Saturday, February 4, 2012
NYT Smears Gingrich
Posted by on 2.4.12 @ 1:46PM
In an otherwise good bit of reporting about Newt Gingrich's "deep ties" to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the NYT couldn't leave well enough alone. Here's the totally false sentence in the otherwise solid story, with my empahsis in italics:
House rules appear to require him to have filed a report within 30 days after he left Congress under an ethics cloud in January 1999.
Well, no he didn't leave it under and ethics cloud. There were no pending ethics charges at the time, nor even any known, pending, unofficial allegations of wrongdoing. He left Congress because he screwed up the management of Congress and of the 1998 campaigns. As a result, as has been reported and confirmed so many other places by now that it's not worth linking to them all, he just flat-out didn't have the votes for re-election as speaker. But ethics were not a component of his leaving, at least not in any immediate sense, although there may well have been sort of a hangover from his one ethics violation that was disposed of more than a year earlier -- but that hangover, if a part of it, was just part and parcel of the whole overall record as speaker; it did not cause a "cloud" hanging over him by the end of 1998 and early 1999 that directly caused his ouster.
This is just a sheer matter of fact. To repeat, not a single ethics charge was outstanding against Gingrich when he left Congress. The New York Times knows this. The New York Times doesn't care. Not content with publishing facts that tend to discredit the former speaker, it adds an old fiction with which to smear him -- thus discrediting the rest of its otherwise decent work on this story in the process.
As with the racism charge leveled against Gingrich that I dealt with here, this is a load of crud that should not be allowed to stand.
Lord knows I'm no Gingrich fan, but fair is fair. The story on Fannie and Freddie should stand on its own, without a smear being added to it.
Santorum's Slow-Mo Surge Continues
Posted by on 2.4.12 @ 1:28PM
Head-to-head, horse-race polls this far out don't mean a LOT, but they do show important trends. In that light, behold Rasmussen's newest, which shows Rick Santorum as the only Republican to beat Obama head to head. This is the latest in a week-long series of polls, from pollsters left, right and center, showing Santorum doing better against Romney than Gingrich or Paul, or better against Obama than Gingrich or Paul and either better or about even with Romney when matched against Obama -- or, having a significantly better favorable-to-unfavorable ratio (this IS a significant poll number this far out, unlike a horse-race match-up) than anybody in the GOP field.
Also today, Phyllis Schlafly announced she would vote for Santorum. This follows endorsements or "support" statements in favor of Santorum this week from Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh, Sharron Angle, Tom Tancredo, Jane Norton, Bob Schaffer, and others.
Not bad for a guy who the establishment media keeps writing off.
Nevada Predictions
Posted by on 2.4.12 @ 9:28AM
Today, with little fanfare Nevada will hold its Republican presidential caucuses. Upstaged by the Florida primary, the state neverthelesss gives one candidate a chance to generate some momentum as the frontrunner, another a test run at his caucus state strategy, and the other two an opening to redeem themselves.
This caucus is likely to reward the campaigns that have worked it the hardest. I'm predicting Mitt Romney wins by double digits, Ron Paul comes in second, Newt Gingrich third, and Rick Santorum finishes fourth.
Ben Gazzara, R.I.P.
Posted by on 2.4.12 @ 12:40AM
Actor Ben Gazzara passed away on Friday of pancreatic cancer. He was 81.
The New York born character actor had a career which spanned six decades on Broadway, film and TV. Gazzara was a member of the original Broadway cast of Tennessee Williams' Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and worked with directors ranging from Otto Preminger in Anatomy of a Murder to the Coen Brothers in The Big Lebowski. He also collaborated with John Cassavetes in the 1970s on a trio of films - Husbands, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie and Opening Night. Others still might remember Gazzara as the villain in the Patrick Swayze movie Road House.
However, when I think of Ben Gazzara the first person that comes to mind is Yogi Berra. Gazzara played the Yankees legend in an Off-Broadway one man play called Nobody Don't Like Yogi. In March 2005, Gazzara had a one week engagement at the Wilbur Theatre here in Boston and I had the chance to see a Sunday matinee performance. The Boston Globe said of Gazzara's performance, "This Yogi is a Yankee than even a Red Sox fan can love."
I leave you with a clip of Gazzara sparring with Berra's longtime battery mate Whitey Ford and boxing legend Joe Louis on I've Got a Secret with Garry Moore which originally aired in September 1959.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Six Random Thoughts on the Presidential Race
Posted by on 2.3.12 @ 4:14PM
1. Mitt Romney needs to avoid giving his critics easy ammunition. The controversies over "I like firing people" and not being concerned about the poor are totally unfair. They are also totally predictable and involve phrases it should be relatively simple to avoid using.
2. Reading articles about how Newt Gingrich could make a comeback, I'm seeing a lot more messaging advice than suggestions as to what primaries will allow him to amass the delegates necessary to beat Romney.
3. In 2008, Ron Paul's official campaign organization was widely panned while his "self-organizing grassroots" were praised for doing the heavy lifting. It was the latter who invented the concept of "money bombs," raised millions of dollars to break single-day fundraising records, dominated online straw polls, and developed the candidate's best ads and slogans. This time around, it may be the opposite. Paul's official campaign is much more professional and the grassroots has had less of an impact independent of the campaign.
An example: In Iowa and New Hampshire, the campaign identified and help turn out supporters. Paul finished third out of seven in Iowa and second out of six in New Hampshire, breaking 20 percent in both states. In South Carolina and Florida, they left get-out-the-vote operations mainly to the grassroots. Paul finished fourth out of four candidates and underperformed his poll numbers in both states. Much of this can be attributed the makeup of each of these four states and the smaller crossover vote in the last two primaries. And it was the campaign's own strategic decision to not really spend money getting out the vote in South Carolina or Florida. But it is a trend that bears watching as we head into caucus states where the campaign is once again engaged.
4. A lot of the endorsements Rick Santorum is getting now would have been more helpful immediately after Iowa. Even though he wasn't the announced winner until later, Santorum came out of Iowa with momentum that could have helped him bypass Gingrich.
5. If Romney is the nominee, no matter who he chooses for veep Barack Obama is going to try to make Donald Trump his running mate. He will have Romney and Trump standing before every workforce Bain touched saying, "You're fired."
6. Good economic statistics will help Obama make the case for his reelection, but more important than the official numbers are people's perceptions of the economy. Remember that the 1990-91 recession had technically ended before Bill Clinton even announced his candidacy and the economy was actually growing smartly in the last quarters of George Bush's presidency. But Clinton was still able to run against the "worst economy" since the Depression because jobs and incomes hadn't returned to their pre-recession levels, so it didn't feel like a recovery to the voters. It's actually dangerous for Obama to be too rosy about the economy if the electorate doesn't share his assessment, as it will make him seem out of touch.
Don't Forget Nevada
Posted by on 2.3.12 @ 3:53PM
Nevada moved its Republican caucuses from January to tomorrow in order to avoid a conflict with New Hampshire that would have potentially pushed the primary calendar into December 2011. As a reward for such good behavior, the state's caucuses have been completely marginalized by the Florida primary. Nevada will probably only generate major headlines in the unlikely event that Mitt Romney loses.
But the caucus will still bear watching. It will be Newt Gingrich's first opportunity to avenge his Florida loss. It will be Rick Santorum's first chance to eat into Gingrich's support and present himself as the new conservative alternative to Romney. It will also be the first test of Ron Paul's caucus strategy. Most local observers say that Romney and Paul have the best organizations working the caucus, but polls show Gingrich with more organic popularity than Paul. The Nevada polls can be unreliable, however: In the 2008 final results, Romney and Paul both received nearly double the vote percentage the pre-caucus polling average had predicted. Finally, it bears watching whether Romney can use Nevada to begin a winning streak that will make February a tough month for his opponetns.
Participation Rate Issue Less Than Meets the Eye
Posted by on 2.3.12 @ 2:10PM
As Aaron Goldstein and I have each noted, today's jobs report must be a short-term boost to President Obama. Over at intrade.com, Obama's betting odds to win re-election in 2012 are up from 55.5 percent yesterday (and 54.5 percent the day before) to 56.8 percent, having traded above 57 percent this morning.
But it's economics I want to talk about for a minute, rather than politics.
It is all the rage among conservatives, libertarians, and others who, like me, fear and loathe the Obama administration to point out the labor participation rate and suggest that the numbers are being manipulated to the advantage of Barack Obama and that labor statistics are barely-concealed "propaganda."
One of the leaders of this wave -- and a guy who I think is generally quite a good analyst -- is Tyler Durden who writes over at ZeroHedge.com. A perfect example is here.
I have some sympathy to this argument, but I think it's getting much more traction than it deserves, as you can see in the comments to Aaron's note and my note about the employment numbers.
But even someone who digs into the numbers as much and as well as Durden does can sometimes miss something important.
In particular, Durden says that the civilian non-institutional population rose by 1.7 million month-over-month but doesn't mention that almost all of that increase was due to an adjustment by Bureau of Labor Statistics based on the results of the 2010 census, plus smaller annual adjustments.
From the BLS report:
The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population.
In other words, the participation rate (employment-population ratio) was reported to have dropped by 0.3%, exactly the amount of participation rate "drop" created by changing the population number used in the calculation (due to updated census data.) Without this once-a-decade adjustment, the change in participation rate would have been reported as...wait for it...zero.
I don't want to overstate the significance of Durden's oversight, which conservative voices around the media and the web are also making, namely the idea that the participation rate dropped 0.3 percent and the labor force dropped more than 1.2 million in the past month. Those things are simply not true no matter how loudly people scream "conspiracy" and "propaganda." (Having been trading financial markets for about 25 years, I've heard these same accusations about economic data being manipulated to help the incumbent president -- whether Democrat or Republican -- so many times, they just bore me now.)
And while the actual participation rate might in fact be this new lower number, that would also mean that prior numbers were lower. In other words, the top-line change -- caused almost entirely by using new census population numbers -- is an artifact of the new census data, but few people have read to the end of the BLS report to get that important piece of information.
Furthermore, there are cyclical reasons that the participation rate shouldn't be as high now as it was a few years ago in a different part of the economic cycle, as economist Brian Wesbury (no liberal, he) explains.
Look, I don't like writing anything that is likely to benefit Barack Obama or his supporters. But the facts are the facts, and the claims of a big one-month drop in labor force and participation rate are simply wrong. If our side is going to call certain data "propaganda," the least we can do is make sure we understand the data.
