It’s Monday, January 23rd, 2012….and as we’ve plans for Sunday evening, we’re taking the Monday edition to press a little early. But before we begin, here’s a link to a petition forwarded by Bill Meisen:
We felt it well worth the time to complete, despite our emails being forwarded to three Dimocrats possessed of less sense than God gave a goose; we hope you will as well.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
At the top of today’s order, two commentaries seeking to explain the Palmetto Pounding; first, courtesy of Speed Mach, Erick Erickson writing at RedState.com:
Newt Gingrich Wins. What It Means.
Mitt and Newt will both have trouble beating Barack Obama. Mitt’s trouble will come from Obama. Newt’s trouble from himself. But right now, the base doesn’t care.
No candidate has won the GOP nomination for President without winning South Carolina since Ronald Reagan in 1980. But every one of those candidates who won had also won either Iowa or New Hampshire.
We’re now confronted with a designated front runner, Mitt Romney, who got less votes in Iowa in 2012 than he got in 2008 and who lost South Carolina. His reason for being somehow remains that he is “electable”.
If you read a lot of the Republican commentary coming out of Washington even before the polls closed, suddenly South Carolina is irrelevant and the hick rubes of the Palmetto state are just petulant children.
Actually, like with Iowa, it is a rather desperate scream to get another player on the field. It is a red flag.It is the giant “Danger” sign ahead for the general election.
Newt Gingrich’s rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich’s debate performance. But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its thought and party leaders in Washington, DC. The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since.
Adding insult to injury, the party and thought leaders now try to foist on the base a milquetoast moderate from Massachusetts. Newt Gingrich can thank Mitt Romney and more for the second look he is getting. Base hostility will now be exacerbated by Mitt Romney’s backers now undoubtedly making a conscious effort to prop up Rick Santorum to shut down Newt Gingrich.
Consider, before going below the fold, that this is the first time non-Romney ads against Romney have been at parity with Mitt Romney. And that parity caused a rapid erosion of support for Mitt Romney. Parity in advertising, not superiority to Romney, was all it took to begin the end of his South Carolina dominance.
People are mad as hell they are about to be stuck with another boring, moderate, uninspiring choice that has at best a 50/50 shot at losing to the worst president since Carter.They are flocking to Newt not because they think he’s a great guy, but because right now, he’s the only one fighting for conservatism (And that only on occasion!)and GOP voters are looking for a vessel to channel their anger with Obama and their complete disappointment with the GOP establishment which is now embodied perfectly by Romney. They want a conservative fighter because most conservatives look back at Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, and McCain and see only the ones taking a conservative path against the Democrats actually winning.
Trump was a flash in the pan last year, but it was because he took the fight to Obama. And all of the others (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, etc) got their rise because at the time voters sensed they would fight back with them. If nothing else, in the last year, Newt has proven he won’t wilt like Mitt did yesterday under pretty basic questioning from Laura Ingraham or a month ago under routine questioning from Brett Baier.
Newt has taken the worst the media, Romney and the left can dish out, and he’s still standing and fighting with passion and eloquence. Sure, he’d probably be an erratic President, but right now Republican voters don’t care about his Presidency.They care about the fight with the left both Mitt Romney, and the Washington Republican leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell don’t seem inclined to engage in.
In every way in the last two weeks, Romney has signaled he won’t fight for the base. He looks like a lost child when trying to answer the taxes issue. He couldn’t stand up to Santorum in the debate. He sounds every bit like Gordon Gekko, not Milton Friedman, when he talks Bain and free markets.
Basically, today’s vote is about Republican grassroots giving the Washington Republican establishment the finger. The base is angry, and right now, only Newt is left to fight for them, as imperfect as he is. We may still end up with Romney, but voters aren’t going to let him have it easily.
