Posts Tagged ‘Gingrich’

Many Notice the Paul-Romney Tag-Team

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

Santorum Sandwich

It’s not surprising to me that while the Washington Post inadvertently proves my point about the Santorum double team carried out by Paul and Romney in Wednesday night’s debate, they fail to understand that Santorum represents one leg of the conservative stool, as the media celebrates Paul and Romney attacking a leg on which Santorum is not really resting.  First of all, let us be clear that Ron Paul is not conservative.  He’s libertarian.  Second, let us be likewise clear that Romney is a liberal masquerading as a moderate.  For Paul to attack Santorum from the right is no surprise, at least on economic and liberty grounds, but for Romney to join in is a bit like being attacked by Barack Obama for being too liberal.  There’s something annoying about an attack from Romney on earmarks, as he’s lobbied for them in his own gubernatorial career.  It’s an inconsistent attack demonstrating Romney’s desperation that shows how willing he is to recalibrate himself to situational demands.

More, the double-team(and this gives that term new meaning) clearly demonstrates that Santorum was the victim of a set-up Wednesday night.  The questions were scripted, the audience was stacked, and Paul and Romney carried out their hit.  The thing many people are missing, including the Washington Post, is that in truth, Santorum actually managed to bear up well.

One of t he things people claim is that they want politicians to tell them the truth.  I think that’s a bunch of aimless happy talk, because when they do, they are frequently crucified for it. Whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, what Santorum said on Wednesday night about politics being a “team sport” is true: You simply can’t get legislation through if you’re a perfect purist.  Witness Ron Paul.  His legislative agenda witnesses few actual successes, but it’s easy to be uncompromising in this context if all one is really doing is making a political statement with no actual intention of implementing one’s ideas.

Of course, some compromises aren’t really that at all, but are instead complete surrenders. Knowing the difference between real compromise and surrender is important to succeed in a legislative branch that consists of 536 voting members(when the Vice President presides over the Senate.)   When Santorum admitted that while serving as Senate Republican Conference Chair, he had to push bills he didn’t necessarily like, that’s true, I’m certain.  The problem is, most Americans don’t know that position exists, or what its holder does, if they’re familiar with the term at all.

This is a year when such nuances may not matter to voters.  Instead, many seem caught up in the huff-and-puff of the media memes of the day, as they come and go. Details don’t matter, and I think this is what Romney’s banking on. As I concluded some time ago, this whole primary season seems to be a scripted affair, as one after another of the alternatives to Romney have been pushed hard, obtained front-runner status briefly, and been ditched with a clearly coordinated effort to keep Romney out front.  Go back to the beginning, and look at the charts.

Bachmann went up, won the straw poll, and was chopped up by Perry’s entrance as she was portrayed as a wide-eyed loon with simple picture selection in the media. Combined with a few gaffes on her part, she was quickly eclipsed.  Perry rose, and became front-runner, and stayed there until an “oops” moment in a debate that added to his previous weak debate performances, and soon he too was on his way down.  Then we had the rise of Herman Cain, and right on cue, as he had attained the top of the polls, here came the stories claiming he was guilty of this, that, and the other. Down he went, and then along came Gingrich.

In Iowa, Paul, Santorum and Romney all hammered on Gingrich, and this sent him downward, but the problem is that Newt wouldn’t stay down, so they hammered on him a bit more, Drudge going nuclear, and Rick Santorum wound up the beneficiary.  Today, Santorum should realize what has been done as they are now doing to him what they did to Gingrich, and Cain, and Perry, and Bachmann, and anybody else who rises to challenge Romney.  The most disappointing part to me is how willing conservative voters have been to be driven along in this way.

It’s bad enough that it’s been plain for some time how this is being managed, but when I see Santorum and Gingrich getting sucked into this, I think they’re both missing the point.  They’re both being picked off, one at a time, but rather than put their heads together to cut off the head of the snake, they spent too much time going after one another.  Finally, I think the two of them are beginning to realize it, and if Santorum didn’t see this last night, he never will. If he’s smart, he will try to form a strategic alliance with Gingrich much as Paul has done with Romney.  This is what Gingrich began to do before he was ambushed in late January, when he brought along Cain and Perry in support of his candidacy.

