This video is being clipped and edited to make it look like that Newt was a part of why Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae failed, but when you look at his complete comments in context you can see that Newt’s remarks were spot on.
Category Archives: 2012 Primary
Rick Perry Receives Endorsements of War Hero Marcus Luttrell & Multiple Medal of Honor Recipients
War heroes Marcus Luttrell and Daniel Moran as well as Medal off Honor recipients Jim Livingston, Dakota Meyer, and Mike Thornton.
Those of you who do not know the story (2) of Marcus Luttrell should learn it. Marcus Luttrell, as well as each name mentioned above, is a hero in every sense of the word. Mike Thornton was one of the founders of Seal Team 6.
These endorsements carry weight.
Live Blog of Iowa GOP Debate
Editor’s thoughts:
ABC – Newt won, Romney just did not have a pulse.
ABC, that last answer from Romney when given a chance to praise others was weak.
Romney had a couple of good moments but clearly lost the most. RomneyCare is back around his neck. Bachmann drew blood on Romney. Romney’s $10,000 bet crack was stupid and a huge mistake.
Perry came across as strong, presidential, and grounded in the right perspective for the country. Clearly this was his best performance. I think Perry should take second place.
Bachmann’s “Hail Mary” play with I am the consistent conservative pounding might resonate or it might not. We will just have to see.
If Bachmann comes back in the polls she will end up facing Newt one on one and she does not want that.
Rick Santorum certainly increased his stature as a man and a statesman.
I think this is the beginning of the end for Mitt Romney.
ABC: What is your distinguishing idea on how to bring jobs back?
Gingrich: I worked to help Reagan’s governing program which created millions of jobs and Clinton on a similar program. Tax and regulatory reform, a 12% corporate tax rate, 100% expensing for new equipment, energy, etc etc.
Romney: I came from the private sector and I know how to create jobs. Our tax rates are higher than the industrialized world and we need to fix that, China has been cheating, reign in the NLRB, etc.
Ron Paul: Stop excessive credit and printing my the Federal Reserve. Debt and mal-investment stop economic growth. We all want lower taxes and lower spending.
Perry – get rid of the tax and regulatory environment that has been killing jobs. I have been setting a blue print for that in Texas. The Federal Reserve who makes all of these massive secret loans etc etc. An outsider like Rick Perry can do that.
Bachmann: Pays homage to Herman Cain. WIN WIN WIN plan. I am a federal tax lawyer and we need to abolish the tax code and put in a pro-growth policy and is the same for all Americans and not picking favorites, energy policy, repeal ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank etc.
Santorum: Spoke about his talk with locals in Iowa businesses and I learned that we need to have a pro manufacturing environment, perhaps even a zero percent corporate tax for businesses that actually make things, drill and get energy, and jobs will be created. Rural and Small town will be revitalized.
Santorum in a shot against Romney: Government cannot make a plan from the top down that will guarantee XXX many jobs or do any successful bean counting.
New Question – Payroll Tax:
Bachmann – The payroll tax extension is a gimmick that is temporary that doesn’t create jobs and it has blown a 111 billion dollar hole in the social security trust fund and will cost another 112 billion in the next year. We will have to borrow money to cover this.
Romney: I don’t want to raise taxes on people under the Obama economy. This is just a band-aid. This president has not put forward a plan to get this economy going again, how will we be competitive again. People aren’t investing in America because Obama has made this a less attractive place to do business.
Santorum: Is there a Social Security trust fund or not? The Democrats policy is absurd, either Democrats care about Social security or they don’t, they say that Republicans want to cut it but it is Democrats who are doing that right now.
George Stuffingenvelopes: Who is the most conservative? George is trying to start a fight and the ABC moderators are seemingly already locking Perry out of the debate.
Romney: We have a merit society and I think I can take that message to the president and the people. I believe in America, Mitt jumps the shark in making fun of and mischaracterizing Newt’s plans. Mitt came off as petty. This will be a YouTube moment as will Newt’s response.
Newt: The only reason you (Romney) didn’t become a career politician is that you lost to teddy Kennedy in 1994. You would be a 17 year career politician by now if you had won so to for you to blast me as a career politician is silly. Kids should be allowed to work part time in school (like apprenticeships) and give them work experience and work skills.
Capital Gains: Mitt you and I talked about this at Dartmouth, I am astonished at what you just said about capital gains.
George stuffingenvelopes to Ron Paul: Why do you think that Newt is engaged in serial hypocrisy.
Ron Paul says that newt received a million dollars from Freddie mac. Newt isn’t always consistent. People would have a hard time competing with me on consistency.
Newt: I was in the private sector and they paid me to tell them what I think. I was in the PRIVATE SECTOR (looks at Mitt).
Bachmann: I am the proven Constitutional Conservative here. Newt for 20 years advocated for the individual mandate in heath care, Mitt is the only governor who put in government mandated institutionalized medicine. If you look at Newt/Romney they were for ObamaCare principles, Bailouts, Tarp, Cap & Trade etc etc.
Newt dismantles Bachmann’s allegations and her words were too vague and loose. I had 13 best sellers and that is where most of where my income came from.
Bachmann doubles down on Newt/Romney’s support for a health care mandate. I will go toe to toe with Obama and wills stand 180 degrees opposite of his bad policies. I will defeat him.
Romney, on Obama Care I wish Obama would have given me a call because I would have told him that he is going down a bad path. (But come on Mitt your team did work at the White House to implement ObamaCare). I will oppose ObamaCare and repeal it.
Perry comes out and says that Romney took Massachusetts down the same road that Obama took America. Wow Perry is looking presidential and powerful. It is about time Rick.
Romney: you like the 10th Amendment Rick, I like the 10th Amendment. If the people in Mass want to get rid of it, they can do so. I oppose ObamaCare. Romney to Perry, you mandated some vaccines as Governor (not totally true as it had an opt out).
Newt: I opposed HillaryCare and we were wrestle in an effort to stop HillaryCare. And we concluded that the mandate would be unconstitutional.
Romney and Perry spar over what Romney said in his book about the mandate. I have looked at this and Perry is just plain right about this.
Santorum: You know that it is easy for people to say what people want to hear in election season. But I opposed mandates the whole time. And if you want consistency you just have to look at someones record. Michelle is right about all these things, but the difference between Michelle and I is that Michelle fought and lost on all of them, I fought and one on issue X, Y, Z , etc. (A great showing by Santorum)
Bachmann: The important thing is that when I was in the minority I fought and fought and I led 40,000 people to the capital to get rid of ObamaCare. I took them on no matter what the odds. I wont rest.
Santorum: I was in the minority in the House too. Talked about how he beat the Democrats and uncovered the House banking scandal and ousted Rostenkowski.
ABC reporters “analyzing” the debate during the commercial. Where do they find these painfully ignorant people?
Bachmann’s “NewtRomney” crack stuck. It will hurt Romney most.
Return From Commercial Break: Faith etc etc.
George Stuffingenvelopes brings up the divorce issue. Will someone who breaks marital vows break their word to the voters? Reagan was divorced too folks.
Perry sort of doubles down on it saying that if you will cheat on your wife you will cheat on your business partner.
Rick Santorum has a very mature answer.
