco Rubio is the Republican’s vice presidential candidate.

One more advantage: With Mrs. Clinton comes her husband, who would very much want to get his wife elected, and also might be interested in a position in the Obama-Clinton administration.

Add in that the Washington Democrats already see a political disaster coming: the Senate as well as the House is likely to have a Republican majority. Only two Republican Senate incumbents are vulnerable: the appointed Dean Heller in Nevada and elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts. By contrast, of the 23 Democrat-held seats up for re-election, political forecaster Larry Sabato sees six as safe for the Democrats, and two as likely GOP pickups. That will mean that Republicans need only to win one to four of the remaining 15 to take control of the Senate along with its House majority.

So will President Obama make the vice presidential switch? While it is not unprecedented, it is certainly unusual, and it would likely be seen in some quarters as a desperate act of a weakened president. But politicians in general, and this president especially, show a willingness to do such things if absolutely necessary to save an election. If it is just plain essential to Obama’s winning re-election next November, it will soon come to pass.

Frankly, we question whether Hillary would consider hitching her star to an Obamao wagon up to its axles in quicksand.  Association with a losing campaign could hardly help her prospects to top the ticket in 2016….and having endured Bill’s dalliances for decades in pursuit of the prize, Hillary is nothing if not patient.

Next up, the latest from the Religion of Peace:

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Vows to ‘One Day Kill All the Jews’

A Muslim revival at Cairo’s most prominent mosque Friday that drew 5,000 worshippers reportedly turned into a hate-fueled rally, complete with repeated vows to “one day kill all the Jews.” Led by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest and best-organized political party, the crowd that gathered at the al-Azhar Mosque chanted “Tel Aviv! Tel Aviv! Judgment Day has come!” according to Israeli website Ynetnews.com.

Palestinian guest speakers and spokesmen for the Muslim Brotherhood roused the crowd with speeches aiming to incite Jihad directed at Israel, specifically promoting a “battle against Jerusalem’s Judaization.” The event coincided with the anniversary of the United Nation’s 1947 partition plan that called for the establishment of a Jewish state.

….Speakers railed against “Zionest occupiers” and “treacherous Jews.” Islamist Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb asserted that Jews all over the world are preventing Islamic and Egyptian unity. “In order to build Egypt, we must be one. Politics is insufficient. Faith in Allah is the basis for everything,” al Tayeb told Ynetnews.com. “The al-Aqsa Mosque is currently under an offensive by the Jews,” he said, adding that “we shall not allow the Zionists to Judaize” the holy land.

Businessmen in the crowd were urged to give funds to the cause and investin land in Jerusalem to keep it out of the hands of Jewish purchasers. Protesters were handed pamphlets and small, customized flags showing the Egyptian colors on one side a Palestinian flag on the other.

Elementary school teacher Ala al-Din, who attended the rally, said “all Egyptian Muslims are willing to embark on a Jihad for the sake of Palestine,” he told Ynetnews.com. “Why is the US losing in Afghanistan? Because the other side is willing and wants to die. We have a different mentality than that of the Americans and Jews,” he said.

There‘s the problem; most Americans and Jews do in fact share a mentality which is the polar opposite of our opponents, though somewhat for reasons other than Mr. al-Din describes: the Jihadist are indeed willing to die for Allah….Americans and Jews with even a lick of common sense are simply seek to facilitate the opportunity.

Coexist our arse!

Then there’s the Environmental Moment, brought to us today by the WSJ and….

The United States of EPA

Ms. Jackson’s agency takes over automobile design.

Here’s one good way to consider the vote in 2012: It’s about whether to re-elect President Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, which these days runs most the U.S. economy.

The EPA heaved its weight against another industry this month, issuing a regulation to sharply increase fuel economy. Under this new rule, America’s fleet of passenger cars and light trucks will have to meet an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, a doubling of today’s average of about 27 mpg. By the EPA’s estimate the rule will cost $157 billion, meaning the real number is vastly greater.

The fuel-economy rule is classic Obama EPA. Until this Administration, fuel standards were the remit of Congress, via its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. In 2007, the legislative branch raised those standards with a bill requiring the U.S. fleet to hit 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40% increase. The industry is struggling to keep pace with those steep requirements.

