Primary 2012

[Rheo]

The campaign of Newt Gingrich suffered an awkward embarrassment Thursday after telling reporters that Donald Trump planned to endorse them, and then finding out that the real estate mogul and reality TV star had flown into Las Vegas the night before to back Mr. Gingrich’s arch rival, Mitt Romney.

Gingrich Camp Errs; Trump to Back Romney

[Valin]

The campaign of Newt Gingrich suffered an awkward embarrassment Thursday after telling reporters that Donald Trump planned to endorse them, and then finding out that the real estate mogul and reality TV star had flown into Las Vegas the night before to back Mr. Gingrich’s arch rival, Mitt Romney.

Gingrich Camp Errs; Trump to Back Romney

 

Could someone please remind me why I am supposed to care what Donald Trump says...about anything?

 

 

Thank you.

[Rheo]

Because he says so.

You're welcome. :-)

[Saltbag]

I have no idea why conservative talk radio is obsessed with Trump. It's hard for me to care less about what he thinks.

[Valin]

Because he says so.

You're welcome. :-)

 

What would I do without you!

[Rokke]

Also, one of the criticisms Ive heard of Mitt is that he isn't feisty enough to take on Obama. So he shows some feistiness and some fight and some pushback in the campaign he has to win first...and he gets blowback. I remember GWB being in the same position. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

 

Romney showed some feistiness in his Florida debates. Fine. But his concluding comment in his last South Carolina debate was that his one regret in his campaign so far was focusing his negative ads on his Republican competitors and not on Obama. Starting the next day and every day after in Florida he did nothing but bombard the airwaves with negative attacks on Newt. He spent more money on negative ads in Florida this primary season than all the Republican candidates combined spent in Florida last primary. $15.3 million in one month. McCain spent $11 million for ads during his WHOLE 2008 primary campaign. Here are the numbers from just one week in Florida:

 

Data compiled by CMAG reveals that a total of 11,586 television spots were aired between Jan. 23-29 in Florida.

 

Of those, all but 953 of the 11,586 television ads that aired were deemed negative. The total of 10,633 negative spots translates into 92 percent of all ads airing in Florida during the week.

 

A whopping 99 percent of the 3,276 ads paid for by the Romney campaign were deemed negative, while 100 percent of the 4,969 spots sponsored by the pro-Romney Restore Our Future PAC were considered negative.

 

In contrast, Gingrich and the pro-Gingrich PAC — Winning Our Future — ran fewer overall ads and more positive spots overall as a percentage of total ads.

 

Only 53 percent of the 1,893 spots aired by Winning our Future were considered negative, while some 95 percent of the 1,012 spots from the Gingrich campaign were deemed negative.

 

Some 68 percent of the negative ads were directed at Gingrich as compared to only 23 percent aimed at Romney, according to the CMAG data reported by CNN.

 

Less than 0.1 percent of the total ads were considered pro Romney, while 9 percent of the total ads were deemed pro Gingrich — reflecting a higher overall percentage of positive ads by the Gingrich campaign and the pro-Gingrich PAC.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Romney Runs Most Negative Campaign in Record Year for Florida

 

In Iowa, 45% of Romney's ads were anti-Newt. Yet, he has always been the first and loudest to complain about negative advertising. He blames Newt's ads in South Carolina for his negative carpet bombing in Florida, yet Newt was outspent 2 - 1 in advertising in South Carolina. How in the world can Romney get a pass for simply being feisty? He's feisty like the whiny little red headed stepchild who pays a playground bully to do his dirty work and then runs to the teacher the first time someone sticks their tongue out at him. Romney is Eddie Haskel.

 

With all that said, can anyone here actually summarize what Romney's positions are? What is his tax plan? How does he intend to conduct foreign policy? Does he plan on restructering the Executive branch of our government? If so, how?

[pollyannaish]

Three assumptions and a simple question (pat. pend.)

 

Assume Washington DC is as screwed up as we think it is. Assume either Santorum Romney, Gingrich is the GOP candidate. Assume They win the election.

 

Question: Which of these three would be best equipped to begin the change, that we all know has to come?

 

1. Assumption one is correct.

2. Assumption two is correct.

3. Assumption three is from my lips to God's ears correct.

 

Ok. So, to answer your question. I will just say I can not...but here are my perceptions.