If Romney and Paul can get together for their own nefarious reasons, it might be time for Gingrich and Santorum to consider the same. I think it’s fair to suggest that a strategic alliance aiming at the elimination of Romney is a good idea, but the only way they’re going to do that is to begin exposing Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts.  Romney likes to talk about his time in the private sector, and his management of the Olympics, but he avoids talking about his record as governor, except to tell us he managed to balance his state’s budget four years in a row.  What he doesn’t advertise is the fact that it is required under law.  Santorum made that point in Wednesday night’s debate, but I think the significance is lost on some people.

Will Romney ever face the sort of examination the others have undergone?  It’s looking unlikely, as the media is saving all its best dirt for the general election.  Bank on it. I Paul and Romney succeed in making this a two man show, Romney will win the nomination, and Paul will be able to exact some sort of promise for his role.  I think it’s fair to say that if Gingrich and Santorum don’t wake up to this reality, they’re in big trouble. While most clear-thinking Americans have noted the apparent Paul-Romney tag-team, the two people who most need to notice it and work against it have not: Gingrich and Santorum must start to think about how to coordinate a bit. Knock out Romney, and it’s a new ball-game.

Flash: Newt Wins; Credits Palin for Surge!

Saturday, January 21st, 2012

Virginia Shocker: Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum Not Qualified(Updatedx2)

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

Really?

In what must be considered the biggest blunder in electoral history, Michele Bachman, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum failed to gather enough signatures to qualify to be on the ballot in the pivotal swing-state of Virginia.  As HotAir is now reporting, the only thing worse is that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry might also have failed to gather enough, as it requires 10,000 qualified signatures.  Gingrich and Perry both have more than 10,000 signatures, barely, but they may not have enough qualified signatures by the time the petitions are examined.  Of course, this is great news for RINO-in-Chief, Mitt Romney, because if all five of these failed to gather enough signatures, his only other qualified opponent will be Ron Paul.  I have a hard time believing in coincidences, and this really makes one wonder about the intent of some of these campaigns.  Clearly, this throws into question the matter of competency.

Note to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Utah voters: You might as well scratch Bachmann, Huntsman, and Santorum off your list.  Any of these will now have a hard time winning the nomination, as Virginia has a large number of delegates, and none of these candidates can get any from Virginia.   More, if they can’t manage a campaign to get themselves on the ballot in Virginia, they may not be presidential material.  Advantage Romney, and you had better believe that’s the point of all of this, and to me, it has the look of a set-up.

I’ve begun to think we’ve all been had by the establishment [again.]  Make of it what you will, but this stinks to high Heaven, and it’s not conceivable that these candidates hadn’t know this in advance.  10,000 signatures is a large number, but extrapolating the polls across the population of Virginia, it wouldn’t seem difficult for any of them to obtain the requisite number of qualified signatures with a large number to spare, excepting only Huntsman, who might not be able to gather that many signatures across ten states.

This is an unmitigated disaster for Bachmann, Huntsman, and Santorum, and the margin will be close for Gingrich and Perry.  One would think it might have been more important to these candidates to spend a little time on Virginia signature-gathering if they expected to be around for that primary.  Maybe they didn’t, and then, why are they still in at all?

Update: Perry has been DQ’d also.

Update 2: Newt also gets DQ’d.

2012: Will The Progressives Run the GOP?

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Bull Moose or Moose Bull?

