Ancient Commenter Solomon On The Topic Of Paint Huffers, Or Harry Reid, Insofar As A Difference Is Discernable

by Smitty

Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

Proverbs 29:18

Hot Air brings the depressing detail, emphasis mine:

The Weekly Standard: Leader Reid, when it comes to the Bush tax cuts…why didn’t Senate Democrats push through this bill back when you controlled the Senate, the House, and the presidency?
REID: The tax cuts weren’t about to expire then. So that’s why we’re doing it now.
TWS: You could have foreseen this issue two years ago.
REPORTER: What are you talking about? They expired at the end of 2010.
REID: And that’s why they were extended one year.
TWS: Why didn’t they vote when you could have pushed this bill through and had it signed into law?
REID: Next question.

Somebody who is an actual statesman, and not a scarecrow in a suit, would see that the tax code itself is a train wreck, and set about reforming that.

Instead, Reid has run interference these years for #OccupyResoluteDesk, ensuring that a well-led government yielded priority only to submitting a budget.

Fall off the planet, Harry Reid.

The NRA Has 10 Reasons To Worry About BHO Re-election

by Smitty

It’s all good that the NRA is on about 2nd Amendment concerns associated with BHO.

However, 2010 called, and reminds us that Sharron Angle sure could have used some support to unseat arguably the Worst Senator in American History.

Thanks for all that ‘support’, NRA; you really know how to focus on one tree at the expense of the rest of the forest. When we grow up, let us consider that liberty is not a one-dimensional topic, and join the full-court press to restore it.

Update: Bill Quick offers something of a defense of the Narrowed Retinal Aggregation. I see the point, and maybe a mix of organizations with varying focus has the best overall effect; however, seeing the Sharron Angles, Joe Millers, Doug Hoffmans, Les Phillips and Christine O’Donnells die on the beach of being ignored by nominally patriotic organizations is an idea to which I’ll never warm. Sorry.

Update II: I’m looking rather an ass in the comments, over the general question of where/when to be pragmatic. The argument I’m getting at here is that we should support reformer candidates, and not support diabolical tools like Reid.
So how much is too much “deal with the devil”, if there is a need to make a tactical call that goes against the strategic principle? Is Harry Reid worth keeping Chucky Schumer out of the Senate Majority slot?
Too, if attacked on a variety of fronts, is it silly to hold onto just one or two (though Amendments One and Two are pivotal) and then get flanked and overwhelmed from a different side?
Let me get right out front here and point out that there is simply no final, provable, repeatable correct answer on any of this. We all have our little pet compromises.
I do submit that, overall, what’s key is that people chew on these matters, online and off, so that the overall quantity of compromise is held to a minimum.

Mitt Romney Wins Nevada Caucuses; Gingrich Blames Mormons for His Loss

The questions now become very serious: “Can he be stopped? And if so, by whom?” But first, the news:

Mitt Romney won Nevada’s GOP caucuses by a wide margin Saturday, a victory that was long expected and helps further his campaign’s argument that he is the inevitable nominee.
Romney held a big lead in early voting results, and The Associated Press and TV networks projected him to win when the last caucus locations closed.

Results of the caucuses were ridiculously slow. As of 2:30 a.m. ET, only 45% of precincts had reported and the results were:

Romney ……………. 43%
Gingrich …………… 26%
Paul …………………. 18%
Santorum …………. 13%

We will have to wait and see what the final numbers are, but at this stage it appears once again — as in Florida — that the combined votes of Gingrich and Santorum are not equal to Romney’s total. And this undermines Gingrich’s oft-repeated claim that his problem is that Santorum won’t quit and “coalesce” with him.

Instead, it could be argued that the problem is so many conservatives were persuaded to put all their eggs into Newt’s flawed basket. Ginger Gibson of Politico reported Friday on the hapless “mess” of Gingrich’s campaign in Nevada. This was an embarrassment for a candidate whose “super PAC” has received millions of dollars from Vegas kingpin Sheldon Adelson. It wasn’t merely that Gingrich lost, but that he ran such a conspicuously shoddy campaign in Adelson’s home state. But Newt seems immune to shame:

Following a second lopsided defeat to Mitt Romney in a week, Newt Gingrich on Saturday night again pledged to go on the Republican nomination fight all the way to the Republican convention this summer in Tampa.
“I will be a candidate for president of the United States,” Gingrich told reporters at a Las Vegas hotel following projections from CBS News and others that Romney would handily win the caucuses. “And we will continue to campaign all the way to Tampa.” . . .
In anticipation of a Romney victory in Nevada, Gingrich scheduled a press conference rather than the traditional election night rally. Gingrich spent much of the news conference attacking Romney, and in particular blasted him over comments the former Massachusetts governor made earlier this week when he said he was “not concerned about the very poor.”