Party leaders who have invested so much in Mitt Romney might want now to ride on to a brokered convention and find someone acceptable to everyone.(Which wouldn’t be anyone in the current field!) Because this most divisive and bitter primary in years is going to wipe out the GOP’s chances to win in November. And while few of the Romney advocates of the past four years will admit it, it is because they have tried to foist onto the base a milquetoast moderate from Massachusetts as energizing to conservatives as a dead battery.
Then there’s this from Ben Domenech in Ricochet.com….
Why Newt?
Over a fantastic meal at Husk in Charleston, old fashioned cocktails at the Gin Joint, cigars on East Bay and a classic low-country breakfast this morning – can you tell this is a great place? – I posed the same question to several local South Carolina friends: why Newt? What can explain the rise of Newt Gingrich here in South Carolina, to the point where he may very well win today?
As I am sure all you smart Ricochet folks know full well, South Carolina historically has been a place where the leading candidate confirms their position and marks the last gasp of any opponents. It has voted for every Republican nominee since 1980, even in 2008, when Mike Huckabee came close to beating McCain. The fact that it’s the home for many a desperate last stand is one of the reasons the state is a petri dish for dirty tricks and last minute surprises – but that historical record makes it all the more stunning to think that Gingrich, who came in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, could pull off a win here after the polls close in an hour’s time.
So what’s the explanation? The assessment I heard from friends and compatriots was interesting. A caveat acknowledging bias, before this decidedly unscientific listing of views: everyone I asked had voted for Huckabee or McCain in 2008 (Romney came in fourth here then, so his voters from 08 are fewer in number anyway). With that said, here are the three areas that stood out to me:
The Media Battle. Nearly every person brought up of their own volition the idea that in order to beat President Obama in November, the Republican candidate will have to endure a barrage of attacks from the liberal media, who will be dedicated to his reelection. We’re all familiar with Gingrich’s longstanding jousting matches with moderators and journalists, but this is different than just that – it’s skepticism that Romney can withstand the similar pressure. The last two debates have hurt Romney a great deal on this account, if they are to be believed. One line from a Charleston friend: “Romney had this whole teflon thing going for a while but now I think they would tear him apart.”
Via email, Josh Trevinoraised a point about this that I think is very accurate:
Conservatives (accurately) perceive the media mainstream to be a de facto organ of the liberal left, and by extension, the Democratic Party – and they understand that conservative governance is absolutely impossible unless that organ is defeated or co-opted. On the latter count, ask President John McCain how his co-option efforts went. When Newt Gingrich crushes a hapless journalist, he isn’t just tossing up a parlor trick: he’s demonstrating an indispensable prerequisite to conservative governance today.
For a state that has seen more than its fair share of media games – and in fact just elected Governor Haley in spite of widespread (and quite personal) attacks from the local media – this is a point that resonates all the more.
The Importance of the Debates. Gingrich initially rose, and Perry fell, due to the overabundance of debates this cycle. Everyone – and again, Thursday’s debate was in Charleston – cited this as significant, and Gingrich’s performances in the past two debates have impressed them even as Romney (hounded by Santorum on Romneycare, meandering on his tax returns) turned in arguably two of his worst performances. Consider: both Gingrich and Romney saw the questions coming – Gingrich on his ex-wife, Romney on his tax returns. One was prepared to defend himself, and one seemingly was not. That apparently resonated, and not just with my friends, as Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post points out today:
Exit polls from #scprimary: Two-thirds of voters say recent debates were the most or one of most impt issues in deciding vote. AMAZING.
Indeed. And as much as people cited the positives from Gingrich’s performance, there was much more concern expressed about Romney’s negative performances. The rationale is simple: what if Romney can’t hack it in a debate with Obama?Failing to mount a defense of conservatism on the debate stage and in the public square – a failure that reminds conservatives of much of the worst moments of George W. Bush’s tenure – was one of the most significant reasons Rick Perry is back home in Texas today. Conservatives have no interest in people who become shrinking violets on the stage. Consider this quote from an evangelical voter in The State, the largest newspaper here:
“No one does not have baggage. Newt’s was just exposed more because of his time in politics,” she said. “I think it’s time for a bulldog president. Grab ’em by the pants leg and don’t let go until you draw blood. That’s Newt.”