Not Disgrace, but Incompetence
Posted by on 2.3.12 @ 1:17PM
That's why, according to former U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, Newt Gingrich was forced to step aside as Speaker. While there are parts of the story he leaves out, especially regarding all the events of 1998, Souder provides a fair and balanced assessment that is probably more kind to Gingrich than not. It's well worth a read. Fair is fair. I remembered the Gingrich ethics charges to be somewhere between the high level of infraction charged by critics and the almost non-existent infraction described by Souder, and I have hit Gingrich for it. I still think others would dispute Souder's virtual exoneration of Gingrich. Nonetheless, based on Souder's account, if I overstated Gingrich's culpability in a post somewhere several months ago, as I think I may have (I can't find the post now, but I'll keep trying), then I withdraw that particular criticism to whatever extent it was overstated.
Either way, the Souder account is a good read. On matters aside from the formal ethics charges, plenty of others have described at great length all the horrors of Gingrichian leadership to which Souder only briefly, but memorably, alludes.
Anyway, getting the record right is important. Please do read Souder's piece to get a thoughtful account thereof.
Lessons from Reagan
Posted by on 2.3.12 @ 12:32PM
The Gipper's 101st birthday on Monday merits a class in Reagan 101.
One of my points is that conservatives can't win on principle alone, without doing the hard work of learning how to communicate those principles. The ability to communicate rather well, in at least a memorable fashion, is what has kept Newt Gingrich in contention during this primary season. I guess the third factor in the equation, one I left out in the piece linked above, is that the communicator must be a good messenger on a personal level -- reassuring, trustworthy, likeable, and believable. That's where Gingrich fails. If only we could again find somebody to combine the principles, the ability, and the likeability, then conservatives would finally be truly ascendant.
The Unemployment Numbers Benefit Obama
Posted by on 2.3.12 @ 12:21PM
Even if Ross Kaminsky is correct in saying that unemployment is falling despite President Obama's economic policies there is no question these numbers will help Obama's re-election prospects. The unemployment rate has fallen five straight months dropping nearly a percentage point. Perception, after all, comprises nine-tenths of reality.
Now, of course, Ross might also be right to say that this pace of improvement in the economy cannot be sustained. In which case, President Obama will find himself in a more vulnerable position and Mitt Romney would be in a much better position to take advantage of the situation. Of course, whether Romney has the political instincts to do so is another matter entirely.
But if the economy more or less stays as it is and people have the sense not only the worst of the recession is over but that things will get better then Obama will be easily re-elected in nine months time.
A Thought for Josh Hamilton
Posted by on 2.3.12 @ 11:50AM
Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton apparently suffered a relapse on Monday night and was seen drinking at a bar in Dallas. His teammate Ian Kinsler is also reported to have arrived at the bar in an effort to persuade Hamilton to return to his home.
Hamilton, of course, has a long history of alcohol and substance abuse problems. These problems surfaced soon after the Tampa Bay Devil Rays made him the number one pick in the 1999 MLB Draft and was suspended on multiple occasions. His problems were such that he was unable to play professional baseball from 2003 through late in the 2006 season. But after Hamilton became a born again Christian and renewed his baseball activities, the Cincinnati Reds took a chance on him when they acquired him in the Rule 5 Draft (via the Chicago Cubs) prior to the 2007 season.
After hitting 19 homeruns with the Reds in 2007, Hamilton was traded to the Texas Rangers for pitcher Edinson Volquez. Hamilton had a breakout season with the Rangers in 2008 hitting .304 with 32 homeruns and league leading 130 RBI. The highlight of the 2008 season was the Homerun Derby the night before the All-Star Game when Hamilton had the Yankee Stadium faithful chanting his name after hitting homerun after homerun. Because of Hamilton's standout performance, hardly anyone remembers that Justin Morneau of the Minnesota Twins actually won the Derby that year.
In January 2009, Hamilton would suffer a relapse in Arizona (although this was not disclosed until many months later) after going more than three years without consuming alcohol and drugs. After an injury plagued 2009 season, Hamilton won the American League MVP in 2010 hitting hitting .359 (good enough to win the AL batting crown), 32 homeruns and 100 RBI as the Rangers made their first World Series appearance. His numbers fell off slightly in 2011 hitting .298 with 25 homeruns and 94 RBI. Of course, the Rangers went to the World Series again and his 10th inning homerun off Cardinals closer Jason Motte in Game 6 could have clinched it for the Rangers but Lance Berkman and David Freese had other ideas.
There are several factors which may have contributed to Hamilton's relapse apart from the fact that he is an addict. First, one can only imagine the guilt he feels over the death of firefighter Shannon Stone, who fell to his death at Rangers Ballpark last July after Hamilton tossed him a ball in the stands which he intended to give to his son, Cooper. Although Hamilton has forged a close relationship with the Stone family, I am sure Hamilton will always feel some level of guilt even though he and everyone else understands it was an accident.
Second, Hamilton's support network is in a state of flux. Although Hamilton's teammates have been supportive of him up to and including making a point of celebrating their post-season triumphs with ginger ale, Hamilton was closer to Johnny Narron than anyone else. Indeed, it was Narron who was instrumental in getting Hamilton back into baseball and every day Hamilton has been in a big league uniform, Narron has been at his side. Although he has served both the Reds and the Rangers an assistant hitting coach, his primary job was keeping Hamilton on the straight and narrow as an "accountability partner."
However, back in November, Narron was hired as the hitting coach for the Milwaukee Brewers. Hamilton's father-in-law initially agreed to take Narron's place but has since reconsidered. Given the severity of Hamilton's condition, he needs someone to watch his back. The Rangers need to hire either someone already close to Hamilton or hire someone who has been through what he's been through (i.e. Bob Welch, Dave Parker, Tim Raines).
Finally, there is Hamilton's future with the Rangers itself as he becomes a free agent after the 2012 season. Hamilton and the Rangers had been in discussions to extend his contract but the relapse might very well put that process on hold. Even if you put Hamilton's two relapses to the side, he is very injury prone despite his productivity. Since 2007, Hamilton has been on the DL five times. This is not likely to get better for Hamilton who turns 31 in May. But Hamilton's tendency to get hurt might not bode well for his future with the Rangers. Of course, this will also be factors for the other 29 MLB teams that may wish to pursue him after this season.
But if I were to venture to guess, I wouldn't be surprised if Hamilton ended up reuniting with Narron (along with his brother Jerry) in Milwaukee in 2013, even if the team's name conjures an alcoholic beverage. The absence of Prince Fielder's lefthanded bat might be enough for the Brewers to take a chance on Hamilton.
This isn't Hamilton's first relapse and it probably won't be his last. Then there's the question of how Hamilton will handle his addiction after his baseball career is over which might be sooner rather than later. On the other hand, as many people who go to AA meetings will tell you, "One day at a time." On Monday, Hamilton had a bad day and can't change that fact. All he can do, with a little help, is get through today and begin again tomorrow.
UPDATE: This afternoon, Hamilton held a press conference and said he had "a weak moment" and ended up consuming "three or four" alcoholic beverages. Hamilton also noted that he contacted Ian Kinsler and asked him to join him for company and added that Kinsler was not aware he had been drinking.
Employment Report Blows Away Estimates
Posted by on 2.3.12 @ 9:10AM
The January employment report, released this morning, must have big grins on the faces of President Barack Obama and his campaign staff. And despite the negative political implications (of helping Obama's reelection chances), I still can't find myself rooting against good economic news. The key is that this is happening despite, not because of, Obama's policies.
The month-over-month gain in non-farm payrolls came in at 243,000, far exceeding the highest estimate in Bloomberg's survey of economists, which was 189,000. Private sector payrolls came in at 257,000, again far above estimates, and showing the additional good news that government head counts are shrinking.
The unemployment rate was reported at 8.3%, matching the lowest of the estimates. Average workweek length and average hourly earnings were also very strong.
The political issue here, if this sort of economic trend were to continue, is how Mitt Romney will make his case, which is primarily an economic one, if the economy seems to be on a solid recovery track. I do not believe this pace of improvement is sustainable. Nevertheless, the argument that "this is the weakest recovery in modern American history" is somewhat too subtle for the average voter to understand.
The stock market is looking much stronger prior to Friday's open, though one has to wonder whether some of this good news was already "baked in," given the rally the market had earlier in the week. I would not be surprised to see modest profit-taking by the end of the day. That said, I think plenty of people will be caught short here and if the market is still near its highs in the last 15 minutes, I think they'll take it higher as the shorts are forced to cover going into the weekend.
Government bond and note years are up modestly, and markets have raised their bets on a Fed rate hike by the end of 2013 by about 25%, to a 100% chance of the Fed moving from a 0% target to a 0.25% target. If anything, I think this may still represent lower interest rates than we'll see if the economy gains traction.
There are no two ways about it, at least from an economic point of view: This was a great number, the best in years, and I'm very glad more Americans are finding work. I just hope they don't credit President Obama.
The Day Ahead: Friday, February 3
Posted by on 2.3.12 @ 8:14AM
Obama to speak in a green, woman-friendly firehouse in Arlington (Star Telegram)
Jobless rate has fallen because of dropouts (Washington Times)
White House not backing down on contraception (National Journal)
Donald Trump said to Newt Gingrich: "You're fired!" (LA Times)
Susan G. Komen deals with well-coordinated attacks from Planned Parenthood (Politico)
Senate passed STOCK Act last night (Roll Call)
Rep. Health Shuler of NC, a rare "blue dog" Democrat, retires (Roll Call)
Sen. Hatch is not yet convinced Obama is Jesus Christ (The Hill)
Occupy DC members on a "sleep strike" (DCist)
Hillary Clinton: Bond Villain? (Daily Mail)
Tim Geithner Defends Dodd-Frank (NY Times)
Leon Panetta story sparks Israel-Iran speculation (Politico)
VIDEO: Sen. Jim DeMint narrates a cartoon:
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Justice Ginsburg to Egypt: Don't Look to the US Constitution as a Model
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 10:34PM
From the Middle East Media Research Institute, excerpts from an interview that aired Monday on Al-Hayat TV with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that's one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution.
I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.
[...]
Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don't care, then the best constitution in the world won't make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution - first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.
[...]
You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
Ginsburg, of course, gets one of nine votes on the functional meaning of the US Constitution. That she thinks the age of the constitution she's charged with interpreting make it deficient relative to newer constitutions is kind of shocking, particularly in the context of her praise for the rights enshrined in the First Amendment -- rights that, in practice, are protected far less robustly in South Africa or Canada or Europe than they are in the US. On the other hand, given her style of interpretation, it's kind of not shocking at all.
(Hat-tip: Weasel Zippers)
Romney's Moronic Indulgence of Trump
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 5:45PM
Phil Klein calls Mitt Romney's joint appearance with Donald Trump to accept the latter's endorsement "the biggest blunder of his candidacy." I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's certainly up there. Consider that last time the effect of a Trump endorsement was polled, by Fox News in Spetember, it came out as a net negative: 31% would be less likely to vote for a Trump endorsee, only 6% more likely.
