CHEERS AND JEERS AT THE DEBATE

Florida was the best debate yet!  Every candidate did well.  The crowd was very much engaged.  It was the first debate that was actually fun to watch.  If you missed it, here is the CNN video.

When Gingrich walked in he was greeted loudly with a combination of boos and cheers.  Nothing could be more appropriate for a man of his controversy.  The audience was listening, thinking and objective.  They voiced their approval or disapproval according to the substance of the statements made, not according to who it was that made them

Who won?  They all did.  The in-fighting damage was done well before this debate.  However, this time the responses were high caliber and right on the mark.  Every candidate looked strong and got an enthusiastic response from the audience when they liked what he said.  Each one also felt the barbs of disapproval when they stepped out of line.  Gingrich won the least, but they all won because they made their party look good (let’s make that ‘look better’).

Nonetheless, it is still a ‘stuck with’ list.

.

CHINA’S SECRET FOR SUCCESS

Thomas Friedman, a thoroughly honorable man of the left, champions China from the pages of the New York Times in the same way his predecessor Walter Duranty did of Stalinist Russia from the pages of the same newspaper.  Duranty denied Stalin’s atrocities; Friedman ignores China’s lack of human rights.  Friedman argues that we could solve our economic problems if only we would do as China does.

Here is a glimpse of how China does.

In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad   New York Times Jan 26, 2012

The explosion ripped through Building A5 on a Friday evening last May, an eruption of fire and noise that twisted metal pipes as if they were discarded straws….Two people were killed immediately, and over a dozen others hurt. As the injured were rushed into ambulances, one in particular stood out. His features had been smeared by the blast, scrubbed by heat and violence until a mat of red and black had replaced his mouth and nose.

[Workers must submit to] onerous work environments and serious — sometimes deadly — safety problems.

Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple’s products, and the company’s suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste…

More troubling, the groups say, is some suppliers’ disregard for workers’ health. Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77.

There is a Laffer curve for regulation.  No one has ever drawn one but one surely does exist.  Total regulation would stifle an economy and there would be no prosperity.  No regulation would be destructive to humanity and there would be no prosperity.  Somewhere in between, the curve peaks.  We are on the right side of the slope (over-regulation) and trending down.  If you want to know where China is, ask Tom Friedman.  But be prepared; he may not know.  He may not have thought about it.

Bob B

GINGRICH and the ‘STUCK WITH’ REPUBLICANS

The more you hear Gingrich speak, the more you like him, if you are a conservative.  The more you learn about him and his history, the less you like him, if you are a conservative.  Some highly placed Republicans who are in a position to know him very well are absolutely certain he could never win the general election.  Nonetheless, it looks like Republican voters are either stuck with him, or stuck with Romney, or stuck with one of the others lower down the heap.

The Republican Party is an embarrassment.  Look who they offered to the voters since Reagan.  They put up Bob Dole to unseat Bill Clinton.  No contest.  For a Bush they gave us George instead of Jeb.  G.W. is a fine man, but Jeb was presidential material.  And then came John McCain.  He ran on the Republican ticket, I think.

Today the Party has such stalwarts as Rubio, Christie, Pawlenty, Thune, Jindal, Paul Ryan and more.  Just when we need to be choosing a candidate from such a grand list, we are given another list from which we must pick the name we would least mind being stuck with.  The Republicans best hope is a brokered convention.


 

THE NEW YORK TIMES ON DAVOS

The World Economic Forum is once again in cession in the posh town of Davos, Switzerland.  Today’s New York Times covers the conference with a story under the headline At Davos, a Big Issue Is the Have-Lots vs. the Have-Not.  The headline is right out of Alinsky, including the hyphens.

Believe it or not, I did not come here today to find fault with the New York Times.  I came to talk about bias; it’s just that taking examples from the Times was the easy way out.  Bias is the most insidious bias when it is subtle.  It is also very effective because from any given source it is usually incessant. Let’s examine this sentence taken from the Davos arcticle.

“[The income gap now is] debated openly in areas where the primacy of laissez-faire capitalism used to be taken for granted and where talk of inequality used to be derided as class warfare.”  (emphasis mine)

Laissez-faire” is from the French where it means ‘let it happen’.  In economics it has come to mean that level of market freedom  which is free-wheeling, devoid of any meaningful regulation, a little bit reckless.  Later in the same sentence we read ‘used to be derided as class warfare’.  Removing the subtleties what we get are the notions that free-wheeling unregulated markets with minimal regulation are  the essence (primacy) of capitalism and that there is general agreement that pitting the poor against the rich is not an act of class warfare (used to deride).

And what about that word ‘inequality’ in there.  In the context of the broad subject at hand it carries with it the connotation of unfairness.

The phrasing of a sentence in that manner comes easily to a liberally minded journalist and he would disclaim any bias in it.  But you saw it.  Or did you?  I told you it was subtle.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD OLD DEMOCRATS GONE?


“Keep America American” may not be a very catchy slogan, but who can condemn the goal of seeking to preserve the great American culture?  Chris Matthews can and did when he characterized the Mitt Romney slogan as calling for a return of the days of the Ku Klux Klan.  Apparently, Matthews’ opinion of his country is the same as that of a certain Reverend from a certain Black Liberation Theology church in Chicago.  There once was a time when Democrats and Republicans alike were equally and unabashedly proud of their country and clearly pro-American.  Sadly, this is no longer the case.

Michelle Obama said she was never proud to be an American until her husband won the nomination of the Democratic Party and promised to transform America into something it never was.  There once was a time when this alone would have doomed his candidacy.  Sadly, this is no longer the case.

