On 'Meet The Press', Newt Gingrich Destroys Democrats And Tom Friedman On Abortion

Newt Gingrich was on 'Meet The Press' Sunday and in one short segment destroyed the Democrat position on abortion.

He touched all the bases...reminding people that President Obama voted three times to allow doctors to kill babies who survive an abortion, slapping the media around for concentrating on Tod Aiken getting off the ticket for one stupid and ridiculous statement he apologized for while giving a sitting vice president a pass for expressing outright racism, and attacking in detail the radical Democrat party platform plank calling for abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion when there are no issues about non-consensual sex or the mother's health involved.

As a bonus, he makes Pravda-on-the-Hudson's resident idiot Tom Friedman look like an absolute buffoon when Friedman mouths off about being a 'planned parenthood Democrat' and then retreats behind a whining 'I'm here as a journalist' when Gingrich challenges him with some facts.

An absolute smackdown.

I'm not crazy about Todd Aiken, but Newt Gingrich has a legitimate point.Aiken won the primary, the voters of Missouri shouldn't be disenfranchised and the double standard on Aiken as compared to democrats like Joe Biden and others is ludicrous.

It's a pity Newt's personal predilections and record aren't on a par with his debating skills

Which Way Is The GOP Race Headed?

Now that the Illinois primary is over, it might be a good time to actually examine the GOP race in the cold light of fact. And the fact is that Rick Santorum faces an almost impossible task in getting the GOP nomination barring something crazy happening. And that's especially true since he lost huge in Illinois tonight.

Let's take a brief look at the actual math involved.

To get the nomination, you need 1,144 delegates.

Right now, not taking Illinois 54 delegates into account, Mitt Romney has 521 delegates, while Rick Santorum has 253. Newt Gingrich, who's no longer really a factor has 135.

There are 289 unbound 'super delegates' not pledged to Santorum, Gingrich or Paul. Mitt Romney already has 33 of those delegates..giving him a total of 554.

The next slew of upcoming primaries include 329 delegates who will be awarded on a winner take all basis, all in states Romney is heavily favored to win - Maryland (37), Washington DC (16), Delaware (17),California (169), NewJersey (50), and Utah (40) that gives Romney a total of 883, not counting Romney's Illinois win ( 54 delegates) , not counting any delegates Romney picks up in other states that award delegates proportionately and not counting any additional super delegates that get behind the front runner, as they always do towards the end.

The other upcoming proportional primaries in New York (95 delegates) and Rhode Island ( 19 delegates) also strongly favor Romney.

Even if Rick Santorum wins the only other winner take all primary in Wisconsin, (42 delegates), even if he wins most of Louisiana's 46 delegates, even if he manages to get most of the delegates in his home state of Pennsylvania, even if he wins the majority of the 155 delegates in Texas ( and I think both Texas and Pennsylvania going totally to Santorum are doubtful ) the math just isn't there for him to get to 1,144.

Unless Mitt Romney commits such a huge gaffe that he simply knocks himself out of the race.

What I think this means is that both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich need to do some serious thinking. Both of them say they want to defeat Barack Obama in November, and neither of them have any strategy left to get the nomination outside of some kind of sabotage at the convention.

Meanwhile, as the contentious GOP primary continues eating up oxygen and money,President Obama is flying around the country at the taxpayer's expense and building his campaign and his war chest unimpeded.

I hope both of them sit back, take a deep breath and reflect on these two facts.

Gingrich's Supporters Evenly Split Between Mitt and Rick For Second Choice

Now this is interesting.

According to Gallup:



Apparently if Newt Gingrich drops out of the race (and I doubt he will unless he runs out of money) Santorum might not benefit as much as some people think.

Apparently some people have noticed that in spite of his labeling himself a 'conservative', he's really just a Big Government guy from the other side of the spectrum.

(h/t, Ace)

The War Goes On - Santorum Wins Alabama And Mississippi, Romney Wins The Most Delegates

Rick Santorum won decisively in yesterday's Alabama primary, and managed to eke out a win over Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in Mississippi, while Romney easily won Hawaii and American Samoa.

However, in terms of delegates, Mitt Romney increased his lead, ending up with 41 delegates as opposed to 35 for Santorum and 24 for Newt Gingrich, who finished second in both states.Romney wins in both Hawaii and American Samoa and his showing in Alabama and Mississippi enabled him to come out ahead.

What this means is that the bloodletting en route to the GOP convention in Tampa is going to continue, sucking up money and infrastructure and keeping the spotlight off President Obama and his record.

It's pretty easy to figure out why Romney didn't do better than he did..the Deep South is not exactly friendly territory for Mormons, and unlike other states, the Evangelicals broke heavily for Santorum.In pre-election polls, Romney wasn't given a prayer of winning anyway.And Newt Gingrich's constant referring to Romney as 'the Massachusetts Moderate' could also be counted on to stir up a few long-standing regional prejudices.

It remains to be seen whether those numbers would hold up in the general if Romney ends up being the nominee.

For Rick Santorum, it was a badly needed win. It's obvious that Santorum has successfully positioned himself as the Anti-Romney candidate. He's now finished ahead of Newt Gingrich in 20 out of 24 state match ups.

What isn't clear for both Ric Santorum and Newt Gingrich is to see how they get to the magic number of 1,144 delegates needed to get the nomination. Santorum now faces winner take all contests in DC (where's he's not on the ballot), Delaware, New Jersey, Utah - and California, if this goes on that long. Mitt Romney is well placed to win all 6 contests, and given his count already and how he's likely to do in the other states where delegates are awarded proportionately, it's hard to see how either Gingrich or Santorum make the nut, unless something crazy happens.

Gingrich pretty much realizes that now, and is already talking about a 'Santorum-Gingrich alliance.' I think he's kidding himself. In spite of the bad blood between Romney and Santorum, if Rick Santorum finishes that close to the money, a Romney-Santorum ticket is much more likely.Gingrich simply isn't going to end up with enough to bring to the table.

Keep in mind that most delegates are bound to vote the way they're pledged for only the first ballot. The possibility of a brokered convention just got a lot more likely.

GOP Agonistes - Last Night's Debate

As always, I watch these things so you don't have to. But truthfully, there's more meat in what didn't happen and what shouldn't have happened than what actually did.

What shouldn't have happened is 20 odd GOP debates, especially with people like John King and George Stephanopoulos as 'moderators'. Half as many would have served equally well, and with a far different group of people running them.

The only people who benefited from this nonsense were the Obama campaign and its assorted media lackeys with a vested interest in seeing our Dear Leader re-elected. And the overkill has arguably turned a GOP base that was engaged and ready to get behind a standard bearer to take on probably the most dismally failed presidency in U.S. history into a jaded group that will now have to be re-energized by whomever is the nominee.

