Newt Loses Florida to Romney, vows to continue wasting time with vanity campaign

I find it courageous that Newt Gingrich is vowing to continue his vanity campaign and continue to waste the parties time. Iowa, NH and Florida are swing states and Newt lost them all. Romney won them all (minus 20 votes in iowa). but hey – its better to lose with Newt who supported a national healthcare mandate and has virtually zero support from the people he’s worked with than to win with Mitt who never in his life supported a national healthcare mandate and continues to unite the party (Mitt won Women by 22, Latinos by 23, seniors by 17, married women by 23).

Stay classy Newt-fanatics!

0 Comments

Bill Clinton says MSNBC is liberal version of Fox News. Is wrong

Bill Clinton delivered an odd jab at MSNBC, essentially mocking it for being a leftist propaganda network by saying the imbalance made him laugh and compared it to the loathed Fox News Channel.

Via Don Irvine of Accuracy in Media notes this part of an Esquire interview with Bill Clinton:

I was just watching MSNBC, and they had a woman that used to work for me and a couple of other people on there, and they were talking about the Republican primary. And I was laughing. I said, “Boy, it really has become our version of Fox.” And I say that because think of the economics of running cable channels. Suppose you and I bought a cable channel, and he [pointing] bought another. You know that to make a living out of it, you’ve got to get about eight hundred thousand viewers for all your major programs. So you can get eight hundred thousand, and you won’t be as wealthy as Fox, but you’ll do okay. And now if you get a slice that’s that small and still viable — and you know it’s not like when we just had NBC, CBS, and ABC. That’s all there was. Everybody had enough market share that they knew would guarantee some comfortable level of profit. And yet there was enough competition that everybody could keep each other honest, and when the Vietnam War came along, they could send fifty-five-year-old reporters to Vietnam for extended stays. They could afford to have correspondents in Europe to report. Correspondents in Asia. All that’s changed now. And so the good news is you can get a lot of information off the Internet for free and in a hurry. But I think the breaking up of the media, which is otherwise kind of healthy, has contributed to less actual reporting and a louder, more contentious, more divisive public discourse, highlighting conflict, sometimes falsely.

Tina Korbe notes:

If by “our version of Fox,” Bill Clinton means MSNBC is a less-trustedlower-rated, liberal attempt to emulate the Fox business model, then he’s right. But if he means to suggest that MSNBC filled a gaping hole in the media as Fox did, then he’s wrong. With its innovative consumer-targeted programming, Fox told a story that the networks didn’t tell. The Fox news crews provided information that wasn’t readily available elsewhere.

0 Comments

How a President Romney might make the Senate more conservative

New Administrations need experience in their ranks and look to Congress, the Governorships across the country and high positions in big business to fill those ranks. When an appointment of someone currently serving as a Governor, Congressman or Senator is made, a special election is held to fill that vacancy, giving the opposition party a chance to reclaim it.

Barack Obama appointed 2nd term Kansas Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security. Both Governorships are now held by Republicans.

Those were Republican states, so the change wasn’t too much of a shock, however in 2010, Barack Obama’s Illinois senate seat was filled by Republican Mark Kirk and the seat in Delaware vacated by Joe Biden was poised to be so much of a shoe-in for a Republican pickup by Mike Castle that Bidens son turned down the option to run for his fathers seat and lose. Republicans in Delaware, however, denied Mike Castle the nomination and instead ran Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell who handily lost to her politically unknown opponent who now resides in Washington.

In 2012, the selection of states with senate elections is particularly favorable to Republicans and we predict that regardless of the Presidential results, that the Republicans will keep the House and win control over the Senate.

But could things get even better for the party – and more importantly: for the party’s conservative base – if  it takes over the Presidency as well? At the time of this writing, Mitt Romney is poised to capture the nomination, and we will operate under the conceit that he will go on to do so, although the following analysis would admittedly apply to any of his competitors. The number of those below who support and have endorsed Romney, however, makes this selection particularly apt to him in particular.

Any Republican in and out of elected office could possibly be appointed anywhere, but this list is one that combines 1) the most moderate (ie: least conservative) Senators, 2) the ones most likely to be on short lists for cabinet appointments and 3) are from traditionally Republican states, making a higher than average likelihood of their successors not only being of the same party, but being more to the right than they were.

