Much of the speech was indeed standard boilerplate from an incumbent President up for re-election. But, I think that I sensed more fire in the President's belly...
It was an evening chock full o' speeches. CNN projected the results around 8:00 p.m. and as the rest of the ballots were counted, each candidate trotted onto a stage to address their supporters...
Rush makes a strangely compelling argument for a non-Romney candidate to run against President Obama. For example, either one of the Ricks would be a 'new' candidate in the presidential race...
By the time I post this, there will have already been a dozen or more writers comparing the 2012 Santorum campaign with the 2008 Huckabee campaign, but it bears repeating. The parallels are uncanny...
Rather than wholly dismissing the First-In-The-Nation voting as being somehow 'lessened' by the result, isn't it possible that Republicans all over the county may take a second (or third) look at the Congressman from Texas?
Overall, there weren't any real winners or losers. Really, the only reason I watched this debate was because The Pajama Wife was out Christmas shopping with her mother.
Conservatism is not "already dying". The Tea Party folks have solidified the fact that -- whether you like them or not -- a truly grass-roots conservative movement is out there. And while I think that she was/is largely pandering to them, you have to give candidates like Michele Bachmann credit for at least trying to harness that monster.
So, going into the Reagan Library debate we had Rick Perry and Mitt Romney leading the pack. Afterward, I see things as being pretty much the same. I think Romney performed very well and would have "won" the debate if the entire ordeal had not focused so much attention on Perry.
For those of you who think that Republican "Candidate X will definitely be the nominee in 2012", I've got a metaphorical bucket of cold water to throw on your party: You are probably wrong.
If all we hear from the Obama campaign is "My opponent supports the failed policies that got us into this mess", the voters in this country will drop Obama the same way that he dropped his smoking habit.
Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.
The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.
But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
Heretofore, Ron Paul has maintained that he didn't have editorial control of the newsletters in question (for the long backstory, check out James Kirchick's 2008 article at The New Republic), and that the controversial material had been written by a 'ghost-writer'.
Over at OTB, Doug responds to the newest chapter in this saga:
One of the reasons that Paul gets a break on some of this stuff, is simply because of his steadfastness on issues of principles. I can certainly understand that, but at some point one has to stand up and denounce something that’s wrong, and Paul not only didn’t do that in the 1990s, he apparently consciously decided to appeal to it in order to make his business more profitable. Far be it from me to deny someone the right to make a profit, but when you do it by pandering to base racial hatreds you’ve got some questions to answer for it. Whether one believes in those ideas or not, providing voice to them is a tacit endorsement, especially if one if a former Congressman and Presidential candidate.
My emphasis.
This latest revelation will likely have very little, if any affect on his most ardent supporters. They are the 'true believers' who think that the political establishment is trying to silence their candidate-of-choice.
BUT, I think that cumulative effect of this story has single-handedly ruined Ron Paul's chances of higher office. He could still act as something of a kingmaker if the GOP primary goes to a brokered convention (which it won't), but any thoughts of a cabinet position -- much less a VP consideration -- are long gone.
Note to candidates for public office: comparing anything to slavery is a bad idea. Whether it's in a speech or in a campaign ad, people will not react well.
In fact, I would argue that it's up there with comparing your political opponent(s) with Adolf Hitler on the list of "things that you probably shouldn't do".
Seriously. One week ago, you were the darling of the Republican party. You stood up for yourself and swatted every attack that came your direction. By most accounts you won the debates in South Carolina, which (undoubtedly) carried you to a primary victory in the Palmetto State.
But last night, that candidate all-but disappeared.
I watched the 1,208,317th debate last night on CNN and I have to say Newt, you got clobbered by Mitt Romney. None of your attacks stuck. All of his rhetorical punches landed with a resounding 'thud'. Bruised and battered was your political appearance by the conclusion.
That's not to say that you didn't give it your best.
For example, this exchange with newsman and moderator Wolf Blitzer was priceless:
WOLF BLITZER: We're continuing the debate here in Jacksonville, Florida.
Let's get to the issue of transparency, because voters out there, they want to know as much about you four gentlemen as possible before they vote.
Tax returns - let me bring this to Speaker Gingrich.
Earlier this week, you said Governor Romney, after he released his taxes, you said that you were satisfied with the level of transparency of his personal finances when it comes to this. And I just want to reiterate and ask you, are you satisfied right now with the level of transparency as far as his personal finances?
NEWT GINGRICH: Wolf, you and I have a great relationship, it goes back a long way. I'm with [Rick Santorum]. This is a nonsense question. [APPLAUSE, CHEERS FROM CROWD] Look, how about if the four of us agree for the rest of the evening, we'll actually talk about issues that relate to governing America?
BLITZER: But, Mr. Speaker, you made an issue of this, this week, when you said that, "He lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts." I didn't say that. You did.
GINGRICH: I did. And I'm perfectly happy to say that on an interview on some TV show. But this is a national debate, where you have a chance to get the four of us to talk about a whole range of issues.
