Category Archives: Character

The ELITES are the ones who should be sorry! (And the crowd roars…)

32 Replies

E. J. Dionne sent me a note this morning (yep, I’m name-dropping; I value his friendship) in which he shared a link to his post-SC column, which you can read here. I was particularly struck by this passage:

Then came the rebuke to CNN’s John King, who asked about the claim from Gingrich’s second wife that her former husband had requested an “open marriage.” By exploding at King and the contemporary journalism, Gingrich turned a dangerous allegation into a rallying point. Past sexual conduct mattered far less to conservatives than a chance to admonish the supposedly liberal media. Gingrich won evangelicals by 2-1, suggesting, perhaps, a rather elastic definition of “family values” — or a touching faith in Gingrich’s repentance.

E.J. was very generous to admit even the possibility that the evangelicals’ choice reflected their simple belief that Newt is repentant.

I saw how the forgiven man behaved when reminded of his sin. And if there is anything we all know about Newt Gingrich, it is that he does not walk, talk or comport himself like a penitent. Sure, he’s new to being Catholic, but he forcefully projects the image of a man who is “hardly sorry” rather than “heartily.”

And that is what seems to appeal to his supporters. That he’s not sorry. For anything. That rather than donning sackcloth and ashes, he stands up, throws out his chest and demands that those people out there, those elites, and those worthless shufflers who want to live off his tax money, be sorry instead.

And the crowd roars, more like 1st century pagans in the Colosseum than like Christians.

No, I’m in no position to judge. I am certainly not Newt’s confessor, and I have no idea what’s in his heart. Nor do I know what’s in those hearts in the crowd. But I know how he chooses to act outwardly. And I know how the crowd reacts — outwardly.

And that’s probably all I can know. So I share it.

Basically, I think the evangelicals who voted for him didn’t have their evangelical hats on at the moment. People are complex, and have layers. And just because an individual answers to one sort of identification doesn’t mean he is expressing that in everything he does.

So E.J. made me think today. And he made me nod in the paragraph before that one:

There was also the matter of race. Gingrich is no racist, but neither is he naive about the meaning of words. When Fox News’ Juan Williams, an African-American journalist, directly challenged Gingrich about the racial overtones of Gingrich’s staple reference to Obama as “the food-stamp president,” the former House speaker verbally pummeled him, to raucous cheers. As if to remind everyone of the power of coded language, a supporter later praised Gingrich for putting Williams “in his place.”

Yep, that’s what was happening.

South Carolina: If you care about the country, it’s important that you vote for Mitt Romney today

24 Replies

And so in the end, it comes down to this: The only chance to prevent Newt Gingrich from going forward strengthened, with a chance of winning the GOP nomination, is to vote for the guy no one seems to actively like: Mitt Romney.

Staying home does no good. Voting for Ron Paul or Rick Santorum does no good, however much you may like them. They can’t deny this victory to Newt Gingrich, so a vote for them is a waste. (So is a vote for any of those who have dropped out, but are still on the ballot. I like Huntsman, too — but a vote for him doesn’t stop Newt Gingrich.)

Only Romney still has some slim chance of defeating Newt Gingrich today, so I’m urging everyone to get out and vote for him.

And don’t fool yourself into thinking it makes no difference. It makes a HUGE difference. Don’t fall for any of these rationalizations:

“It doesn’t matter; even if Newt wins South Carolina, Romney will win the nomination.” Don’t assume that. In fact, Gallup reported yesterday that what has happened in South Carolina over the past week-and-a-half has been happening, somewhat less dramatically, elsewhere in the country: Gingrich is catching Romney in national polls. The word Gallup used to describe what’s happening to Romney is “collapsing.”

“It doesn’t matter; Gingrich would never beat Obama, so the nation would be in no danger.” Don’t ever assume that — an infinite variety of things could happen to throw an election from the incumbent to the challenger. And by not voting to stop Gingrich today, you will have helped put him in the White House.

“OK, so maybe the Republican would win the election. In that case it still doesn’t matter, because I don’t like either Mitt or Newt.” This is the one on which you are most wrong.

Newt Gingrich would be a disaster for the United States of America. He would tear the country apart like nothing any of us have seen in our lifetimes. To say nothing of our relations with other countries.

Remember Bush Derangement Syndrome? (How could you forget? Republicans are suffering from a related disease today.) That was nothing. George W. Bush was just this guy, you know? Pretty average. A conservative guy, somewhat given to Texan swagger. That was about it. But Democrats hated him, practically spitting at the mention of his name.

But Gingrich would be all of the things that Democrats imagine Bush was, and on steroids.