Here is the list of people whom Mitt Romney could appoint to his administration to thus make the Senate more conservative:

John McCain: The conservative base has been annoyed by moderate-McCains brand of Republicanism most vocally since he lost the Presidential nomination to George W Bush in 2000. Since then, McCains left leaning votes in the senate only made things worse and he secured the nomination for President in 2008, only to be successfully smeared as being no different than George W Bush. So the man is useless to conservatives: He fights against them in the senate and then the one time where his moderate party bucking history could have helped them keep the Whitehouse, he fails and it gives us the most left wing president we’ve ever experienced. All this sounds like it would make McCain easy to primary out of the party and out of Washington, yet he remains invincible.

McCain won re-election in 2010 and even though he stated this would be his last term as senator, it would be nice if the right could replace him sooner. That leaves only early retirement/resignation, cabinet appointment or death – and since we we know he would never resign except for health reasons and since we here wish the senator many more years to his life, we suggest and hope for an appointment by the man McCain has endorsed in the Republican primary.

Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense would fit McCains strong points and persona nicely and we’re putting him at the top of this list because such a venue of service is the Senators last major shot to bookend his political life. He served the country in Vietnam, he served as Senator, he tried to serve as President and now a high ranking job within the Presidency is the last best fit for McCain to go rather than fizzle the remainder of his political career by serving out his current senate term and retiring.

 

Lisa Murkowski: The moderate and often times left-of-center senator from Alaska faced re-election in 2010 and failed to capture the Republican nomination, losing to Sarah Palin endorsed Tea Party candidate and former magistrate judge Joe Miller. Murkowski went on to make history by mounting a write-in campaign and defeated the Republican, Miller and the Democrat whom no one cares about, winning re-election without her parties nomination. Murkowski remains a Republican in the senate, however she also remains a pro-choice, big government stalwart.

Murkowski may not want to fight another primary battle in 5 years and may welcome a cabinet appointment. The vacated seat would almost certainly stay Republican and even more certainly be that of a more conservative Republican than Murkowski.

In December of 2011, Murkowski endorsed Mitt Romney in the GOP Primary.

 

Lindsay Graham: A close McCain friend and ally who endorsed him in 2000 and served as national co-chairman of McCain’s 2008 presidential bid, Graham is notorious for being too moderate for the party base and poking them in their collective eye on key issues.

Graham has a knack for being “conservative enough” on the main issues to keep his parties support, while taking the McCain/Huntsman path in the public eye and criticizing his party frequently.

He is also notorious for being a policy and procedural wonk and would make a good cabinet appointment for Romney, opening the South Carolina senate seat for a more appealing conservative candidate to run and win in a special election.

Graham has not endorsed anyone in the GOP Primary.

 

Orin Hatch: The conservative, but moderately conservative senator has been in office for 35 years, is running for re-election in 2012 and, having already survived a Tea Party primary, is likely to win in 2012.

Hatch’s experience in the senate makes him a perfect cabinet appointment and the open seat in conservative Utah is the surest shot in the country to elect a much more conservative, younger Republican Senator in his place.

As detailed below, there is reason to believe Hatch may not not be campaigning for a cabinet position, but 50/50 odds on whether he would be considered for and accept one.

Romney has endorsed Senator Hatch for re-election and Hatch has endorsed Mitt Romney in the GOP Primary.

 

Richard Lugar: the senior United States Senator from Indiana is the longest-serving Senator in Indiana’s history and is running for re-election in 2012. He is likely to win despite the strong Tea Party opposition he faces and many fear he could be successfully primaried but pull a Murkowski in the general election and win.

One problem is that as the most senior Republican member of the Senate, Lugar will likely be elected President pro tempore of the Senate should Republicans gain control of the body in 2012, as we’re predicting. This fact combined with the fact that Lugar is running for re-election at all, could suggest that he is not interested in a cabinet appointment. Along this same line: Orrin Hatch disputes the claim that Lugar is the most senior Republican, based on a different interpretation of the Republican Conference’s seniority rules, which could suggest that Hatch too would rather stay in the Senate for the remainder of his career.