In 1911, Theodore Roosevelt began his second campaign for President.  Having retired from the presidency in 1909, Roosevelt tried to capture the the Republican nomination in 1912, because he was angry with President William Taft, who had served under Roosevelt as Secretary of War, and had been Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor.  Failing this, he decided instead to run as the candidate of the Progressive Party.  That party is more commonly remembered by Americans as the “Bull Moose Party,” because upon surviving an assassination attempt, Roosevelt announced he was “as fit as a Bull Moose.”  I prefer to drop that label, and focus instead on what the Progressive Party really was: A National Socialist Party that was subsequently rejected by the American people, but in 1912, resulted in a split in the Republican Party that handed the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, a Socialist.  It’s useful to understand the political parties of the time in evaluating the 2012 election, because if the past is prologue,  what we may be seeing now is merely a global re-run of the worst parts of the 20th century.

First, let us understand what the Progressive Party of 1912 had wanted to accomplish, and what its platform contained. Here is a sample:

  • A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
  • Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
  • Limited injunctions in strikes
  • An eight hour workday
  • A federal securities commission
  • Farm relief
  • An inheritance tax
  • A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax

These may sound familiar to you because all of them have become law in some form or fashion.  These may also sound familiar to you because these were the same ideas on which Woodrow Wilson substantially campaigned.  In fact, with the progressives under the flag of the Republican party in Congress, the progressives in both parties succeeded in putting this agenda through, and Wilson was only too happy to oblige.  In short, the “Bull Moose” Party consisted of the RINOs of their day.  They were the barely disguised fifth column of the main socialist political formation, and they managed to convince enough Americans unaware of their designs to aid them in implementing the first steps in converting our country from a Constitutional republic into a Socialist democracy.

Ask yourself this: How many of the current Republican candidates support the list of measures above?  After nearly a century, the answer is: Almost all modern Republicans accept most of the ideas outlined in the platform of the Progressive party of 1912.  So what was the difference, in 1912, between the Democrat progressives, and the Republican progressives?  The Democrat progressives were the US equivalent of European Communists who came to dominate Russia.  The Republican progressives were effectively the same as the National Socialists that would rise to prominence in Germany.  They were both brands of statism, as I’ve discussed previously.

Weigh this against our current situation.  Today, many conservatives look at Romney, or Gingrich, compare them with Obama and are frequently led to ask:  What’s the difference between leftist progressives and so-called “right-wing” progressives?  The truth is that just like in 1912, the differences are few, and you will note with some disappointment that Woodrow Wilson was able to implement most of the planks of the socialist platform outlined above because he had the support of a large number of progressive Republicans who were just enough to rule the day together with Democrats in Congress.    If this sounds familiar when considering Speaker Boehner, and the rest of the Republican sell-outs in our current House GOP leadership, you’re spot on.  The differences between today’s progressive Republicans and 1912′s “Bull Moose” Party are essentially nonexistent.   When you realize that certain powerful players financed both the Bull Moose and Republican parties in 1912, not as a political insurance policy as is so common these days, but in order to keep them at odds, and thus effectively keeping them at rough parity, giving the election to Democrats.  You can bet that this is what is being done in the US at present.

The progressives have always used their friends in the Republican party to undermine conservatives.  This is not a new tactic or practice, and in this sense, Ross Perot was much the same thing, with his runs in ’92 and ’96.  Those of you who believe the establishment wing of the Republican party would rather see Barack Obama elected than to let conservatives into power must understand that this would not be the first time such things have happened in electoral process in the United States.

This is done for no other reason than to prevent the rise of a populist conservative in the Republican party.  The progressive would win every election if they could, and they do their level best to carry that out, rigging both parties with firmly progressive candidates.  That way, while they would prefer the Democrat progressive, the very worst outcome they expect to see is a Republican progressive.  You and I are the rabble to be kept in line with appeals to patriotism, faith, and unity.

In 1992, Ross Perot arose to run on behalf of the “volunteers,” who were roughly analogous to the Tea Party today.  He was doing so well at one point that he suspended his campaign, which was enough to prevent him from winning, but not enough to allow Bush to win: He still  siphoned off enough of the electorate to give Bill Clinton a plurality.  It worked so well that in 1996, they brought him back for a second round.  Dole was a weak candidate, but Clinton had significant problems, so a little insurance was needed. Once again, Bill Clinton failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote, winning with a plurality instead. While not as stark as in 1992, it was clear that without Perot in the race, there was at least some chance Bob Dole could have won.