None of us, in our lifetimes, have seen a president of the United States who would do what Newt Gingrich would do every single day in office: Try to infuriate and insult half the country, and most of the world. He delights in insulting, demeaning and belittling anyone who disagrees with him. And you know that right from the start, half the country would fit into that category. And that category would grow, as everything he says is magnified by the curvature of the presidential bubble.

All politicians occasionally say things that alienate a lot of people. But with rare exceptions, they don’t do it on purpose. The utter contempt and hostility with which Newt Gingrich regards most of the human race is a palpable thing, and it is intentional. When other politicians say something that alienates or demoralizes the country or inflames other nations, the try to do damage control. Newt Gingrich would instead strut about the stage, immensely pleased with himself.

He would be a complete disaster for this country. You may think that could be said with justice of other politicians you don’t like, but they are nothing to Newt.

Now, as for Mitt Romney — well, I can’t give you a ringing endorsement. About the only thing I can say I like about him is that he is not an ideologue. That’s what the most partisan Republicans — the one’s flocking to Gingrich — don’t like about him. They call him a flip-flopper. That’s because he is a manager, a turn-around artist. His goal would be to run the country well and efficiently, not to enact grand ideological schemes. That’s not enough to make anyone’s heart go pitter-pat, but it’s something. And it beats tearing the country apart.

Read The State‘s endorsement. It gives good reasons why Romney is the best — or at least the least bad — option, now that Huntsman is out of it. Read Cindi Scoppe’s accompanying column, as well. The headline on the endorsement is, “Romney has capacity to build bridges.” I think he does.

But at this point, Mitt Romney is more than the “least-bad” option. He’s the one guy who can stop Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich not only has the power to blow bridges up; he can’t wait to plant the charges.

And that’s why any South Carolinian who cares about the country needs to vote for Mitt Romney today.

Bob McAlister on why he’s for Gingrich now

9 Replies

Now  it can be told: The source I spoke with a week ago tonight from Key West, who called Mitt Romney a “plastic banana rock ‘n’ roller,” was Bob McAlister — communications consultant, former chief of staff to Gov. Carroll Campbell, occasional op-ed writer par excellence, and former blogger.

I called him this evening because he appears to be part of an interesting trend. Rick Perry threw his support to Gingrich. Huntsman did not, yet several of his key supporters seem to be breaking for Gingrich, too. Bob is one of them.

One element in Bob’s decision is what he sees as Romney’s phoniness. “That Ken and Barbie exterior.” Which means roughly the same thing as the plastic banana description (which, although I thought he’d made it up himself, Bob acknowledges having lifted from Rush Limbaugh).

So, I asked, what decided him in favor of Gingrich?

“The debates made up my mind for me.”

“I have never seen a candidate for public office own a debate the way he did the last few.”

Bob views this with an expert eye, having “prepped a lot of candidates” for debates himself over the years. But no one he ever coached performed like this.

He repeated to me the observation he shared when I called him last week, before he had made up his mind — that the relationship between Gingrich and the other candidates on the stage is like that between a professor and his students. He says the former speaker displays “an uncanny knowledge of every issue thrown at him.”

There’s something else operating here, however, beyond professional appreciation. There’s a relish for Newt’s combativeness. Bob liked that “he didn’t take any crap from the liberal media. He threw it right back at them.” He would like to have a president who doesn’t take… grief… from either such domestic adversaries or “our international enemies.”

Realizing how he had juxtaposed the the media and, say, terrorist states, Bob laughed and said, “I’m not necessarily equating the two, by the way.”

But he remains enthusiastic about Gingrich: “He’s tough; he’s resolute; he is absolutely brilliant.”

Now, before my more liberal correspondents here decide that Bob is the sort they would never wish to meet, let me run counter to your expectations and assert that you are wrong. I think if you spent enough time talking with him to gain each others’ trust, you would get along fine. When I first worked with Bob when he was Campbell’s communications director, there was a distinct wariness on his part. But somehow I earned his trust, and I found him to be a guy who was straight with me, and we got on fine. We’ve had occasion to work together on community projects since those days — such as the local board of Habitat for Humanity — and have become friends.

Those who appreciate this blog have reason to thank him. When I was laid off from the paper, Bob took me to lunch. When I told him I’d bought this domain from GoDaddy, he volunteered to host me for a year. I’m quite grateful for that.

And while I was appalled at some of the very elements in last night’s debate that pleased Bob, I can see his way of looking at it. Leading off the debate — a debate, after all, for president of the United States, an office that actually deals with some pretty significant public policy issues — with that question was obnoxious, and unnecessary. Bob thought of the questioner, and the school of thought he represents, as deserving a comeuppance. Newt delivered. I don’t disagree. The difference is that in my view, Gingrich’s rebuke was entirely over the top, and revelatory of a temperament that is entirely inappropriate in one who would hold that office. And I found the self-serving nature of his whipping up the crowd’s resentment toward news media as, quite frankly, contemptible.