When a president calls you to serve, however, not many men and women refuse, so too much should not be read into these details.


Possible Bonus Seat:

Thad Cochran: The senator from conservative Mississipi is 74 and has been in the senate for 33 years. Cochran’s voting record is considered fairly moderate by Southern Republican standards. He has a lifetime rating of 80 from the American Conservative Union. In 2008, he garnered a rating of 68 from the ACU; the only Republican Senators from Southern states to score lower were Mel Martinez of Florida and John Warner of Virginia.

0 Comments

Mia Love

Love4utah.com

Can’t wait for the Christie-Love presidential ticket…

More from the Daily Herald:

Love set out three priorities that she would focus on as a congresswoman: cutting spending, reining in federal regulations and helping Utah gain control of the federally owned land within its borders. She focused her energy at the announcement on articulating her desire to see the federal government run on a balanced budget and cut its spending.

“It is immoral,” said Love of the federal government’s $16 trillion debt. “We can no longer allow politicians to kick the can down the road.”

Love said her plan to bring down government spending would include dramatic changes to the federal government like ending the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and repealing President Barack Obama’s health care law. She said she would like to see all of these issues handled by the states.

“We are spending a whole lot of money on things we shouldn’t be involved in,” Love said.

Love joins three other Republican candidates who all hope to win the nomination and then take on Utah’s longest serving U.S. House member, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. Love’s position as a mayor, and not a member (or former member) of the state Legislature — like two of her opponents — could give her an advantage in the race, since the Legislature, at times, has a public image problem.

“She has a leg up in getting noticed and distinguishing herself,” said Quin Monson, of Brigham Young University’s Center for the study of Elections and Democracy.

Monson noted that all four of the Republican candidates have the potential to feel the same on many issues, which would in turn cause voters to look for the small differences to set each candidate apart. He observed that for Love to succeed she will have to act different and unique enough from the other candidates.

He also stated that the candidate who ends up winning the GOP nomination will have to walk the fine line of being conservative enough to win the support of the Republican delegates but moderate enough to win the middle-of-the-road Republicans who in past elections have voted for Matheson.

Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, former state representative Carl Wimmer and South Jordan resident Jay Cobb are also vying for the GOP nomination.

 

0 Comments

Negative Ads

Meg Whitman when running for Governor in California in 2010 was asked by opponent Jerry Brown to stop running negative ads against him. She refused. She lost the election, but no one attributes the loss to her negative ads against Brown. Whitman was strongly backed by Mitt Romney and the two remain friends. Romney, now running for president again, has run very few negative ads against any of his opponents and the ones he has run have been more drawing distinctions between himself and others such as calling Rick Perry a “career politician”. For someone who spent 30 years in politics, that isn’t a “negative ad” so much as a critical distinction.

Other attacks have come from pro-Romney PACs and Newt Gingrich has an incoherent complaint about them. He is angry over some of the ads alleged untruths and has bashed Romney in very personal terms – calling him a liar and asking if he would show those ads to his grandchildren, implying that he should be ashamed…of advertisements Romney did not write, did not approve and did not have anything to do with. In fact, it is illegal for a candidate to have any such involvement with a PAC.

Michael Hirsh in the National Journal notes:

So let’s briefly play out the pretense of the coming days. Gingrich, who along with Santorum remains Romney’s only viable competitor, will huff and puff about the negative ads that Romney’s super PAC ran about him in Iowa. (Actually, all those ads did was point out accurately that Gingrich bears the “baggage” of two decades of expediency, hypocrisy, and flip-flopping in Washington.) Then Newt, who is among the most negative politicians in modern memory, will permit his own super PAC to attack the former Massachusetts governor over his less-than-conservative record.

All of which will do little to help Gingrich achieve what is almost certainly already beyond him, the Republican nomination, and will only boost Romney with the independent and centrist voters he needs to win in the general election, as will the inevitable attacks by Santorum.