 

I think there are pros and cons to each candidate, but I'm going to start with Santorum.

 

Santorum is a good man. He is hard working and trustworthy. He is conservative. He is not, however, a powerful leader. Therefore, I believe he would be an excellent wingman for someone, but does not have powerful enough leadership qualities to lead in a situation like this. One caveat: I felt that way about President Bush too. However, I also believe that people can grow into unbelievable leaders if they are God-fearing people who have incredible situations thrust upon them. Moses comes to mind.

 

Gingrich is a great idea guy. He is a brilliant articulator and has a track record of bringing people together for a cause...over and over. Those are things that would serve us well under the circumstances you list. However, his track record of following through on those ideas is sketchier. He likes to talk a lot about the big ideas, and has had some success with following through on them...but allowed himself to get bogged down by his own personal flaws. Could he step up to the plate this time? Maybe. But it is that lack of follow through, the lack of support coming from people who have worked very closely with him in causes they really supported and developed together that make me think twice. One can have the best ideas in the world, be a phenomenal big picture person...but unless they can actually implement them, I remain very skeptical.

 

Romney has a really hard time connecting with regular people. He is rich, and he got there by being incredibly disciplined, my learning to work well with people who may or may not support him, and making saavy decisions. He is a schmoozer by nature and that makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable. He also struggles to articulate what he knows by experience and appears mystified by the fact others do not. What he struggles with, is that initial connection, the explanation and the untucking of the shirt as it where...but he does have a track record of accomplishing things. He is an administrator, but not a leader.

 

The idea candidate would have both administrative and leadership qualities. Reagan had a little of both, but I believe was more weighted towards the leadership side and was able to appoint people who had administrative qualities. GWB had a little of both as well, and did the same.

 

That would suggest, that without the baggage Newt would be the better candidate. HOWEVER, his baggage cuts down on his ability to be effective because the man can not seem to keep his fingers out of the pie, and there is so much residual hatred for him I am not sure he can "lead" over it.

 

So the practical side of me says...perhaps Romney can develop some of those critical leadership skills in this primary race. That is what I am praying for. Because as it stands right now, I feel he would be more capable of making things happen...even with less honed leadership qualities.

[Rheo]

Sen. Graham: ‘We were too hard’ on Newt Gingrich in 1997 coup attempt

 

“Looking back, I appreciate how hard his job was better than I did in 1997,” Graham said Thursday on Fox News. “I’m here to say that as a guy that was in the coup, that looking back we were too hard on him, and if he got to be the nominee I think he could win.”

“The coup was in my office and I was one of the guys who thought Newt was being too cozy with Clinton and was very erratic — and he was erratic at times,” Graham continued. “But now in 2012 when I’ve sat down and tried to solve hard problems like immigration and trying to come up with a rational energy policy — he was trying to lead a revolution, deal with Bill Clinton, run the government from a House perspective, I think we were probably too hard on him.”

“What he was able to accomplish with President Clinton is now viewed as pretty historic, but he did have an erratic nature … that drove us crazy to a certain extent,” Graham said. “But now I understand how difficult it is to put deals together, and I think I’ve matured and I think he’s mellowed and those who underestimate Speaker Gingrich do so at their own peril.”

[pollyannaish]

How in the world can Romney get a pass for simply being feisty? He's feisty like the whiny little red headed stepchild who pays a playground bully to do his dirty work and then runs to the teacher the first time someone sticks their tongue out at him. Romney is Eddie Haskel.

 

With all that said, can anyone here actually summarize what Romney's positions are? What is his tax plan? How does he intend to conduct foreign policy? Does he plan on restructering the Executive branch of our government? If so, how?

 

Ouch. What's funny is that to me Newt as Eddie Haskel and Romney is Mr. Cleaver. Ha!

 

Ok. Yes I can (from his site which I read previously to this conversation by the way. ):

 

Taxes:

• Maintain current tax rates on personal income
  
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
  
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
  
• Eliminate the death tax
  
• Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower, flatter rates on a broader base
  
• Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percentPursue transition from “worldwide” to “territorial” system for corporate taxation
  

Those are his points. I believe this is actually achievable and would significantly help the economy, especially small businesses that are handed down in families such as farms. I would like him to focus a bit more on the Lower/flatter rates on a broader base and explain what that means and how we get there.