But there’s more here than just the power of words. Here’s an email from a non-South Carolinian on this point, which I heard echoed in their views:
The whole reason why former Perry/Cain/Bachmann/Pawlenty/Santorum supporters are giving Newt a hearing is that they reject the notion that a guy with Romney’s record is a conservative, and they recognize that since 1964 the GOP’s losses in national races have all come from the party’s moderate wing… Newt has a record. It is not one of unbroken conservative success, but it is a record of a great electoral triumph and some significant policy accomplishments at a time when Newt was the party’s de facto national leader and the Left’s #1 target. That record of being the Man in the Arena with the scars to show for it gives him a credibility behind his rhetoric that, say, a Herman Cain would not have.
Most members of the pundit class view the arrows in Newt’s back as election problems. They probably are for any potential general. But to the conservative base that makes up much of the electorate in a red state like this, those battle scars are viewed as an asset, not a liability – a sign that there’s principle behind the words, not just poll-testing.
Questioning Mitt’s Message. While Gingrich was speaking to a raucous crowd of 700+ in Orangeburg yesterday, Mitt Romney was giving his standard stump speech at a more subdued rally in North Charleston, which just lacked any real energy (and was prefaced, oddly, by a band playing Fleetwood Mac’s “Landslide” and Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a Changing” – the last time I heard those at a rally, I’m pretty sure it was Clinton-Gore 1996). He has bused in many younger volunteers from out of state who are more passionate, but the stump speech was the same old, same old. The journalists who have heard it a hundred times find this honed perfection boring; I find it certainly passable, but by no means inspiring.
Is this a problem? Well, it could be. One of my friends specifically directed me to this Laura Ingraham interview with Romney yesterday, where the former governor advanced his general election argument on jobs and why he should beat Obama. The political challenge: what if the economy starts to look up by Election Day, even just thanks to modest improvement in the numbers, and even if it’s in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of them? Here’s what Ingraham asked:
INGRAHAM: Isn’t that a hard argument to make if you’re saying — Okay, he inherited this recession, and he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now we’re seeing some more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?
ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? [laughter] It just happens to be the truth…. at some point it’s going to get better, but I don’t think President Obama’s helping it.
That is just not a good enough message, and it’s not a principled one, my friend pointed out – and he’s right. Electability concerns for Gingrich are well in evidence, but if Romney’s only argument is reduced to “pay no attention to improving numbers,” that sounds like a losing approach. There has to be a more principle-focused rationale to take to the voters.
By way of contrast: Gingrich has shared a message based around that rationale in large part because of the specific way he talks about “jobs” – not rattling off statistics as Perry and others did and do, but by expressing what having a job means, often in terms that are very specific to the locality he’s in (unlike Romney, Gingrich’s stump speech is very localvore). This example from the most recent debatefeatures a line Gingrich has been repeating on the stump here across the state: “Elect us and your kids will be able to move out because they’ll have work.” It is aspirational talk, not spreadsheet talk, and in the South, that sells.
Two quick practical notes, in addition to all this:
Romney’s money advantage mitigated? South Carolina has been absolutely blanketed with ads. More than $13 million has been spent on TV there, which is an astonishing amount for the state – every time you turn on the TV, it seems like one’s running from the various Super PACs. The mailboxes are just as clogged. But in contrast to Iowa, the anti-Romney and anti-Gingrich ad content seems to be roughly equivalent (partly because Romney’s ads are only attacking Gingrich now, and Santorum and Gingrich are both attacking Romney). Being at parity on this front hurts Romney a bit I’d think.