Those who are working to re-elect Barack Obama are thrilled by the development, touting it on the @BarackObama Twitter account and in a blast email from the Democratic National Committee. Romney will most likely be the Republican nominee, and if Trump says something particularly incendiary, one can certainly imagine an attack ad using the footage of Trump and Romney. But even if this blows over and doesn't seriously hurt Romney, it's hard to see how it can possibly help.
My Right to Your Money
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 5:25PM
Noah Millman is wrestling with a fair-minded compromise between a government trying to enforce a right to health care and religious employers trying to follow their institutional conscience. He comes up with ending private health insurance. But it seems to me what he has discovered is the inherent problem of rights that impose unequal obligations on others to be fulfilled. More rights for me means fewer rights for thee.
Edwin Jackson On The Move Again
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 4:50PM
Consider what I wrote when the St. Louis Cardinals acquired pitcher Edwin Jackson from the Chicago White Sox (via the Toronto Blue Jays) last July:
So the Cardinals are Jackson's sixth big league club (including the five minutes he spent with the Jays) in less than three years. Jackson joins a Cardinals team that is currently in first place in the NL Central and is now part of a starting rotation in St. Louis which includes Chris Carpenter, Jaime Garcia, Jake Westbrook and Kyle Lohse. But even if the Cards should win the World Series methinks Jackson will be pitching elsewhere in 2012. He is a free agent at the end of the season.
I guess you could call him Travelin' Edwin Jackson.
Well, the Cardinals did win the World Series and Jackson, true to form, has moved on. Today, Jackson signed a one-year contract with the Washington Nationals pending a physical. Jackson went a combined 12-9 with a 3.79 ERA along with 148 strikeouts in just under 200 innings pitched with the Chisox and Cardinals in 2011.
The Nats look like they could contend in 2012 especially if MLB decides to add a second Wild Card spot. In any case, Jackson joins a starting rotation which includes Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann, Chien-Ming Wang and ex-Oakland Athletic Gio Gonzalez.
Interestingly, the 28-year old Jackson was offered several multiple year deals with the Cardinals, the Boston Red Sox and the Baltimore Orioles but decided to seek a one-year deal so he could re-enter the free agent market after this season. Jackson's decision to sign with the Nats is no doubt disappointing to Pittsburgh Pirates fans who had lobbied him to sign with the Bucs through Twitter. But who knows? The Nats are Jackson's seventh big league team and probably not his last. Maybe Pirates fans will get their wish in 2013.
Of course, Jackson has a long way to go before he catches up to his former Cardinals teammate Octavio Dotel who, now as a member of the Detroit Tigers, will have pitched for an MLB record 13 teams.
An Answer to Jeffrey Lord's Absurd, Speculative, Smear Jobs, Plural
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 3:00PM
Jeffrey Lord, who has intellectual integrity about equivalent to Bill Clinton's, has become a purveyor of smear jobs utterly divorced from facts, logic, and decency. After an exchange of about a dozen emails back and forth in which he refused to acknowledge simple facts -- not opinions, facts -- the time has come to show him up for his growing and despicable hackery.
One of Lord's obsessions these days seems to be the idea that Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, and formerly of this publication, is "in the tank" for Mitt Romney (oh, really? How about this, Jeff?) and that she has written almost nothing in favor of any real conservative. I noted to him that she has written literally several dozen pieces that are absolutely glowing about Rick Santorum, whom Jeff does indeed accept as a real conservative. Despite easy Google access to the evidence, Jeff continued to refuse to acknowledge this fact, and refused to retract the smears against Rubin (which included smears against Elliott Abrams and others).
So, to set the record straight, here are a number of posts Rubin has written that are favorable to Santorum, or on balance critical of Romney, or more favorable of Santorum than of Romney. Here (way back in August) and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here ("Romney's lack of connection to voters is precisely the opening Santorum can use to wedge himself in between Romney and a conservative base that has not yet embraced Romney wholeheartedly") and here and here and here and .... oh gosh, I'm tired, but I could go on and on after these 21 I've already cited.
Why does this matter? Because there's a sick trend out there, which is to try to read between the lines of a writer's posts and ascribe motives to them that are different from what they actually write -- in other words, to accuse them of deliberate deception, based on nothing other than some extensions of logic (as in: hmmm... if somebody is AGAINST Gingrich, AND it is accepted wisdom that this is a two-man race between Romney and Gingrich, AND if the conventional wisdom is right to the effect that Santorum has no chance and that a late entry has no chance, THEN, ergo, anybody who criticizes Gingrich, even if praising Santorum, must secretly be trying to help Romney).
Readers of these columns and blog posts repeatedly accuse me, for instance, of being in the tank for Romney even though they can find not one shred of evidence that I have written in praise of Romney's substance in the past four years, and even though I have written several full columns and numerous blog posts harshly critical of Romney.
In short, everybody's integrity is made suspect even without a shred of evidence that there is a reason for suspicion. Jeff did this to Rubin, for instance, through his long, rambling, connect-the-invisible-dots attempt to smear Rubin's integrity by means of some imagined guilt-by-association-by-association-by-association link to Elliott Abrams' wife.
Here's a suggestion: Let's discard the idiotic labels (Establishment Romneyite; RINO; Right-Wing-nutso; Neocon), and instead just focus on the substance of people's records, proposals, and, yes, demonstrable public character. And let's stop asserting that everbody who opposes one's own candidate is therefore automatically excluded from the conservative club.
Charmaine Yoest's Victory for Life
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 2:40PM
Sarah Kliff of The Washington Post gives credit where credit is due:
After the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure's decision to defund Planned Parenthood, attention has focused on its Vice President for Policy, Karen Handel. She joined the group last January after a failed run for governor in Georgia, where she had advocated defunding Planned Parenthood.
But there's another woman who deserves equal credit: Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest. It's her group that issued a report last fall, "The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood," that led to a probe by the Energy and Commerce Committee. And it's that investigation that puts Planned Parenthood in violation of Komen's new policy that bars funding of groups under investigation.
Stipulate that Kliff is probably a liberal who disapproves of the Komen Foundation's decision, but she is correct in citing Yoest's work with Americans United for Life that encouraged members of Congress to launch the first-ever federal probe of Planned Parenthood's taxpayer-funded operations.
In July, Yoest organized a Capitol Hill press conference where leading pro-life House Republicans -- including New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, Illinois Rep. Randy Hultgren and North Carolina Rep. Renee Ellmers -- hailed the AUL report as "a blueprint" for a congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood's misconduct. And six months later, the Komen Foundation's defunding is a direct result of that investigation.
Many important facts are being overlooked amid the liberal media noise (e.g., "Uproar as Komen Foundation Cuts Money to Planned Parenthood,") but among that forest of ignored facts, no one should fail to recognize Yoest's role as an effective leader of the pro-life movement in this battle.
Romneycare is the Democrats' Fault
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 2:21PM
At the risk of beating a dead horse, there are two other items from Ann Coulter's pro-Romneycare column that require a response. Coulter contends, "What went wrong with Romneycare wasn't a problem in the bill, but a problem in Massachusetts: Democrats."
We heard a version of this argument when Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug benefit under George W. Bush -- the original Bush proposal was better than the final product. But in both cases, Bush and Romney decided to sign the finished product into law with great fanfare. They both accepted credit for the programs as major legislative accomplishments. You can't take credit for these bills without accepting the blame too.
In the case of Romneycare, while it is true that the Democrats pushed some details to the left, the basic architecture of the plan -- mandates, subsidies, government-run exchanges, and expanded Medicaid -- were all in the original proposal backed by the governor. The final product didn't differ in kind from Romney's proposal, though it did to some extent by degree. And Romney had already decided not to run for reelection, thus leaving the plan's implementation totally up to Democrats.
"Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally," Coulter writes. But that's not entirely clear from his repeated references to the Massachusetts plan as a national model. Romney also predicted, erroneously, that most states in the nation would end up with his mandate-driven approach. Jonathan Gruber, a liberal scholar who helped design both Romneycare and Obamacare, favored federal mandates. The Heritage scholars Coulter cites were originally supporters of the federal mandate. (Many of them have renounced their support; see this op-ed from the oft-Coulter-quoted Bob Moffit who called "operationally ineffective and legally defective."
The point here isn't to vilify Coulter, a fine columnist, or even Romney. Romney should be defended from attacks from his left. The point is avoid consolidating liberal policy gains by a.) engaging in revisionist history to let our favorite Republican co-conspirators off the hook, b.) making arguments that will make the reversal of those gains much more difficult, and c.) turning serious constitutional and policy differences into partisan squabbling.
Does Trump's Endorsement Matter?
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 12:16PM
First, it looked like Donald Trump was going to endorse Newt Gingrich. Now, as both Jeff Lord and Ross Kaminsky have noted, it looks like he's going to give his blessings to Mitt Romney.
Before the day is over, I wouldn't be surprised if reports surfaced stating that Trump is planning to endorse the American people. Honestly, does it really matter who Trump endorses? Because after this season of The Apprentice is over in May, I bet you dollars to donuts he is going to threaten yet another presidential run.
With that, I am now tuning Trump out.
Trump to Endorse Romney
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 11:37AM
As I predicted yesterday, it is now being reported that Donald Trump will endorse Mitt Romney rather than Newt Gingrich. It's no surprise to me since Trump's main issue (now that he's stopped talking about President Obama's birth certificate) is China.
Mitt Romney has the most aggressively anti-China rhetoric of any of the candidates. Romney is right to focus on Chinese theft of American intellectual property but dangerously naive with his populist appeal to "unfair" Chinese trading practices, especially when based on the value of the Chinese currency.
Trump was never actually going to run. He was just keeping himself in the news to boost his television ratings. Romney's sharing Trump's idiocy on China gives Trump the most graceful possible way to explain to the fawning news media while he is not entering the race.
As for Romney, he should say "Thanks" to The Donald, but just once, and then never mention it again and do everything he can to keep Trump quiet, and far from the campaign trail. A Fox News poll suggests that three times as many voters are likely to vote against a candidate whom Trump endorsed as are likely to vote for the candidate for that reason.
Fox: Trump for Romney
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 11:31AM
Now we know. Fox News says for fact: The Donald will give his thumbs up to Mitt.
Romneycare Becomes Obamacare, Then Coultercare
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 11:28AM
Ann Coulter has now written an unqualified defense of Romneycare. What she doesn't appear to realize is how useful her column will be to defenders of Obamacare.
She writes, "It's not as if we had a beautifully functioning free market in health care until Gov. Mitt Romney came along and wrecked it by requiring that Massachusetts residents purchase their own health insurance." Coulter points out that many conservatives and libertarians believed "mandatory private health insurance was considered the free-market alternative to the Democrats' piecemeal socialization of the entire medical industry." She argues that the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute were conservative think tanks that backed Romneycare.