So we’re not going to agree there. But we can agree on something else, something that seems just as important to Bob as Gingrich’s poise, breadth of knowledge and combativeness: the fact that he doesn’t come across as a phony.

I see that as an element in why different people like Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. All have a naturalness, a humanity (often with all the weakness that humanity implies) that Romney fails to project.

Bob’s gotten to know Gingrich recently, and “from everything I can see, he’s the real deal.” And I think he’s right. I don’t think Newt Gingrich would exert an iota of energy in trying to pretend to be something he is not. Newt is too pleased with who he is to make the effort. But that’s the way I see him, which is not quite the same as my friend Bob McAlister does.

The down-home campaign of Rick Santorum

8 Replies

The only local campaign event in these parts today so far was held at Hudson’s Smokehouse out toward Lexington. It was for Rick Santorum, and it bore all the earmarks, mainly a crowd liberally (is it OK if I use that word?) sprinkled with small children, strollers, a grandma or grandpa here and there, with everyone looking like they’d probably brought a covered dish.

The place was packed — almost as tightly as when I went to hear Mike Huckabee there four years ago. But this crowd was calmer, less electric.

Earlier, I had received a memo from a Santorum campaign worker that stood in contrast to the slick, professional media releases I get from the other campaigns:

His message was also homey, being based in a bedtime story — specifically, Goldilocks and the three bears. It was a tale of three candidates:

  1. One who is too hot (I wonder who that might be?).
  2. One who is too cold (which reminds me of a story I recently heard, second-hand, of a Massachusetts lawmaker who greeted Gov. Romney with a big bearhug at a public event in Boston — asked what it was like, he said, “I got frostbite.”).
  3. One who is just right. That, of course, was the one talking to us.

It’s not clear who Ron Paul is in this fable. Maybe Goldilocks, I don’t know.

I came away from the event convinced of something I had been halfway thinking ever since I saw him the middle of last week. Of the remaining candidates in tomorrow’s primary, he is the one I like the best, as a person. I didn’t expect to. I remembered him as that unrelenting culture warrior who got crushed by Bob Casey in his own state. And I don’t set much store by culture warriors, even when I agree with them. Not as people to lead our federal government. (You know how Mike Huckabee describes himself as a conservative who, unlike others, isn’t mad at anybody over it? I had assumed Santorum was the other kind.)

Which is not the same as saying I’m going to vote for him, by the way. More about that later.

The REAL media plot regarding Newt Gingrich

15 Replies

Despite historic animosity toward the press in our state, I was still amazed that the audience in Charleston last night was simple enough to swallow Newt Gingrich’s claim that the ex-wife story was brought up by the media because, being the wicked liberals they are, they’re trying to hurt him because they want President Obama to be re-elected.

That was simple-minded on several levels. But let’s just consider one of them. Note my last post, which demonstrates conclusively that the Democratic Party has been and continues to devote all of its firepower attacking Mitt Romney, not Newt Gingrich. So if the media are in cahoots with the Dems, they must not have gotten the memo.

Here’s a modest proposal (meaning it the way Swift did, not the way Ron Paul does): Perhaps there is a deep, dark media plot regarding Gingrich. But if there is, there is only one credible motivation: The media would love, would absolutely adore, covering a campaign between Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama. Whereas they want to bang their hard little heads against a wall at the thought of months more of covering the astronomically boring Mitt Romney.

So it is that the media are working in cahoots with the Democratic Party and Gingrich himself (who would seem to a casual observer to have stolen the Democrats’ playbook on these issues) in covering the heck out of the “vulture capitalist” angle and Mitt’s invisible tax returns.

Under this supposition, rather than being a plot to deny him the nomination, that ex-wife story was just a case of one of the networks jumping the gun. The prospect of reporting on Newt’s history, not to mention all the wonderfully careless, explosive, politically suicidal things he will say several times a week on the trail, has the media hugging themselves in delightful anticipation.

But some idiot at ABC just couldn’t wait. The media have never been strong on delaying gratification.

SC and the media: They shoot editors, don’t they?

15 Replies

This morning I was on Tom Finneran’s Boston radio show for the second time this week (Tom is the former speaker of the Massachusetts House; I met him in Key West last week), and was asked what the nation should make of the roar of approval that Newt Gingrich got last night when he blamed the media for bringing to light his second ex-wife’s allegations.

I explained that historically, the media got off light on that one. Playing to resentment to those “nattering nabobs of negativism” in the media is of course an old Republican pasttime across the country. But in South Carolina, it can get you everywhere.

Getting away with asking for an open marriage is nothing. This is a ploy that will enable you to get away with murder.

Literally.