Byron York calls Romneys position disingenuous in what is itself a disingenuous claim:

Where Gingrich has been naive, Romney has been disingenuous. Asked Dec. 20 why he didn’t tell the super-PAC to stop the negative ads, Romney answered, “It’s illegal … I’m not allowed to communicate with a super-PAC in any way, shape or form.” Asked the same question the next day — after experts pointed out there was no law or rule preventing him from condemning the negative ads — Romney said, “I’m sure I could go out and say, ‘Hey please don’t do anything negative.’ But you know, this is politics.”

Spot the difference?

York says Romney was disingenuous for…er…accurately citing a law he was being asked to break.

Then when Romney was asked a different question, which was essentially “why don’t you just say you don’t like them instead of actually tell the PAC to pull them”, he didn’t dispute that of course he could say that but what for? Why would he? The guy isn’t against negative campaign ads. So… what is the bit of disingenuousness?

0 Comments

A call for sanity in the anti-Romney rhetoric via…RedState.com

No, it’s not from serial misinformer Erik Erikson. It’s form a diary writer on the site, but at least someone at RedState gets it at least

I think that some people have either lost a sense of historical perspective here or are expecting an unrealistically quick sea change if their contention is that Romney is unacceptably moderate to get their vote in a general election. Turning back the wayback machine to 1992, recall that our nominee (among other things) was most recently known for 1) raising taxes and 2) nominating a pro-choice justice to the Supreme Court. In 1996 we ran “tax collector for the welfare state” Bob Dole, whose cronies groused openly about removing the pro-life plank from the Republican party platform. In 2000, George W. Bush ran on an open platform of instituting the largest entitlement expansion in decades (Medicare Part D), amnesty for illegal aliens, and loads of other big government ideas. I mean, GWB wasn’t defending having done those things in the past, he explicitly told us that if elected, he would implement them as President. To say nothing of the fact that his wife was openly pro-choice and he flirted openly with the idea of selecting Tom Ridge as VP. In 2008, we ran a guy whose entire national name ID was due to the fact that he was, without a doubt, the handiest and most available useful idiot for the media to grab when they needed a Republican to criticize the Republican party.

Now, Mitt Romney has often been criticized (fairly and completely accurately, in my opinion) as a flip-flopper. I agree that this is less than a desirable trait and if I had my druthers I would prefer someone like Rick Perry who has been more or less consistently conservative for a relatively long time (an easier feat in Texas than Massachusetts, no doubt, but that is beside the point). However, the most salient point I can divine about this criticism, given the fact that Romney’s latest flops are all to the right, is that Romney is being criticized for accurately perceiving that he needs conservatives. Yes, I would agree that Romney would bear careful watching as President and constant egging on from Congress, but I would certainly prefer someone who panders to me for political reasons than someone who openly gives me the finger in order to pander to centrists and/or leftists, which is exactly what we have gotten in terms of Presidential nominees for the last 20 years.

0 Comments

Romney/Paul 2012? It’s entirely posslbe

When asked if he could vote for Ron Paul if he were the nominee, Newt Gingrich said of course not.

When asked if he could vote for Ron Paul if he were the nominee, Mitt Romney said of course he could.

Ron Paul has in turn said that Romney “gets it” about big Government and has not attacked him hard in the debates or in his commercials. The worst he’s said is that Romney is a “flip flopper” in one Ron Paul PAC commercial.

Ron Paul has however attacked almost every other candidate on the stage, in pretty harsh terms. He’s called Perry and Santorum big government conservatives and gone after Gingrich the harshest, calling him a draft dodging hypocrite. But Romney has received hardly anything.

When Ron Paul was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, he said Michelle Bachmann “hates muslims. she wants to go get em” but of Romney he said “he’s a nice guy”.

I propose today that it is not at all impossible that Ron Paul endorses Mitt Romney and campaigns for the Romney/Paul ticket – which would be a big deal since Ron Paul did not endorse or vote for either Bush or McCain in the previous elections.

Here is the caveat, however: under this scenario, Ron Paul is not Vice President. Under no scenario will Ron Paul be the nominee or nominee for VP. but his son…Senator Rand Paul… a man who has all of the free market small government ideals of his father but much less of the foreign policy potholes that makes people nervous and none of the baggage… Now THAT is an acute possibility. and its one that no one has put forth (that i’m aware of) so far…

UPDATE: January 10th - Why Ron Paul is Mitt Romney’s best friend, part two

With Paul still in the race, it becomes much harder for whatever other non-Romney candidate might emerge, because the anti-Romney vote is suddenly split in two.