BLITZER: But if you make a serious accusation against Governor Romney like that, you need to explain that. [BOOS AND JEERS FROM CROWD]
Newt, you have the Republican audience eating conservative fruit right out of your hand! Fantastic! Now, bring it on home with a slam on the liberal media, and you'll have this thing all wrapped up, with a pretty bow on top!
Then, just when I thought that your fellow Republican candidates would help you pile-on Wolf Blitzer for asking "nonsense questions", Mitt Romney jumps in:
Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to defend here?
Damn.
That's where I think that the tide turned for you Newt.
There are lots of folks saying that last night's debate was your 'last chance' to make a stand Newt -- and I have to say that I am starting to agree. You surged upward in the polls last fall, then fell off. Last week, after some great debate performances and a strong finish in South Carolina's primary, you got another bounce in the polls, but have fallen off once again.
Unless there is some kind of game-changer (like, winning the Florida primary on Tuesday, for example), I really don't see how you come back again.
Time and time again, I have heard from those who support Newt Gingrich -- as well as from the former Speaker of the House himself -- that a chief reason for backing his candidacy in the Republican primary is his superior debating skill. Many a supporter has argued that Gingrich will be able to defeat Barack Obama in a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates (over which, you seem to be obsessed Newt). After your performance last night, I would LOVE to hear from Gingrich supporters regarding this theory. It seems to me that Mitt Romney debated circles around you Newt. And that is being generous.
On Wednesday, GOP12's Christian Heinze outlined the reasons that the 'Newt-As-A-Superior-Debater' argument simply doesn't work. And there are three very good reasons...
Look Newt, I'm not telling you how to run your show. Clearly, you are a far-more experienced politician than I. However, I would argue that your continued candidacy in the 2012 primary for the Republican nomination will not help the eventual nominee.
...if he has to sustain political advertisements like these:
Both of these ads are from Restore America's Future, Mitt Romney's SuperPAC. And man, they are effective.
As an independent, I cannot vote in the primary election in Pennsylvania. But if I could vote, and I had been subjected to a major ad-buy of this nature -- as I'm sure that the folks in Florida have -- there's no way that I would vote for Newt Gingrich.
Mitt Romney concedes to radio host Laura Ingraham that it will be a tough argument to get people to vote for a Republican if the economy continues to get stronger.
Here is the much talked-about back-and-forth:
LAURA INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?
MITT ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. There's never been a time anywhere in the world where an economy has never recovered. The question is, has it recovered by virtue of something the President's done or has he delayed the recovery and made it more painful?
The latter is, of course, the truth. The President's policies have made it, have made this recession deeper, and have made the recovery more tepid, more difficult on the American people. This is the worst recovery we've seen from a recession since Hoover. And President Obama wants to take credit for things getting better, he in fact has made things worse. He's made this recovery take much longer.
But will our economy get better someday? Of course it will, and it will not be thanks to the President Obama. It will be in spite of President Obama, and that's of course the message we have to give. If people think the right course for improving an economy is to massively expand debt and grow the government, well they can vote for Barack Obama. But, we know better.
INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?
ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? (laughs) It just happens to be the truth. We're going to see the numbers, in terms of how the economy does. It's very possible, by the way, that the economy will go into a decline again. I can't tell you that I can predict that's it going to get better. But I think at some point it's going to get better.
I have to say, it's probably the most surreal thing that I've heard any of the GOP candidates say thus far in the 2012 primary campaign -- and Gingrich has suggested an American moon-base by 2020.
I think that I can hear Newt Gingrich's opposition research team drooling....
"What has been said about Newt is pretty much true. He had to step down because Republicans, conservative Republicans, wouldn't vote for him again as Speaker. Because he's not really a conservative. I mean, he'll tell you what you want to hear. He has an uncanny ability, sort of like Clinton, to feel your pain and know his audience and speak to his audience and fire them up. But when he was speaker, he was erratic, undisciplined." -former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), in a radio interview with KTRH-AM in Houston, Texas.
I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.
Gingrich served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. By 1997 a number of House Republican members wanted to throw him out as Speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when Newt could read the writing on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.
Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. He loved picking a fight with President Clinton because he knew this would get the attention of the press. This and a myriad of other specifics like shutting down the government helped to topple Gingrich in 1998.
In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty bucket in his hand — that was a symbol of some sort for him — and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it, and I’m not certain he knew either.
The Democrats are spending millions of dollars running negative ads against Romney as they are hoping that Gingrich will be the nominee which could result in a landslide victory for Obama and a crushing defeat for Republicans from the courthouse to the White House. Democrats are not running ads against Gingrich which is further proof they want to derail Governor Romney.
In my opinion if we want to avoid a sweeping victory by Obama in November, Republicans should nominate Governor Romney as our standard bearer. He could win because he has the requisite experience in the public and private sectors. He would be a president in whom we could have confidence and he would make us proud.