So I regaled the Boston audience with the tale of N.G. Gonzales and James H. Tillman. Most of you know the story, but for those who don’t…

N.G. and his brother founded The State in 1891 for a specific purpose: to oppose the Ben Tillman machine. N.G. wrote the editorials, which lambasted the Tillmanites with a vehemence that would shock most newspaper readers in my lifetime, but which was par for the course in those days.

One of the targets of editorial vitriol was James H. Tillman, Ben’s nephew. James was the lieutenant governor, and aspired to be governor. N.G. wasn’t having it, and criticized him heavily during the 1902 campaign. Tillman lost. Not long after that, on January 15, 1903, N.G. was walking home for lunch. The newspaper office then was on Main St., and Gonzales had to turn the corner of Main and Gervais to get home. As he approached the corner, Tillman headed his way, coming from the Senate side of the State House with a couple of senators.

Tillman went straight up to Gonzales, drew a gun, and shot him in cold blood. He did this in the presence of many witnesses, including a policeman.

As N.G. fell, he cried, “Shoot again, you coward!” As one who inherited his mission of writing editorials for The State, I’ve always been proud of him for that.

He died four days later.

Tillman was arrested and charged with the murder, of course, but the defense obtained a change of venue to the friendlier Lexington County. A strategy of self-defense was attempted, but didn’t seem to be getting anywhere. Then,  the defense entered N.G.’s editorials into evidence.

The jury acquitted Tillman. The ostensible reason was self-defense, but since there was nothing to support that — Gonzales was unarmed and not threatening Tillman in any way — it has always been assumed that the jury let him off because the son-of-a-bitch editor had it comin’.

A postscript:

Early in 2003, a number of events were held to mark the centennial of Gonzales’ murder. At one point, Solicitor Donnie Myers, an avid student of the case, was asked to present his popular lecture on the subject to employees of The State. I introduced him, and stood to the side as he enthusiastically launched into it.

At the critical point in the narrative, channeling Tillman, Donnie reached dramatically into his briefcase and, pulling out a .45 automatic pistol, brandished it menacingly in my direction. Me being the editor.

I grinned at him, enjoying his act (I had seen it before). But our then-publisher, Ann Caulkins, who admitted to a greater-than-usual fear of firearms of all sorts, practically gasped aloud. She later admitted that for a split second there, she actually feared the solicitor was going to shoot me.

If that had happened, it wouldn’t have been the first time.

Well, there’s ONE Republican woman out there who’s crossed Newt off her list: Jenny Sanford

3 Replies

OK, I pretty much said my intro in the headline. Here’s an excerpt from the story:

Former S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford is not a Newt Gingrich fan…

(Mrs.) Sanford said voters need to consider at Gingrich’s personal history that includes three marriages with his last one ending after he was having an affair with his current wife, Callista. Gingrich’s poll numbers have spiked after a strong showing in Monday’s debate in Myrtle Beach.

“It does call into question his character on a personal side,” (Mrs.) Sanford said. “As a voter, I encourage people to look at both sides, the personal side, and if you’re going to overcome somebody’s moral failings or infidelities, you also have to see where they fit ideologically, and how much their rhetoric meets their reality and in my mind, Gingrich falls short on both fronts. So he wouldn’t get my vote.”

She said a candidates personal history has an impact on the job they can do in office.

“I think it comes down to the simple question of character,” she said.

And that’s something she knows about. Hear her.

The State’s endorsement of 2nd choice Romney

5 Replies

I think history was made today. In my memory, anyway, The State has never had occasion to endorse a second choice, in a second editorial, before the actual vote. That’s because an endorsed candidate has never dropped out between the endorsement and the vote.

(We had one or two occasions over the years when a state primary candidate didn’t make it into a runoff, but that was very rare, and in any case is entirely different, since that happened after a public vote.)

Fortunately for The State, the second editorial was easier to arrive at, since the editors had already clearly said in their Jon Huntsman endorsement that Mitt Romney was their second choice — in fact, the only other choice to be seriously considered.

And so it was that the paper endorsed Gov. Romney today. Here’s the critical point in the piece:

But we take comfort in the fact that Mr. Romney always has been less interested in philosophy than in problem-solving. As The Washington Post summarized the views of his friends: “obeisance to ideology would impose a rigidity that would inhibit Romney’s real talent, which is forging new ways to fix old problems.”

In other words, the thing that makes the most extreme Republicans despise him is the one characteristic the editorial board values most.

The endorsement went on to express the hope that Romney would start acting more like that on the campaign trail sooner, rather than waiting for the fall campaign. The paper’s main beef with him, and the reason it preferred Huntsman, was his penchant for stooping to conquer and pandering to ideology.