Every single on one of these arguments could be used for Obamacare. Obamacare is mandatory private health insurance purchased through exchanges with subsidies and expanded Medicaid thrown in. That is also the basic architecture of Romneycare. Obama will argue that his plan wasn't a government takeover of health care because it's "not as if we had a beautifully functioning free market in health care until President Barack Obama came along and wrecked it." He can also point out that many libertarians and conservatives were desperate enough to support his approach when the Democrats were touting policies to its left.
Coulter goes on to say that Romneycare passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of the state legislature, including Scott Brown's vote. But Brown was only one of a handful of Republicans in the legislature. Those overwhelming majorities were overwhelmingly Democratic. And when you look at the promiment photo of the Romneycare signing ceremony, you will see not the leaders of the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute beaming with Romney but the Democratic leaders of the state legislature and Teddy Kennedy. Continually dropping Bob Moffit's name doesn't alter this reality.
Finally, Coulter defends the individual mandate on policy grounds. It's no worse than other examples of government coercion, she says. The Constitution doesn't create an unalienable right not to buy health insurance, she argues. The individual mandate is necessary to deal with the free rider problem created in part "the 1946 federal law essentially requiring hospitals to provide free medical services to all comers." Coulter writes, "The hyperventilating over government-mandated health insurance confuses a legal argument with a policy objection," even suggesting, messy constitutional issues aside, Obamacare wouldn't be as big of a deal if all it did was require people to buy health insurance.
Leave aside the facts that many of us do oppose the individual mandate on policy grounds as well as legal ones, and that the federal law she blames for the free rider problem passed in 1986, not 1946. Every one of these arguments can and will be used to defend Obamacare. And virtually every one of them is wrong, as concerns both Obamacare and Romneycare.
The individual mandate is less about the free rider problem than making the ban on pre-existing conditions sustainable by forcing healthier individuals into the insurance market. The costs of expanding coverage in this fashion have far exceeded the costs of free riders. None of Coulter's examples of government coercion involve forcing two private entities into a contract with one another. The Constitution doesn't enumerate the rights of the people, but the powers of the federal government.
Coulter's entire argument hinges on Romneycare being constitutional and Obamacare being unconstitutional. I'll let pass for a moment the problems with her apparent endorsement of untrammeled state government power and acknowledge, as I have before, that states have police powers that the Constitution doesn't grant to the federal government. Obamacare raises a constitutional issue that Romneycare doesn't.
The number of people who will find this distinction compelling in a general election is vanishingly small. Worse, the swing vote on the Supreme Court doesn't evaluate the constitutionality of laws based on the ratifying public's original understanding of the Constitution (though the court should). A critical mass of justices will look to see whether the president and Congress were acting on a mainstream view of acceptable government power. Coulter has given them a list of examples to bolster this view. Defending Romneycare undermines the arguments against Obamacare by making them looking like partisan point-scoring.
My New Obama Mortgage
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 11:27AM
President Obama just announced yet another homeowner bailout. He insists his "simple" plan – which puts taxpayers on the hook for banks which are forced to lend more money than a house is worth – poses no risk to the rest of us. Wasn't this exactly the type of reckless and unjustified expansion of government – in effect, forcing us all to take on second mortgages to pay for our neighbors' homes – which kindled the Tea Party movement in the first place?
My New Obama
Mortgage
By Asher Embry
So yet again I'm asked to pay my neighbor's mortgage
bill.
The reflex creeping up my leg feels nothing like a thrill.
O says it's really simple; since the banks, he'll make
them pay.
But me, I've seen that farce before; it costs me either
way.
I searched the Constitution since a document so
great
Surely guarantees us all a lower mortgage rate.
But no such thing; a fact confirming what we always knew:
Barack consults a different Constitution than we do.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
The Day Ahead: Thursday, February 2
Posted by on 2.2.12 @ 7:48AM
Obama will attend the National Prayer Breakfast this morning (AP)
Holder to face House GOP critics at hearing on Fast and Furious (The Hill)
STOCK Act makes senators squirm (The Hill)
Multiple physician groups announce opposition to Obamacare (Wasington Times)
Romney will continue explaining his clumsy remark about the "very poor" (CNN)
Ann Coulter vigorously defends health insurance mandates (AnnCoulter.com)
Experts discuss Gingrich's moon base idea (AP)
Stephen Colbert's FEC report (Politico)
US adds $120 billion in debt since Friday debt ceiling hike (Zero Hedge)
Dodd-Frank in 1 graph (Bloomberg)
Urban parents turn to home schooling (Daily Beast)
Fake bioterrorism attacks are a real problem (Slate)
Scientifically writing the most annoying Tweet in the world (The Atlantic)
PM David Cameron and welfare reform (The Independent)
VIDEO: Punxsutawney Phil predicts 6 more weeks of winter. Happy Groundhog Day!
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Angelo Dundee, R.I.P.
Posted by on 2.1.12 @ 11:31PM
Legendary boxing corner man Angelo Dundee passed away this evening at the age of 90. As of this writing, his cause of death is unknown.
It could be said that no corner man could hold a glove to Dundee who is best known for his association with Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. Dundee was also in the corner of other heavyweight boxing champions like George Foreman and Jimmy Ellis. He also trained actor Russell Crowe in preparation for his portrayal of James J. Braddock in the 2005 film Cinderella Man.
Here is Dundee paying tribute to Joe Frazier after he passed away last November.
Trump to Endorse -- Or Enter Race?
Posted by on 2.1.12 @ 6:49PM
OK. I'll bite.
The Donald has something to say tomorrow. See below, as received.
We're listening!
February 1, 2012
Donald J. Trump will be making a major announcement tomorrow (Thursday, February 2, 2012) at 12:30pm at Trump International Hotel & Tower, Las Vegas, Nevada. He will be arriving this evening at approximately 11:30pm. The announcement will pertain to the Presidential race.
The Fractious Rich Lowry and Jennifer Rubin
Posted by on 2.1.12 @ 4:36PM
Well, of course they're going to smack me.
The other day I looked into a post at National Review on Newt Gingrich by the estimable Elliot Abrams.
In short, after reading the Gingrich Special Order cited by Abrams I found his post to be grossly misleading. And reporting what I found, so too did others who took a look at the same Special Order from start to finish. Mark Levin read it and agreed completely. He's a Santorum fan… but he was incensed at the misrepresentation of Newt's ties to the Reagan-era. He was there in the day, as was I. I heard from others as well, and not all Newt Gingrich people. Yes, Rush was so amazed he read a good bit of the piece on air, doubtless adding to the heat. Sean Hannity discussed, Mr. Levin was furious -- and Mr. Hannity was more than kind to go on the Levin show moments before his own TV show to defend me. A personal and public thanks to all of them for not shying away from the issue and giving the piece and the news therein attention.
Doubtless Elliott Abrams, whom I in fact genuinely like and respect, is not thrilled. I'm sorry about that. But, as is now evident from people like Ed Rollins (who was there), Mrs. Reagan, and Michael Reagan -- those best in a position to know totally disagree with the picture the Abrams post tried to present.
My point here, though, is to answer Rich Lowry, who posted "Jeffrey Lord's Distortion" in response to all the heat. And to answer Jennifer Rubin, who cited me not to the good in her Washington Post column, "Gingrich: The Most Persecuted Man in America?"
First, let's rebut the key points.
Continue reading…Rush Should Credit Andy McCarthy, Not Me
Posted by on 2.1.12 @ 3:02PM
It has come to my attention that Rush Limbaugh mentioned yours truly on his radio program today. Apparently, he was quoting my blog post about Mitt Romney's remark about not being concerned about the poor.
However, I took a look at the transcript and while he mentions my name, the words he attributed to me actually belong to Andy McCarthy at National Review Online. While I certainly appreciate Rush mentioning me, I want to give credit where it is due.
Don Cornelius, R.I.P.
Posted by on 2.1.12 @ 1:13PM
Don Cornelius, the longtime host of the nationally syndicated TV program Soul Train, died this morning of an apparent suicide. He was 75.
Soul Train was a showcase for mostly African-American musicians specializing in R&B and soul music. It began to air nationally in the fall of 1971. Although Cornelius was from Chicago, the show became associated with Philly Soul. Indeed, the theme song for Soul Train was "TSOP (The Sound of Philadelphia)" which was recorded by MFSB, a group of studio musicians organized by the songwriting duo of Kenny Gamble and Leon Huff (along with The Three Degrees on vocals.)
Over the years, Soul Train has featured the likes of The Isley Brothers, Kool & The Gang, and Earth, Wind & Fire. From time to time, one might also see an act one might not expect to see such as Elton John or Gino Vannelli. Soul Trainwas known for the Mighty, Mighty Soul Train Dancers who specialized in the Soul Train Line in which Cornelius would participate on rare occasions. But the heart and soul of the show was Cornelius and his low key, smooth voice which you can hear in this conversation with Mariah Carey in 1991.
Cornelius hosted Soul Train until 1993 although he remained behind the scenes until the show went off the air in 2006. He was said to have disliked rap and hip-hop and although Cornelius would book rap and hip-hop acts that it contributed to his decision to stop hosting.
In recent years, Cornelius was in poor health, had been arrested for misdemeanor domestic violence, mired in a messy divorce and these may have been factors in deciding to take his own life.
Santorum vs. the Calendar
Posted by on 2.1.12 @ 1:01PM
"There's not much that Obama can really use to destroy Santorum."
I like Rick Santorum better than Newt Gingrich too, Quin, but this statement suggests a lack of creativity. Obama would run against the impending Santorum theocracy and turn him into a red state cultural icon like Sarah Palin. That could backfire -- it will certainly fire up the conservative base and in light of the administration's recent HHS ruling, they can ill afford to be seen as declaring war on faithful Catholics -- but it could also help the Democrats recreate their 2008 turnout among liberals, young people, and even minorities (despite their relative social conservatism).
As for the nomination, there are certainly anti-Romney majorities to be had in many states. They are virtually there for the taking. Santorum's enemy is the calendar. Romney has a campaign that is built to compete in multiple states and media markets simultaneously. Santorum does not. He needs to grind it out in states, taking advantage of free media and retail politics. We are entering the phase of the race where the candidates won't have weeks to work a single state. That's why it was important for a conservative candidate to emerge in the early states, while everyone was competing on more or less even terms. Both Gingrich and Santorum have failed to qualify for the ballot or submit full slates of delegates in states they could conceivably win.
I'm not saying it's impossible to beat Romney. Mickey Mouse could beat him in many Southern primaries. But the race is moving in a direction that will make it harder.
Santorum Can Beat Romney
Posted by on 2.1.12 @ 12:23PM
Bill Kristol writes today that Rick Santorum likely has a better chance of beating Mitt Romney than Newt Gingrich does. New polls support that assumption:
What might be most interesting in both states is what happens in a head to head between Romney and either Gingrich or Santorum:
-In Missouri Santorum leads Romney 50-37 and in Ohio Santorum leads 45-38.