President Jackson is now casting aside 35 years of Congressional prerogative. Because the Obama EPA has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant,” and because cars emit CO2, Ms. Jackson is citing the Clean Air Act in her bid to commandeer Detroit. While the EPA officially worked with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Nhtsa, the agency previously in charge of efficiency standards), it’s clear the EPA is calling the shots.

At least when Nhtsa was overseeing efficiency, it was charged by Congress with taking into account vehicle safety and a rule’s effect on the economy and consumer demand. The EPA can’t be bothered with such detail.

The National Automobile Dealers Association, which has opposed the EPA rule, has compiled Obama Administration documents showing the average price of a new vehicle will increase by $3,100 by 2025, thanks to the cumulative fuel-efficiency rules. Vehicles that currently cost $15,000 or less will effectively be regulated out of existence. The rule will reduce the mass of a car by 15% to 25%, decreasing safety.

The only way Detroit can hit these averages will be by turning at least 25% of its fleet into hybrids. But hybrid sales peaked in the U.S. two years ago at 3% of the market and are declining. The EPA’s $157 billion price tag includes only the estimate of what manufacturers will have to invest in new technology, not the billions more that will hemorrhage when nobody buys their EPA-approved products.

Yes, 13 automakers agreed to this standard in July, confirming behavioral science on hostages. The industry has been living for years under the threat of California’s strict efficiency mandate. Federal law pre-empts states from setting their own standards, and the Bush Administration refused to grant California a waiver. But the Obama administration made clear to automakers that their choice was between one crushing EPA-devised rule, or a national patchwork of crushing rules from California and acolyte states. They chose the federal poison.

House Republicans are pushing to return efficiency standards to the one regulator Congress has decreed: Nhtsa. They note that not only are California bureaucrats dictating federal policy, but the EPA has wasted $25 million to duplicate or demolish Nhtsa rules.

The EPA is seeking to impose, by fiat, greenhouse gas reductions that even a Democratic Congress rejected with the Waxman-Markey bill in 2009, and that would drive policy at least 13 years past this Administration. It’s all more than a tad authoritarian. Welcome to the Obama-Jackson Presidency.

The Obamao-Jackson Presidency; more than slightly reminiscent of Pinto and Flounder in Animal House: a wimp….

….and a blimp!

On the Lighter Side….

Finally, we’ll wrap things up with this last item, courtesy of Walt Meisen, torn from the pages of the Crime Blotter:

Killer Dolphins Slaying, Sexually Assaulting Porpoises In San Francisco

In a recent discovery, a climbing number of porpoise carcasses have been washing up on Bay Area shores this year due to a surprising perpetrator: territorial dolphins. And according to SFGate, the attacks might not be solely territorial. They might also be sexual.

In a release by the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, researchers reported that bottlenose dolphins are likely behind an unusually high number of porpoise slayings. “Porpicide” (“Porpicide”?  Are they serious?!?) — the intentional killing of porpoises by dolphins — is not unusual, but it is new to the California coast. And the incidents have been alarmingly brutal.

“Necropsies showed multiple fractures from blunt-force trauma,” stated the report. “Some porpoises had tooth marks.” The organization is determining whether an Unusual Mortality Event should be declared.

SFGate first reported on the recent spike in porpicide this summer when five porpoise carcasses washed up on San Francisco beaches in August alone. In the article, scientists with Golden Gate Cetacean Research pointed to a group of young, sexually frustrated dolphins who were probably protecting their territory.

“In some of the incidents […] there has been activity focused on the genital area of the porpoise,” Jefferson told SFGate. This activity included bite marks and scrapes. “These bottlenose dolphins, we call them ‘porpitrators,’ (“Porpitrators”?!?) were either known males or suspected males and mostly younger males.” (And likely WHITE males at that!)

And according to the Examiner, the attacks have continued. A spokeswoman for the Farallones Sanctuary told the Examiner that these dolphins are new to Northern California waters, and researchers are just starting to see the consequences of their arrival.

“You’ve got two marine predators who are sharing the bay again,” said Golden Gate Cetacean Research scientist Bill Kenner to SFGate. “That’s really interesting, but when they come into contact, there is going to be some conflict and the loser is going to be the porpoise.”

Dolphins sexually assaulting porpoises?!?  Not bloody likely….unless of course….Jerry Sandusky served a stint with Miami….and showered with the team’s mascot.

Magoo