Ron Paul: we should not be talking about these issues. These issues show through on their own. What I want to talk about are politicians who violate their oath of office. Great answer on small constitutional government. A great Youtube moment for Ron Paul.
Romney: Obama says that I do not have a “core”. I am concerned about America and I do not want us to become a Greece or Italy.
Bachmann: Fonder spoke on this. They wrote about what we need as a president and they asked what is the measure of the man? Integrity is more important than anything else. Talked about her faith in Christ.
Newt: It is a real issue. People should look at the person who they may loan the presidency and they have the right to answer every question. I am a 69 year old grandfather who like all men has made mistakes and they can look at the man I am now.
ABC – Border Enforcement and The Illegals question.
Newt: we should have a local citizens review board who decides when someone applies who is worthy to stay and who should not. We are not going to rip mothers away from children and have people holed up in churches in standoffs. So we have to be realistic about this. Newt explains the details as we can all look these details up.
ABC News asks Romney about rounding people up. Romney says that we need to stop the magnets and secure the border. Illegals should register, go home and get in the back of the line to get in here. No favoritism for anyone.
ABC asks Perry about illegals who signed up for the military. Perry starts off saying that we need to enforce the laws that we have now. I will not sue states like AZ who are being sued by the Fed Gov. I will not have a catch and release program like Obama has now. Then we can have a legit convo about Immigration reform. Again Perry looked great.
George Stuffingenvelopes: Are the Palestinians and “invested People”
Ron Paul, even talking about this gets us in a mess and in trouble. We should not be dealing with these issues. Israel didn’t exist in the Ottoman Empire. We are not the policeman of the world.
Newt Gingrich: Wow Newt knocks this one OUT of the park. I will have to post the youtube of this as Newt is going faster than I can type. This is totally awesome. Newt has such moral clarity here.
Romney: I agree with most of what Newt said but I would not have said what Newt said. Romney then goes after Obama about his 1967 border proposals etc.
Newt: The Israeli’s are getting rocketed every day. The Obama policy is what endangers Israel. This is a propaganda war and we must stand for the truth in a campaign of lies and the word Palestinian in the current context was not even commonplace until the 1970’s.
Romney: I do not want to say anything that can harm the process. I am not a bomb thrower.
Newt: I think it is important to tell the truth just as Ronald Reagan called out the Soviets as an “Evil Empire” and in spite of everyone saying it was too provocative. I am a Reaganite, Reagan understood the power of truth and if it makes some people uncomfortable well so be it.
Bachmann talks about the hate the Palestinians teach about the Jews and their textbooks say that Jews are from apes and pigs and Bachmann. Blasted them for teaching hate.
Santorum says that we need to speak the truth but we have to do so with prudence.
Perry: This (Newts accurate comments about “Palestine”) is a minor issue and is just a media creation. Perry blasts Obama for mishandling the “drone issue”. Obama is the problem, not what Newt said. Perry knocked this out of the park.
ABC News: What times have you had in your life where you were short on money and gad to cut back.
Perry: Talks about his upbringing without Running water and his mom sewed his own clothes for him. Luxury really isn’t in my lexicon. Talks about his military service.
Romney: I didn’t grow up poor, but my dad did and he made sure that we understood the value of work and learned not to spend money foolishly. This might be Romney’s best moment. Great answer.
Ron Paul: I feel fortunate and we were poor but I really didn’t know it. I worked through college and my wife also worked through medical school. When a country destroys its currency it transfers wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.
Santorum: I grew up in a modest home and I was blessed with a mother and a father. Talks about family, a great moment for Santorum.
ABC to Bachmann: Troubled homeowners got evicted. I opposed TARP, I took on my own president and Hank Paulsen because I knew this was a bad deal.
Newt: I lived in an apartment above a gas station. My dad was in the Army.
Talked about his family and his small businesses. I know how difficult this for small businesses.
ABC – Back to the health care mandates:
Romney: States can do what ever the heck they want to do. States should try what is best for them. Some will do X and some will do Z. But the idea of the Feds imposing this violated the constitution.
ABC to Newt – what made you change your position: The problem is that a govt can make you buy a product they can make you do anything, we realized that the very idea was unworkable. The very idea of third party paying is failing and we need to get back to the doctor/patient relationship.
ABC Lifestyle changes about health – what should government do?
Ron Paul – Govt doesn’t have much of a role other than being ab referee to help prevent others from hurting you. But the govt should not be in the position of protecting you from yourself. Govt is FORCE and too often they overstep their bounds.
Perry – the feds should have no role and it should be left to the states. People are sick of Washington DC. Another good moment for Perry.
ABC – what have you learned from your opponents on stage:
Santorum: Newt Gingrich’s GOPAC tapes. And a great answer from Santorum while he tells a short story. A great YouTube moment. What a kind and fair man Rick Santorum is.
Perry: Ron Paul’s book on currency was very good and I learned from it. Perry, there are really good men and women who want to get this country back on track. We have to get it right.
Romney: The principle of leadership is the most interesting and I see Ron Paul people in the freezing cold holding a sign. This is a time for real leadership. (Romney made it about him mostly, petty)
Newt: Governor Jerry Branstead is my role model. Serve, get out of government a while and make money and learn, than come back to govt when you are too old and do great things. Rick Perry got me engaged on the 10th amendment issue and Santorum’s consistent leadership on Iran may have save the country.
Ron Paul: Freedom brings people together.
Bachmann: Herman Cain’s clear message like 9 9 9. People want a serious outside of Washington answer. WIN WIN WIN rather than 9 9 9.
Newt Gingrich in Lengthy and Substantive Interview /w CNN
Much of the interview has a focus in Middle-East policy.
Sloppy Hit Piece on Gingrich has Freddie Mac Execs Admit Conservatives Were Pushing Reform
by Political Arena Editor Chuck Norton
In what was an attempt to create a hit piece against Newt Gingrich, Freddie Mac execs have admitted that through the last decade it was “conservatives” who were pushing reforms to “dismantle” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they could blow up the mortgage market and the banking system.
The next time Obama says that it was the Republicans who caused this, remind him of this article. This piece helps Republicans and makes a liar out of Obama far more than it hurts Newt.
So let us address what the anonymous Freddie Mac execs have to say about Newt.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac execs are almost all Democrat appointees. Newt has been blasting them in public since 2008 if not before, so under condition of anonymity what do you think they are going to tell a reporter?
Obama and the Democrats have protected Fannie/Freddie from serious reform, have been bailing them out for hundreds of billions and the Democrats, using language in the stimulus bill inserted by the Democrat leadership, made sure that Fannie/Freddie execs (as well as AIG execs) got their many millions of bonuses for running the mortgage industry into the ground.
So I ask you again what are they going to tell a reporter about the Republican front runner? If any Republican is elected their gravy train gets cut off.
Readers, does anyone honestly believe that people in the same position as Frank Raines, Jim Johnston, or Jaime Gorelick would ever say to a reporter, “Yup! Newt told us not to do what we were doing”?
Remember that Fannie/Freddie bought almost every lobbying and consulting firm in DC to prevent people from working against them. Fannie/Freddie also spent $20o million in partisan donations with the vast majority going to Democrats.