 

Foreign Policy: The summary can be found here. The top eight priorities are:

• These are Restore America’s Naval Credibility: Announce an initiative to increase the naval shipbuilding rate from nine per year to approximately fifteen per year and sustain the carrier fleet at eleven. This will restore America’s presence and credibility on the high seas with a view toward deterring aggressive behavior and maintaining the peace.
  
• Strengthen and Repair Relationships with Steadfast Allies: Take swift measures to restore and enhance relationships with our most steadfast allies. Actions include reaffirming as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as Jewish state, declaring the U.S.-U.K. special relationship to be a foundation for peace and liberty, and beginning talks to strengthen cooperation with Mexico on the shared problem of drugs and security.
  
• Enhance Our Deterrent Against Iran: Reaffirm that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. Order the regular presence of a carrier task force in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region. Begin discussions with Israel to increase levels of military and intelligence coordination and assistance.
  
• Commit to a Robust National Missile Defense System: Begin process of reversing Obama-era budget cuts to national missile defense and raise to a top priority the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic-missile defense system.
  
• Establish a Single Point of Responsibility for All Soft Power Resources in the Middle East: Work with Congress and relevant Executive branch agencies to organize all diplomatic and assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one Regional Director with unified budgetary and directive authority. One official with responsibility and accountability will set regional priorities and direct our soft power toward ensuring the Arab Spring realizes its promise.
  
• Launch Campaign for Economic Opportunity in Latin America: Capitalize on the benefits arising from the pending ratification of the Colombian and Panamanian free trade agreements to launch a robust public-diplomacy and trade promotion campaign in Latin America that contrasts the benefits of democracy, free trade, and economic opportunity with the ills caused by the authoritarian model of Venezuela and Cuba.
  
• Conduct a Full Review of Our Transition in Afghanistan: Conduct a full interagency review of our military and assistance presence in Afghanistan to determine the presence necessary to secure our gains and successfully complete our mission. The review will involve discussions with generals on the ground and the delivery of the best recommendations of our military commanders.
  
• Order Interagency Initiative on Cybersecurity: Order a full interagency initiative to formulate a unified national strategy to deter and defend against the growing threats of militarized cyber-attacks, cyber-terrorism, cyber-espionage, and private-sector intellectual property theft. U.S. defense and intelligence resources must be fully engaged in this critical aspect of national defense.
  

As far as restructuring the government goes, his first stated task would be to work on spending. If you focus on that, Government will be restructured. It puts it into simple terms that make sense to most people.

 

Now, has he done a good job of articulating that? Nope. But is he on the right track? Yes...and his website is really good and worth the time to read through. FWIW. (BTW, I'm impressed with his organization. Seriously. It's impressive.)

 

Mitt Romney website

 

Gingrich website

 

Santorum website

 

I'd list Ron Paul...but I'm not sure anyone here cares. Good reading though! If you're looking for a guy who is going to restructure the government...he's definitely the one.

[pollyannaish]

Ha! It's pretty fun being on the opposite side of all of you guys for a change. I sure get bored with the "me too" stuff. However, it doesn't take as much time!

[Valin]

Three assumptions and a simple question (pat. pend.)

 

Assume Washington DC is as screwed up as we think it is. Assume either Santorum Romney, Gingrich is the GOP candidate. Assume They win the election.

 

Question: Which of these three would be best equipped to begin the change, that we all know has to come?

 

1. Assumption one is correct.

2. Assumption two is correct.

3. Assumption three is from my lips to God's ears correct.

 

Ok. So, to answer your question. I will just say I can not...but here are my perceptions.

 

I think there are pros and cons to each candidate, but I'm going to start with Santorum.

 

Santorum is a good man. He is hard working and trustworthy. He is conservative. He is not, however, a powerful leader. Therefore, I believe he would be an excellent wingman for someone, but does not have powerful enough leadership qualities to lead in a situation like this. One caveat: I felt that way about President Bush too. However, I also believe that people can grow into unbelievable leaders if they are God-fearing people who have incredible situations thrust upon them. Moses comes to mind.

 

Gingrich is a great idea guy. He is a brilliant articulator and has a track record of bringing people together for a cause...over and over. Those are things that would serve us well under the circumstances you list. However, his track record of following through on those ideas is sketchier. He likes to talk a lot about the big ideas, and has had some success with following through on them...but allowed himself to get bogged down by his own personal flaws. Could he step up to the plate this time? Maybe. But it is that lack of follow through, the lack of support coming from people who have worked very closely with him in causes they really supported and developed together that make me think twice. One can have the best ideas in the world, be a phenomenal big picture person...but unless they can actually implement them, I remain very skeptical.