I still remain amazed that the Republican candidates agreed to perform in this circus. You would think they'd know better. The doubling down by the candidates last night on the Obama campaign's birth control setup when they should have been talking about taxes, jobs and gas prices was beyond embarrassing, and there were oly two bright spots. First, Mitt Romney's slapdown of John King's attempt to interrupt him in mid answer and drive the agenda.

Second Newt Gingrich's reminding the world that President Obama is a rabid fan of infanticide with a position more extreme than NARAL's, and that the media never questioned it and did their best to cover it up during the 2008 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't go into more detail on what a hideous revelation this actually is and what is says about the current occupant of the White House. In more enlightened times, Barack Obama would have been driven out of decent society by that alone.

Last night's debate was Rick Santorum's chance to prove that he was ready for prime time, could trade punches with the big boys and is capable of taking President Obama on. He isn't, he can't and he's not.

It doesn't matter that some of the attack lines were unfair or unreasonable. It was Senator Santorum's task to hit them back over the net at his opponents, and he didn't, not in any convincing way. This leads me to believe that as likeable as he is, he has problems performing under pressure, something I've noticed more than once. And petulantly claiming after the fact that the fix was in and people are ganging up on him is not something that inspires confidence.

Another point worth mentioning was Senator Santorum's demeanor. Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich appeared relaxed and confident. Santorum appeared anxious and ill at ease, like a man with a jock strap one size too small.

If he's behaving like this now, one can only imagine what he'll be like he's debating President Obama i a debate 'moderated' by PBS when the fix will really be in and anything he's said in the past that's remotely questionable will be warped, taken out of context and looped endlessly by Soros' media galley slaves.

Republicans as well as the American people seem to be taking a more critical look at Rick Santorum as well. From having a solid lead in Michigan, he's now pretty much dead even with Romney, who is also up in favorability ratings against Obama according to Gallup.

Mitt Romney actually had a fairly decent night of it, and his tying of Santorum's endorsement of RINO Arlen Spector to the passing of ObamaCare ( Spector was one of the deciding votes) was a blow that caught Santorum flat footed and really hurt him.

The voting in Arizona and Michigan cometh, and it remains to be seen whether Rick Santorum's performance last night hurt him. I think it did, and badly.

Romney Wins Florida By Double Digits

In a major blowout, Mitt Romney crushed Newt Gingrich 46.4% to 31.9% in the Sunshine State, with Rick Santorum taking 13.4% and Ron Paul bringing up the rear with 7%.

Romney's victory was telling in that he won big in a number of important groups.

Women overall abandoned Gingrich for Romney by a 22 point spread, and married women dumped Newt by an almost two-to-one margin, 28% to Romney's 51%.

Among Hispanics, Romney crushed Gingrich, taking 54% of that vote to Gingriches' 14%. This is especially telling because of Romney's relatively hardline stance on illegal immigration, which was distorted by a large number of negative Spanish language ads put out not only by the Gingrich campaign but by Super PACs and Union money friendly to President Obama.

And Governor Romney actually took the Tea Party vote away from Newt Gingrich. Out of the 66 percent of Florida voters who said they supported the Tea Party, 41% cast their ballots for Romney and 38% for Gingrich.

When asked which candidate had the best chance to defeat President Obama Romney got 58%, according to the exit poll data. Only 33 percent of those voters said they supported Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich barely managed to hold on to Evangelicals, 39% to Romney's 36%.

Florida is a massively important win because it's a vital state Republicans are going to have to carry if they are to defeat President Obama in November. Unlike the other primary states we've seen thus far, Florida is a larger state with a diverse population that has demographics that looked pretty favorable to Gingrich going in. It's a southern state, the GOP electorate is conservative and Tea-Party friendly like South Carolina, it has a large senior population and Gingrich came in to the state with the momentum (and cash) from his win in South Carolina just a short time before the Florida primary.

If Newt Gingrich got beaten like a gong in Florida, it's likely going to be difficult for him to compete with Romney anywhere out of the Deep South.

Another important milestone is that both Gingrich and Romney shed important parts of their image.

Newt Gingrich lost his perceived mastery as a debater,giving several poor performances prior to Florida vote. And Mitt Romney definitely put to rest and questions among conservatives about his toughness and ability to go toe to toe with Obama in the general with his blitzkrieg campaign that knocked Gingrich out of the ring.

As John Podhoretz wrote on Monday in the New York Post, Florida was a challenge to Romney’s ability to play hardball: “The clean-cut Boy Scout Ken-doll candidate from Massachusetts needed to show his fellow Republicans that he could be mean, tough and merciless on the attack — that he could take it to his rival and best him.”

Accomplishing that didn't come without a price, however. What Romney may have gained among conservatives is offset by what he may have lost from swing voters disgusted by the negative tone of the campaign.

Newt Gingrich's reaction was to promise a scorched earth campaign no matter what the cost, and to have the nerve to call for the other candidates to get out of the race so that "Newt Gingrich, the conservative alternative can defeat the Massachusetts moderate." Yes, he's talking about himself in the third person now. Just for that bit of pomposity, I hope Rick Santorum, a far better man takes over Gingrich's number two spot fairly soon.

Governor Romney, on the other hand, attempted to repair some of that damage in his victory speech, focusing on President Obama, calling for unity in the battle ahead and graciously giving a shout out to his rivals, saying:

There are fewer candidates than when the race began, but the three gentlemen left are serious and able competitors. And I congratulate them on another hard-fought contest in this campaign.

Primary contests are not easy – and they’re not supposed to be. As this primary unfolds, our opponents in the other party have been watching. They like to comfort themselves with the thought that a competitive campaign will leave us divided and weak.

But I’ve got some news for them: A competitive primary does not divide us; it prepares us. And when we gather here in Tampa seven months from now for our convention, ours will be a united party with a winning ticket for America!

Three years ago this week, a newly elected President Obama faced the American people and said that if he couldn’t turn the economy around in three years, he’d be looking at a one-term proposition. We’re here to collect.{...}

In his State of the Union Address, the President actually said, “Let’s remember how we got here.” Don’t worry, Mr. President, we remember exactly how we got here! You won the election!

Leadership is about taking responsibility, not making excuses. In another era of American crisis, Thomas Paine is reported to have said, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” Mr. President, you were elected to lead, you chose to follow, and now it’s time for you to get out of the way!

I stand ready to lead this Party and our nation. As a man who has spent his life outside Washington, I know what it is like to start a business. I know how extraordinarily difficult it is to build something from nothing. I know how government kills jobs and, yes, how it can help.

President Obama’s view of capitalism is to send your money to his friends’ companies. My vision for free enterprise is to return entrepreneurship to the genius and creativity of the American people.

On one of the most personal matters of our lives, our health care, President Obama would turn decision making over to government bureaucrats. He forced through Obamacare; I will repeal it.