BUSTED: Newt Gingrich Lied About What He Did For Freddie Mac
In last week’s CNBC debate, newly-minted top-tier Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich claimed he was hired by Fannie Maeto be a “historian,” and claimed that pointed out flaws in their “insane” business model.
But an investigation by Bloomberg reveals that Gingrich was much more involved with the government-backed lender than he let on — and that he was hired to promote the company (and its business practices) to other conservatives.
“Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with the consulting work Gingrich was hired to perform for the company in 2006 tell a different story. They say the former House speaker was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.”
While not technically lobbying, he worked directly for Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist, taking in at least $1.6 million from Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2008.
In the debate, Gingrich claimed he warned the company that it was causing a housing “bubble,” but Freddie Mac executives told Bloomberg he was never critical of its business model.
“Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with his work in 2006 say Gingrich was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.”
His close ties to Freddie Mac are likely to be a liability in the Republican primary — where voters are deeply skeptical of the government-backed lenders, and furious that the public had to bail them out for their bad business practices.
In statement on his campaign website, Gingrich admits to helping the company reach out to conservatives — more than he said he did in the debate — but does not disclose how much he made from his consulting work:
“Freddie Mac was interested in advice on how to reach out to more conservatives. The Gingrich Group stressed that Freddie Mac must be open to reform of their lending practices but that by stressing the historical success of public-private partnerships in achieving public goods at a minimum of taxpayer money and bureaucracy.”
After Gingrich left Freddie Mac’s payroll, Bloomberg notes that he quickly turned into one of its most vocal critics, writing in his 2011 book “To Save America” that the companies “are so thoroughly politicized and preside over such irresponsible lending policies that they need to be replaced with smaller, private companies operating without government guarantees, whose leaders focus on making a profit, not manipulating politicians.”
m
Indiana 2008 Presidential Primary Election Fraud Probe Heats Up
[This scandal happened in my home town. The article mentions that the Democratic Machine here is much like Chicago and that is very true. Some business owners in downtown South Bend tell me that they vote GOP, but do not dare to put anything but Democrat signs in their windows or the city will exact revenge. The same goes for many road workers and police officers. – Editor]
UPDATE – Charges Filed – LINK
Eric Shawn at Fox News [The link has video]:
Charity Rorie, a mother of four, sat in her Mishawaka, Ind., kitchen, stunned that her name appeared on a 2008 Democratic presidential primary petition for then-candidate Barack Obama.
“That’s not my signature,” she told Fox News, saying her signature is “absolutely” a fake. She also said she was troubled someone forged both her signature and that of her husband, Jeff, and listed personal details such as their address and birthdays.
“It’s scary,” Rorie said. “It’s shocking. It definitely is illegal. A lot of people have already lost faith in politics and the whole realm of politics, so that just solidifies all of our worries and concerns.”
Robert Hunter Jr. said his name was faked, too.
“I did not sign for Barack Obama,” he told Fox News, adding his signature supporting the then-Illinois senator’s effort to get on the primary ballot was also a forgery.
As he examined the Obama petition he held in his hands, Hunter pointed out that “I always put ‘Junior’ after my name, every time … there’s no ‘Junior’ there.” He said the signature on the petition looks “very close” to his real one, but it clearly is not.
“My wife and I actually signed a petition for Hillary Clinton,” he said. “I am an Obama fan, but not in the primaries I wasn’t.”
The prospect that theirs are two of an estimated 150 signatures that may have been forged on the petitions has raised the question of whether President Obama actually reached the legitimate number of signatures needed to be placed on the ballot in Indiana. Under state law, presidential candidates need to file 500 signatures from each of the state’s nine congressional districts. Indiana election officials say that in St. Joseph County, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton’s camp had 704. The certified signatures were never challenged.
“I had always thought that, now-President Obama, had earned his victory in Indiana,” said the state’s Republican chairman, Eric Holcomb. “But then I quickly learned that he had cheated his way on to the ballot in the primary.”
The allegations that election fraud touched a race for the highest office in the land are at the center of an investigation by St. Joseph County Attorney Michael Dvorak . He would not comment, but sources say the probe is gaining steam as prosecutors delve into the petitions that sailed through the St. Joseph County Voter Registration Board, located in South Bend. There have been reports that as many as seven people may have been involved in an alleged conspiracy to fake the petitions.
[Political Arena Editor’s Note – Dvorak has been a part of the Democratic Machine for a long time. A small clique in the Democratic Party plays musical chairs here in St. Joe County. A politician will be a city councilman, a member of the local administration, a state senator, back to the local administration etc. The same people just keep getting recycled into different local positions.]
“I was very surprised,” said the newly elected Democratic chairman of St. Joseph County, State Sen. John Broden. “This is a bipartisan issue that we need to take a look at … so I hope that this is something, that we as both parties, try to look at what exactly happened, and most importantly, how do we prevent it from happening again.”
Broden recently replaced long-serving Democratic Chairman Butch Morgan, who resigned suddenly in October under party pressure because of the scandal.
“There is no evidence that Butch Morgan ever personally directed, authorized or condoned the forging or alteration of petition signatures,” [Notice that is not a denial – Political Arena Editor] said his attorney, Shaw Friedman, who argued against the resignation. He said Morgan did “absolutely not” forge any signatures, or know who might have.
“This is a man who has worked mightily over the 20 years that he served as district chairman, to do so fairly, ethically, appropriately, and my concern was that he not leave under these circumstances,” Friedman told Fox News.
He called the alleged forgeries “a sloppy, amateurish effort, ordinarily that kind of thing would have been caught by the voter registration offices. I’m not quite sure here why it slipped through.”
St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration worker Dustin Blythe has reportedly been identified as having handwriting that matches the writing on some of the suspect Obama petitions. The South Bend Tribune and the political newsletter Howey Politics Indiana hired a handwriting analyst who examined the documents and says Blythe’s writing can be found on “nine suspicious pages from the Obama petition,” according to the newspaper.
Blythe, 37, works at one of the desks in the Board office. When Fox News asked if he forged any signatures or faked any petitions, he repeatedly replied, “I don’t have anything to say.”
Blythe’s LinkedIn profile describes him as a “government employee” who is also an “independent contractor/volunteer at Indiana Democratic Party” and a St. Joseph County Democratic Party “volunteer.” His Facebook page includes a photograph of him taken with former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.
Blythe’s lawyer, Andre Gammage, has said that his client did not do anything wrong. He told Fox News that handwriting comparisons don’t mean anything.
“Handwriting is not the same as DNA, handwriting is not the same thing as fingerprints,” Gammage said.
Authorities would not comment about any aspect of the ongoing investigation, including any possible targets of the probe.
Swedish Paper: Photo of Obama in Situation Room Photoshopped
[Editor’s Note – I am am American of Swedish ancestry so I keep up on Swedish news. Afton Bladet is a real paper and this is real news. The photo is “Photoshopped” as we will demonstrate further.]
Via our friends at Gateway Pundit:
Swedish news agency Afton Bladet claims the famous “chipmunk in the small chair” was photoshopped.
What’s wrong with this picture?
The Swedish news agency Afton Bladet says Obama was photoshopped into the picture. AB insists that the president was just way to small in the picture. It must be a fake. Via Free Republic.