My favorite part of the endorsement, though, wasn’t the endorsement. It was Cindi’s accompanying column. In it, she did something I’ve done a lot over the years — provide insight into how endorsements are arrived at. While questions about some burning issues of the day are asked, they are only sometimes the core of the process. The really critical questions tend to be the ones meant to discern how the candidate understands the job, and would approach decision-making. You can pick up on that in the column.

But here’s my favorite passage:

Finally, I got this: “It’s not a change, but there are positions I have that are not popular with the conservative base in our party. The most obvious is the health-care plan in Massachusetts. Many advisors told me I needed to abandon my conviction that it was the right thing … and that I should say it was a mistake. … Like you, I’m willing to change my mind if presented with facts that show I’m wrong, but with regard to the health-care plan, I’m steadfast.”

I’d like to hear him stand fast behind what he did for healthcare a bit more boldly. To me, it’s his main relevant accomplishment. His work at Bain, and salvaging a sporting event, seem far less relevant to me.

Too bad that the portion of the electorate that he’s trying hardest to appeal to hates Obamacare too much. It prevents him from putting his best foot forward.

Video: 2nd ex-wife drops the Big One on Newt

9 Replies

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Man-oh-man — has a woman scorned EVER had an opportunity like this?

Just as he’s picking up the Big Mo, she torpedoes him by the simple expedient of telling what she knows about what he’s really like.

And there’s no defense against that, if you’re Newt Gingrich. I mean, when it comes to temperament and character, how many strikes does this guy already have against him? And how many does he get?

Then on the other hand, there’s the ex-wife

2 Replies

OK, never mind that stuff about Gingrich’s big mo.

The ex-wife has dropped the big one:

Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s ex-wife, says he wanted ‘open marriage’

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, told The Washington Post on Thursday.

Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as Marianne was having dinner with her mother, Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”

Shocked, Marianne replied: “Is there anybody else?” she recalled. “He was quiet. Within two seconds, when he didn’t immediately answer, I knew.”

The next day, Gingrich gave a speech titled “The Demise of American Culture” to the Republican Women Leaders Forum in Erie, Pa., extolling the virtues of the founding fathers and criticizing liberal politicians for supporting tax increases, saying that they hurt families and children….

I don’t care how many endorsements he gets. South Carolina’s not going with this guy. But hey, the way things are swinging back and forth, check with me again in five minutes.

Which one’s ‘desperate,’ and which ‘unreliable’?

1 Reply

Here’s an ad the Gingrich campaign unleashed after midnight. The release that went with it:

Atlanta, GA – The polls in South Carolina are tightening and Mitt Romney’s attacks against Newt Gingrich are getting more desperate and more dishonest.

We’ve seen this play out before.  The last time Mitt Romney ran for president, he ran equally dishonest and desperate attacks against John McCain and Mike Huckabee when he fell behind in the polls.

To remind voters of Mitt Romney’s history of launching desperate and dishonest attacks against his rivals, Newt 2012 released a new web ad, “Desperate.”

The ad features clips of John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson remarking on Mitt Romney’s desperate attacks against them as well as his multiple positions on multiple issues.

Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHapuEmt2xw

And turn about being fair play, below is an ad that Romney put out yesterday.

Wait! I forget — which one’s desperate, and which one’s unreliable?

OK, THIS is the Harpootlian I know

1 Reply

We didn’t have to wait long for a release that addressed MLK day more in the style of the Dick Harpootlian we all know:

Fellow Democrats,

On the day that the country and the state of South Carolina celebrate the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Republican Governor Nikki Haley chose to break bread with Texas evangelist, David Burton, who has fought to take all reference to Dr. King out of the Texas public schools text books.

He not only disrespects Dr. King, but he uses Jesus Christ to justify every far right position that he can dream up.

Poor judgment and disrespect, two character traits we have come to expect from Republican Nikki Haley, and she has met our expectations once again.

Call her office at 803-734-2100, and tell her that her actions are disrespectful.

If you want to learn more about the man who Nikki Haley believes was worthy of celebrating her Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day with, watch below…

I have to say that I watched that video and didn’t get out of it what Dick said was there. It was too incoherent. See what you think. But at least the world has resumed its normal shape.

Who are you, and what have you done with our Dick Harpootlian?

3 Replies

The Dick Harpootlian we thought we knew.

This probably won’t strike anyone else as ironic, but it’s just weird for me to read something from Dick when he’s in a reverential mode:

Fellow Democrats,

Yesterday was the birthday of a renowned American visionary. He changed the way people look at humanity, and we will never forget his courageous fight for civil rights.

Today we thank Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for teaching us that everyone is equal, and nonviolent methods develop the most admirable outcomes.

He was one of the greatest orators in American history and we will never forget what he did for our country.