 

Romney has a really hard time connecting with regular people. He is rich, and he got there by being incredibly disciplined, my learning to work well with people who may or may not support him, and making saavy decisions. He is a schmoozer by nature and that makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable. He also struggles to articulate what he knows by experience and appears mystified by the fact others do not. What he struggles with, is that initial connection, the explanation and the untucking of the shirt as it where...but he does have a track record of accomplishing things. He is an administrator, but not a leader.

 

The idea candidate would have both administrative and leadership qualities. Reagan had a little of both, but I believe was more weighted towards the leadership side and was able to appoint people who had administrative qualities. GWB had a little of both as well, and did the same.

 

That would suggest, that without the baggage Newt would be the better candidate. HOWEVER, his baggage cuts down on his ability to be effective because the man can not seem to keep his fingers out of the pie, and there is so much residual hatred for him I am not sure he can "lead" over it.

 

So the practical side of me says...perhaps Romney can develop some of those critical leadership skills in this primary race. That is what I am praying for. Because as it stands right now, I feel he would be more capable of making things happen...even with less honed leadership qualities.

 

 

Thanks. I can only Imagine what kind of reply's I'd get at a certain other site.

 

Can he (Romney)? Can an old dog learn new tricks? Here is what concerns me, say he does win the Presidency , he will be someone who can manage, but not change DC.

 

I see Gingrich (warts and all) as a change agent, in this he is like Ron Paul. Make no mistake change is coming to Washington and the nation, we're broke and Washington is acting like we're not.

[pollyannaish]

You are absolutely right, and I totally respect your support of Newt. I will support him 100% should he be the nominee.

 

I can't support him now...but hey, the good news is that I live in Washington State and it matters about 0! Ha.

 

One of the things that drove me away from the other site was the lack of thinking things through. I have no problem with disagreement. As Prager says, it's clarity that I'm searching for. For myself and in understanding everyone else.

 

Thank you for yours.

[Valin]

You are absolutely right, and I totally respect your support of Newt. I will support him 100% should he be the nominee.

 

I can't support him now...but hey, the good news is that I live in Washington State and it matters about 0! Ha.

 

One of the things that drove me away from the other site was the lack of thinking things through. I have no problem with disagreement. As Prager says, it's clarity that I'm searching for. For myself and in understanding everyone else.

 

Thank you for yours.

 

RINO!

[Rokke]

Ouch. What's funny is that to me Newt as Eddie Haskel and Romney is Mr. Cleaver. Ha!

 

I'd list Ron Paul...but I'm not sure anyone here cares. Good reading though! If you're looking for a guy who is going to restructure the government...he's definitely the one.

 

Mr. Cleaver was a consistant man of principle who never had a bad word to say about anyone. He certainly didn't spend 99% of his time slamming people while complaining that he was a victim of negative attacks. He actually practiced what he preached. In my mind, the only things Mr. Cleaver and Romney have in common are perfect hair and button up shirts.

 

When I reviewed all of the candidates' sites, two things struck me about Romney's. All of his position white papers have forwards written by someone else. That's fine I guess. Except they are supposed to be his positions. Maybe the reason he can't/doesn't articulate them is because he doesn't really know them. I'm not saying Newt wrote all the verbiage on his website, but I'd be willing to bet he could speak for hours on every position listed on his website. Second, as you review Romney's various advisory teams, it becomes clear why he gets such strong support from inside the Beltway. He's signed most of them up to serve on his committees. I recognized almost all the names of his foreign policy team. Most of them are good folks. But what does that say about his potential success at shaking up the status quo and changing Washington? It also discredits his often made claim that he's the only real Washington outsider.

 

With regard to spending, he doesn't outline a plan on how he'll significantly lower it. He's going to save $20 billion by a 5% cut in non-defense descrectionary spending. That's nothing. He's going to reduce the federal workforce by 10% through attrition. That could take 20 years. And then there's this line..."Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services." LIke....... There just isn't anything there that points to a real restructuring of the Washington environment that has put us in the hole we're in.