Indeed it is an obvious Photoshop.
Not only is President Obama sized incorrectly when inserted, but look at the light angles of the flash. Judging by the glare it is clear that the flash is being held up and to the right of where the camera is (and aimed slightly upward as well). This is a tactic that helps reduce “redeye effect” and is used to reduce the amount of glare in the photo. It is obviously a directed photo because all of the laptop screens are off.
I used Microsoft Paint to add the red circles which remakes the entire picture, but if you look at the “original” photo up top examine Obama’s shoulders and then look at Biden’s. Obama is obviously a digital insertion because one can see how pixilated the angle of his shoulders are against the beige wall and one can see that Biden’s shoulders are not pixilated (they are smooth). Vice President Biden was in the room. President Obama was not.
Governor Palin on Donald Trump, Ron Paul, Endorsements, and Nancy Pelosi’s Insider Trading.
Governor Christie To Obama: “Get Out Of Your Chair”
“Mr. President. We need a leader who will lead us to the moment…who will help define what the challenges of meeting the moment means… and then not to be cautious and safe and sit back and wait for someone else to do the hard work, but to get out of your chair and start doing the hard work yourself to make America a greater place,” – New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s forum.
Why Donald Trump Matters and Helps the Process
Editorial by Political Arena editor Chuck Norton
The Sean Hannity Interview with Donald Trump and it is worth viewing as they have a good policy discussion, especially in the second half of the interview:
One of my worthy academic friends sent me the following note:
Chuck, Trump is a complete buffoon.And his comments in this interview are garbage even compared to his usual bleats…why promote this? Cheers!
I can understand why someone might think this way. Trump is a showman, he knows all about television timing and hype and to some people the hype can certainly be viewed as buffoonery.
But as someone who is trained in communications, which includes journalism, classic rhetoric, manipulation, politics and propaganda, I have learned to separate hype and emotionalism from the substance of any message and I encourage all readers of Political Arena to learn to do the same.
So I respond:
Professor, the thing is, even though he is a showman who is over the top (I mean look at the HAIR), he is an over the top showman who has a policy point of view that connects with voters.
I, as a student of propaganda, tend to strip away the hype and examine the message, and right now Trump is the only one saying what he is saying, and that is why it is news.
Don’t prejudge, just listen. Laura Ingraham with Donald Trump on the derisive comments of pundits like Charles Krauthammer.
Learned Professor:
OK. I listened. Where’s the beef? I hear15 minutes of him dumping on Rove and Krauthammer. Rove is someone I would pay some attention to on strategies and tactics for winning elections, not political philosophy. Krauthammer usually has interesting things to say on politics and culture, but sometimes gets things wrong. I hear repeated boasting that he is a business success, saying that he understands economics…what is the audio supposed to convince me of?
Editor (me):
One of the points being that the pundit class thinks they can pick our nominee.
Think of it this way, yo do real research in physics as well as teach. If you put out crappy research being whoppingly wrong, it would affect you. You have a stake in what you do.
But what if you just taught high school physics and nothing else? You could be glaringly wrong and wrong often and there would be no consequences (just as we see with public school teachers and the textbooks they use).
These pundits who talk and talk (Krauthammer opposed Reagan) are wrong about plenty of things (George Will even once called the Second Amendment an embarrassment) and yet where are the consequences? Yet they act as though they are entitled to dictate to us who our nominee is and anyone else who “butts in” can “butt out” as far as they are concerned.
For someone like Donald Trump, when he is wrong it affects him very directly, the credibility he has for his TV show, not to mention his credibility as a deal maker and a business man.
When Donald Trump makes a mistake it tarnishes his entire brand, his children who are a part of that brand, each move he makes has the potential to cost many millions of dollars of his personal wealth and those who invest in him, and the many thousands of jobs that he provides.
All of this is on the line with every move Trump makes. When Karl Rove or Charles Krauthammer say something stupid does it endanger the entire Fox brand? Of course not, in fact people will likely forget it two weeks later.
So who is more qualified to offer on opinion? Who has more at stake in America and in Americans? The answer is obvious, and that is why if anyone has MORE of a place to speak out as a pundit as the chattering class, it is Donald Trump, and ever other business owner who risked everything to have a chance at success. And that is the point which Laura understands and demonstrates to some degree on her show.
Where is the plan to fix America from Charles Krauthammer? Trump just wrote a book on how to do it. In fact, Charles Krauthammer’s entire life’s work is not as influential or as substantive as Donald Trump’s iconic book “The Art of the Deal”.
This brings me back to my previous point about separating the hype and emotion from the raw substance. We are so used to hype without substance from the elite media, that we start to believe that when we see hype that it automatically means there is no substance.
P.S.
Did you see Mika Brzezinski tell Boon Pickens that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes? Boon is 83, he goes to work every day and he has paid $665 million in taxes since he turned age 70, and Mika went after him for not paying enough. Yet look at who holds up Mika as someone who actually matters.
Learned Professor:
Regardless of what you think about Rove or Krauthammer, the question is: “Is Trump a useful person for the Republican candidates to elevate by attending his debate?” I say ‘no’ (Not R. or K., *I* say this.). I say that Trump is not a serious man. He is a successful real-estate mogul. He is also a vain braggart with too many stupid and non-conservative ideas for me to want him to be a ‘blessed’ voice for American conservatism. I don’t think the roof will fall in if this happens, but I think that the candidates will muddy themselves by association.
Editor:
There is much truth to what you just said, but in fairness, Trump never claimed to be a a “‘blessed’ voice for American conservatism” like Rush Limbaugh or as implied by Krauthammer. Trump speaks as a businessman who sees a government that is stupid with money, corrupt in it’s regulations, killing jobs, and is foolish in managing our resources. Almost every business owner in the country can identify with Donald Trump at some level. Besides, how many reporters moderating a primary debate are anything but a mouthpiece for the extremist wing of the Democratic Party?
Trump will ask questions no one in the media would think to ask, he will address issues they will not bring up, and it will give us an opportunity to see how the candidates react in a very different environment.
[Editor’s Note – It is not that I do not respect Krauthammer, Will, or Rove, it is the entire idea of “butt out” that I really take exception to.]
Rick Perry launches new ads about faith
Newt Gingrich Engaging Uncommitted Conservatives in Tough Interviews
Byron York at the Washington Examiner:
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich faced more than two hours of sometimes contentious questioning before a group of conservatives at a northern Virginia hotel Wednesday morning.
Gingrich requested the meeting, organized by longtime conservative leader Richard Viguerie, after learning that Viguerie had put together similar meetings for rival candidates Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann. About 60 people were in the Gingrich meeting, which was held at the Key Bridge Marriott hotel just outside Washington.
“It was a little tense in there a couple of times,” says one participant, noting that some of those gathered challenged Gingrich repeatedly on his environmental policy and support for the Medicare prescription drug entitlement. Gingrich did not back down from past positions and ended some exchanges by saying that he and the conservatives would just have to agree to disagree.
Among those attending were Gary Bauer, Brent Bozell III, Angelo Codevilla, Ken Cucinelli, Marjorie Dannenfelser, Helen Krieble, Leonard Leo, Curt Levey, Ginni Thomas, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., and several others.