Which endorsements matter? The endorsements that came to Romney last time and this time are not doing much to move people. Jim DeMint has not endorsed Romney, and while Governor Nikki Haley has (as did Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell this week), she’s still a controversial figure here who doesn’t have strong poll numbers. Much of the legislature’s conservative leadership, contra Haley, has jumped in to endorse Newt, along with many of Jon Huntsman’s backers. None of my friends mentioned any endorsements as influencing them one way or the other, though one did say he was surprised popular Rep. Tim Scott did not endorse anyone, and a few remarked about their decision being easier without Perry and Huntsman in the race. This GQ article notes the reaction of some conservative South Carolina congressman to Haley’s endorsement:
Mulvaney says, “So here’s the $64,000 question that I’m sure GQ would love an answer to, and I’m going to try to ask it in a way that won’t get any of us in trouble: Nikki Haley’s endorsement more helpful in state, or out of state?”
“Out of state,” Duncan says quickly. Gowdy is emphatic. “OUT. OF. STATE.”
In sum: South Carolinians are wary of nominating another uninspiring moderate guy who can’t defend himself or conservatism in the public square. They’ve seen these candidates, and their ads, for more than a week now. And with a field down to four, the momentum is swinging Newt’s way because of his ability to defend himself, his record, and conservative ideas in the debates and the public square. This is something the voters I spoke to believe is essential for any nominee – and it is something that, at least in this state, Romney has failed to do.
Here’s the juice: we still consider Newt unelectable; while his snappy retorts to unabashedly Liberal moderators in the debates may thrill those sick and tired of blatant bias from the Fourth Estate (see the attached link http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/ courtesy of Tim Lester), they obscure Newt’s actual record, as well as his erratic if not impulsively irrational behavior. He’s burdened with all of Mitt’s negatives but possesses none of Romney’s more commendable assets. We frankly fear the hazards a Gingrich presidency would pose not only to the future of Conservatism, but America’s as well.
Yet we still cannot warm up to Romney. If the pummeling he took in the Palmetto State leads him to renounce Romneycare and begin taking his obvious shortcomings seriously, it could be the best thing that ever happened to his campaign. Though at this late date, particularly in view of his already-established reputation for flip-flopping, it may well be (http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2012/01/22/romney_to_release_his_tax_returns_on_tuesday) too late.
If nothing else, Romney’s inexplicable indecisiveness on the release of his tax returns, inability to explain the facts behind his tax rates and failure to anticipate the reaction to his funds in the Cayman Islands speaks volumes about how out of touch most politicians are with average Americans.
And by the way, the thirst most Conservatives have for revenge against the MSM for their blatantly hypocritical treatment of Republicans is understandable. But no amount of rhetorical ripostes from Newt, however well-deserved, will force the MSM to subject The Obamao to similar scrutiny.
All that being said, South Carolina is over; Florida is now all that matters.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch with the boys at the Lazy M….as in “Marxist”, Mike Brownfield and Heritage.org, courtesy of Bill Meisen, sound the….
Morning Bell: Obama’s Magic Kingdom of Joblessness
Yesterday in Walt Disney World, the land “where dreams come true,” President Barack Obama appeared before Cinderella’s Castle to announce his latest plan to boost jobs in America–an effort to increase tourism to the United States.His announcement came one day after he flat out said “NO” to another plan that would have directly created at least 20,000 truly shovel-ready jobs–and 179,000 American jobs by 2035–while bringing more than 700,000 barrels of oil to the United States each day. That plan was the Keystone XL pipeline.
Had the President approved Keystone, a 1,700-mile pipeline would have been extended from Alberta, Canada, to Texas refineries — lifting up the U.S. economy with private-sector investment, putting people to work, and helping increase the supply of energy to lower prices when fuel costs are through the roof. Despite a finding by the State Department that the pipeline would pose minimal environmental risk, environmentalists were still up in arms and lobbied the President to say no to the plan.
The President’s decision is so out of line with fact and reason that The Washington Post strongly condemned it in an op-ed yesterday, saying the “pipeline rejection is hard to accept” and “We almost hope this was a political call because, on the substance, there should be no question.”As the Post explained, even without the pipeline, Canada will still export its oil–but across the ocean to China, instead.Meanwhile, the United States will continue importing crude oil from the Middle East.In other words, the environmental lobby might have stanched the flow of oil from Canada, but it’s being diverted onto the seas, and fossil fuel consumption will necessarily continue.