If Paul can continue to take 15 or 20 percent of the vote — or even just 10 percent — in these contests, the threshold of victory for Romney in that three-way race is much lower than it would be in a head-to-head race.

And the more Romney keeps finishing first, the more it will be clear that he’s the presumptive nominee, which will probably only increase the margin of his victories. At that point, it will likely be impossible for the non-Romney candidate to continue to fund and run a real campaign.

Remember 2008, when Mike Huckabee seemed to be sticking around even as the race was pretty clearly coming down to Romney and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)? Huckabee’s continued presence in that race — particularly on Super Tuesday — similarly split the anti-McCain vote and probably ruined any chance Romney had of overtaking the frontrunner.

This time, Romney could very well be on the winning side of that equation.

UPDATE: January 10th - Ron Paul defends Romney

In Paul’s view, Romney is right to say that he created jobs by restructuring companies.

“I think they’re way overboard on saying that he wants to fire people, he doesn’t care,” Paul said. “You save companies, you save jobs when you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt. And they don’t understand that.”

Look, I don’t think Paul has a serious chance to win the nomination, but to my surprise he has run a quite serious campaign. Watching his speech last night confirmed this. Paul knows he is a million-to-one shot to win, but he also knows that if it comes down to just him and Romney, with the vote floor he’s established early, that he could run as high or higher in a lot of states, and come to the convention with a non-trivial number of delegates and an agenda. His holding his fire on, and even defending, Romney from Perry/Gingrich attacks confirms the strategic sophistication of his campaign. Paul’s defense of free enterprise is certainly a principled one. But it also supports his interest in seeing the field winnowed down. It might also reflect a desire not to do damage to the presumptive party nominee — whom Paul has suggested he prefers to Obama — if he can build a strong position without doing so. Either way, Paul has shown a level of rationality and maturity that contradicts the caricatures.

By contrast, Newt Gingrich, the would-be anti-Romney who flew higher and fell farther than all the others, is looking ever more like an embittered fringe candidate running on pure spite, caring but little about the damage he may be doing to the party or the chances of defeating Barack Obama.

So which is the serious Anti-Romney, and which is the nut?

The trouble with John Garver, Rick Santorum’s Nephew

Who is John Garver? An author? A pundit? A Student as University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown? Certainly if his profession/accomplishments total to the last of that list, he must have genius insight to merit a featured article in the Daily Caller about why voters should choose Ron Paul over Rick Santorum, yes?

Not quite. John Garver is Rick Santorums nephew. In his short article at the Daily Caller he offers no insight into his uncle. No breaking news or personal anecdotes we otherwise were not privy to. The article reads like someone who has only ever heard Santorum on TV and is posting a note on Facebook about him.

The only reason this blog post was published anywhere and linked anywhere was because of this guys relation to the person he isn’t voting for and it’s a low class move to use ones relation to someone as the only reason anyone will listen to you speak negatively about them.

If you want another big-government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle, Rick Santorum. America is based on a strong belief in individual liberty. My uncle’s interventionist policies, both domestic and foreign, stem from his irrational fear of freedom not working.

It is not the government’s job to dictate to individuals how they must live. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty. My Uncle Rick cannot fathom a society in which people cooperate and work with each other freely. When Republicans were spending so much money under President Bush, my uncle was right there along with them as a senator. The reason we have so much debt is not only because of Democrats, but also because of big-spending Republicans like my Uncle Rick.

It is because of this inability of status quo politicians to recognize the importance of our individual liberties that I have been drawn to Ron Paul. Unlike my uncle, he does not believe that the American people are incapable of forming decisions. He believes that an individual is more powerful than any group (a notion our founding fathers also believed in).

Another important reason I support Ron Paul is his position on foreign policy. He is the only candidate willing to bring our troops home, not only from the Middle East, but from around the world.

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate trying to win the election for a reason other than simply winning the election.

This year, I’ll vote for an honest change in our government. I’ll vote for real hope. I’ll vote for a real leader. This year, I will vote for Ron Paul.

0 Comments