Many candidates would not have the conviction to face a serious and substantive crowd like this for over two hours. No matter what one may think of Newt, this act commands respect. Newt also subjected himself to a lengthy interview with Glenn Beck and several in the elite media voiced their “surprise” at what a substantive and meaningful interview it was. Of course those of us who are familiar with Glenn’s work know that his research team is as good if not better than any elite media news organization.
Mini UPDATE – Here is Newt’s lengthy and very stimulating interview with Larry Kudlow – LINK.
Mini UPDATE II – Newt gets a standing ovation at conservative HQ event – LINK.
More from the Washington Examiner:
One attendee, who asked to remain anonymous, confirmed that the participants were undecided but suggested that few would end up with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. All of those present knew Gingrich and had ups and downs with him over the years, but none was as familiar with Romney. “We’ve been working with Newt for 30 years,” the participant said. “For whatever reason, Romney hasn’t ever been there.
While Mitt Romney has been avoiding conservatives while claiming to be the conservatives standard bearer, Gingrich has decided not to make that mistake and has let conservatives have at him at length to make his case. Romney refuses to debate Newt one on one as Herman Cain did. Romney seems to be employing a strategy of running out the clock and taking no risks. This also has made him an absentee in many circles.
Newt has been displaying a moral clarity since 2009 most have not witnessed in him before. He has been plugging away against Obama’s bad policies since and has been defending conservatives in the elite media since Obama took office. Newt defended Sarah Palin as the press trashed her; when we now know that on issue after issue after issue from death Panels, to ObamaCare costs, to the cronyism, to energy policy, to Egypt & Libya, to inflation and the increasing food problem, Palin has been almost prophetic in her correctness. Where was Mitt Romney in 2009 and 2010 when you and I were out protesting in the cold, raising awareness, networking to educate people, and raising funds for local candidates?
Glenn Beck ‘s Indepth and Tough Interview with Newt Gingrich
Anyone who says that Glenn Beck is not a serious political force is made into a liar by this interview. This is the toughest and most substantive interview I have ever seen Newt faced with and it is worth examining.
There is no one in the elite media capable of offering an interview this substantive and informative.
Video:
Transcript:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/
It’s official, Egypt is a disaster.
This is one of those cases where I am unhappy to report that I was quite correct and so were several others about what removing Mubarak would mean for the United States, Israel and the Middle-East.
Barack Obama has managed to pull off the greatest foreign policy disaster since President Carter helped the Mullah’s come to power in Iran. Mubarak was far from perfect, but he helped keep arms out of Gaza, maintained the peace with Israel, and prevented civil war between the Coptic Christians and the hard-core Islamists.
Egypt made it clear within hours after Mubarak was removed that the peace treaty with Israel is no more and Egypt is now allowing arms to move into Gaza. The military is even using armored vehicles against the Coptic Christians in Egypt and women are being subjected to forced “virginity tests“.
The results of the Egyptian election is in. Anyone who says that the hardcore Islamists are just a tiny fraction of Muslims is lying to themselves and to you as these election results demonstrate.
Muslim Brotherhood top winner in Egypt
Parties that want an expansion of Islamic law captured a clear majority of the votes in Egypt’s first election since the uprising that ousted longtime authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak, according to results released Sunday.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party topped winners with 37% of the nearly 10 million valid ballots cast for party lists in the first of three electoral rounds for the Egyptian parliament.
The Brotherhood, a movement that seeks to expand Islamic law in many countries in the Middle East, prevailed in an election that included voters in Cairo and Alexandria, cities where liberal parties had hoped to exhibit their greatest strength.
Also winning big was the Nour Party, which took 24% of the vote. The party, dominated by the ultraconservative Salafis, did not exist until a few months ago. It seeks to impose strict Islamic law similar to Saudi Arabia in which women must be veiled and alcohol banned.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the grandfather of Al-Qaeda and they are involved in raising money for jihadists here in the United States. The motto for the Muslim Brotherhood is:
‘Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
Make no mistake, the Muslim Brotherhood, who won 37% of the vote, is a very patient and a very slick with the propaganda version of Al-Qaeda. The Muslim Brotherhood has seduced the progressive secular left, the State Department, and some naive neocons such as Bill Kristol along with several RNC luminaries (who are friends of mine and will go un-named). The Nour Party, which is essentially Egypt’s version of the Taliban, won 24% of the vote; meaning that 61% of the country voted for Sharia Law, war with Israel, brutal oppression for women and minorities, and martyrdom in the cause of Jihad.
Here is Bill Kristol in February 2011, recent history has proved him, and the many who believed just as he did, how fantastically wrong they have been. Fortunately Liz Cheney was not fooled for a minute:
Glenn Beck was right, so was Niall Ferguson, and so was this very writer.
One can examine the degree of just how far the denial went, much of it in order to protect President Obama, please examine this video from last February when one of the greatest historians alive explained to MSNBC just how strategically flawed the Obama policy in Egypt was. After Prof. Ferguson crushed the point of view of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, they went right back to “the operation looked like it went well to me”:
Donald Trump Smacks Around “F” Chuck Todd and Karl Rove
Notice how “F” Chuck Todd tries to sneak in some rather bogus political narratives? This is one reason why MSNBC has such poor ratings. People are smart enough to see the semantic games and bogus narratives introduced as a matter of routine at MSNBC.
On a side note, at the beginning “F” Chuck Tries to posture Trump and is completely bowled over. While Trump is at times a tad over the top and thus “unpresidential”, the GOP field could use a little bit of Trump’s fire.
Note: If you missed the Donald Trump interview with Sean Hannity be sure you see it as it is a good policy discussion – LINK.
Inside the Beltway ‘Wisdom’ Isn’t So Wise
[Note, this story is stickied to the top of the page as it is our feature of the week. Please scroll down to see new posts and updates!]
by PoliticalArena.org Editor Chuck Norton
Sometimes beltway wisdom can reflect certain truths not apparent to many nice folks in “fly over country”, but often the beltway wisdom caters to government largess and the message can be sold to large donors and bundlers.
Inside the beltway, insiders from both parties treat small government conservatives as “extreme” because all of them make their money from government largess either directly or indirectly. There are also factors that swing the public that those inside the beltway never get exposed to. The greatest example of this was in 1976 and in 1980 when “insiders” believed that Ronald Reagan was a joke, a stupid B-movie actor whose eloquent speeches about the dangers of communism, socialism and collectivism should have went out with the 1950’s. Now those same pundits claim to be the very fathers of his success. While some of the names of the insiders and pundits have changed, the beltway mentality has not.
Please examine these comments from the insiders poll at National Journal and enjoy my comments which will appear in red.
National Journal:
The Gingrich Moment has yet to catch on with National Journal‘s Political Insiders. Despite former House Speaker Newt Gingrich‘s surge in the Republican presidential nomination contest, overwhelming majorities of both Democratic and Republican Insiders still say former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has the better shot at beating President Obama in 2012.
[This is what the left and the elite media say. They said the same thing about McCain and Dole. The elite media is essentially the Democrat media complex, so if Mitt Romney is so much of a threat why are they avoiding piling on and trashing Romney like they have the other candidates? In each case where the most “moderate” candidate was considered the most electable the Democrat campaigned to the right of the GOP nominee and won. When there is a bold difference between the two candidates the conservative Republican wins.