 

Finally, it is ironic that Ron Paul's website is probably the one we'd ignore first. For all his faults, most of us could probably articulate his domestic and foreign policy positions most precisely because he actually manages to articulate where he stands. I wish all the candidates shared that ability.

[pollyannaish]

RINO!

 

Ha!

[pollyannaish]

Can't argue with any of that @Rokke.

 

I just can't support Newt. I really, really don't trust him and he strikes me as being extremely unstable. No particular evidence, just instinct. I feel exactly the same about him that I did the first time I saw Bill Clinton. And all that leaves me with is Romney. Incidentally, Mr. Pollyannaish feels exactly the same way as you do about him. He says he is the worst kind of slimy pencil neck. I can't argue with that.

 

In the end, it won't matter because I'll support whoever the nominee is. As my Stepmother said...I could never support any man that cheated on his wife...unless he is running against Obama. How very sad that this is what politics has come to in our world. It sucks, frankly.

 

I just can't get excited about either of them.

[Valin]

@Rokke

 

It is quite obvious you don't want to win! Ann Coulter, Chris Christie, Jennifer Rubins, Bob Dole, all say so, and they're famous, so they should know. Come on, get on the band wagon!

[Valin]

RINO!

 

Ha!

 

I was over there yesterday (?) . If I may quote Herman Cain..."God Bless Their Little Hearts."

[Rokke]

Can't argue with any of that @Rokke.

 

I just can't support Newt. I really, really don't trust him and he strikes me as being extremely unstable. No particular evidence, just instinct. I feel exactly the same about him that I did the first time I saw Bill Clinton. And all that leaves me with is Romney. Incidentally, Mr. Pollyannaish feels exactly the same way as you do about him. He says he is the worst kind of slimy pencil neck. I can't argue with that.

 

In the end, it won't matter because I'll support whoever the nominee is. As my Stepmother said...I could never support any man that cheated on his wife...unless he is running against Obama. How very sad that this is what politics has come to in our world. It sucks, frankly.

 

I just can't get excited about either of them.

 

I completely understand why people don't trust Newt. I'm even satisified with the explaination of "I just don't". I'm at about the same place with Romney. But one of the reasons I can articulate about not liking Romney is his almost complete reliance on high dollar negative attacks to overwhelm his opponents. He's beat Newt in a knife fight by shooting him with a very large, double barreled shotgun. Fine, except he is about to compete against Obama. Obama will see his double barreled shotgun and raise him one nuke. How will Romney compete? That's his best (only?) weapon, and it's going to look like a spark in a forest fire.

And since anyone who voted for McCain has already voted for a man who cheated on his wife, I guess that bridge has already been crossed. Damn Obama. Forcing conservatives everywhere to ignore their principles. I guess

[Valin]

Three Chreers for Ann Coulter

David Frum...everyone's favorite ultra right winger.

Keep it up Ann, and if you play your cards right (Dare we hope!) Tom Friedman will writer nice things about you. I see a Meet The Press moment coming up for you.

[pollyannaish]

Damn Obama. Forcing conservatives everywhere to ignore their principles. I guess

 

[Valin]

@pollyannaish @Rokke

 

In order to beat The Obama machine Who ever is the nominee is going to need the same kind of enthusiasm and turnout that W had in 04.

[cudjo]

@Valin -- haven't seen any interest in the elections around here, everybody complains about O but too darn lazy to check out and see what's going on, they don't want O but don't want any give me programs stopped. and some old people are among the worst

[Valin]

GK To the Rescue

Steven Hayward

2/2/12

 

I’ve been meaning for a while now to start another occasional series, like my previous ones recalling Hayek and James Burnham, to recycle some timeless gems from G.K. Chesterton. Via the Chesterton page on Facebook, here’s a Chesterton meditation perfect for our election season, from a 1921 interview with the Cleveland Press:

 

The men whom the people ought to choose to represent them are too busy to take the jobs. But the politician is waiting for it. He’s the pestilence of modern times. What we should try to do is make politics as local as possible. Keep the politicians near enough to kick them. The villagers who met under the village tree could also hang their politicians to the tree. It’s terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hung today.

(Snip)

 

 

[pollyannaish]

Oy. @Valin it seems to me that if that is the only thing that will win this for us, we are in serious trouble. I have a hard time seeing ANY of these candidates garnering that kind of support.