Michael Savage
Conservative radio host Michael Savage just publicly offered Newt Gingrich $1 million cash to get out of the presidential race. I am broke as all hell, what with Christmas and all, but I’ll kick in an extra $100 towards that end.
The only problem is that George Soros can outspend us all. I’m sure he and the Democratic National Committee would be willing to offer far more than $1,000,0100.00 to keep Mr. Gingrich in.
Can you believe he said that?
I can’t.
“A $10,000 bet?”
My God.
Mitt Romney’s unforced faux pas at last night’s debate in Iowa hurt. It really hurt. Playing into the rich-kid image isn’t the deadly part, it’s the amount of time it will take Mr. Romney to recover from the off-handed remark. A bad story in politics takes time to digest. It’s like a snake swallowing a lab mouse. The mouse moves slowly and visibly through its system until it is finally passed. Until this one passes, Governor Romney will be off message, and he can’t afford to be for a single day. The gravitational pull of Christmas and New Year’s will begin in a week, and with it, the GOP primary will be frozen in place. The Iowa Caucuses are on January 3rd.
The second thing the $10,000 blunder does is cast the harsh spotlight on Mr. Romney at the exact point in the primaries that it needs to stay on Newt Gingrich — if the momentum of the former Georgia congressman is to be checked. A lot of powerful conservatives voices spent last week softening up Mr. Gingrich for the kill at Saturday’s debate — they hit him with everything the had — but he didn’t die. And yes, in politics, like in real life, what doesn’t kill you can make you stronger. Mr. Gingrich is becoming immune to his checkered past, just like Bill Clinton did.
A $10,000 bet? Three weeks away from the Iowa Caucuses? With the holidays in between? For the first time in this race, Mitt Romney is in trouble. All Republicans are. Who is going to stop Newt Gingrich from throwing away the gains Republicans have made in the past two years?
Romney could now run third — or even fourth in Iowa.
Oy vey!
In the days of a President Obama and a surging (for now) Newt Gingrich, one can’t help but yearn for the early years of the republic when presidential candidates did not campaign for themselves, when others extolled the candidates’ public virtues in their behalf.
Face it, Barack Obama was elected president because he was imbued with the gift of a velvet tongue. And Newt Gingrich is leading the GOP field because he has mastered the art of verbal sparring. But what would others convincingly say about these two that would propel either to the White House?
President Obama attained academic success at Harvard and spent a short time in the Illinois State Senate, but he left no mark on the public record. All he did was impress others with his oratorical skills. There is nothing in his background that would suggest potential to be a good president, and he has not been one.
Congressman Gingrich is more accomplished on paper. He served as House Speaker, which gives him experience relative the position of president. But he squandered that opportunity and was turned out by members of his own party. That suggests he is temperamentally unsuited to the job. Gingrich had his moment of power and he didn’t know how to use it. He has proven to be a poor leader, yet we are considering making him our top leader because he is a practiced rhetorician. Seems pretty dumb.
Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, and Tim Pawlenty would probably all make better presidents than President Obama or Newt Gingrich — if their resumes were the sole consideration for the job. But they are not as good speakers or debaters as the President and former speaker. There are so many accomplished executives in America who could ably serve as president, but 99% of them — where have we heard that percentage before? — would probably refuse to endure the process of campaigning as it is done today. But everything in their personal and professional backgrounds would suggest supreme leadership qualities.
The counterargument, of course, is that we once got Abraham Lincoln who managed to back up his verbal prowess with action and honor. But Messrs. Obama and Gingrich could never be confused with our sixteenth president.
We live in the days of mass media where the best talker wins. But is that really the chief quality we need in the White House?
Vladimir Putin may be talking trash about the U.S. these days, but he is clearly taking a page out of the U.S. political PR strategy book in doing so. Mr. Putin’s gratuitous attacks on the U.S. seem carefully designed to rile up his base of support within Russia, and the Obama Administration is taking the bait, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton firing back. Can’t say I blame her. It must be an almost irresistible impulse.
Anti-Americanism in Russia is still rabid, and Mr. Putin’s strategy is a sound one. Put the focus on the U.S. to take the focus off the protesters. I wonder what U.S. political strategist is advising him.
“When a man of [Newt Gingrich’s] self-confidence begins to feel on top of the world, bad things often happen.” — Karl Rove, Wall Street Journal opinion piece, December 8, 2011
Why does history keep spitting out such small men as Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej?
His Majesty has just jailed an American citizen, Joe Gordon, for translating and posting online excepts of a royal biography the King finds offensive. Mr. Gordon will sit in a dank Bangkok prison for 2 1/2 years.
Not much we can do about it here in the States other than to skip planned trips to Thailand — and point out how ridiculous his Royal Worship looks in a coconut lid.
Can you pass a U.S. citizenship test? The Christian Science Monitor is testing your knowledge. I dare you. (Okay. It’s easier than I thought.)
“The problem is that there are still all those things to remember and that when you use glue and tape and paste all those things together to form an overall portrait of Gingrich, you’re looking at someone who is probably unelectable as president.” — John Podhoretz, NY Post, 12/08/11
The class war in America spreads. Its latest front is New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) has succumbed to pressure from the public employee unions to hike taxes on higher-income families.
That’s bad enough — New York has a spending problem, not a revenue problem — but the second part of the Cuomo tax “reform” equation is the doozy. The Governor, it is reported, will raise taxes on the “rich” while lowering them for families making $150,000 or less. Therein lies the class war.
If raising revenue was the sole goal, why not A.) Raise taxes on everyone; B.) Raise taxes on the wealthy and leave everyone else be, or, better yet, C.) Repeal laws like the Wicks Law and the Triborough Amendment that drive the cost of government in New York through the roof.
Answer: Options A, B, and C. would cost the Governor and legislators votes. On “A” from all voters because no one wants his taxes raised: on “B” from all voters since the Governor would be breaking his solemn word on “No Tax Hikes” in New York, and on “C” from unionized public employees whose leaders have rigged state laws in their favor.
So, with “B” squarely in mind, the Governor is throwing the mass of New York families — those earning under $150,000 annually — a “forgetting” bone. That is, I cut your taxes, and you forget my pledge not to raise them on anyone. Deal?
Democrats all across the country are adopting this strategy. Give the masses an incentive to throw the more fortunate under the bus. It’s a cynical game that tears at the fabric of our society. Americans traditionally have not resented the success of others by and large. Some even appreciate the fact that the wealthiest provide jobs and pay far more than their share of federal, state, and local taxes. But that was then and this is now. Class war is the order of the day.
Speaking of unintended consequences, get this:
The New York double-decker bus industry is under attack by the New York City Council. This is the second time it’s been in the cross hairs in a year. The first time it was for the sound amplified tour-guides make in residential neighborhoods, specifically the West Village. So the Council demanded that the bus operators spend millions of dollars outfitting every seat on every open-air bus in the city with a headset.
Now that that’s done, there is no need for the tour guides. The operators can remotely pipe the tour information into the headsets. As a result, hundreds of layoffs are being planned.
Not so fast says the Council, which is now seeking to force the tour operators to keep the unionized tour guides, even though they are no longer needed. Maybe the tour guides should be reassigned to lighting the city’s oil lamps or to watering the trolley horses. I mean, really, what’s the difference?
No comments to display
Latest Political News from The Associated Press