Please take this day to offer service to your community; giving back to your neighbor just as Dr. King intended.  By doing this, we are allowing his legacy to continue to flourish today and for many years to come.

– Dick Harpootlian, SCDP Chairman

Just doesn’t sound like Dick. He’s widely believed to have only two gears: wiseacre and ticked off. Yet here’s a third…

Insult to injury: Huntsman quits; Romney disses him

5 Replies

(My spellcheck thinks I’m misspelling “disses.” Looks right to me…)

Jon Huntsman had been through enough humiliation, what with trailing behind Stephen Colbert in the polls, not getting any bounce from New Hampshire, being called nasty names (like “moderate”!), and then having to face facts and surrender…

But he kept his chin up and quite like a man, giving the nod to Romney and urging all the GOP candidates to pull together like a team and quit trying to eviscerate each other.

And what did he get for it? Dissed, that’s what:

Romney downplays Huntsman support

By Cameron Joseph and Daniel Strauss – 01/16/12 12:12 PM ET

Mitt Romney’s campaign has been notably slow to promote Jon Huntsman’s endorsement, a sign it doesn’t see it as much of an asset in a Republican primary.

Romney did not join Huntsman to receive his endorsement this morning, and his campaign took hours to mention Huntsman at all on Monday, first promoting an endorsement from Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) and sending out an alert about a South Carolina campaign stop.

Romney’s eventual email on Huntsman was terse and, and a tweet barely mentioned the endorsement. “I salute Jon Huntsman and his wife Mary Kaye,” Romney said. “Jon ran a spirited campaign based on unity not division, and love of country.  I appreciate his friendship and support.”

That stands in contrast to Romney’s embrace of Tim Pawlenty’s endorsement. After the former Minnesota governor endorsed Romney in September, Romney named him a national co-chairman of his campaign…

Maybe Huntsman should have just urged the nation to unite around Obama. He might have gotten more respect that way.

In an interesting parallel, Tom Davis backs Ron Paul

24 Replies

Tom Davis signs on with Ron Paul.

Earlier this evening, Sen. Tom Davis put out this release:

SENATOR TOM DAVIS ENSORSES RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT“It’s easy to campaign on lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations – it’s another thing entirely to stand up for these limited government principles when the entire Washington establishment is aligned against you. Yet for more than three decades Ron Paul has cast thousands of lonely votes in our nation’s capital based on the constitutional principles that this country was founded on – and that the Republican Party has promised to protect. Yet while generations of politicians – including far too many Republicans – were losing their way or caving to the status quo, Ron Paul was standing as a Tea Party of one against a towering wave of red ink.”
“2012 marks the fifth consecutive year in which the federal government is going to spend well over $1 trillion in money it doesn’t have. Each and every American taxpayer is now on the hook for $135,000 worth of federal debt – and last year’s debt deal adds another $7 trillion in deficit spending over the coming decade. Meanwhile the U.S. Senate hasn’t passed a budget in nearly 1,000 days.”

“I’m endorsing Ron Paul because enough is enough. Despite this wave of unprecedented government spending, our unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for the last 34 months and 146.4 million Americans – one out of every two people in this country – are now classified as poor or low-income.”

“Government activism and government intervention clearly hasn’t fixed our economy – which is why the Republican Party needs a nominee who isn’t wedded to that failed approach. We won’t chart a path to fiscal solvency or victory in November by running toward the failed ideas of the left – we will achieve those victories by returning to the principles that the Republican Party once stood for.”

“That is why I am proud to endorse Ron Paul for president.”

“Ron Paul’s record matches his rhetoric, his fiscal plan matches the fiscal challenges that our nation is facing and his movement represents the taxpayers whose interests have been ignored in the political process for far too long.”

“I’m also endorsing him because unlike what the pundits have led you to believe, he is the candidate who gives the Republican Party the best chance to beat Barack Obama in November.”

“We have a choice: We can keep electing candidates who talk about change only during political campaigns as a way to get elected, or we can finally elect a candidate who will walk the walk and make that change a reality – restoring our bottom line, our individual liberties and our national pride in the process.”

To learn more about Senator Tom Davis visit www.senatortomdavis.com

My first thought was “Wow.” I’ve always liked Tom and have a lot of respect for him, and even though he worked for Mark Sanford all those years and was so close to him, I never regarded him as being nearly as much of a radical libertarian as the former governor. But with this move, he has exceeded his friend in that regard.

But you know what? In his own way, he has done much the same thing that The State did in endorsing Jon Huntsman. Yes, in one regard he did the polar opposite — Ron Paul is the last of the GOP candidates that The State, or I, would endorse. As Cindi Scoppe wrote:

Like any libertarian, Ron Paul embraces the worst positions of the far right and the far left: no social safety net, unregulated markets, an isolationist foreign policy and no moral standards. He is the candidate for those who refuse to accept that they are part of a society and can’t see how much their vision of a crippled government would hurt all of us, themselves included.