The Lonely Conservative:

Newt Gingrich gave an angry speech. He even brought up Mormons. At this point, I’m all for anyone but Newt. The guy is nuts.

Aaron Blake of the Washington Post:

Newt Gingrich predicted during a press conference following Saturday’s Nevada caucuses that he would emerge as the GOP front-runner again by the Texas primary.
Gingrich’s remarks about regaining his front-runner status by Texas — which he repeated — capped a bizarre press conference held Saturday in Las Vegas. . . .
Gingrich seemed to dismiss his performance in Nevada’s caucuses, noting Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) emphasis on caucus states and Romney’s inherent advantages in the state.
“It is a very heavily Mormon state,” Gingrich said, referring to Romney’s religion.

Gingrich is neither helping himself nor hurting Romney with these attacks, and Romney is ignoring Newt the nuisance: “In three campaign appearances Friday, Romney did not even mention Newt Gingrich.” Meanwhile, campaigning in Colorado, Rick Santorum ratcheted up his attacks on both Romney and Gingrich:

“We are not going to win this election if either of these two guys is nominated,” Santorum declared. “Let me assure you. We will not win.”
Santorum claims neither candidate can compete with President Obama, saying both are simply too flawed and will be “destroyed” and “picked apart” by the Democratic incumbent. . . .
“On Tuesday I think we are going to do well in Missouri,” [Santorum later told Fox News]. “It’s going to be interesting because it’s a head-to-head between Governor Romney and myself. Speaker Gingrich is not on the ballot. We will see the idea that one conservative can go up against Mitt Romney head-to-head and win.”

That kind of rhetorical escalation in a GOP primary is unfortunate, even if what Santorum says is true — and who doubts that he is expressing his own sincere belief? Every candidate believes he is best qualified to defeat Obama, or else he wouldn’t be running. There are surely Republicans out there who believe that the GOP lost its best chance to beat Obama when Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry dropped out. But public doomsaying by candidates during the primary campaign is best avoided.

UPDATE: Also best avoided, “a highly delicate campaign by Mr. Romney and his top Jewish financial supporters to dissuade Mr. Adelson from adding to the $10 million that he and his wife have given to a pro-Gingrich ‘super PAC,’ Winning Our Future, that has been tearing into Mr. Romney through television advertising.” (Hat-tip: William Jacobson.)

This kind of thing — one candidate’s “top Jewish financial supporters” putting pressure on a rival’s top Jewish financial supporter — could lead to some very ugly accusations. Just imagine what Ron Paul’s people must be saying after reading a story like that. Or course, they were saying that stuff before reading the story, but still . . .

Gingrich, Romney, Trump Monopolize Media; Santorum Keeps Campaigning

“[Obama] made the claim that his policies of taxing the rich is authorized by the Bible. That he is doing what is biblically called for by taxing the rich, by having the government tax the rich. Now, I’ve read the Bible, and I must have missed that passage. . . . This is an administration that attacks religion, and then tries to cloak itself in religion in order to take your money.”
— Rick Santorum, Thursday in Fallon, Nevada

“Sincerity is the important thing on TV. A presidential candidate should at least seem to believe what he’s saying — even if it’s all stone crazy.”
— Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72

If you’ve been watching Fox News lately, you are perhaps aware that the “fair and balanced” network has jumped onto the same bandwagon as most of the rest of the major media: The GOP presidential campaign is now a two-man race between the frontrunners, Mitt and Newt.

This was evidently the narrative the media wanted back in December, before Rick Santorum shocked the world with his astonishing surge to victory in Iowa — a result that was immediately dismissed as a fluke by the media, so that they could get back to telling you about the two-man frontrunner race they had decided on weeks earlier.

That Fox is part of this media bandwagon is a fact I note in passing, while pointing out what was obvious to me long ago: Newt can’t beat Mitt.

It can’t happen and won’t happen, and those conservatives who believe they can make it happen are engaged in a type of behavior that Ace of Spades has called “wishcasting” — the idea that you can do anything you want to do, if only you wish and hope and believe in it enough.