-In Missouri Gingrich leads Romney 43-42 and in Ohio Gingrich leads 42-39.
Two takeaways from those numbers: if this ever came down to Romney, Paul, and just one out of Gingrich and Santorum, Romney would be in a lot of trouble. And he'd be in more trouble if the single conservative alternative ended up being Santorum.
Santorum is a stronger long term threat to Romney than Gingrich because he has less baggage and is simply much better liked.
The same holds true in a general election. The way to look at a candidate's potential is to look at his electoral upside and compare it to his downside. There's not much that Obama can really use to destroy Santorum. There is plenty to use against Gingrich. There is plenty of room for somebody like Santorum to grow in popularity, because most voters still are getting to know him. There is little room for Gingrich to grow because he is so well known, and because for some 17 years he consistently has had some of the highest net-unfavorable ratings of any figure in American public life. Those are hard-and-fast impressions that he would have a hard time overcoming.
Romney's Poor Remark
Posted by on 2.1.12 @ 10:29AM
Mitt Romney is drawing fire for saying he's "not concerned about the poor."
Well, let's take a look at precisely what he said:
I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.
So let me state unequivocally that I do not believe Romney intended any heartlessness or malice towards the poor. Nevertheless, he used a very poor choice of words.
First, Romney made a point of stating he was concerned about the "very heart of America, the 90 to 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling." Well, presumably that 90 to 95% would include amongst the poorest Americans. The official poverty rate in this country is 15.1% comprising more than 46 million people. Now one might dispute the methodology in arriving at that figure. But there's no question that many of those people in poverty are working rather than collecting welfare and yet struggle to make ends meet. Is Romney really saying he's not concerned about the plight of 46 million Americans? I don't think that is what he means to say but saying it in that manner is very bad politics indeed.
Second, while it is true that the poorest of the poor have a safety net, it misses the point. What Romney ought to have said is that he wants to implement policies to help people out of poverty, rather than keep them mired in it. Now I realize that poverty will always be amongst us but I can see that most people who are in poverty do not want to be in that state. I'm not saying Romney should pledge "The Second War on Poverty" but where it concerns poverty he should emphasize spring boards rather than safety nets.
Speaking of spring boards, Romney's poor choice of words could be a blessing to Newt Gingrich. After all, Gingrich has spoken about the Conservative Opportunity Society for decades and, of course, his victory in South Carolina was aided in part by his reply to Juan Williams' criticism of Gingrich labeling President Obama "the food stamp President." Newt could convincingly argue that Romney would just be another "food stamp President."
But if Newt can't capitalize on this, you can bet that President Obama most certainly will. Romney has to stop handing Obama weapons that can be used against him. You could say that Romney is engaging in a "Fast & Furious" operation.
Romney: Take That, Bogeyman
Posted by on 2.1.12 @ 10:10AM
Perhaps the most important number out of Florida's Republican primary last night is not that Mitt Romney beat Newt Gingrich by 14.5%. Rather, it's that Romney beat "the Anti-Romney," namely the combination of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. (Ron Paul's count can be excluded from this analysis since those votes are no more likely to go to either of the non-Romney candidates than they are to go to Romney himself.)
Romney's 46.4 percent exceeds, if just barely, the 45.3 percent garnered by Gingrich and Santorum together, for the first time in this race preventing either Gingrich or Santorum from arguing that one of them could, as the "true conservative," garner the nomination if only the other would exit, stage far-right.
Romney's bogeyman of being unable to get beyond about 25% in any contest (he was even under 28% in South Carolina) has been has been mortally wounded, clearing away perhaps the largest obstacle to a renewed projection of inevitability -- in a world where perception can often turn into reality.
Obviously, there is a realm of unknowns which could trip Romney up. But at this point, the 89 percent betting odds on his receiving the Republican nomination seem hard to quarrel with.
Another point:
I'm no longer buying the argument that a much longer primary process will make Romney a stronger candidate, especially with the gutter tactics Newt has now shown he will stoop to. As of now, the GOP primary is, despite Jeff Lord's likening Gingrich to Ronald Reagan, a circular firing squad. Indeed, whether Jeff meant to point it out or not, the 1976 process led to a Republican loss, and we don't know with any confidence that the general election outcome would have been different with a different GOP nominee. That too was a circular firing squad, though with smaller caliber ammunition than Gingrich and Romney and their Super-PACs are spraying in the early Republican contests.
As Bill McGurn concluded in an op-ed on Tuesday, "Those of us who believed that a primary fight would toughen Mr. Romney up have little to show for it. Far from sharpening his proposals to reach out to a GOP electorate hungry for a candidate with a bold conservative agenda, Mr. Romney has limited his new toughness to increasingly negative attacks on Mr. Gingrich's character. It's beginning to make what we all assumed was a weakness look much more like arrogance."
McGurn believes, and I concur, that "at bottom the Newt insurgency is fueled by the sense that Mr. Romney's tepid policy agenda reflects no fixed beliefs." This is something Romney should -- but won't -- change, because his obvious election strategy from the beginning has been to be only as conservative as necessary to win the nomination so that he can maintain an aura of "moderate" in order to appeal to independent voters in the general election.
I understand the strategy but don't agree with it, at least in degree. This should be not just an election about competence but also about ideas, not least because Barack Obama has woken the American people up to the damage that bad ideas can cause. But Romney is running as a pure technocrat with very little principled underpinning. This is not only bad for his own campaign in the sense of not inspiring the GOP base to donate their time and money to help him, but the lack of inspiration may also be bad for Republican candidates on the ticket who would benefit from a highly motivated GOP electorate.
I am not saying that Romney's strategy will be a losing one. I continue to believe that he will win in November because so much motivation for voters comes from just wanting to avoid another disastrous four years of Barack Obama. But I don't think it's his (or the party's) best strategy, and I sure wish Mitt Romney would give us something we really want to vote for, rather than just leaving us in the usually less successful environment of "Vote for me because I'm not the other guy."
As the WSJ editorial board put it succinctly this morning, "After crushing Gingrich, can he make his campaign a cause?"
The Day Ahead: Wednesday, February 1
Posted by on 2.1.12 @ 9:00AM
Obama will explain his plan to tax banks for mortgage refinancing plan (CBS News)
Outgunned 65:1 on TV ads, Newt loses Florida to Romney by 14% (AJC)
Mitt Romney's investors (Reuters)
CBO projects 1.1% Real GDP for 2013, and 9.2% unemployment (CBO)
Obama's four years have seen the four highest deficits since 1946 (WSJ)
Jon Corzine raised more than $500,000 for Obama (NY Post)
Komen breast cancer charity severs ties with Planned Parenthood (LA Times)
NYSE and Deutsche Borse won't merge (NY Times)
David Brooks wants to force the upper & lower class to live together (NY Times)
Utah: the center for faith-based financial fraud (The Economist)
VIDEO: HBO releases trailer for Game Charger
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Reagan Lost First Six Contests in 1976
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 10:46PM
Every presidential campaign is different… except that it isn't.
Just a reminder amidst the hoopla that in 1976 Gerald Ford won Iowa and the next five primaries -- Florida included.
The calls for Ronald Reagan to withdraw were deafening. Reagan refused to withdraw.
Number seven -- North Carolina -- was the charm. From that moment forward the race see-sawed back and forth all the way to the Kansas City Convention. I was there for that. Frenetic, fevered, a battle royal.
Ford pulled it out by 117 votes.
And then.… November. Ford lost.
Where the Road Gets Long for Newt
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 9:30PM
Four down, 46 to go. That is the number Newt Gingrich is emphasizing in the wake of his Florida defeat. Others are pointing to the 1,057 delegates still unpledged. All of this is true.
It is equally true that Gingrich's task became much more difficult tonight. The momentum from South Carolina is gone. The next major contests are in Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan. All of those states would have favored Mitt Romney even without a large Florida bounce. Some of them are caucuses, where Gingrich's organizational deficiencies will be magnified.
Newt could go the entire month of Feburary without winning a primary or caucus. That would bring him to Super Tuesday, when he will have to compete with Romney's finances and get-out-the-vote operation in multiple states at once. Gingrich has in effect admitted that he couldn't keep up with Romney's money or ground game in just one state, Florida.
Gingrich will still be favored in three Southern states on Super Tuesday. But his path to the nomination has become precarious and righting the ship will require more discipline than Newt has shown so far.
And They Want to Take Granny's Wheelchair, Too
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 9:14PM
Nice to hear Republicans echoing the argument that every budget cut is a deliberate decision to starve people. That should prove extremely helpful in the general election.
Gingrich Right in Kosher Ad?
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 9:05PM
Hello?
My friend Quin is indignant over a Newt ad.
The problem? As Quin and the gang present their facts -- they seem to prove Newt right. And themselves…well…no idea. But the word correct isn’t the word that comes to mind.
Here’s Quin’s post.
So let’s dig into what we find at National Review, which is where we are sent.
According to NR’s Patrick Brennan, Newt’s campaign says:
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney’s compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012.
Then, Brennan says:
Unfortunately, as a blog post at Commentary points out, this is a blatant distortion of the facts. In 2003, amid a budget crisis and rapidly rising Medicare costs, several nursing homes in Massachusetts considered cutting costs by closing their kosher kitchens and instead providing catered or prepackaged kosher food.
Then, Brennan says this:
The state legislature proposed an additional $600,000 in spending to prevent this from happening, but Romney vetoed it, due to state budget constraints.
Stop. Budget constraints? What kind of budget constraints? Brennan doesn’t say. In the federal budget, as we all know, spending can be divided into discretionary spending and entitlements. Were these so-called "budget constraints" in the state budget discretionary? Or was Romney obligated legally or constitutionally to exclude the kosher food budget? I do not know the answer. But certainly neither, it appears, do the Gingrich critics. If, in fact, Romney was dealing not with some sort of mandated cut then the kosher cuts were -- yes -- up to Romney. Discretionary. And therefore, quite obviously -- he chose…say again…chose…to make the kosher cuts. The legislature obviously disagreed and overrode him, restoring the funds. Suggesting that in fact Romney had the discretion to choose his budget cuts and deliberately picked the kosher food cut.
If in fact this is what happened then… yes indeed… the Gingrich ad that says:
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes.
….is, gasp! correct.
Is this correct?
Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher.
No idea. But if Holocaust survivors were included among those in this group, then…sorry, but yes, the Gingrich ad is correct.
Brennan goes on to say:
The legislature, as was their wont, overrode him anyway, and the kitchens, let alone the kosher food supply, were never cut. In no sense could Romney be said to have tried to "eliminate" kosher meals or their funding.