But in another sense, the two endorsements were alike.

Surely Tom knows that Ron Paul will never be the Republican nominee for president just as well as The State knew that this was not to be for Huntsman this year. But he went with the candidate he thought it should be, rather than the candidate that it would be. So good for him.

Oh, and lucky Tom. As hopeless as his candidate’s cause is, at least he won’t embarrass Tom by suddenly pulling out. Ron Paul’s candidacy is forever.

All in the family now.

This is what I’m talking about, Bud

21 Replies

Bud continues to think that I’m just making it up about Democrats being capable of the same kind of pointless, bad-faith partisanship as Republicans.

As I said in a previous thread, Republicans introduced partisanship to South Carolina, by definition. Republicans like to say that before they came along, we had a “one-party state.” But really, it was a no-party state. When there is only one party, it isn’t a party, in the sense that we have in these partisan times. You have factions (the “Young Turks,” the Barnwell Ring, contention between House and Senate, between Lowcountry and Upstate), but you don’t have the foolishness of an idea being rejected or embraced purely according to whether it has a D or an R after it.

Republicans therefore introduced partisanship, and they relished the role. They really, really got into it.

For awhile, Democrats didn’t. They seemed confused. They were so fecklessly live-and-let-live while the GOP was eviscerating them, it was sort of endearing.

But then, Democrats started to learn partisanship from the Republicans, and some of them have gotten pretty good at it.

Want an example? See this release I got a few minutes ago:

Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn, Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin and State Elected Officials to hold Press Conference to Welcome Mitt Romney to South Carolina

State Senate Democratic Leader John C. Land, III and State Representatives Todd Rutherford and Bakari Sellers to join Clyburn and Benjamin at the State House

Columbia, SC –On Wednesday, Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn, Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin and State Elected Officials will hold a press conference to welcome Mitt Romney to South Carolina ahead of the state’s primary on January 21st. It’s time South Carolinians get to know the Mitt Romney who has proven he’ll say anything to get elected, admitting this week that he likes “being able to fire people who provide services to me,” pretends to know the fear of pink slips, and misleads voters on his record of job creation.

The central question of this election is who will restore economic security for the middle class. Mitt Romney believes America should join a race to the bottom based on loopholes for corporations, millionaires and billionaires and outsourcing of American jobs.  Romney believes that Wall Street should be able to write its own rules again and pursue whatever means necessary to create profits regardless of the consequences for middle-class families.

WHO:

Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn

Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin

State Senate Democratic Leader John C. Land, III

State Representative Todd Rutherford

State Representative Bakari Sellers

WHAT:
Press Conference Welcoming Mitt Romney to South Carolina

WHEN:
Wednesday, January 11th at 9:45 AM

WHERE:

South Carolina State House

First Floor

Columbia, SC

Note that they are not “welcoming” Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich or Jon Huntsman. There’s a reason for that. The reason is that they believe (as do I) that Mitt Romney will be the eventual nominee. And then just can’t wait for the general election to launch into the partisan back-and-forth.

Give it a rest, guys. There will be plenty of time for this stuff later. We know you’re Democrats. We know you want to attack this guy. But let’s go ahead and have our primary first, OK?

You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of when I was covering the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta, and Carroll Campbell came to town to crash the Democrats’ party and hold a “truth squad” press conference. I was like, come on, governor, save it for your own convention. But Campbell was an intensely partisan man, who didn’t care to give Democrats a chance to have their say without interrupting. I thought that was completely unnecessary.

Well, this is like that.

Ayn Rand is alive and well in the Club for Growth

8 Replies

It’s been really interesting to see his rivals tear into Mitt Romney for being some sort of heartless capitalist. And it’s been equally interesting to see the Mark Sanford wing of the GOP defend him.

I didn’t have time this morning to finish reading the front-page piece in The Wall Street Journal (which unfortunately is hiding behind the pay wall) about this phenomenon, but I can share with you this release from the Club for Growth:

Statement On Newt Gingrich’s Attacks On Mitt Romney And Bain Capital
Club for Growth President Chris Chocola: “Newt Gingrich should stop his attacks on free markets and apologize to Governor Romney for them”

Washington, DC – The Club for Growth PAC issued the following statement today in reaction to Speaker Newt Gingrich’s attacks on Governor Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital. Yesterday, Gingrich said “Those of us who believe in free markets and those of us who believe that in fact the whole goal of investment is entrepreneurship and job creation…we find it pretty hard to justify rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company, leaving behind 1,700 families without a job.” (Source: New York Times, 1/8/11) Gingrich’s attack was echoed that same day that by the Democratic National Committee, which also attacked Romney for his job creation record at Bain Capital. (Source: Democratic National Committee YouTube Page, 1/8/12)

“Newt Gingrich’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “There are a number of issues for Mitt Romney’s Republican opponents to attack him for, but attacking him for making investments in companies to create a profit for his investors is just wrong. Because of the efforts of Bain Capital, major companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and the Sports Authority now employ thousands of people and have created billions in wealth in the private economy. Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported ‘Reagan Conservative.’ Newt Gingrich should stop his attacks on free markets and apologize to Governor Romney for them.”