The environmental left’s “victory” is ultimately another loss for the American people — especially the 13.1 million unemployed workers. It’s a loss for small businesses, such as restaurants and hotels, in the towns along the proposed route. It’s a loss for state budgets that would have seen billions in tax revenue as a result. And it’s also a loss for those who are struggling with high energy costs.
Gas prices are at a record high for Januaryand are 28.5 cents per gallon higher than a year ago. And that’s expected to go even higher–some analysts predictthat the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded could hit $4 to $4.25 per gallon by the spring.(But no matter how high the price of gas goes, depend on the MSM not to mention it….at least until after the November elections!)
One might think that given the high cost of energy, the President would be seeking to increase domestic production, especially given Iran’s threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, thereby cutting off a quarter of the world’s energy supply.Think again. Under President Obama, oil and natural gas production of federal lands is down by more than 40 percentcompared to 10 years ago, 2010 had the lowest number of leasesissued for oil and gas production on federal lands since 1984, and the Administration held only one offshore lease salein 2011.
There is one bright spot in the nation for energy production: North Dakota. Overall energy production has increased thanks to the state’s pro-energy policies, and North Dakota has reaped the benefits, as have other like-minded states, as Heritage’s Rob Bluey reports:
North Dakota’s unemployment rate is 3.4 percent, the lowest in the country. According to a recent report from IHS Global Insight, North Dakota already returned to pre-recession employment along with energy-rich Alaska. Texas is expected to do so in the first quarter of 2012, followed by Nebraska and South Dakota next year.
There’s much more that could be done, though, to move America further toward safely developing energy resources here at home–and the Keystone XL pipeline would be one such step. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing to review legislation that would restart the project, focusing on a billintroduced by Representative Lee Terry (R-NE), which would allow construction on the pipeline to begin a month after passage. Heritage’s Nicolas Loris explainsthat “a simple, effective approach would be for Congress to authorize the pipeline application as submitted by TransCanada pursuant to its authority to regulate commerce with other nations.”
Sadly, this action wouldn’t have been necessary if President Obama put the interests of the American people before his own political interests. He could have green-lighted the Keystone XL pipeline this week and helped create real jobs and increase the supply of affordable, reliable energy, without spending public dollars or advocating tax hikes. But instead he headed for the Magic Kingdom and continued to spin the fantasy that he has the answers for job creation in America. In the meantime, Americans can only dream of a stronger economy and a brighter future.
And at the same time he hobbles us at home, overseas The Obamao’s busily engaged in reinitiating Jimmy Carter’s failed foreign policy: talking, talking, talking….then rolling over and offering your enemies a clear shot at your throat:
US to keep 11 aircraft carriers to show sea power
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told sailors aboard the country’s oldest aircraft carrier that the U.S. is committed to maintaining a fleet of 11 of the formidable warships despite budget pressures, in part to project sea power against Iran. Panetta also told the crowd of 1,700 gathered in the hangar bay of the USS Enterprise that the ship is heading to the Persian Gulf region and will steam through the Strait of Hormuz in a direct message to Tehran….
“That’s what this carrier is all about,” said Panetta. “That’s the reason we maintain a presence in the Middle East … We want them to know that we are fully prepared to deal with any contingency and it’s better for them to try to deal with us through diplomacy.”
Unfortunately, Panetta’s pronouncement is just more of what the world’s come to expect from this Administration: pathetic, abject posturing. All America’s enemies are hearing and seeing is Team Tick-Tock sounding the retreat:
And since we’re on the subject of the most inept Chief Executive since Hamilton Jordan and Rosalyn Carter both blew a little dope in the White House, and the most corrupt since Monica Lewinsky accomplished the same, but on a larger scale:
Federal official in Arizona to plead the 5th, not answer questions on ‘furious’
The chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona is refusing to testify before Congress regarding Operation Fast and Furious, the federal gun-running scandal that sent U.S. weapons to Mexico. Patrick J. Cunningham informed the House Oversight Committee late Thursday through his attorney that he will use the Fifth Amendment protection.