Some insiders know this and are simply rooting for the two candidates who are most likely to guarantee continued government largess. Other insiders start out with the best of intentions, but end up adopting the very mentality that they came to DC to change in the first place. Having been to DC events I can tell you that the temptation to meld in to that mentality is highly seductive. Make no mistake, the media and the White House want to run against Romney and several White House staffers have let that leak out. They believe that the same strategy the GOP used against John Kerry in 2004 can be used against Mitt Romney. They also believe that Obama can fool voters by campaigning to the right of Romney’s record. They will say that Romney talks like Reagan, but governed like Dukakis. Obama will also run against what he will describe as a namby-pamby do nothing Congress that talks about grandiose reforms but ends up with a schizophrenic big government record like Romney’s. ]
For some of the Insiders, Romney’s well-oiled campaign and potential for moderate appeal gave him the edge.
[The well oiled campaign with huge state machines is not as overwhelmingly effective as it used to be for two reasons.
The first reason is that with the power of the internet and multiple 24 hours news channels voters have more unfiltered access to information and the candidates. Herman Cain had almost no ground machine to speak of, and the truth is that if it weren’t for his repeated stumbling when it comes to basic foreign policy questions and messaging, he would still be the front-runner. The allegations of sexual harassment by women, all of whom have direct ties to David Axelrod and the Chicago Democrat machine were so transparent, that most people were not swayed by them. The fact that the Cain allegations didn’t stick in spite of a massive elite media campaign to try to make them otherwise is yet another indicator of just how powerful new media really is (note, remember when Cain was asked if he would take a lie detector test about the allegations and he said yes? Only local media shared the results). A wealthy massive machine is no longer necessary to get a message out.]
“He [Romney] almost beat a liberal icon in a blue state and went on to win the governor’s race,” said one Democratic Insider. “He is a very strong general-election candidate.”
[And Newt nationalized a mid-term election, brought in a GOP majority in the House for the first time in 40 years, cut taxes, balanced the federal budget, created a surplus, and passed welfare reform with a Democrat President, yet our Democratic insider knows that. Also, since when has Massachusetts ever been a political gauge for the rest of the country? ]
“Mitt Romney is better positioned to speak to independent voters,” said another Democrat, “including key voting blocs like swing unmarried women.” A Republican strategist agreed. “Romney is more acceptable to moderate voters, especially female voters.”
[Nonsense. And this brings us to the second reason why massive state machines on the ground are not as effective as they used to be. Those machines were needed to get the attention of ordinarily more apathetic independent voters (and conservatives could not be more motivated already). Independent voters have been anything but apathetic since 2009. Independents are engaged and informed in a way I thought I would never see again in my lifetime. They are also far from what beltway insiders would consider moderate.
In questionnaires about civics and current events independents score almost as high as Republican voters, before 2009 they scored below Democrat voters.
In the 2009 state and local elections voters swung towards GOP/TEA candidates by 18 points in the key swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania. The independent voters in those key swing states were not energized by a “moderate message”. They were energized by the bold TEA Party message of Rick Santelli and Sarah Palin. In New Jersey the firebrand fiscal hawk Chris Christie was elected governor.
In 2010 GOP/TEA Party candidates swept the elections in nine of the top ten swing states. For the first time since 1984 when Ronald Reagan won 49 states, traditionally independent and slightly left leaning voters such as women and Catholics voted Republican by big numbers. There is no way that anyone could say that they were energized by Mitt Romney or anyone like him. Florida, which Obama won, tossed out their own Republican Governor Charlie Crist who was a wishy-washy Mitt Romney like moderate, and replaced him with reaganesque Marco Rubio. Governor Crist tried to take the independent vote away from Rubio by running as an independent and guarantee the Democrats a win, but independent voters such as women and Catholics voted for Rubio by significant margins.]
Other Republican Insiders named Romney as the stronger candidate, but couldn’t muster much enthusiasm about the prospect.
“Romney’s shape-shifting might not be appealing for conservatives in the primary, but he’s far more disciplined than Gingrich and is the only candidate that can win in November,” said one Republican.
[Romney is more disciplined, but not as disciplined as one might think, already since the debates started Romney has changed his messaging and positions. What is the bold Romney vision for America other than “I’m not Barack Obama and don’t I look sweet on TV? Also Newt has come back from the early missteps in his campaign with a new discipline and has avoided his previous academics ways of getting himself off message with excessive nuance.]
“Mitt Romney will be hard to hate in the general for the same reason he is hard to love in a primary,” said another Republican. “There isn’t much ‘there’ there, so the spotlight will gravitate to Obama. Romney makes it a referendum on Obama; Gingrich makes it a choice.”
[Indeed, 1980 could have been a referendum about Carter, but Ronald Reagan went out of his way to make it a choice. Gingrich gives you something to vote for.]
Concerns about Romney’s charisma led a small number of Insiders on both sides of the spectrum made the case for Gingrich as the stronger Obama opponent. “Romney seems like he is the most formidable on paper and in debates,” said one Democrat, “but the American people will struggle to take to him, just as the Republicans are struggling to take to him.” “The president’s money will dwarf ours,” warned a Republican strategist. “So our candidate must frame his message more clearly and forcefully. That’s Newt’s strength and that’s Romney’s weakness.”
[Hey someone in DC is thinking! Obama and his team led by David Axelrod will try to mottle everything, change history, and make the facts into a soup until people don’t know what to think. Newt has the boldness and razor like clarity in his presentation that can cut through the nonsense.]
Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are for Mitt Romney. Why?
Ann & Laura are singularly focused on Romney’s ability to speak and have been quite up front about this when discussing it.
I understand their point of view, but I do not totally agree with it. During the Bush administration while I was getting my latest degree at IU, I had to constantly defend what the administration was doing right because the administration made almost no attempt to articulate it themselves (with the exception of hiring Tony Snow).
This became very tiresome and was a reason why the GOP got pasted in 2006 and 2008. Since communication is the life of Ann and Laura (and it is my life too) I see how their point of view can be so unbalanced.
When George W. Bush was debating John Kerry can anyone honestly say that Bush dominated Kerry in any of those debates? Yet Bush still won convincingly.
The want to have Romney for the reasons stated is defensive in nature. Just as the Democrats picking Dukakis was defensive, picking Mondale was defensive, and picking Kerry was defensive. They were all picked because the Democrats “settled” on who they thought was “electable”. The GOP did this with Dole and McCain and today many “insiders” want to follow that line of thinking for 2012. Don’t be fooled.
Ann and Laura had a conversation on The Laura Ingraham Show and agreed that Mitt Romney will never be as conservative after the primary as he is now, and he will not be as conservative in the White House as he would be in the General Election. They both laughed and said how it will work out great for them because they will have yet another [liberal] Republican that they can make fun of for four years.
The state of the country is so dire that we no longer can afford the luxury of having a president talk radio can make fun of.
Newt Gingrich: President Barack Obama is “Legitimately and Authentically a Saul Alinsky Radical”
Romney will not debate Gingrich
Herman Cain debated Newt in a long format one on one and came out OK, so what is the problem Mitt?