You might ask what any of this has to do with Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Party.  My answer to you is that conservatives are being set up again.    The progressives aren’t finished, and they intend to win in 2012 irrespective of the Republican Party primaries.  Enter Americans Elect.   As I’ve explained before, Americans Elect is a group that is seeking to put a candidate on the ballot in all fifty states in 2012.  They’ve not yet picked a candidate, who will be picked later on-line, but this candidate will almost certainly seek to appeal to the disaffected Tea Party types.  The purpose of that candidacy will not be to win, but to divide the center-right and allow Obama to be re-elected.  Their candidate will pose as the modern-day variant of the “Bull Moose” party, and in many ways, it will be.  Be prepared for this to play out. Increasingly, you may notice the Americans Elect ads on sites around the Internet.

All of this is contrived.  I see no way to overcome the progressives of either party in the 2012 election without some radical new thinking about our remaining choices.  Mitt Romney is currently attacking Newt Gingrich as not being conservative.  This is roughly akin to a singularity calling the kettle “black.”  While Newt certainly has his warts, Willard has more.  The conservative base generally recognizes this, which accounts for Gingrich’s meteoric climb since the beginning of Cain’s fall.   Conservatives and Tea Party folk  are looking for a real conservative, and while they are forced to overlook many flaws in Gingrich to see him as a conservative, they look at Romney and see what has been widely described in conservative circles as “Obama Lite.”  No conservative wants to vote for such a prospect, and that they’re willing to turn to Gingrich speaks volumes about their displeasure with Romney.

As this blog has reported, many of these same conservatives and Tea Party patriots would have preferred Sarah Palin to the lot of those still now in the race.  The reason for the ups and downs of the primary season thus far is largely due to the fact that conservatives are seeking a single candidate upon which they can all agree.  They look around the party, and they notice flawed candidates, and while no candidate is ever perfect, they simply see little to recommend in the ones now offered.  The worst part is: They’re right.

If you think conservatives are being set up, I have a suspicion you’re right.  Karl Rove is still out there stirring the pot, and whether he’s a Romney guy, or he’s banking on some late entry, he’s not finished either.  He represents the same progressive wing of the Republican party, so there’s little doubt but that where Rove is, trouble can’t be far behind.

Beware the “Bull Moose” or any reasonable facsimile thereof.  Be sure that a late entry isn’t designed to lead you to slaughter.  The progressive wing of the Republican party isn’t a friend to conservatives, never mind Tea Party folk, and while I have no advice to offer you on candidates to support, I nevertheless remain convinced that the progressives of the Republican party would rather assure Obama’s victory than to let an actual conservative win.  It now falls to you to decipher who that may be.  Progressives favor progressives, and they stick together irrespective of party.  The Republican progressive view themselves as the “loyal opposition,” and in this you should recognize with which ideology their loyalties lie.  It isn’t free market capitalism.  It isn’t conservatism.

 

Cain, Gingrich Sit Down to Serious Debate in Texas and a Poll

Saturday, November 5th, 2011

A Great Debate?

I’ve watched every one of the previous debates, and by far, the Lincoln-Douglas style debate at the Woodlands near Houston Texas, hosted by a Tea Party group, the  Texas Patriots PAC, has been my favorite.  Both men were collegial, serious, and very honest about some very difficult issues including entitlement reform.  It’s a stunning difference when contrasted against the previous debates with seven, eight or nine candidates crowding a stage, and effectively permitting the media to highlight its favorites, or the controversies of the moment, turning the events into spectacles rather than serious debates.  It was also refreshing to have a moderator, Ben Streusand, who was not a leftist and whose interest was in furthering the debate and  informing the public.