Like his colleagues in the faculty lounge who think they know better, President Obama demonizes and denigrates almost every sector of our economy. I will make America the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, for innovators, and for job creators. And unlike the other people running for President, I know how to do that. President Obama orders religious organizations to violate their conscience; I will defend religious liberty and overturn regulations that trample on our first freedom.{...}

President Obama believes America’s role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. He is intent on shrinking our military capacity at a time when the world faces rising threats. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would ever think of challenging it. President Obama has adopted a strategy of appeasement and apology. I will stand with our friends and speak out for those seeking freedom.

President Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” America. We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great.

Our plans protect freedom and opportunity, and our blueprint is the Constitution of the United States.

Together, we will build an America where “hope” is a new job with a paycheck, not a faded word on an old bumper sticker.

The path I lay out is not one paved with ever increasing government checks and cradle-to-grave assurances that government will always be the solution. If this election is a bidding war for who can promise more benefits, then I’m not your President. You have that President today.


Pretty good speech, actually. Almost Reaganesque. I especially liked the lines about the faculty lounge and the faded bumper sticker.

And I also know given a choice between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney whom I want sitting in the White House.

Newt Attacks Romney For Fiscal Conservatism And Leaner, Smarter Government!

This gets more bizarre the longer it goes on.

Florida has a large population of elderly retired Jews, and Newt Gingrich is targeting them in his personal appearances by claiming that while he was governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed kosher food in state-supported old age homes, thus causing the retirees distress because of the disrespect to their religion.

Sounds pretty nasty, doesn't it? Especially to someone who keeps kosher and imagines all those poor elderly Jews having to choose between violating their faith by eating non-kosher food or starvation.

The real story? What actually happened is that the State of Massachusetts was going through a severe budget crunch and Governor Romney attempted to cut the state budget by ending expensive kosher kitchens in state-supported nursing homes and called for kosher meals to get prepared off-site and bused in to those locations where they were needed. It would have saved the state $600,000 per year, and still provided kosher meals to any Jew that wanted them. The Democrat- dominated Massachusetts legislature shot the proposal down.

Just listen to Newt's new radio spot:

“vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes -- Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher.”

I'm upset about this not only because it gives the lie to Newt Gingrich's claim that he's a 'fiscal conservative' but because it's a disgraceful attempt to manipulate old people and slander another person with a deliberate falsehood. He'll be saying Romney eats babies for breakfast next, and poisons puppies for recreation.

After this, I don't want hear another word from Gingrich or his supporters about 'attack ads' or 'lies'. Not another single word.

The Gingrich Roundup

One of the interesting things about Newt Gingrich is how few people who actually know him or have served in Congress with him have much good to say about him. And we're not talking RINO's or establishment Republicans, but people who have been a part of the conservative cause for years. Today's crop includes:

Ann Coulter, who apparently loathes him

Long time conservative R. Emmett Tyrrell, the founder of the American Spectator, who weighs in on the many similarities between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, something I also picked up on here, along with certain similarities both Clinton and Gingrich have with President Obama.

Elliot Abrams, former Assistant Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration who went public on how insulting, obstructive and disdainful so-called 'Reagan conservative' Gingrich actually was of President Reagan and his policies, as does long time commentator Mark Shields.

I'll say it again. Character is destiny.

If Newt Gingrich is the GOP nominee, I will vote for him over Barack Obama with my nose held and with grave misgivings. We may lose quite badly in the end even if Gingrich wins.

Obama's Target - Mitt Romney

One matter of interest about the current GOP race - in spite of Newt Gingrich's recent surge of popularity, the main target of the Obama campaign and it's surrogates remains - Mitt Romney.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the major public employee union is spending 7 figure sums on ads depicting Governor Romney as an out of touch greedy plutocrat.

In Florida, the SEIU and a super-PAC supporting President Obama have teamed up to make a major buy in Spanish language media, running an ad attacking Romney titled “Dos Caras” or "Two Faces".

And tonight, depend on President Obama's State of the Union address to bash the class war drum for all he's worth by concentrating on ' the wealthy few', 'tax reform' ( read 'tax the rich' and 'economic inequality'. Romney's name won't be mentioned, but there's no doubt whom the president is talking about. It's the same ridiculous meme the president's surrogates in th epress have been pushing for days, aided and abetted by Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and to an extent, Rick Santorum.

The conclusion's obvious - the Obama campaign considers Romney a much greater threat to the president's re-election than they do Newt Gingrich.

They're very likely right about that.

South Carolina...And Beyond

I'm not encouraged by the results last night.

There's absolutely nothing more President Obama and the Democrats want than a prolonged, drawn out primary campaign that spews bad blood and wastes resources..while the president continues to consolidate his re-election campaign unopposed on all fronts.

Obviously a part of Saturday's result had to do with the despicable way the dinosaur media besmirched itself and Newt Gingrich's spirited response. The press launched outrageous attacks on both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and it was refreshing to see them slapped around for it. So the voters of South Carolina apparently surged at the last minute for Newt Gingrich, giving him a lopsided victory over Mitt Romney.

This is all very well, but is 'sending a message' what's wanted or needed? Especially if it means re-electing President Obama, or even worse, putting another unfit individual in the Oval Office?

I want emphasize again that there is no true Reagan-type conservative in this race as of yet. Newt Gingrich in his own words is a Teddy Roosevelt-style progressive , Rick Santorum leans towards 'compassionate conservatism ' ala' George W. Bush and Ron Paul is an isolationist conspiracy theorist fruitcake, while Mitt Romney as I've pointed out before is a pragmatist rather than an ideological conservative, who bends according to what he feels he can get accomplished.

None of them is going to change the climate in Washington significantly, so competence and character take on an increased significance.At present, we have neither embodied in our current president, and it's essential he be defeated.

The simple fact is that in my opinion, Newt Gingrich lacks the basic character and demeanor to be president.

Intelligent and articulate? Definitely so, but much of his career has been a series of questionable and self-serving events. In that, he resembles both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who also saw government as a path to personal entitlement and wealth.The incident of his throwing a tantrum during his tenure as Speaker over being seated in the rear of Air Force One en route to the Rabin funeral and being asked to deplane via the rear exit upon returning is a revealing one.

If you look at the Republican members of Congress he led, not only did they ask him to resign as Speaker but few of them if any have anything good to say about him or his leadership. That says something to me ...as does his personal history.

The thing that bothers me most about Newt's Gingrich's story with both his ex-wives is not the adultery per se - stuff happens, after all - or the 'he said she said' stuff, but a simple, easily proven fact - in both cases, he started sniffing around, found someone willing to cheat with him and dumped wife # 1 and wife #2 once he found out they had become ill, #1 with cancer and #2 with MS.