Cunningham was ordered Wednesday to appear before Chairman Darrell Issa and the House Oversight Committee regarding his role in the operation that sent more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa Cartel. Guns from the failed operation were found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry.
A letter from Cunningham’s Washington, DC attorney stunned congressional staff.Last week, Cunningham, the second highest ranking U.S. Attorney in Arizona, was scheduled to appear before Issa‘s committee voluntarily. Then, he declined and Issa issued a subpoena.
Cunningham is represented by Tobin Romero of Williams and Connolly who is a specialist in white collar crime. In the letter, he suggests witnesses from the Department of Justicein Washington, who have spoken in support of Attorney General Eric Holder, are wrong or lying.
“Department of Justice officials have reported to the Committee that my client relayed inaccurate information to the Department upon which it relied in preparing its initial response to Congress. If, as you claim, Department officials have blamed my client, they have blamed him unfairly,” the letter to Issa says.
Romero claims Cunningham did nothing wrong and acted in good faith, but the Department of Justice in Washington is making him the fall guy, claiming he failed to accurately provide the Oversight Committee with information on the execution of Fast and Furious.
“To avoid needless preparation by the Committee and its staff for a deposition next week, I am writing to advise you that my client is going to assert his constitutional privilege not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.” Romero told Issa.
This schism is the first big break in what has been a unified front in the government’s defense of itself in the gun-running scandal. Cunningham claims he is a victim of a conflict between two branches of government and will not be compelled to be a witnesses against himself, and make a statement that could be later used by a grand jury or special prosecutor to indict him on criminal charges.
And as this next item forwarded by Speed Mach details, at least for now, the hits on B. Hussein just keep on comin’:
BankruptSolyndraCaught Destroying Brand New Parts
In a related item….
Feds end Chevy Volt investigation, say car is safe
Such a conclusion couldn’t have anything to do with the fact the government….owns the company?!?
Next up, the SCOTUS dumps a little more rain on the Dims constitutionally-questionable parade:
Supreme Court throws out judge-drawn Texas electoral maps
The Supreme Court on Friday threw out electoral maps drawn by federal judges in Texas that favored minorities. The unsigned opinion left the fate of Texas’ April primaries unclear.
The justices ordered the three-judge court in San Antonio to come up with new plans that pay more attention to maps created by Texas’ Republican-dominated state Legislature. All four of the state’s new congressional seats, and perhaps control of the House of Representative, could swing based on the outcome.
But the Supreme Court did not compel the use of the state’s maps in this year’s elections, as Texas wanted. Only Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have gone that far. “In the absence of any legal flaw in this respect in the state’s plan, the district court had no basis to modify that plan,” the justices said….
On the Lighter Side….
Finally, we’ll call it a day with another heinous headline ripped from the pages of the Crime Blotter:
Inside the lavish life of Megaupload founder, Dotcom
Kim Schmitzlegally changed his surname to Dotcom at some point over the last decade, a homage to the technology that made him a millionaire and that has now landed him in a New Zealand jail. The 38-year-old Internet entrepreneur was arrested Thursday at his birthday celebration inside a 25,000-square-foot mansion in Auckland. When police entered the property, Mr. Dotcom fled to a safe room, where he was found with a loaded shotgun, officials said.
Despite the legal controversy brewing around his website—and a previous conviction for insider trading—Mr. Dotcom didn’t lay low or hide anonymously behind his computer.
Rather, Mr. Dotcom openly enjoyed a lavish lifestyle. He owned at least 18 luxury cars—including a 1959 pink Cadillac and three cars with vanity license plates that read “HACKER,” “MAFIA,” and “STONED,” according to U.S. officials—flew helicopters, and personally funded the city of Auckland’s 2010 New Year’s fireworks celebration.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.