This claim by Brennan, my friend Quin Hillyer, is quite possibly 100% false. If in fact Mitt Romney had a choice of how to cut his budget using discretionary authority -- then the Gingrich ad is correct. Mitt Romney in fact may well have tried to eliminate kosher meals because, using his budgetary discretion, he chose not to eliminate something else in favor of eliminating the kosher food.
Hmmm. Another interesting untruth from the Romney camp?
The real question, I suppose, is what Romney chose over kosher foods? And…um…why people are swallowing this Romney whine whole without actually explaining the facts. Because if the facts are as Quin and others are presenting them…then Mitt Romney did exactly what the Gingrich ad charges.
Exactly.
Mitt Romney Wins Florida
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 8:35PM
What a long, strange trip it's been. Mitt Romney won a broad victory in New Hampshire, carrying nearly every demographic subcategory of the Republican primary electorate. Newt Gingrich responded with an equally broad win in South Carolina. Just nine days after Gingrich last led in the Sunshine State polls, Florida has delivered Romney another New Hampshire-like triumph.
Romney has beaten Gingrich by a solid, double-digit margin. He has won more votes than Gingrich and Rick Santorum combined. Florida has given Romney all 50 of its delegates (assuming the allocation isn't changed later). This now gives him the lead in the Associated Press' delegate count, though there is a long way to go.
This is the beginning of Romney's closing argument, where he tries to regain his aura of inevitability. Gingrich will need to come up with a strategy for remaining viable over the month of February, where he is not expected to win any primaries or caucuses, and desperate robocalls about Romney trying to deprive Holocaust survivors of kosher food probably won't cut it. Santorum will also have to see if he can gain any momentum based on Gingrich's defeat. Ron Paul effectively bypassed Florida, but one wonders if getting just 7 percent of the vote there -- his first single-digit showing of 2008 -- will have any impact on his caucus state supporters.
There are some chinks in Romney's armor. The strong combined Gingrich-Santorum showing in the Panhandle suggests Romney will continue to have problems in the South. Gingrich also carried voters who cared most about abortion, suggesting concerns remain about Romney's pro-life credentials.
Romney Only Needs 1,057 Delegates to Win GOP Nomination
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 8:35PM
At the risk of minimizing the significance of Mitt Romney's decisive victory tonight in Florida, let us keep in mind he has a grand total of 87 delegates.
Let us avoid the temptation to fit Mitt with a crown. In the space of four weeks, Romney won and then lost Iowa, won New Hampshire decisively only to be squashed in South Carolina before tonight's Sunshine State triumph.
He still needs to earn 1,057 delegates to earn the Republican nomination. Nearly half of those delegates are up for grabs on Super Tuesday on March 6th. If the past 28 days have been eventful, Lord only knows what is in store for the next 35 days.
Folks, we have a long, long way to go before this is all said and done.
Romney Dominates Early Voting
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 7:30PM
About 36 percent of Florida Republican primary voters cast their ballots early. Mitt Romney won this group big, by one estimate beating Newt Gingrich 52 percent to 25 percent. This isn't surprising. Romney's organization targeted early voting, which also commenced before Gingrich had any South Carolina momentum to speak of. The polls haven't closed in the Panhandle yet.
Absolutely Sick Tactic From Gingrich
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 5:48PM
I'm with Jonah Goldberg and John Tabin on the disgusting spectacle of Newt Gingrich debasing himself with an utterly mendacious attack on Mitt Romney, aimed at scaring Florida's Jewish population with references to the Holocaust. Here's a challenge to Jeff Lord: I DARE you to defend this. Go ahead. Try. If you have any decency, sir, you will denounce this latest Newtoid attack with every breath in your lungs.
Rick Santorum is right to denounce these and other examples of gutter politics.
Then again, what else can we expect from Gingrich? This is the same guy who blamed the Left when a mentally ill mother named Susan Smith drowned her two little boys in her car on purpose. He'll do anything, anything at all, no matter how low, to try to gain political advantage.
Assad's Eleventh Hour?
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 5:10PM
The man in charge of America's intelligence gathering said that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad will inevitably collapse in the face of mounting protests, and it's simply a matter of time before his regime falls.
Of course, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had to admit that "matter of time" remains anyone's guess. However, opposition remains "resilient," ready and willing to heap increasing amounts of pressure on embattled president Bashar al-Assad.
"Protraction of these demonstrations, the opposition continues to be fragmented, but I do not see how [Assad] can sustain his rule of Syria."
Fair enough. However, commentary on the Syrian crisis is regularly, and casually imprecise when it comes to pitting the government and its devotees against a spectral opposition. This has been the case across the breadth of Arab Spring, whether in Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere. The one thing Syrian opposition groups have in common is a shared revulsion to the illiberal and illegitimate Ba'ath party dictatorship, and its Alawite brass (To clarify, "Alawite" refers to the minority Shi'a sect of the Assad family that dominates Syria's political and security infrastructure). Beyond that, long-run political and ideological commitments vary broadly. More importantly, these differences far outstrip superficial disagreements between securalists and Islamists we gloss over in the western media.
For those who are interested in an excellent breakdown of varying opposition forces in Syria, have a look at Andrew Spath's breakdown, over at the Foreign Policy Research Institute -- an institution near and dear to yours truly, where I once helped out as research assistant to legendary president, Dr. Harvey Sicherman.
Regardless of the "opposition" forces that form the resulting government, it's a safe bet that the fall of the Assad regime would prove a major blow to Iran, which relies on Syria as a conduit to its Hizbullah proxies in Lebanon.
Since the rise of the secular Ba'ath party in Syrian and Shi'a theocracy in Iran, analysts and academics have questioned whether these two regimes were bound by a sense of shared faith…or fate. A significant portion of the Sunni majority opposition believes that the rule of an Alawi Shi'a is the rule of this disbeliever -- the same conviction that has fired insurrection since the February '82 massacre at Hama, and remains at the heart of this crisis. My best guess is that decades of Iranian clientelism and the scorched earth elimination of peaceful protest (as assisted by Tehran) has not softened objection to Shi'a dominance in this predominantly Sunni state, whether Twelver (as practiced in Iran) or Allawite.
Oddly enough, if patchwork opposition succeeds in dislodging Assad in Syria, the U.S. might finally welcome a more friendly Arab regime from the ashes of Arab Spring. For the moment, there's little to do but wait and see…
Newt's Latest Anti-Romney Attack Ain't Kosher
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 2:10PM
Orlando, Florida -- When Mitt Romney was governor, he vetoed a bill to increase funding for nursing homes that were considering saving money by closing their kosher kitchens and bringing in food from off-site for residents who keep kosher. Yesterday, Newt Gingrich said that Mitt Romney "eliminated serving kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare"; at Commentary, Alana Goodman examined the claim in detail and found it more than a little dubious:
Romney's decision was not, as Gingrich claims, a choice to "eliminate kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare." First of all, it was a choice made by the nursing homes themselves, not the Massachusetts government. Second, it was never actually going to prevent kosher residents from accessing kosher food. And third, Romney's decision wouldn't have cut anything - he simply vetoed additional funds, keeping funding at the status quo during a budget crisis year. Which means Gingrich's comments have little basis in reality.
Today, we learn that the Gingrich campaign is robocalling Florida voters with a recording that says:
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney's compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney's hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012.
Again, no one was ever "forced to eat non-kosher," and invoking the Holocaust for a dishonest political attack is more than a little distasteful.
Juan Williams Breaks the Racial Code
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 1:58PM
Juan Williams has been a victim of political correctness himself, but that apparently doesn't stop him from wanting to victimize others. Perhaps sensing that the fifteen minutes of fame stemming from his testy exchange with Newt Gingrich were almost up, Williams came out with a column that comes close to equating conservatism with racial code words.
Some of the code Williams cracks is patently absurd. Wanting the federal government to adhere to the Constitution is a racist dog whistle. So is criticizing the growth of federal entitlements.
The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are "entitlement society" - as used by Mitt Romney - and "poor work ethic" and "food stamp president" - as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the "Founding Fathers" and the "Constitution" also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core "old-fashioned American values."
Obviously, any talk of immigration is racist (even though the people most hurt by economic competition from low-skilled immigrants are themselves disproportionately black and Hispanic): "The code also extends to attacks on legal immigrants, always carefully lumped in with illegal immigrants, as people seeking 'amnesty' and taking jobs from Americans."
The above statement isn't even true. The Republican candidates have tripped all over themselves to emphasize their support for legal immigration. And amnesty for legal immigrants makes no sense.
Nothing apparently is more of a racial code word than standing up for yourself when a liberal smears you as a racist. Here Williams relives the glory of his confrontation with Gingrich (which probably helped the former House speaker win his first primary):
Gingrich did not answer my question but rather threw red meat to Republicans in South Carolina, a state with a long history of racial politics.
He used the same rhetorical technique of the segregationist politicians of the past: rejecting the premise of the question, attacking the media and playing to the American people's resentment of liberal elites, minorities and poor people.
This is disgusting. Newt Gingrich is many things, but he's not a segregationist. He supported the civil rights movment in the 1960s. He has been a staunch supporter of GOP minority outreach. If anything, Gingrich has erred in the opposite direction by being afraid to take positions on affirmative action and immigration that would offend Juan Williams.
South Carolina, incidentally, is a state that recently elected a woman of Indian descent to the governorship and chose a black man for Congress over Strom Thurmond's son. Both candidates enjoyed the support of Tea Party conservatives.
There is genuine racism and race-bating in American politics, and Williams does supply legitimate examples. But rejecting the premise of a debate moderator's question is hardly a defense of racial segregation and it should be beneath any commentator to argue that it is. Williams is defining racist in such a way as to include anyone winning an argument with a liberal.
The Shafia Family Honor Killings
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 12:21PM
This story didn't receive much attention here but it has dominated the headlines in Canada since October when the Shafia Family trial began in Kingston, Ontario. Mohammad Shafia, his second wife Tooba Yahya and his son Hamed Shafia were accused of the June 2009 murders of his teenaged daughters Zainab, Sahar and Geeti (ages 19, 17 & 13) and his first wife Rona Amir Mohammad. Their bodies were found submerged inside a car in a lock along the Rideau Canal outside of Kingston.
The Shafias were originally from Afghanistan but fled to Dubai before moving to Australia and then finally to Canada in 2007, settling in Montreal. On Sunday, the three defendants were found guilty of four counts of first degree murder and each sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility in 25 years. The Crown prosecutor (the Canadian equivalent of a D.A.) argued these murders were honor killings. The three Shafia daughters had shamed the family by adopting Western lifestyles and the two elder daughters had boyfriends.
Not surprisingly, most Muslim organizations have rejected that the Shafia murders were an honor killing and argue that they are an act of domestic violence. Alaa Elsayed, Director of Religious Affairs at the Islamic Centre of Canada in Toronto, claims, "It's a domestic violence issue, bottom line. It has nothing to do with religion, specifically Islam." Meanwhile, Alia Hogben of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women calls the killings "femicide."
But Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, sees things quite differently. Fatah told The Toronto Star the system had failed the Shafia girls:
If these four women were white women, they would still be alive today.
If a white student would go to the principal or the police and say they would be beaten up, no one would go to their parents and say 'can you repeat what you said to us?' These girls went to the school, the cops, child services and everyone wanted to protect multiculturalism - not the lives of these young women.
(I should note here that I knew Fatah during my NDP days and am glad to hear he is in better health.)
It's also not surprising that some Canadian feminists aren't willing to call the Shafia murders honor killings and that many liberal Canadians are unwilling to call these acts honor killings for fear of being called racist. But here are a couple of articles that take these arguments apart - one by Barbara Kay of The National Post and the other by Naomi Lakritz of The Calgary Herald.
Kay explains why Western feminists won't speak out on behalf of Muslim women:
Such a step is difficult for ideological feminists to take, because they are also great champions of multiculturalism. As well, it would mean admitting that violence against women is not inherent impuluse in men, but contingent on historical and cultural circumstances. Worst of all for Western feminists, it would mean colluding with women who want to improve their standing, security and dignity within their cultural communities, but don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. By that I mean they don't want to be abused, but they don't want to have to walk away from their culture and community to stop it.
Meanwhile, Lakritz pulls no punches and tells the West to get over its white, liberal guilt:
And while some westerners pussyfoot around, afraid to use the term "honour killing," no such reticence exists among women in the countries where these crimes occur....The women in these societies use the term "honour killings." Why shouldn't we?
Both articles are well worth reading. Unfortunately, this won't be the last time we will face honor killings in both Canada and the United States.
Florida Predictions
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 12:15PM
As late as last week, Florida looked like it was going to be a toss-up. No more. I'm calling this state for Mitt Romney by double digits. Newt Gingrich is acting like he knows this isn't going to be pretty. Rick Santorum will finish third, buoyed by a solid debate performance and with his family in the news. Ron Paul will break into the double digits.
After his decisive win in South Carolina, Gingrich stormed out to a big lead in the Florida polls. The evaporation of that lead is the biggest setback yet in a campaign that has been filled with near-death experiences followed by death-defying stunts. What will Gingrich do for his next act? Romney beware: hell hath no fury like a Newt scorned.
The Day Ahead: Tuesday, January 31
Posted by on 1.31.12 @ 9:00AM
Big day in Florida- Romney leads Gingrich by 5 points (Newsmax)
Gingrich outspent by $12 million in Florida (Politico)
Art Laffer compares Gingrich's and Romney's tax plans (WSJ)
Obama's green jobs programs face further investigation (USA Today)
Senate to vote on insider trader act this week (Big Government)
Obama's polarizing presidency spells trouble for him (WaPo)
Health savings accounts surpass $12.4 billion in 2011 (Business Wire)
U.S. may slap tariff on Chinese solar firms (Pittsburgh Tribune)
Conservatives in House will keep up pressure (Roll Call)
During Google+ chat, President Obama offers a woman's husband a job (WaPo)
The fabulous life of Kim Dotcom (Wired)
The Daily Mail beats the NY Times (BBC News)
Troops press attacks in Syria (NY Times)
Georgia free-trade discussions (RFERL)
VIDEO: Gov. Chris Christie argues about gay marriage, Jersey-style
Conservative Leaders Oppose Obama Recess Appointments
1.31.12 @ 2:47AM
MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT
Obama "Recess" appointments Unwarranted, Unnecessary and Unconstitutional
Continue reading…Monday, January 30, 2012
Abortion Attacks Worrying Team Romney?
Posted by on 1.30.12 @ 7:39PM
Orlando, Florida -- Yesterday Newt Gingrich attacked Mitt Romney more than once as a "a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase moderate from Massachusetts." Following Romney yesterday afternoon, I got the impression that the first charge is the one that most worries the Romney campaign.
Romney has racked up a raft of endorsements, and has a few of those endorsers warming up the crowd at every campaign stop. At an appearance near Miami in the heavily Cuban-American city of Hialeah, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said:
There are a lot of attack ads now these last frantic days, frenetic days of the campaign and you're gonna see a lot of mudslinging, and that's part of the democratic process, but one ad that particularly irks me is attacking the strong pro-life record of Governor Romney. Governor Romney is a wonderful new believer -- for a while now -- of the pro-life cause and he was a champion for pro-life [policy] in a state where it took great courage to stand up for pro-life values. So don't believe those ads!"
Later, in Pompano Beach, Florida Attorney General Pam Bodi said:
All of you in this room know my strong pro-life stance. I have a niece with Down Syndrome, I've been very active in my pro-life stance, and I want to thank Governor Romney for becoming a champion of the pro-life issue. He vetoed every bill that came across his desk as governor that would hurt our pro-life stance, and we know how difficult that was to do in the state where he's from. Thank you Governor Romney for having the courage to do that.
That both women hit this point seems unlikely to be a coincidence. Romney's late conversion on abortion dogged him in 2008, and Team Mitt has reason to worry that their candidate remains vulnerable on this front.
Ron Paul's Mormon Outreach Strategy
Posted by on 1.30.12 @ 3:23PM
U.S. News and World Report has an interesting story on how Ron Paul is competing with Mitt Romney for the Mormon vote:
"You cannot grow up in the church and not hear of and be taught that the Constitution is an inspired document," says Connor Boyack, a Mormon who heads the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. "And when it comes to who best supports and defends the Constitution, Ron Paul is that guy."
The Paul campaign has set up a Facebook page for his Mormon supporters and has been touting prominent LDS endorsements. Paul also defended Romney on the Mormon issue during an appearance with Jay Leno during the 2008 campaign. The two candidates are hoping to do well in Mormon-heavy Western states like Nevada in the coming weeks.
Turning Point Florida
Posted by on 1.30.12 @ 1:53PM
Newt Gingrich could lose Florida by a double-digit margin tomorrow. What will that mean for each candidate remaining the race?
For Gingrich, February will be the toughest month. If he doesn't pull off an upset in Florida, he isn't favored in another nominating contest until March 6. Can he keep his campaign going until Super Tuesday? That will be his challenge if losses follow in Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan. There also aren't any debates. But Gingrich is adept at using free media to keep himself in the spotlight.
Mitt Romney is obviously hoping that Florida effectively ends the competitive porition of the Republican race. That doesn't mean that he'll go undefeated in the remaining primaries and caucuses (barring major candidate withdrawals). But the Romney camp hopes a solid Florida win will establish their candidate as the only one with a realistic path to the nomination.
Rick Santorum is betting that even if Florida derails Gingrich, the depth of anti-Romney sentiment within the GOP is strong enough that there will be a search for another conservative alternative. Santorum will stress that he is a more principled -- if less "flamboyant" -- conservative choice than Gingrich in any event. It's a long shot since Santorum isn't favored in any February states either, but it's more than enough to keep him in the race past tomorrow.
Ron Paul has effectively bypassed Florida but is also hoping the Sunshine State ends Gingrich's run as the main anti-Romney. Unlike Santorum, however, there are several caucuses ahead where Paul's campaign believes he can do well. The next month will be a test of their caucus strategy, which has them prioritizing the delegate hunt over primaries where finishing ahead of Santorum would be considered a moral victory.
Michelle Malkin Endorses Rick Santorum
Posted by on 1.30.12 @ 12:06PM
Newt Gingrich has effectively called on Rick Santorum to drop out of the presidential race, yet the former Pennsylvania senator continues to poll in the double digits and shows no sign of quitting. Why are so many conservatives dissatisfied with a choice between Gingrich and Mitt Romney? Michelle Malkin's Santorum endorsement is a good primer.
[Santorum] didn't cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn't follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd - including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich - and he didn't have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.
Santorum opposed individual health care mandates - clearly and forcefully - as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.
He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn't written any "Contracts with the Earth."
Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.
Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values - not just in word, but in deed.
Personally, I think Santorum's big government votes under Bush ought to be given more weight. Republicans tend to be much less fiscally conservative when they hold power or act on behalf of parochial concerns, so candidates who resist that temptation have more credibility than those who don't. Santorum has also given little indication of having learned from the foreign policy blunders of the Bush years.
That said, it is a respectable case, especially when compared to the contortions others must go through to justify supporting their preferred candidate. It's also a reminder of why Santorum is going to continue to collect a lot of votes from conservatives uncomfortable with the frontrunners' records.
Reporters Without Borders: U.S. & Argentina Tied for 47th in Press Freedom
Posted by on 1.30.12 @ 11:42AM
Last week, Reporters Without Borders released its Press Freedom Index 2011-2012. Out of 179 countries, the Paris based organization ranked the United States tied for 47th place with Argentina and Romania. In fact, the United States fell from 27th place because of the arrest of reporters during the Occupy protests last fall:
The crackdown on protest movements and the accompanying excesses took their toll on journalists. In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance and even lack of accreditation.
It is true there were reporters arrested during some of the skirmishes which broke out during the Occupy protests. The problem with this line of reasoning is the implication that authorities knowingly and deliberately arrested journalists.
While the arrests may very well have been heavy handed, I hardly think the United States and Argentina are equal in terms of their press freedom. In their eagerness to condemn the United States, all Reporters Without Borders had to say about Argentina was that it "barely moved in the index."
I guess the efforts of Argentina's socialist President Cristina Fernandez to curb press freedom isn't sufficient to move Reporters Without Borders to move it in its index. Last month, the Argentinian Congress voted to give the Fernandez government control of the country's newsprint. An anti-terrorism law has also been passed with a very broad definition of terrorism. Reporters can now be charged with promoting terrorism if the government deems that their words or pictures terrorize the population. Last September, an Argentinian judge ordered several newspapers to hand over contact information of journalists who had written stories critical of the Argentinian economy. These moves reinforce existing measures taken by the Fernandez government in 2009 to increase state control of the media. Yet that didn't seem to bother Reporters Without Borders in the least. Its 2009 report states:
A tradition of media diversity, an increase in media democracy and in some cases a decrease in abuse of authority and other censorship attempts are the reason for the very good rankings obtained by Argentina (47th) and Uruguay (29th), which are on par with many European countries.
Ah yes, so in the eyes of Reporters Without Borders, increased state control of the media is simply "media diversity" or "media democracy." Kind of like what Hugo Chavez does in Venezuela. Perhaps then it is fitting that Argentina's state run La Plata University bestowed Chavez with a press freedom award last March.
Yeah, What Geraghty Said
Posted by on 1.30.12 @ 10:53AM
At the Morning Jolt (subscription required), Jim Geraghty has some very wise things to say. I hope Jim will like it, rather than resent it, that I quote him at such great length. Well worth reading:I wonder if the process of preferring a candidate inherently blinds one to that candidate's flaws...