To my mind, that's simply not how a decent man acts.And again, it says a great deal about how he would conduct himself as president.We had a number of similar danger signs about both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Admittedly, Newt Gingrich would likely squash President Obama in a debate, but only if there's actually a debate. President Obama is not obligated to hold one, and if the president is significantly ahead in the polls,he might use the excuse that he's simply 'too busy' running the country to do so. Meanwhile President Obama's shills in the dinosaur media would be broadcasting every nuance of Newt Gingrich's foibles - and there's quite a bit to get into.

In short, even if he were to win, there's a good chance we might come to regret a President Gingrich for the reasons I outline here. Character is destiny, as a very wise man once said centuries ago.

My preferred candidate chose to sit things out in Wasilla, and I did a great deal of thinking about the GOP field, based more on what I consider character and fitness for office rather than ideology or a chimera like 'electability'. All the stuff about the GOP establishment aside, there are a lot of reasons I consider Mitt Romney to be the most qualified and the best choice based on the field as it exists today.

If Newt Gingrich runs against Barack Obama, I will vote for him, but with my nose held and with a deep sense of foreboding. I simply don't think he's what the country needs at this juncture. People change, but we had better think very carefully before we anoint him.

My good friend Hube also weighs in on this subject here.

The Disgrace Of The Fourth Estate - The Obama Media Group

Interesting times, to say the least.

President Obama's surrogates in the dinosaur media are wasting no time in attempting to clear the way for him the same way this president has always won elections - by using Alinskyite tactics to destroy opponents in advance.

It worked with Jack Ryan, whose divorce records were mysteriously unsealed by Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's pals on the Chicago Tribune to the point where Ryan dropped out of the race and Obama coasted to an easy victory in a race he likely would have lost otherwise.

It was done to John McCain, where the campaign started with a bogus front page New York Times story about an affair he supposedly had with a lobbyist, and even continued with attacks on his war record, his age and his spouse's character.

And it was done to Governor Sarah Palin, with tons of opposition researchers combing Alaska, the setting up an entire network of local Democrat operatives, using the Journolist network to plan media strategy to demonize her, having the campaign collude with with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson in advance of the Palin interviews, mounting an organized attempt to bankrupt the Palin family and even stooping to attacking her children.

The same forces are at work once again. We've already seen the media hit jobs on Michele Bachmann attacking her religion, her relationship with her husband, and her generosity of spirit in adopting foster children. We saw how anxious the media were to jump on Herman Cain. We saw how the dinosaur media attacked the record of one of the most successful governors in America. Rick Perry.

And now, the assault is focused on Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

I think Rush Limbaugh is entirely correct that Matt Drudge threw a monkey wrench into the works by exposing the ABC interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife in advance.

The day before, ABC had gone after Mitt Romney with two stories so bogus they don't even qualify as intelligent commentary, let alone journalism. The first one attacked his Mormon faith directly and his charitable contributions to the Church of the LDS in terms that were designed to convey the impression of a sinister, behind the scenes religious right wing mafia in which Governor Romney's part was now 'newly uncovered'. The second focused on portraying him as a tax cheat and plutocrat with 'millions parked in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven'.

The original waited until the very end of the story to inform you that what Governor Romney was doing was entirely legal and that he pays taxes on the money. It has since been changed to include a line in the second paragraph saying 'spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all tax laws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where the funds are based.'

A number of people sounded off in the comments section on how ridiculous the article was. Here's a sampling:

This article is completely uninformed and misleading. Investment groups use Cayman entities to avoid DOUBLE taxation of capital gains for foreign investors. It is not in any way depriving the US IRS of any money it is entitled to. There is no "hidden" money in this. Will the reporters simply call any reasonable corporate attorney who knows about fund formation to understand this, and then do the responsible thing - retract their story or clarify the intent of these Cayman investments. It is driving me crazy to even think about how misleading this article is. And judging by the comments, people are buying into it. Again, ask ANY corporate attorney that knows about fund formation. There is NO tax evasion that comes from this, and there is NO undeclared money in these Cayman funds. This is allowing international investors to invest through a single Cayman entity as opposed to investing through hundreds of foreign companies (German, Italian, Singaporean, etc.).


Very common for American Companies to set up operations in Cayman Islands an Bermuda. Virtually all major corporations do it. The impact has been litigated several times overs - and the tax rules are clear cut. It is common largely for corporations that self insure. There aren't all that many jobs connected with the overseas operations - a few accountants generally. Some of the resasons they do it have to do with holding foreign currencies. I don't think it is allowed here - but managing currency re-evaluations is a major risk management necessity for corporations. Nothing to see here.


Average Americans making $36,000 - $55,000 only pay 3.1% in income tax.yes, 3.1%, that's it.I'm actually impressed that Romney pays 15%, because take Obama's buddy, Warren Buffett, for example: Warren Buffett is far, far more wealthy than Romney,and Warren Buffett pays Less Than 1% in income tax.


I am writing in response to your article about Mitt Romney's use of Cayman vehicles. This is truly irresponsible reporting. I know first-hand about these structures, and they are completely legitimate. There is NOTHING unethical about this as the article's innuendo implies. This is legitimate, ethical, and the responsible thing for Bain to do for its investors. The motive for doing this is exactly as they explained. The corporations that Bain invests in pay their corporate taxes. The partners at Bain pay taxes. The investors in Bain pay taxes. They are helping their investors avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains. A foreign investor in say... Germany can buy a US company stock in Germany on the stock exchange. The US company will pay its taxes, so the IRS gets everything it is due. The German stockholder is ONLY liable for capital gains taxes in Germany, not the US. Now for a fund like Bain, they have investors in many countries. If Bain sets up a US corporation, LLC, or Partnership as the holding vehicle for all of their investors, then every investor will be subject to US capital gains taxes - even if they have no business, presence, or operation in the US. Then they will also have to pay their taxes in their homeland. This is ONLY because of using a US holding company. If the German investor invested directly through a German company, they would not be subject to US capital gains taxes. It isn't practical for a company like Bain to set up hundreds of holding companies for each country that they have an investor from, so they set it up in a tax jurisdiction that is neutral such as the Caymans. That way Bain doesn't have to set up hundreds of holding vehicles, and foreign investors who WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY US TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS ANYWAY can all invest through one vehicle. This is to reduce the number of necessary entities and avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains, not to avoid taxes period.


Being a CPA, I know that dividends and capital gains are taxes at a 15% tax rate, What this article fails to mention is that this income comes from corporations that pay 35% in income taxes. Therefore the effective rate of this income is closer to 50%.

The entire idea was to slime Romney enough so that Gingrich either won South Carolina or finished a strong second and then unleash the interview from his ex-wife to take him out as well. Matt Drudge simply forced them to unleash it prematurely..not that it mattered to the media. CNN's John King's opening question in last night debate was to ask Newt Gingrich to respond to his ex-wife's recent television interview describing his desire for an open marriage. Gingrich's response:

GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.(APPLAUSE)

KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?

GINGRICH: Let me finish.

KING: Please.

GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (APPLAUSE)

My two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. (APPLAUSE)

KING: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not -- I get your point. I take your point.

GINGRICH: John -- John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it. (APPLAUSE)

Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.

I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

Actually, they're already getting around to Rick Santorum, alleging that his wife had an affair with an abortionist before the Santorum's marriage - as if that has any place in a presidential campaign. They will not go after Ron Paul in great detail, and I've already explained to you why.

Meanwhile, hardly anyone in the dinosaur media has any interest in exploring Fast and Furious, Solyndra and the other Green Energy scams. Or President Obama's relationship with the Nation of Islam, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour and Edward Said, or his corrupt deals with people like jailed bagman Tony Rezco, Big Pharma and a host of others.

With few exceptions, they aren't journalists in any sense 0f the word. They aren't even commentators for the most part, because commentators of whatever viewpoint usually attempt to present things honestly from their own viewpoints.

They're just campaign operatives in masquerade, following marching orders from upstairs including from the White House. They're simply bought and paid for whores, with the exception that a whore generally provides value for money.

They're worthy of no respect or consideration whatsoever, and it's about time people let them know about it, and often.

Bombshell - Newt's Ex-Wife Marianne Unloads On Camera

Drudge has the story...

Newt Gingrich's ex wife Marianne apparently has done a tell-all two hour interview with ABC's Brian Ross about her marriage to Gingrich. That would be wife number two, the one he was having an affair with when wife number one had cancer and the one he ditched while he was having an affair with number three, Callista. Talk about flip flopping!

You had to know all along this was going to surface, and not at a good time. Marianne has said she could end Gingrich's career with one interview, and this one may be it. They were married 19 years, and to add insult to injury, Newt actually tried to have the marriage annulled!

Here's another nifty bit from the same 2010 Esquire interview, after Marianne found out about Newt's ongoing affair with Callista:

She kind of guessed it, of course. Women usually do. But did she know the woman was in her apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed?

She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. “‘I can’t handle a Jaguar right now.’ He said that many times. ‘All I want is a Chevrolet.’”

He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.

He’d just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he’d given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.

The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, “How do you give that speech and do what you’re doing?”

“It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered. “People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”

Newt Gingrich is obviously taking it pretty seriously - he cancelled a press conference to try and work something out with her,but if the interview's already on tape there's no way ABC won't run it.

According to Drudge, there was a pretty huge dust up within ABC about whether to air it before or after the South Carolina primary, and the Network tentatively decided to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.

This could mean we have a situation where Gingrich finishes well, but ultimately implodes once America gets to hear what Gingrich's ex has to say.

Politico, on the other hand, is saying it's going to air tomorrow - right before the debate. That makes a great deal more sense, but we'll see.

The ancient Greeks said that character is destiny. We may be about to see that reaffirmed shortly.

Why Gingrich Got A Standing O

The always scintillating James Taranto has a good piece on why GOP candidate Newt Gingrich's smackdown of Juan Williams in the last South Carolina debate went over as well as it did. Here's a slice:

The live-audience reaction to Republican presidential debates is a matter of great public significance--so great that even the president of the United States takes time out from his duties to evaluate it. We anxiously await President Obama's comment on what, as far as we know, is a first in the history of presidential debates: a standing ovation.

It happened at last night's debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., which was sponsored by Fox News Channel and The Wall Street Journal. FoxNewsInsider.com describes the exchange that prompted it:

Juan Williams questioned Newt Gingrich about his recent comments that black Americans should "demand jobs, not food stamps," and that Obama is a "Food Stamp President." When asked if he could see why these comments might be insulting to African-Americans, Gingrich said flatly, "No, I don't see that."

He then went onto [sic] propose a janitorial program that would allow students to do light janitorial work while continuing their studies, paying them and teaching them the value of work. He said that they would be earning money, "which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise earning money."

Williams then pressed, suggesting that Gingrich's comments, including references to President Obama as a "Food Stamp President," were intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.

Gingrich responded, "The fact is more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history."

He proclaimed, "I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job."

One might ask: What's race got to do with it? An essay carrying that title appeared on the New York Times website two days before the debate, but the question turned out not to be rhetorical. The author, Lee Siegel, was writing about Mitt Romney's campaign, not Gingrich's, but there is a clarifying resonance between his piece and Gingrich's response to Williams.

Siegel writes that "Mitt Romney is the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory." That sounds like a promising start to a Chris Rock comedy riff, but Siegel means it as a serious thesis.

Read the rest here.

Tonight's Debate: The Palmetto Ping Pong Match

Four of the five GOP candidates obviously had a mission tonight, and it wasn't to tell Republicans how they were going to defeat Obama - it was to try and derail Mitt Romney,the front runner.

I doubt they gained much ground.

One positive thing is that this particular debate was moderated by FOX, so partisan antics by the likes of people like George Stephanopoulos were mercifully absent and a much more professional atmosphere ensued.

Newt Gingrich quite correctly caught some heat from Bret Baier about the anti-capitalist attacks on Romney, but also managed to get off a number of good lines, especially when Juan Williams tried to play the race card and accused Gingrich of belittling minorities for suggesting that poor, young kids be paid for "light janitorial work" at school.

Gingrich replied, "No, I don't see that."

"They'd be getting money, which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise earning money," he said to tremendous applause.

Romney continued to be basically untouched, and continued to concentrate on taking on President Obama.

"I know the Democrats are going to be showing videos of, you know, old people being thrown off cliffs and so forth. But don't forget who it was that cut Medicare by $500 billion, and that was President Obama to pay for Obamacare."

He also did a decent job of defending himself from the expected Bain Capital attacks.

Rick Perry accused Bain of coming into Georgetown, S.C., closing a steel mill and said Bain had "..picked that company over, and a lot of people lost jobs there", Romney replied that Bain had actually invested in two steel mills and invested for seven or eight years, but that the mills closed because of foreign competition which killed their business.

"Ultimately, what happened from abroad, dumping steel into this country, led to some 40 different steel mills being closed," Romney said. "I understand what happens when China cheats, or when others cheat and dump products into this country. That's one of the reasons I'm running, is to make sure we crack down on cheaters."

It's not so much cheating as the problem of unionized American steelworkers competing with Chinese labor, but he's essentially correct and Bain's steel mills weren't the only ones affected.

Romney defended his record at Bain, saying he invested in more than 100 businesses and had an overall successful record of job creation, which is normally what happens when businesses thrive.

"If people want to have someone who understands how the economy works, having worked in the real economy, then I'm the guy who can best post up against Barack Obama," he said.

The only two points were Romney was rocked back for a second concerned calls from Rick Perry and Rick Santorum for him to release his tax records,and accusations that he had failed to challenge a Massachusetts law that that allowed convicted felons to vote while still on parole.