There are many reasons why the seemingly possible dream of a Newt nomination is actually less practically feasible than the admittedly long-shot chance of an unexpected comeback by Rick Santorum. Most of these reasons have to do with Newt’s biography and character: His personal flaws and failings, which are well known even to his supporters, but which he (and they) suppose will be ignored by undecided voters who are less ideological than themselves because, doggone it, he has such great ideas!

You see a bit of this admiration for Newt’s ideas in Karl Rove’s campaign critique, where he faults Romney for relying too heavily on the “successful businesman” biographical narrative. But the problem for Newt is that, beyond his career as a leader of conservative Republicans, his biographical narrative is a major net negative. Even if Republican primary voters could overlook everything else, Gingrich’s two divorces are the kind of “baggage” that he can’t possibly carry to the White House.

Now, maybe you’ve got a divorce or two under your own belt and wish to believe that the American people would be willing to overlook this element of Gingrich’s biographical narrative — but this belief is only possible if you assume that most people share your own vehement opposition to Obama and would be willing to ignore the messy details of Newt’s narrative.

Please see R. Emmett Tyrrell’s column last week on that subject. Furthermore, let’s quote Tyrrell’s column this week:

Ah, yes, Newt Gingrich did in the last days of the Florida primary precisely what I predicted he would do. He hurled wild charges at Mitt Romney that suggested Newt was losing his grip. He charged Romney with lying and falling into the hands of George Soros and Goldman Sachs, and he did this while seeking the Republican presidential nomination!
Newt quoted Soros as saying, “We think either Obama or Romney’s fine, but Gingrich, he would change things.” Citing Goldman Sachs’ profiting from the bailout, he linked the Wall Street firm to anti-Gingrich ads, filling in the dots: “Those ads,” he averred, “are your money recycled to attack me.” On Sunday, he suggested that Rick Santorum drop out of the race and support him. Santorum had left the campaign trail to be with his desperately ill daughter. That is the kind of grace we have come to expect from Gingrich, who, by the way, supplied no evidence of Goldman Sachs’ or of Soros’s aiding Romney.

The astute reader will perhaps perceive that the esteemed editor of The American Spectator relied on his shoe-leather man’s reporting from Newt’s Fort Myers “Fear and Loathing” rally, a service I was more than happy to provide, and which in turn involves a debt to the good readers who hit the tip jar for the Florida trip. Continue reading Gingrich, Romney, Trump Monopolize Media; Santorum Keeps Campaigning →

Like an Earthquake in Vanuatu: Michelle Malkin Endorses Rick Santorum!

NAPLES, Fla.
Woke up about 10:30 this morning expecting to put together a quick aggregation of the morning news. Then I saw Michelle Malkin’s endorsement of Rick Santorum.

All bets are off. Forget everything else — this is freaking HUGE!

UPDATE: I’m about to go get breakfast, but before that, a few more bits of news:

Oh, and one more thing: My American Spectator column today.

UPDATE II: Another endorsement for Rick Santorum at American Thinker. Remember: Every time a blogger endorses Rick Santorum, an angel gets his wings.

UPDATE III: Santorum’s schedule for Monday-Tuesday:

Monday, January 30:

  • 2:30pm CT: Senator Santorum will make a major address focusing on jobs, the economy, and American competitiveness in Cottleville, MO.

Location: St. Charles Community College Daniel J. Conoyer Social Sciences Building Auditorium 4601 Mid Rivers Mall Drive Cottleville, MO

  • 7:30pm CT: Senator Santorum will host a town hall meeting in Luverne, MN.

Location: Pizza Ranch 110 East Main Street Luverne, MN

Tuesday, January 31:

  • 10:00am MT: Senator Santorum will hold a campaign rally in Lone Tree, CO.

Location: The Lone Tree Golf Club Lounge 9808 Sunningdale Boulevard Lone Tree, CO

  • 7:30pm PT: Senator Santorum will hold a primary night watch party in Las Vegas, NV

Location: Rick Santorum for President Nevada Headquarters 8550 West Charleston Las Vegas, NV

Da Tech Guy Covering Herman Cain’s Appearance Today in Nashua, N.H.

The founder of the Axis of Fedora is on the scene and reports a discernible difference in the size and scale of the event compared to when he covered Herman Cain a couple of months ago.

Pete promises updates and I’ll try to add more.