I wonder if anyone will mention this in the debate tonight...
a. During Monday's debate, he said that he offered ABC "several" personal friends to dispute his ex-wife, Marianne's "open marriage" claims.
ABC said it received no such offer of personal friends, countering that Newt's daughters were the only ones offered and that they were, indeed, included in the story.
b. One day later, he repeated the "several" personal friends line to CNN and said it was "just plain baloney" when ABC denied Newt's claim.
c. Yesterday, Newt's spokesman finally fessed up, and admitted that the "several" personal friends were, simply, his two daughters, and nobody else.
If Mitt Romney's campaign doesn't capitalize on Newt's egregious error, they're stupid.
The argument doesn't have to be about Marianne Gingrich either. The argument that Romney -- or Santorum & Paul -- should make is that Newt is simply untrustworthy. Gingrich came out guns-a-blazin' at the CNN debate. He slammed John King and ABC News for their irresponsible reporting.
But it seems that Gingrich was the irresponsible one.
So, I meant to post my reaction to the State Of The Union address yesterday, but work responsibilities got in the way (don't you hate it when that happens?). It may be a day late, but it's definitely not a dollar short. 'Cause it's free, dummy.
Okay, the good news is: I didn't feel like the entire thing was one big campaign speech. Particularly at the beginning.
But, now that I've read the speech (as opposed to watching it) and am now writing about it, some of the remarks come across as more-than-a-bit campaign-y. But, in the moment on Tuesday evening, it didn't feel that way.
What I found to be the most interesting and compelling moments were in the first several minutes of the address. Particularly this bit:
Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.
In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.
It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.
Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.
The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.
No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.
This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.
My emphasis.
As the President started in with the "Let's remember how we got here...", I must admit that I was concerned that he was going to re-hash the 'failed policies of President Bush' talking points that, in essence, won Obama the 2008 election. At first this bothered me because, as I've talked about before, Americans aren't going to buy that argument this time around.
But when the President continued, "I will work with anyone in this chamber...", I started to worry less. While he was still hinting at 'remember, I inherited this mess' language, it seemed that he was turning something of a corner with some talk of the future, and his willingness to get things done.
Also worth noting, Obama followed that conciliatory tone with a strong call to arms for Democrats. The line about intending 'to fight obstruction with action' was some of the most forceful rhetoric that I have heard from Obama-as-President.
One of my biggest criticisms of President Obama in the last three years is that he has lacked, well, balls. Oh sure he's gotten some ballsy things done (bin Laden, healthcare, et al), but it is only in the aftermath of these ballsy things that the President seems to misplace his metaphorical testicles.
Let me put it another way; heretofore, I haven't felt like the President brags about his successes enough. He hasn't used forceful language enough. You may not agree with him on a whole host of issues (see above), but you have to admit that he got sh*t done.
It appears that this campaign may be different. And it should be.
While the President is well known for his 'laid-back' persona, looking very comfortable on the stump, this election is not going to be based on 'hope and change' imagery. Voters this time around are going to be looking at the President's record over the last three-plus years. Barack Obama needs to stand up and fight for what he and his administration have done -- and what he plans to do in the next four years.
You may think me naive, but I was also impressed by the call for bipartisanship using our nation's military as an example:
At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, [the military of the United States] exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.
Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.
What I heard was, "You know what? Democrats and Republicans are too bitterly divided. We haven't gotten much done in Washington, D.C. because of our partisan gridlock. If we pattered our governance after the the example of teamwork and leadership that our military sets -- we would be in much better shape."
[T]o imagine that our economy and the rest of our society should be run just like the military is the very essence of fascism.
...and while I think that Jason has a point about the militarization of America, I'm not so sure that this is what Obama was referring to in his speech.
On the contrary, I interpreted the President's rhetoric as a plea to set aside our political and ideological differences and work together towards a common goal: getting our country working again. I don't think that the President is suggesting that all Americans need to 'fall in line' like the military does -- for, as Kuznicki points out, surely that would be fascism. I think that Obama was simply going for a 'teamwork' message here.
...and at the same time, he got to plug the successes of our nation's military members. What President politician would pass on an opportunity to do that?
Like John Kennedy’s famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” this is simultaneously uplifting and outrageous. It’s beautiful speechcraft and political theater; who could dare not applaud this and be seen as not supporting the troops?
Indeed.
All in all, save for the things that I've talked about, the speech was (sometimes eerily) similar to previous State Of The Union addresses. The RNC put out an extremely effective web ad that speaks to this:
Much of the speech was indeed standard boilerplate from an incumbent President up for re-election. But, as I mentioned above, I think that I sensed more of a fire in the President's belly.
We'll see just how strong that fire is in the coming months.
------ Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama gets a standing ovation as he makes his State of the Union address to a joint session of congress and the American people in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on January 24, 2012 in Washington, DC. UPI/Pat Benic
The Pajama Pundit - Founder/Editor