Romeny's answer to the first was that he'd likely get around to doing it eventually, and to the second that he was faced with a state legislature that was 85% Democrat and realized it was a no win situation.

An interesting head to head occurred between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, of all people when Paul cited Santorum's record of voting for raising the national deficit, supporting Sarbanes-Oxley banking laws and voting against right-to-work labor laws, a particular sore point in South Carolina after the dust up over Boeing wanting to relocate jobs here. Santorum accused Paul of quoting left wing Soros backed sources for his information, but didn't really effectively dent them as untrue.

Overall, I don't think anyone particularly did any damage to Romney,although Newt Gingrich may have done himself some good in putting himslef back to the front - by a nose- of the anti-Romney forces.

Rick Santorum looked just uneven enough to give Gingrich the edge, and a lot of what came out tonight about Ron Paul's stance on the military will not play well in South Carolina, although his claim that taxes should be lowered to zero certainly raised a cheer.

Last Night's Debate - 'Moderator' Stephanopoulos Does His Bit For Obama

Last night's debate in New Hampshire was most notable for proving once again that Republicans and especially conservative Republicans should avoid the dinosaur media like the plague.

Last night's debate was hosted by ABC, and moderated by George Stephanopoulos - ex-campaign operative, Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy and press spin jockey for President Bill Clinton, who walked into his job with ABC as soon as he resigned from the White House.

Stephanopoulos' 'moderating' lacked even a semblance of objectivity or journalistic ethics as he fired over the top broadsides , often hypothetical ones at the GOP candidates to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he got an early morning call from the White House beforehand. Here's a sample:

“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”

“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”

Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.

In another line of questioning, Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he believes “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Romney responded by questioning Stephanopoulos’ logic and his choice to raise a hypothetical situation that would never happen.

“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.

Stephanopoulos, undeterred, pressed Romney again: “I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”

Amid a chorus of “boos” from the audience, Romney again parried the impossible hypothetical.

“George, I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception,” Romney responded. “No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not, is kind of a silly thing, I think.”

Stephanopoulos also took shots at the other candidates, notably Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. And he deliberately encouraged the candidates to squabble among themselves rather than actually doing what a moderator is supposed to do, keep things on track and on topic. I'm sure that pleased the Obama campaign no end.

Oh, I hear what you're thinking...'hey,George Stephanopoulos is a human being,he has his views, you can't expect him to shut them off.'

Actually, that's exactly what I expect, from him and anyone else in the media who bills themselves as journalists and news professionals rather than commentators or opinion writers.

Tell me, when you go to work in an office, in a factory, or a business environment do you make a point of trumpeting your politics? Do you let them affect your job performance? Let's say you're Democrat plumber whose boss sends you on a job, you make a point of talking politics with the customer and modify your charges and your performance based on their ideology. How long do you think you'd stay employed?

The same thing is true in most work environments...with the exception of academia,Hollywood and the dinosaur media, where voicing conservative views can impact your employment prospects unless you're too well established and entrenched to touch.

A detached, balanced and non-biased attitude ought to be the standard in broadcast news and journalism, and it used to be, at least on the surface. Not any more. If George Stephanopoulos received any negative feedback from his employers at ABC for his performance, it was for not being more subtle about it.

That's exactly why the stocks, the readers and the audience are plummeting at the dinosaur media papers and the alphabet networks, and why the internet, talk radio and FOX, whose motto 'Fair and Balanced' is exemplified by their having Democrat Chris Wallace as their main anchor are seeing their readership and audiences surge. Since the dinosaur media's whitewash of President Obama, more and more people simply aren't drinking the Kool-ade anymore.

If I were running, I wouldn't even go near a debate like this. I think NewtGingrich had a decent idea of making these things Lincoln -Douglas style, with no moderator but a timekeeper and the candidates forced to think on their feet to counter each other's arguments. At the very least, I wouldn't go near one sponsored by the alphabet networks unless I badly needed exposure.

As for the rest of the debate, it was notable that once again, no one has really been able to lay a glove on Mitt Romney. There were a few attempts, mainly by Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, mainly focusing on Romney's changes in his positions and his time at Bain Capital, but they didn't really seem to do much damage and seemed fairly ineffectual.

The primary is Tuesday, and Romney is expected to win. It will be interesting to see how Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum end up finishing as we proceed on to South Carolina.

ADDENDUM: Hugh Hewitt notes that the execrable David Gregory did exactly the same thing that Stephanopoulos did last night in the NBC debate Gregory 'moderated' this Sunday morning.

No question in my mind now that this was coordinated from the White House. Disgraceful.

Summing Up Iowa

The Iowa Caucus has come and gone.

The results were a virtual photo finish between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, but the real winner of course was Rick Santorum.

I say that because Santorum managed to come up on top with a shoestring campaign that spent a fraction of what his opponents did in Iowa, and he did it in spite of being largely marginalized in the debates. He did it in a way that you can really only do in a small state like Iowa - using shoe leather and rental car miles. Like Mike Huckabee before him, Rick Santorum triumphed in Iowa because a lot of people had a chance to meet him and liked what they saw.

Also working in his favor was the high percentage of social conservatives in Iowa and the fact that his rivals imploded. In the end, it came down to a choice between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

Despite various naysayers, the fact that Mitt Romney did as well as he did in a Midwestern state loaded with evangelicals and social conservatives says something about his relatively broad appeal to various factions. He wasn't supposed to win here, and he actually devoted very little time in Iowa until the last weeks, when polls showed him near the top of the field.

As I wrote on these pages long ago, a significant part of this election after three plus years of Barack Obama is going to be about competency, and Mitt Romney definitely comes across as a competent candidate whom could actually perform well in the Oval Office.

Both Romney and Santorum now proceed to New Hampshire with very different challenges.

Rick Santorum has to raise enough money based on his Iowa finish to put together a campaign organization capable of taking him to the next level. If he doesn't, he simply won't go much further. He also needs to be able to adjust his message sufficiently to appeal to voters more concerned with the economy than social conservative issues.

And finally, Santorum is no longer going to be marginalized as a candidate, with all that implies. He's going to be getting greater scrutiny, and he's going to be a target. How he deals with that will make or break his candidacy. The atacks have already started with the meme in a number of quarters that he's a 'big government conservative.' He is in the sense that like almost everyone else in the GOP fold he believes in a strong national defense,border security, and a sound fiscal and trade policy. He doesn't if you translate it as 'welfare state', which is what it really means today.

Mitt Romney's challenge will be to build on his success. This is going to be a little trickier than it sounds. While Mitt Romney will undoubtedly do well in new Hampshire, he will face increased media scrutiny and is likely to face visceral attacks by Newt Gingrich,who is embittered over his showing in Iowa after leading in the pols there at one point, and blames a series of negative ads run bu a pro-Romney super-PAC.