Aren’t the American people deserving of a long format conversation that isn’t just cute 30 second responses? Mitt is trying to run out the clock and hope for a win without really fighting for it.
We all know Mitt’s past and we all know Gingrich’s. Both candidates in the past have had some foolish positions. The difference is not just some of the foolish positions that have come out of their mouths, but what they have actually implemented into law.
Mitt has the RomneyCare albatross around his neck which is too similar to ObamaCare. Gingrich talked about a health insurance mandate as a part of a thought experiment with a think tank and rejected the idea after a time because he concluded that a government powerful enough to impose such a mandate would also be a heavy handed disaster. Romney actually imposed a mandate. Both candidates say they are pro-life now, but as a matter of legislation only one has signed laws that have taxpayers pay for abortions and that is Mitt Romney.
Newt Gingrich has actually balanced the US budget, reformed entitlements and welfare into better working programs and Newt helped draft the Medicare Part D which came in 40% under budget. Newt blabs a lot, he is an academic and 50 odd sounding ideas will come out of his mouth every day, Newt’s mouth and academic way of thinking makes Newt his own worst enemy, but when you look at what laws were passed and how budgets were balanced Newt gets the job done and knows how to nationalize elections and get the American people behind an agenda he has sold on the merit. What has Mitt Romney actually DONE to advance the conservative movement or even protect traditional Americanism?
Newt has said a lot of things that are just dumb or were unfairly demagogued and lied about, but Newt admits these mistakes and does not sugar coat them. Mitt Romney lies about his. I have not caught Newt in a fib in any of the debates. I cannot say the same about Romney.
Newt is not afraid of the media and will take them on when needed, this is critically important to both the election and the fourth estate as a check and balance. The elite media is supposed to be helping keep government in check and instead most of what we get from them is cheer-leading for a leviathan state.
Newt Gingrich has been plugging away against Obama’s bad policies since 2009 and has been defending us in the elite media since Obama took office. Newt defended Sarah Palin as the press trashed her when we now know that on issue after issue after issue from death Panels, to ObamaCare costs, to the cronyism, to energy policy, to Egypt & Libya, to inflation and the increasing food problem that Palin has been almost prophetic in her correctness. Where was Mitt Romney in 2009 and 2010 when you and I were out protesting in the cold, raising awareness, networking to educate people, and raising funds for local candidates?
When history looks at who advanced the conservative movement the most Newt comes in second only to Ronald Reagan. Newt is featured in almost every political science textbook for his achievements. Newt’s name will always be remembered along the names of Reagan, Taft, Coolidge and Goldwater.
If this does end up as a race between Newt and Mitt, the choice of who to endorse is obvious.
Students who voted for Obama accuse him of ‘generational theft’
Elite Media: “Unemployment Unexpectedly Drops”. What Pure B.S.
This happens every year. Hiring picks up in the retail and service sector for the Christmas season. There is no way that this can be unexpected, but the implication is that “Obama’s policies are finally working”.
Next month the reports on consumer spending will show that they went up in December with the spin that it is all because Obama is great, but the truth is that consumer spending always goes up in December. In February and early March the elite media will say that “unemployment went up unexpectedly” and “consumer spending dropped unexpectedly”. Why? Holiday help will get laid off and the credit card bills will start coming in.
Another reason that unemployment has dropped unexpectedly is that a reported 315,000 people have given up looking for a job. That artificially lowers the government unemployment number.
Job gains in the U.S. picked up last month and the unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to the lowest level since March 2009, a decline augmented by the departure of Americans from the labor force.
Payrolls climbed 120,000, after a revised 100,000 increase in October, with more than half the hiring coming from retailers and temporary help agencies, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey called for a 125,000 gain. The jobless rate declined to 8.6 percent from 9 percent.
“It’s good news, not great news,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts, whose forecast matched the survey median. “The labor market is gradually healing.”
What nonsense, because way down deep in the article, they finally tell you the truth [Note – reporters know that most people never read beyond the 5th paragraph in most any article]:
Employment at service-providers increased 126,000 in November, including a 50,000 gain in retail trade as companies began hiring for the holiday shopping season. The number of temporary workers increased 22,300.
Macy’s, the second-biggest U.S. department-store chain, increased mostly part-time staff by 4 percent for the November-December shopping season. See’s Candies Inc., a chocolate maker owned by Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said it would add 5,500 mostly temporary workers.
Still, factory payroll growth slowed and construction employment dropped. Government payrolls decreased by 20,000 in November, including a 16,000 decline on the state and local levels.
More on “Unexpected”
Enjoy this piece from my old college blog where I had some fun with the elite media economists where they declared every piece of bad news “unexpected” for two years while they were spinning positive for Obama:
Indeed. According to the elite media “most economists” were surprised by month after month after month of unexpected, unexpected, unexpected, unexpected, unexpected bad economic news for the last two years. Of course to those who were paying attention it wasn’t unexpected at all.
In February or March we will be told that factory orders for consumer goods are up “unexpectedly” which is a positive sign that Obama is the best president ever. The truth is that it will be the result of totally expected inventory restocking after the holiday season.
Jobless claims are over 400,000 again this week. Last month “Hope” was alive because new claims had dropped below 400,000 to 397,000, which is statistically insignificant:
Fewer people applied for unemployment benefits last week, a hopeful sign that the job market might be picking up.
The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications dropped 9,000 to a seasonally adjusted 397,000, the lowest level in five weeks. It’s only the third time since April that applications have fallen below 400,000.
Were saved! Most every week claims are above 400,000 it is unexpected and each time below it is because we have the hopeful if not smoking hot economy. Gimme a break.
Obama at lowest approval at this stage in his presidency in history. Below Carter.
Gallup Polling firm’s daily presidential job approval index put the current president‘s job approval rating at 43 percent compared to President Jimmy Carter’s 51 percent:
The job approval numbers for other presidents at this stage of their terms, a year before the re-election campaign:
— Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.
— Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.
— Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.
— Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.
— Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.
— George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.
— Bill Clinton: 51 percent.
— George W. Bush: 55 percent.
What’s more, Gallup finds that Obama’s overall job approval rating so far has averaged 49 percent. Only three former presidents have had a worse average rating at this stage: Carter, Ford, and Harry S. Truman. Only Truman won re-election in an anti-Congress campaign that Obama’s team is using as a model.
To counter this the GOP should run against the Senate and the Democratic leadership. The Senate will not even do it’s constitutional duty and pass a budget. The GOP has passed job bills that actually are not government power grabs, balanced budget proposals, regulatory reforms etc and Democrats in the Senate will not even allow them to come to the floor.
Rick Perry at the New Hampshire House of Representatives
The posting of this video is not an endorsement of Rick Perry, but it is a good speech with an interesting point of view. He also gives a good account of the mortgage crisis that is worth hearing.
DHF Center: Obama – The Anti-Israel President
Please examine this video from the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Gun Owners of America on Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney and Gun Control
In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.
And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.
As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.
At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue. While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.
“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.
But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.
“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”1
Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”2
Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”3
Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire. In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.
Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps. But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.