This debate was such a thoroughly refreshing improvement over all the other debates that the candidates ought to adopt this format and ditch the rest.  I think both men performed admirably, and I also believe that while I could tell you who I think “won” the debate, it’s also important to note that winning and losing wasn’t the focus.  Neither candidate seemed to be pushing for some knock-out blow of the other, and I think that was in part due to the format, but also a result of the serious but friendly competition between these two men.  I think both men are to be commended for their performance, irrespective of who one believes to be the victor, and I think the Tea Party group that hosted this debate is to be praised incessantly for putting this together and making it a success.  The primary beneficiaries of this debate will have been the American people who bothered to watch it, and it was great television.

As with any such event, both men had their laugh lines, but more importantly, both men seemed at ease in themselves and with one another.  I now have a far better understanding of what both men propose, and I also have a much deeper respect for the thoughtfulness of both men.  Gingrich stood up for the idea that the so-called “Social Security Trust Fund” is real, and is a debt owed by the government to retirees and current workers who have paid into it.  Cain said that reform wouldn’t be possible without considering new options, and also reforming the way we generate revenue.  Both men argued passionately that individual choice must be an inherent property of any “fix” to Social Security.  In short, whatever your particular preferences, both men said that individual liberty is the key to successful reform.  They are absolutely correct.

Neither man spared their contempt for the current administration, although Gingrich was probably the more direct of the two in his criticisms.  Both men believe our current system of revenue is broken, and both have their own respective proposals that were at least mentioned during the debate.  I think that it’s clear that among the conservatives still in this race, these two are the best choices, in the main because they seem quite suited to a serious conversation about what the nature of our solutions must be.  I wouldn’t be unhappy if these two comprised the ticket for Republicans in 2012, particularly given our other choices at the moment.

I hope the other candidates will have watched this debate and realized why this is the better format, and work with Tea Party groups to set up similar events while ditching the remainder of the big media spectacles.  There’s simply no reason to subject our candidates to the liberal moderators, the idiotic questions, the “gotcha format,” and the rigid and plastic format that has been at the heart of the other debates. I would encourage Tea Party groups to put on similar events all over the country, changing up candidate pairings so that you can examine them two at one time, thus clearing up things for voters.  I think that would have a wonderful effect on voters’ ability to choose with clear-headed decisions about issues in this accelerated primary season.

As for who won?  I’m going to let you tell me.  After a day or two, I’ll make a few remarks, but I’d also like your opinion on the format, and whether you think this is how the remainder of the debates should be done.  If you don’t mind, please answer the three questions below:

Update: Hotair also covering

Update: You can participate in this Hot-Air Poll too!

Update:  You can watch the video HERE

Romney Bickers With Perry; Perry Stumbled; Cain, Gingrich Shined

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

Bickering Between Perry and Romney

As expected, the spectacle at center stage between Perry and Romney bickering over their respective interpretations of their books became a recurrent theme.  Perry took the first real shots at Romney, looking much too aggressive, and coming across as too eager to hammer his opponent.  Romney battled back, but as a Texan, I became  embarrassed for my Governor.  He looked confused at times, and ill-prepared.  By contrast, the stars of the show were Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, the first revealing his fight with stage four colon and liver cancer, and expressing his strong support for Israel, and his 9-9-9 plan, with Gingrich providing the real wit in the crowd.  Bachmann was flat, while Romney was wooden.

Cain had many great lines, but among his best was this gem:

“Ronald Reagan said we’re a shining city on a hill. We’ve slid down that hill.”
Gary Johnson had one of the funniest lines of the night:
“My next-door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration.”
The rest was  fairly standard. Aside from Cain and Gingrich, the remainder of the field sounded tired.  Romney’s rhetoric was particularly flat, and Perry came out too aggressively, and sounded confused by the end.  He has shown in two successive debates that he has a problem holding himself together for more than an hour.

Perry’s worst moment may have come when he seemed to double down on his compassion argument for the in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.  That was astonishing and drew some extended booing from the crowd.
This field needs something that’s missing.  I have my own ideas. What are yours?