On September 11, 2001 the United States was viciously attacked by an external enemy.  Like Pearl; Harbor, it came as a surprise and killed approximately the same number of people.  Like Pearl Harbor, the nation came together, united around a common foe.  But it was different this time.  Some first responders refused to ride in fire trucks that displayed the American flag.  Some apartment dwellers brought action against their neighbors for hanging the flag from their windows.  A high school student proudly turned her back on the flag and remained silent as the rest of her class recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

There was a time when a proliferation of such anti-American incidents would not have followed an event like 911.  Sadly, this is no longer the case.

These attitudes are rare among Republicans.  They seem to come almost entirely from the Democratic side.  Where are the good old Democrats who loved their land and wanted to improve it, not transform it?  Where are you?  The radicals have stolen your party.  Stand up and take it back.  Your country needs you.

GINGRICH 40 ROMNEY 27. THERE GOES THE RANCH?

Where is the fat lady and when is she going to sing?  We want this to be over.  But more importantly, we want the choice to be a winner in November.

There is a school of thought that says conservatives will stay home and not vote if the nominee is Romney.  We don’t buy it.  Too much is at stake in this one and conservatives know it.  The risk with Romney is the risk of losing independents who do not share the strong aversion to Obama that is felt by voters who are clearly on the right.  Still, Republicans are likely to win with Romney.

Gingrich is another story entirely.  There is no doubt that his debating skills are far superior to Romney’s.  Newt is tough; he is beyond intimidation and his style at the podium is refreshing to a long frustrated audience.  His message plays very well to conservatives with short memories.  But can he win in November?

John Hinderaker at Power Line blog doesn’t give Gingrich give a chance.

It is hard to make clear-cut statements about the mercurial and often contradictory Gingrich, but one thing we can say with absolute certainty: he will never be President of the United States.

[I]f there is anyone who ought to be broadly acceptable to conservatives, it is Romney. Certainly not Gingrich, with his earmarks, his disfavor with the conservatives he led in the House in the 1990s, his career as a lobbyist, his support for Medicare Part D, his embrace of global warming dogma, and his attacks on private equity and even free enterprise itself. Republicans have flirted with a number of potentially bad choices this election season, but voting for Gingrich would be the worst of them.

Hinderaker makes a good case.  He should; he’s an attorney.  But the only thing we would “say with absolute certainty” is nothing is impossible in politics.  Didn’t we elect a community organizer whose goal was to socialize America and diminish her standing on the world stage?  Then surely we could elect a candidate whose goal is to reverse the socialization and to restore the nation’s standing internationally – no matter the baggage.

Now where in the world is that fat lady??

HERE IS WHY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOES NOT WANT NEWT TO WIN THE NOMINATION

Much has been said about how well Newt Gingrich would do in televised debates with Barack Obama.  However, most of the accolades come from observers in the conservative camp.  Moderates and independents who do not share Gingrich’s views are not as impressed by his quick and witty sound bite retorts.  The candidate also has more baggage than either Romney or Paul, and I guess we still need to include Santorum.

But the real reason the Republican Party is not behind Gingrich for the nomination is none of the above.  The prime reason is the general public doesn’t favor Gingrich over Obama and the Republican Party wants to win.

These polls gathered by The Washington Examiner tell the story.  The comparisons between Gingrich and Romney are stark.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

 

IF NEWT GETS THE NOD, THERE WILL BE WAR

From the New York Times

Gingrich Jousts With Rivals Ahead of Vote

By JIM RUTENBERG and JEFF ZELENY

Newt Gingrich turned aside questions about his marital history at the final Republican debate before the South Carolina primary, and then took on Mitt Romney

Turned aside ??  Good heavens and mercy me, Gingrich did not turn it aside; he threw it back in their face!  “and then he took on Romney”? No, New York Times, not quite.  And then he took on the press.  

Gingrich’s remarks were a virtual declaration of war on the media. When Ronald Reagan knocked the press he was polite.  Mild mannered George W. Bush didn’t knock the press.  You might say their styles were appeasement.  Newt’s style is war.

It was not MSNBC that he was attacking.  That network came fully out of the closet some time ago.  It was ABC and all the other left “leaning” media that some people, believe it or not, still think report the news objectively.  Gingrich has given a lot of people reason to pause and think. And that’s a good thing.

Click for video.

THE BOMBSHELL – MARIANNE ENDORSES NEWT

The bombshell was a dud.  Even Marianne said as much when she laughed at the thought when Brian Ross suggested it in the interview.

She talked on video for two hours to ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross, an edited version of which will be broadcast on Thursday night’s “Nightline,” and a transcript of which was released today. She laughed when told that some were reporting that she had a “bombshell,” and emphasized that many of her views of Newt Gingrich and his political positions are positive. 

That changes the picture a bit.  We were led to the Hell bound fury idea by ABC.  Shame on them and shame on us.  We have known for years that the networks sensationalize the weather. Why not politics?  We should have expected the bombshell to be all shell and no bomb.  Our post was on the right track but we apologize for the headline.

All this is not to say we approve of Newt Gingrich’s marital history; frankly it’s been a mess.

HELL HATH NO FURRY

MARIANNE GINGRICH

Marianne Gingrich has a story to tell. It’s an old story; we know that. Her fury is not shared by her step-daughters; we know that. ABC is making much hoopla preliminary to release of the story; we know that. The reported controversy at ABC headquarters has heightened interest in the story; we know that. Is the network’s controversy real or promotional? We don’t know that. Is Marianne’s story truthful or revengeful? There is every reason to believe it is the latter and that creates doubts about the former.

Newt Gingrich’s political career could be over if perchance he has done something really despicable, for instance something like cheating on his wife with a young subordinate on public property. And should he compound his image problem by showing ignorance of the fact that an oral genital union is an act of sex, he would surely be through. He is a Republican.