[1] Mitt Romney in the 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate. Part of the quote can be read in this article at Scot Lehigh, “Romney vs. Romney,” Boston Globe (January 19, 2007) at: http://mittromney4potus.blogspot.com/2007/01/context.html
[2] “Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban,” July 8, 2004, at: http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812
[3] Mitt Romney, quoted by Joe Battenfeld in the Boston Herald, Aug. 1, 1994.
Gun Owners of America on Newt Gingrich
Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”
His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]
The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.
While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]
Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]
Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”
See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .
[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.
[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).
H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .
S. 735, April 18, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .
Gun Owners of America on Rick Perry
As Governor of Texas for a decade, Rick Perry has shown himself to be a tough defender of the right to keep and bear arms.
In his private life, Gov. Perry carries concealed and knows how to use his weapon. While jogging with his dog last year, he used his .380 Ruger to shoot and kill a cayotte that was menacing his pet.
“Don’t attack my dog or you might get shot … if you’re a coyote,” he told the Associated Press.
As for his public record, Gov. Perry has a near-perfect gun record, having signed dozens of pro-gun bills into law. Here’s his record as governor:
2001
Signed Senate Bill 766, which prohibits lawsuits against gun ranges, gun manufacturers, and distributors for anything carried out in lawful operation.
2004
Signed concealed handgun reciprocity agreements with Georgia and Montana.
2005
Signed House Bill 225 (Driver) which extends the renewal period for a concealed handgun license from four to five years without an increase in renewal fee. The bill also included a provision that a person from any state can qualify for a Texasconcealed handgun license (CHL).
Singed House Bill 322 (Hupp) which reduces all fees for a concealed handgun license for military members and veterans by 50 percent and lowers the age from 21 to 18 for members of the military or veterans to obtain a concealed handgun license.
Signed House Bill 685 (Rose) which exempts military members and veterans from taking the range portion of the concealed handgun licensing process if they had been weapons certified in the military within the past five years prior to application for the license.
Signed House Bill 1483 (Frost) which expanded methods by which applicants for a concealed handgun license may pay the fees to include personal check, cash, and credit card. Currently only cashiers checks and money orders are accepted.
Signed House Bill 823 (Keel) which allows for concealed carry in a privately owned vehicle, without having to obtain a permit from the government.
Signed House Bill 1038 (Isett) which reduces the fee for renewal of a canceled handgun permit for senior citizen by 50 percent. The current renewal fee for a senior citizen is $70 for a four-year renewal period and this bill will reduce that fee to $35 for those 60 years of age or older.
Signed Senate Bill 734 (Williams) which restricts the ability of a city to prohibit the discharge of firearms on large pieces of land in their extraterritorial jurisdiction.
2007
Signed House Bill 233 (Ritter) which waives CHL fees for active duty military.
Signed House Bill 991 (Rose) which protected the privacy and safety of CHL holders by restricting access to such records, thus keeping names of permit holder from being made public.
Signed House Bill 1815 (Isett) which expands constitutional carry by allowing the carrying a handgun on one’s own premises or premises under one’s control, and between a premises and a car under one’s control, as well as in a vehicle under one’s control. Defines premises to include recreational vehicles such as a motor home.
Signed House Bill 1839 (Bonnen) which eases renewal requirements after the third renewal of a CHL.
Signed Senate Bill 112 (Carona) which prohibits the seizure by police of lawfully carried and possessed firearms during a disaster.
Signed Senate Bill 322 (Duell), not allowing foster homes to prohibit firearms and ammunition.
Signed Senate Bill 378 (Wentworth), a castle doctrine bill removing the requirement to retreat before using deadly force against an attacker in one’s home, auto or place of business.
Signed Senate Bill 535 (Hegar) which prohibits the Lower Colorado River Authority from adopting rules against concealed carry or self-defense.
2009
Signed House Bill 2664 (Ritter), creating a defense to prosecution for the offense of unlawful carrying of a handgun by a license holder on the premises of certain businesses.
Signed Senate Bill 1188 (Estes) which expands the number of states from which Texans can purchase long guns.
Signed Senate Bill 1236 (Seliger), requiring that a person charged with a domestic violence misdemeanor offense be notified that upon conviction they may lose their right to possess a firearm.
Signed Senate Bill 1742 (Shapiro) which expands the authorities of cities to regulate the discharge of firearms outside of city limits (GOA opposes).
2011
Signed House Bill 25 (Guillen), extending the right to carry on a boat or watercraft with the necessity of a CHL.
Signed House Bill 1595 (Isaac) which protects shooting ranges from frivolous lawsuits.
Signed House Bill 2127 (Garen) which restricts the ability of certain cities to prohibit shooting.
Signed House Bill 2560 (Sheffield) which allows foster parents with a CHL to carry in an automobile with children present.
Signed Senate Bill 321 (Hegar) which allows Texans with a concealed carry permit to keep their firearm in locked glove boxes in their automobile while at place of employment.
“Mittstant Replay” – Mitt Romney vs Brett Beier
I am all for taking on a reporter when they blow it but Mitt’s behavior with Bret Beier was uncalled for.
Don’t lie to reporters….
PJTV: Goodbye Barney Frank. Thanks for that Housing Crisis.
The Thanksgiving White House Visitor Log Document Dump!
Michelle Malkin has the visitor’s log in it’s entirety HERE.
It even seems to include some 60 visits from convicted felon Robert Creamer. How nice.
The CBO Downgrades Obama’s $825 Bil Stimulus Bill
Just when you thought it couldn’t get much worse. Remember what Newt Gingrich and Amity Schleas said about the CBO.
Recovery: After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run.
In its latest quarterly report on the economic effects of the Obama stimulus, the CBO sharply lowered its “worst case” scenario while trimming many of its upper-bound estimates for stimulus-fueled growth and employment.
The new report finds, for example, that the stimulus may have added as little as 0.7% to GDP growth in 2010 — when spending was at its peak — and created as few as 700,000 new jobs.
Both are down significantly from the CBO’s previous worst-case scenario.
The report also lowered the best-case estimate for added growth in 2010 to 4.1% from 4.2%.
In addition, the CBO says the extra infrastructure money didn’t boost growth as much as it previously claimed, because states reacted by spending less out of their own budgets on highways.
So in other words, the CBO now says it’s possible that the stimulus had virtually no meaningful effect on growth and employment despite its massive price tag.
All this comes after the CBO increased that price tag to $825 billion from its initial $787 billion — a 5% hike.
Adding insult to injury, the new report also says the stimulus will hurt economic growth in the long run because of “the resulting increase in government debt.” Each dollar of additional debt, it reports, “crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital.”
In our view, even the CBO’s downgraded estimates are too high, because they’re still based entirely on Keynesian economic models that simply assume extra government spending results in added economic growth.
You don’t have to look very hard to see this isn’t what happened.
While Obama promised the massive stimulus would “ignite spending by businesses and consumers,” unleash “a new wave of innovation, activity and construction,” and keep unemployment under 8%, what we actually got was the worst recovery since the Great Depression.
[All emphasis ours – Political Arena Editor]
Of course we cannot forget how the government likes to define “Jobs”. It can include one day jobs and short term temps as jobs created as well. Littering can creates a “job” because someone has to pick it up.
Political Arena 