Anyone whom saw Gingrich's speech last night knows there's blood in the water. I would even say it's to the point where Gingrich, historically a bomb thrower, cares less about winning the White House at this point than he does about doing his best to destroy Mitt Romney. That and trying to hold on until South Carolina and attempt to eke out a win there is pretty much what remains of Newt Gingrich's strategy,and we'll see it unveiled in New Hampshire in the debates and in Newt Gingrich's ads.

Gingrich will also try to contrast himself as the 'Reagan conservative' he isn't as opposed to 'liberal' Romney.

Mitt Romney's challenge will be to defend himself forcefully while not going over the line into anger and tit for tat infighting.

Rick Perry, after a disappointing fourth place finish will probably be looking at South Carolina as his firewall. If he's unable to make a decent showing there, he will likely drop out.

The biggest loser of course was Ron Paul. Due to Iowa's caucus rules, this was probably his best chance to make a decent showing. He bet all his chips on it, and lost.

Iowa's third place finish, well behind Romney and Santorum is probably the best he's going to do in the primaries, although he will continue to be a force in the campaign. His real goal is to be a spoiler and set up things for a third party run.

The State Of The GOP Race

In this most interesting of election years, the Republican race remains oddly unsettled.

With real unemployment (as opposed to the far less realistic 'official' U-3 unemployment rate) hovering at between 13& and 15% and the president's approval ratings in the low forties, 2012 was largely seen as the GOP's to lose.

Instead, we're seeing something far different as a large number of Republican voters - some estimates are as high as one third - remain dissatisfied with the GOP field as they view the debates and approach the Iowa caucus.

A major part of the sour flavor of the current race comes from the fact that many people who identify themselves as conservatives and Tea Party adherents don't feel like they have a real dog in the fight, especially since Sarah Palin decided not to run.

The race has come down various attempts to try to find a 'not-Romney' just as I predicted; each not-Romney has had their moment in the sun and been revealed as disappointingly less than perfect. Let's look at them in turn:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann came into the race with solid Tea Party credentials. Given her intelligence, high principles and charisma, for awhile it appeared that she might be able to pick up a lot of Sarah Palin's support. Unfortunately, the fact that she's only been in public life for four years was underlined by a number of unfortunate gaffes and her own admission that she 'should have Googled Ed Rollins' before making the unforced error of hiring him as her campaign manager. Between that early false start and her remarks about an unidentified child getting cancer from a common vaccine, she may simply not be ready for prime time yet. Her results in Iowa are going to say a great deal about her future prospects.

Ex-Senator Rick Santorum brought conservative principles and character into to race and a decent knowledge of foreign policy and national security issues, but he's been handcuffed by two things; his 18 point loss for re-election in Pennsylvania has convinced a lot of people he would be unable to win against President Obama, and his insistence on talking about conservative social issues is not exactly what people want to hear just now.In addition, his persona and speaking style seem to lend itself to being overshadowed by the more high profile candidates. Unlike some of the others, he's never had his moment in the sun yet. His showing in Iowa is also going to say a great deal about his future prospects.

Former Governor and Ambassador John Huntsman - yes, he's in the race too - is actually perhaps a better candidate than some people realize. Not exactly a man with the 'conservative' label associated with him, he nevertheless has some common sense stands on economic matters and on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to China, where he served as our ambassador. However that service, performed at the behest of President Obama has hurt his candidacy, and it's been difficult for him to get traction.

Texas Governor Rick Perry originally seemed like the 'anyone but Romney' dream candidate. To some, I'm sure he still is. Not only did he seem to have a solid reputation as a conservative, but he was the longest serving governor in the US - and the one with by far the best record on job creation. He surged in the polls as soon as he got in the race.

And then, the debates happened.

Not only did they reveal a position on illegal aliens that was sharply at variance with most of the GOP base, but they revealed that he simply was lousy in a debate format period. Perry's failure to name three government departments he would shut down after thumping his chest and announcing it has to rank as one of the most embarrassing gaffes in political history.

While his last couple of outings have been somewhat better, the image of him as a gaffe-prone, fumbling, pro-illegal immigration candidate who might be severely challenged to beat Barack Obama is going to be difficult to erase.

Congressman Ron Paul remains the bête noire of the Republican Party, a paleo-conservative who appeals to what could best be characterized as the diminishing Pat Buchanan, isolationist America Firster wing of the Republican Party.

He holds the distinction of being the one Republican candidate certain to cause a massive Republican crossover vote in favor of President Obama. In fact, as I mentioned before, President Obama and his handlers realize it too, which I think accounts for the sudden respect Paul in getting from the Obama Administration's media allies as well as Paul's higher profile and financial clout.

Paul may actually win the Iowa caucus, which is not an actual primary but amounts to getting one's foot soldiers out into the January snow in sufficient numbers to dominate the caucus voting. He has a very slim chance of actually getting the GOP nomination, but I think there's an excellent chance he may surface as a third party candidate in an attempt to siphon off a few Republican votes.

I group Speaker Newt Gingrich and Governor Mitt Romney together because in many ways they belong together, aside from being the two presumptive front runners. Both are, essentially, big government types, albeit leaning towards the conservative side. Both are known for changing their views frequently on issues like global warming, cap and trade, various social conservative issues and mandated government run healthcare among others. Both have performed well enough in the debates to appear 'presidential'. Both would likely operate as Theodore Roosevelt-style Republicans rather than as conservatives.

Both Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich have their own set of advantages and disadvantages.

Governor Romney has the executive experience of running a state Newt Gingrich lacks, Unfortunately, his signature achievement while governor of Massachusetts was state mandated healthcare, the direct ancestor of ObamaCare. The Massachusetts plan has been an abysmal failure, and Romney has continued to be associated with it because he's refused to plainly label it as such.

Governor Romney also has the executive experience of being a successful businessman who created jobs and wealth in the private sector. Even his missionary experience as a Mormon comes into play, where he performed with grit and determination amid difficult circumstances and rose to become the head of Mormon missionary activities in France.

Governor Romney also has the distinction, to my mind at least, of giving serious thought to international affairs and national security issues. And he's attracted a top notch group of A-list advisers in these matters because of it.

His main drawbacks? Aside from his association with the Massachusetts health plan, he has the problem of being known as the governor of a very left leaning Northeast blue state at a time when the GOP's strength is concentrated in the South, West and Midwest. His 'likeability ' factor remains in question, with Governor Romney still polling in the 20's among his own party in spite of months of campaigning. And because of his personal wealth, he's an ideal target for the sort of class warfare campaign President Obama will unleash. Nevertheless, as respectable conservative pundits like Ann Coulter have said, he might be the best thing going so far.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has the advantage of being demonstrably bright and quick on his feet mentally. Many of his supporters associate him with his time as Speaker of the House during the Clinton Administration, the last time Big Government was actually shrunken a bit. Even before that , Gingrich and a few outspoken supporters challenged the status quo in Congress, and eventually delivered a GOP House majority in 1996 that forced changes in how things were done in Washington.

On the minus side,there are also people who remember the arrogant, impulsive, loose cannon side of Gingrich's persona as Speaker, including a number of people who worked with him in Congress. It's an open question as to whether that side of his mercurial personality has changed to the point he would be an effective president.

There's also Gingrich's rather colorful and complicated personal life and his long history as a Washington insider that are going to give a great many people pause when it comes to voting for him as president.

Frankly, there isn't anyone in the above list who has so far excited the Republican base. It remains to be seen if any of the above can overcome their drawbacks and rise above the field.

Not surprisingly, there have been more than a few noises abou tother candidates getting into the race. Because of the way this year's GOP primary schedule is set up, it's actually quite possible that a new candidate could jump in, as Sarah Palin pointed out.

For that matter, from a very different part of the political spectrum , no less than former Florida governor Jeb Bush sounded off with an article on conservatism that could very much be seen as a testing of the waters.

Politics, like nature in general abhors a vacuum. It remains to be seen if that vacuum gets filled from someone who's already in the ring or from someone new from out side it.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Newtzilla To The Rescue?

That's the title of an interesting piece today by Jonah Goldberg:

"How do we stop Newt?"

I've now been asked that question by a lot of conservatives. It's not that I'm the go-to guy for that sort of question. Rather, one gets the sense that many "establishment" conservatives are asking everybody that question — in staff meetings, at the chiropodist, even at the McDonald's drive-through.

The other night while having drinks with some prominent conservatives, I said I thought there was a significant chance that Gingrich will not only win the nomination but that he might be the next president. Going by their expressions, I might as well have said I put a slow-acting poison in their cocktails.

Not surprising then that there are more knives out for Gingrich than in a Ginsu infomercial. For instance, former New Hampshire Gov. John H. Sununu has been nurturing a grievance against Gingrich since he was White House chief of staff in 1990. For two decades he's been like Inigo Montoya in "The Princess Bride." "Hello, my name is John Sununu. You destroyed my boss' presidency; prepare to die."

But Sununu's barbs bounce off Gingrich, as has George Will's more brutal rhetorical artillery fire. Conventional weapons are useless against Newtzilla.

First, what are you going to say about the guy that people don't already know? Just as it's OK to speak openly about the fact that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father, Gingrich's backstory provides no spoilers. Herman Cain was undone because people were still forming their first impressions of him. Everything bad about Gingrich — the flip-flops, the wives, the ego — is known. Once voters have convinced themselves they can overlook that stuff, it's hard to change their minds simply by repeating it.

Moreover, conservative voters distrust the conservative establishment — variously defined — almost as much as they distrust the liberal establishment (that's why David Brooks, the notoriously moderate New York Times columnist, leveled the most vicious charge he could against Gingrich: He touted their similarities!)

Also, Gingrich benefits enormously by being the last obvious "not-Romney" candidate. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Cain were all well to Gingrich's right, and many voters assume that Gingrich is being attacked for the same reason that his not-Romney predecessors were.

But the stop-Newt forces are not synonymous with the stop-Bachmann/Perry forces. The conservative establishment knows Gingrich, or at least thinks it does. The insiders worry that Bachmann and Perry aren't smart enough or can't beat President Obama. The stop-Newters have no doubts about how smart Gingrich is.

Goldberg goes on to assess what a Gingrich presidency might be like, which he characterizes as high risk, high return. Read the rest here.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Newt Doubles Down On 'Palestinians' Remarks:"Enough Lying About The Middle East"

One of my absolute favorite moments of last nights debate...especially since it was a response not only to ABC's talking heads but to 'anti-Zionist' Ron Paul. And note how the audience responded to Gingrich's smackdown!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Last Night's Debate - The War Zone

Yes, I watch these things so you don't have to.

With the Iowa caucus just around the corner, the potential GOP nominees were a lot more contentious and in attack mode than at any of the debates thus far.

As you might expect,most of the fire was directed at perceived front runner Newt Gingrich, which Mitt Romney also taking a few hits as some of the candidates a little lower in the polls saw this as a chance to damage the front runners and gain traction.

Michele Bachmann was particularly outspoken, since she's devoted a great deal of time, energy and resources to Iowa. A poor showing here would damage her quite a bit, since her support and presence in New Hampshire is fairly low key.

Speaking of attacks, I frankly have had it with Rick Perry. Previously, he refused to repute a bigoted, anti-Mormon supporter of his until pressed, and even then I felt it was halfhearted. Last night, he attacked Newt Gingrich in a particularly nasty and personal way, saying you can’t trust people who violate their marriage vows -- vows made, as he said, not only with one’s spouse but also with G-d. "That’s even stronger than a handshake in Texas".

Gingrich does have some issues here, everyone knows it and he's been fairly candid about it. But to attack him in that fashion on nationwide TV was cowardly and beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.

It drew some criticism in certain quarters, but I personally thought it was just wonderful when Mitt Romney, attacked by Perry about a supposed revision in Romney's book stuck out his hand to Perry and bet him a cool $10,000 that Perry was dead wrong. The look on Perry's face when he turned away and said "I'm not in the betting business' was priceless. It was almost as good as his brain freeze the other night when he was challenged to name the three government departments he had been thumping his chest about closing down and then couldn't even name them.

Hopefully Perry will be riding off into the sunset after Iowa.

Mitt Romney also tried to attack Newt Gingrich, and didn't do so well at it.

Trying to explain his differences with Gingrich, he ticked off a whole series of issues, but the big difference he tried to capitalize on was the idea of Gingrich as a career politician and Washington insider.

“We don’t need folks who are lifetime Washington people to get this country out of the mess it’s in,” Romney said. “We need people from outside Washington, outside K Street.”

Gingrich's response? “Let’s be candid,” he said. “The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994. . . . You’d have been a 17-year career politician if you’d won.”

The candidate who actually made took the best shots at the two front runners was Michele Bachmann. She focused on the likenesses between both of them and got in some very good shots.

Rick Santorum also had a fairly good night of it, with a message that seemed focused on Iowa caucus voters. People who used to support Herman Cain or have soured on Newt Gingrich need a place to go, and Santorum seemed to concentrate on reassuring them that he was a safe place to land.

Bottom line? Newt Gingrich seemed to shrug off most of what was thrown at him, although it's going to be hard to tell. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum may have advanced their chances a notch, although whether it will be enough to keep going after Iowa remains to be seen.

One important caveat about Iowa...it's a caucus not a primary. Rather than actual votes, it's a contest to see which candidate is better at mobilizing his or her troops on the ground, getting them to the caucus meetings and then having them take over the meetings once they're there.Which is why no one should be surprised to see a marginal candidate like Ron Paul do well there.

By the way, I'll have some interesting news on Ron Paul a bit later that sheds a lot of light on things.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!