Ayn Rand, high priestess of the cult of Self, may be technically dead, but who needs her when we have the Club?

No word, by the way, on whether Chris Chocola is related to the Count. Probably not, given the spelling difference.

What Romney said about NLRB was technically wrong, but his message was accurate

3 Replies

Late last week the Obama re-election campaign brought to my attention a PolitiFact piece that said something Mitt Romney said about Obama’s NLRB was untrue.

And it was, technically. But what he was trying to say was essentially true.

Politifact described the Romney ad this way:

In the ad, Romney stands in front of workers on a factory floor and says that “the National Labor Relations Board, now stacked with union stooges selected by the president, says to a free enterprise like Boeing, ‘you can’t build a factory in South Carolina because South Carolina is a right-to-work state.’”

Here is Politifact’s ruling (and go ahead and read the entire explication that precedes it):

The Romney ad claimed that the NLRB told Boeing that it “can’t build a factory in South Carolina because South Carolina is a right-to-work state.”

The NLRB’s complaint started a legal process that could ultimately have resulted in a factory closure, but the NLRB as a whole didn’t tell Boeing anything. What’s more, the legal basis for the action centered on whether Boeing was punishing the union for staging strikes, not that Boeing had opened a factory in a right-to-work state. We rate the statement False.

Bottom line, Boeing had said it wanted to get away from all those strikes, and that’s that got it into trouble. Well, one good way to get away from strikes is to go to a “right-to-work” state, where you are less likely to be dealing with a union.

So… as an editor, if someone had written for publication the words spoken in the Romney ad, I wouldn’t have allowed it. I’d have reworded it. But I would have understood what he was saying.

Here’s a shocker for you: People whom Romney has supported are supporting him in return

5 Replies

I have always, according to everyone else, underestimated the role of money in politics. It bores me, so I don’t attach the importance to it that everyone says I should.

But for all you folks who are so much more world-wise than I, here’s a tidbit to gnaw on:

Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC and its affiliates states have lavished close to $1.3 million in campaign donations to federal, state and local GOP politicians, almost all since 2010. His recipients include officials in the major upcoming primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, and in three southern Super Tuesday states where he was trounced four years ago.

In New Hampshire, a U.S. senator, a congressman, 10 state senators and three executive councilors shared $26,000 in donations from Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC in 2010 and 2011 combined. All 15 have showered Romney with endorsements leading up to Tuesday’s primary

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley came out for Romney last month – a year after his Free and Strong America PACs funneled $36,000 to the Tea Party darling’s 2010 election bid. And 19 state and Washington, D.C., lawmakers in three Super Tuesday states – Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia — are backing Romney after his PAC poured a total of $125,500 into their coffers for elections held in 2009 and 2010.

Make of that what you will. Me, I’m like, Yeah, I knew that they were supporting each other. So what do I care about the money? But that’s me. I’m cynical about cynicism; I think it’s all overblown.

Born to rule, that’s me (Can a quiz be wrong?)

18 Replies

First, I think this quiz is fixed. Wes Wolfe Tweeted out that he’d taken a “which Downton Abbey character are you” quiz, and turned out to be “Robert, Earl of Grantham.”

So I took it — there are only seven questions, all multiple choice — and sure enough, I, too, am the lord of the manor.

Of course, as I was taking it, I was deliberately (but honestly, except when the questions were too silly to have an honest answer) answering the questions that I knew would take me in that direction — with one or two exceptions. In response to the question, “I have a whole weekend to myself! I’m going to…,” I did not answer “Attend a jolly good foxhunt, followed by billiards and cigars.” That’s because I enjoyed the answer, “What’s a ‘weekend’?” so much. I knew that another character said that — the old lady who is clueless how the world works outside of Downton.

But even when I turned away from that path, I still ended up being the earl. For instance, on “My favorite movie is…,” the honest answer for me was “The Godfather.” So I said that, knowing that the best answer for the earl was “Henry V” — which would have been my second choice. I ended up being the earl anyway. And when I went back and tried it again, answering “Henry V” this time, I was still the earl.

I have a theory that the thing is rigged. Would anyone, taking this, end up being one of the downstairs characters? I doubt it, unless they were trying.

If you take it, let me know where you end up.