As the Philosopher Ice Cube Said, ‘Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself'
Representative government - and life, in fact - require a certain ability to see hard truths, mistakes, things that don't turn out the way you wanted. I'm starting to wonder if that quality is much rarer than I thought.
It's a Republican presidential primary. Of course it's going to be hard-fought. But this cycle seems to be getting ever-more depressing, as I seem to keep encountering folks who respond to new bits of news unfavorable to their guy by reflexively adjusting all of their other views to preserve their pre-conceived notion that their guy is The Man.
I'm sure that you can think of some folks who you would put in this category. My readers who prefer Newt are probably tossing me in that category, too (read on, frustrated Newt fans, read on).
For example, if you read then-Rep., now-Sen. Tom Coburn's account of Newt's time as Speaker, painting him as an egomaniacal leader threatened by dissent and willing to quickly go back on the Contract pledges in pursuit of power, and you conclude this shows that Coburn has really been a northeastern elitist all along... well then, I can't help you.
If you read the numbers in the NBC/WSJ poll, suggesting that Gingrich has big problems with women and independents, and you conclude that the survey must be a pack of lies and that Gingrich probably would do well among those demographics, well... you can find the same phenomenon in the Rasmussen numbers ("Among women, the president leads Romney by 11 and Gingrich by 22.") or CNN (18 point spread between Obama and Gingrich). If you think all of the polls are fudged because somebody's out to get your guy... well, you turn into Christine O'Donnell that way. (If you'll recall, her campaign suggested that Scott Rasmussen was altering the results of his polls to make her appear to be a weaker candidate than she was, to avoid the "long tentacles" of the Republican National Committee.)
If you can't read any anecdote or account of your preferred guy, and conclude, "yeah, he was in the wrong there," or "yeah, that's going to be a challenging weakness to overcome..." well then, when you read or listen to or watch the news, you're not really trying to learn new information about what's going on. You're really just looking for more anecdotes and evidence to reconfirm what you already believe and know. (Confirmation bias, they call it.)
We all probably do this to some extent, but no matter how much you may believe that your guy rocks, the day will come when he doesn't rock. I thought what separated us from the "O-BA-MA" chanting cult of personality on the other side was that we didn't need to see our presidential candidates in messianic terms. For all the hoopla and the fancy plane and the band playing "hail to the chief," presidents are guys (and someday, gals) we hire to do a job under a four-year contract with a possibility of a four-year extension. Hopefully they make enough of the big calls right.
Alas, I think it is much rarer than Jim thought.
Six Random Thoughts on the Presidential Race
Posted by on 1.30.12 @ 9:03AM
1. Mitt Romney's biggest advantage is that he simply has a higher margin for error than his opponents. Losing South Carolina was a setback for Romney; it would have probably been fatal to Newt Gingrich's candidacy. Florida is shaping up to be a similar situation: a loss would have been bad for Romney, but he might have been able to absorb it if his numbers held up in Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan. Gingrich can continue if he loses Florida, but with a much less obvious path to the nomination.
2. Going 1-for-3 in the early nominating contests so far, Romney has definitely underperformed. But I've always thought the best way to beat him was for the same non-Romney to win Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida. It looks like each of those three states is going to wind up having a different winner.
3. Odd of Gingrich to opt for such a passive approach to the two Florida debates last week. Not only did being aggressive help him in previous debates, but he had the benefit of seeing how Romney's prevent defense hurt him in South Carolina. If Gingrich's sudden collapse in the Florida polls is validated by tomorrow's primary results, expect that to be one of the decisions that is second-guessed.
4. Jonathan Adler asks why Romney hasn't made more of an issue of the defects in Gingrich's record. I think there are two reasons. Gingrich's turn against many conservative initiatives after losing the government shutdown battle in 1996 and his advocacy of un-conservative positions after leaving Congress were mostly behind the scenes, while his fights on behalf of conservative principles were very public. Second, we're talking about Mitt Romney: he has neither the credibility to attack Gingrich's record nor the knowledge of where the bodies are buried.
Gingrich's feints to the left have had some impact on the race, however. The former House speaker's longtime advocacy of the individual mandate has definitely blunted his attacks on Romney's chief weakness, Romneycare.
5. The idea behind Rick Santorum's candidacy has been that Gingrich will eventually implode but large numbers of Republicans will continue to be resistant to a Romney nomination. When Gingrich won South Carolina, it looked like this theory would never be put to the test. After Florida, it may be.
6. The fact that Romney's numbers fell so quickly after South Carolina and Gingrich's have started falling once he got into trouble in Florida tells us that Republican opinion remains volatile. Neither candidate has closed to the deal.
The Day Ahead: Monday, January 30
Posted by on 1.30.12 @ 9:00AM
Isabella Santorum, suffering with pneumonia, has made a "miraculous turnaround" (CNN)
Obama to host "Google+ hang out" today (CNN)
Polling in Florida GOP primary: Romney (39%) and Gingrich (32%) (PPP)
Why hasn't former Gov. Jeb Bush endorsed? (NY Times)
George Soros believes there is "little difference" between Obama and Romney (Newsmax)
Great problems to have caused by North Dakota oil boom (Bloomberg)
The Monogamous Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (WSJ)
Money from MF Global feared gone (WSJ)
Fed pessimism raises stakes for job report (The Hill)
Texas will not receive health care waver (The Hill)
VIDEO: The ad Tom Brokaw wants Team Romney to take off the air
Santorum's Daughter Recovers; Campaign Skips Ahead To February
Posted by on 1.30.12 @ 1:23AM
Miami Beach, Florida -- Good news: Rick Santorum says his daughter has "had a miraculous turnaround" and, while she's suffering from pneumonia and will be in the hospital several more days, she's in good enough condition that her father feels comfortable returning to the campaign trail. He won't be returning to Florida, however. His campaign released a schedule to reporters Sunday night that takes him to Missouri and Minnesota on Monday and to Colorado on Tuesday morning; all three states hold primaries on February 7. Santorum will be in Nevada, which holds its caucus on February 4, when the Florida results come in on Tuesday night.
Despite being off the campaign trail, Santorum has actually risen slightly in the Florida polls; in the RealClearPolitics rolling average, he's gone from 10.4% on Thursday to 13.4% on Sunday, with the spike driven by the results of PPP and NBC News/Marist polls in which he got 15% and 16%, respectively. It could be a statistical blip, but I suspect it's real; it's not surprising that the Newt vs. Mitt slugfest would drive some voter away from both of them and thus toward Santorum.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
A Prayer for Isabella
Posted by on 1.29.12 @ 1:18PM
Putting aside politics for a moment, I hope we can send our collective thoughts and prayers to the Santorum family.
Rick Santorum's 3 ½ year old daughter, Isabella, is seriously ill -- she suffers from the genetic disorder Trisomy 18, also known as "Edwards Syndrome." I understand very little about the malady, but it's caused by a chromosomal anomaly and she exists "on the margins of life."
Santorum has been incredibly candid about young Bella's illness, but his decision to temporarily suspend his campaign in Florida speaks to the gravity of her condition. She's been admitted to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia for treatment -- arguably the best pediatric hospital in the country, and I'm not just saying that because I was born there.
Like I said, I don't know bupkis about extra chromosomes or autosomal disorders, but I know this little girl has already put up one heck of a fight. The median lifespan for this condition is 5-15 days, and only 8% of infants born with this syndrome live to see their first birthday. One percent of children make it to ten years old, but that small percentage who survive birth and infancy often live to adulthood. Fingers crossed for the latter.
I don't have kids, and I can't begin to imagine how difficult this must be for the Santorum family. All I know is, I hope this little girl gets better, and soon.
Romney and Damon Corp.: A Bomb or a Dud?
Posted by on 1.29.12 @ 12:26PM
The newest attack on Mitt Romney by a Newt Gingrich-supporting Super PAC is a nearly 8-minute documentary entitled "Blood Money" which purports to describe Mitt Romney's profiting from Medicare fraud perpetrated by Damon Corporation during the time that Romney was on its board of directors, representing Bain Capital's majority stake in the company.
In fact, the PAC has made a website just to discuss the issue: mittsbloodmoney.com
One of the nation's largest public sector unions, AFSCME, has spent about a million dollars in Florida running an ad with a similar message.
Separate from the issue of what the revival of the Damon Corp. story might mean for Romney's fortunes, the fact that AFSCME is spending their money during the primary election instead of during the general election implies that they (as major supporters of Barack Obama) would much rather run against Gingrich than against Romney. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman "Who is more annoying than I am?" Schultz is sending out a memo with the same message, and other liberal and groups are running anti-Romney radio ads in Florida.
The Damon Corp. story certainly reads like -- and probably is -- an episode of corporate greed and fraud. It's an old story, which Massachusetts voters have heard before, but most Americans haven't. The reason that it could be a problem for Romney is that despite the fact that neither he nor Bain was ever charged with wrongdoing in the case, the coming narrative is that Romney has given two different answers regarding his involvement -- which Obama supporters will try to use to mask the basic facts of the case. In one answer, he discovered that the company was overbilling Medicare for blood tests and called for an investigation. Some reports say that prosecutors gave credit for ending the fraud to Corning Inc. which purchased Damon in 1993. But ABC News notes, in the most balanced report I've found on the topic, that "Romney and the Damon board did, however, contact Damon’s lawyers, seek their counsel, and change Damon’s policies." In another answer, Romney said he was unaware of any criminal investigation into the matter. To be sure, those two claims are not mutually exclusive; Romney could easily have both asked for an internal investigation and been unaware of a federal investigation.
The real question here is whether anybody cares about a "scandal" which occurred two decades ago. It's potentially damaging to Romney by going after his aura of being honest and upstanding. And that's just what the Democrats will try to do, especially trying to tie Romney to a Medicare scandal which might impact Romney's appeal to older voters. Romney will likely say "If I had done anything wrong, don't you think I or my firm would have been charged with something? Furthermore, here are copies of the documents I had sent to the company's lawyers to ask them to investigate this issue, and we implemented all the changes the lawyers instructed."
ABC News believes that "We can expect Romney’s opponents to keep surfacing one key number, however: the $473,000 Romney reportedly gained from the sale of Damon Corp." I'm skeptical of that, or at least of the effectiveness of that tactic. After people have heard repeatedly that Romney is worth a quarter billion dollars, and that he's made $40 million just in the last two years, they may be numb to a number which ends with the word "thousand" when it comes to thinking about Romney.
It will be interesting to see if this newest attack on Romney gains any traction. His ability to defuse the Damon bomb will say a lot about his ability to take on Barack Obama and the David Axelrod-led attack machine in a general election. One point Romney should make (with a smile) is that "Obama and his friends must really be afraid of me to work to help Newt Gingrich with this particular smear campaign."
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