UPDATE: Union-Leader columnist John Di Staso:

Cain’s campaign told the New Hampshire Union Leader it wanted no videotaping of his interview, scheduled for this morning, with New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher Joseph McQuaid, editorial page director Andrew Cline and this reporter.
C-SPAN videotaped and broadcast on its network and website our recent interviews with Romney, Perry and Santorum.
Was the Cain “no-video” demand related to the Milwaukee paper’s video, which the Cain campaign suggested was presented “out of context in some measure” (a charge the Journal-Sentinel’s editor strongly denied)? Or was it just a coincidence?
We may never know.
His national communications director did not return our call yesterday seeking a simple explanation of why they didn’t want C-SPAN in the room.
And as of late yesterday, it was very much up in the air whether the scheduled 60-minute interview was going to take place at all.
The only public event on Cain’s schedule today is a rally at the Radisson Hotel in Nashua.

Cain was a “no show” for the interview, Di Staso subsequently reported:

After confusion arose over whether the interview had been cancelled, Cain’s campaign apparently scheduled another event at roughly the same time and said Cain could appear at the newspaper for only 20 minutes.
Publisher Joseph McQuaid rejected the suggestion, telling the campaign that if Cain could not appear for the full 60 minutes, then there would be no interview.
McQuaid said today that 20 minutes was not enough time for a “formal, sit-down interview” during which he and other newspaper staff “size up” the candidates.
About 45 minutes after Cain’s 10 a.m. appointment, Union Leader Senior Political Reporter John DiStaso received a brief telephone message from Cain New Hampshire spokesman Charlie Spano.
“I hope we can connect in the future,” Spano said. Spano did not return our additional call seeking further comment.

So much for that, I reckon.

Cain Leads New Ohio Poll; Close to Romney in Nevada; Perry Fading Away

The big headline today is the Ohio poll by Quinnipiac:

Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain has jumped to the front of the line among GOP presidential contenders with 28 percent support among Ohio Republicans. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is second with 23 percent, while Texas Gov. Rick Perry is almost at the bottom of the pile with 4 percent.

The poll was conducted Oct. 17-23 — partly before the Oct. 18 Vegas debate, partly after — and the complete numbers are:

Herman Cain ……………….. 28%
Mitt Romney ……………….. 23%
Ron Paul ……………………… 8%
Newt Gingrich ……………… 7%
Rick Perry …………………… 4%
Michele Bachmann ………. 4%
Jon Huntsman …………….. 2%
Rick Santorum …………….. 1%

Of course, that’s kind of irrelevant, because Ohio won’t have its primary until June, but there’s also a new Nevada poll by Public Policy Polling:

Mitt Romney ……………….. 29%
Herman Cain ……………….. 28%
Newt Gingrich ……………… 15%
Ron Paul ……………………… 7%
Rick Perry …………………… 6%
Michele Bachmann ………. 3%
Jon Huntsman …………….. 2%
Rick Santorum …………….. 2%

There’s just no escaping the point: Perry has become a second-tier candidate. Although his RCP national average is still 11.9%, Perry has been in single digits in two recent national polls — Rasmussen and CBS/NYT — and the latter was taken entirely after the Vegas debate. Which is why you’re starting to see headlines like this:

Can Rick Perry save his campaign?
— CBS News

You can do a lot with $15 million, I suppose. Like this Iowa ad:

Maybe he should try puffing a cigarette in his ads.


Nevada Sets Caucus Date for Feb. 4, Averting December Primary in N.H.

Florida set off a predictable chain reaction by jumping its primary to Jan. 31, and one consequence was the threat by New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to move that state’s primary to as early as Dec. 6. The problem was that Iowa had moved its caucuses (originally scheduled Feb. 6) to Jan. 3, and Nevada initially announced its caucuses would move to Jan. 14. But New Hampshire state law requires their primary to be on a Tuesday at least seven days before any nominating event other than the Iowa caucuses, which made Jan. 10 unworkable.

The thermonuclear option was averted Saturday when Nevada voted to hold its caucuses Feb. 4. While Gardner has not yet officially announced the date for New Hampshire, it is likely that the schedule for the first five events will now be:

Iowa caucuses ………………… Tuesday, Jan. 3
New Hampshire primary …. Tuesday, Jan. 10
South Carolina primary …… Saturday, Jan. 21
Florida primary ……………… Tuesday, Jan. 31
Nevada caucuses ……………. Saturday, Feb. 4

This is not ideal — I’ll still have to leave for Iowa the day after Christmas — but it is better than if New Hampshire had jumped into December.

PREVIOUSLY: