Erick Erickson's Blog, page 64

After the Fact, Romney's Supporters in Michigan Seemingly Rewrite the Delegate Rules

According to the Michigan Republican Party rules, each candidate who wins a congressional district will win a delegate per district. Romney and Santorum split the districts, so they each got 14 delegates. There are two statewide delegates.

The statewide delegates are divided based on a mathematic calculation for each candidate who gets over 15% of the vote. In Michigan, as Right Michigan explains, Romney and Santorum each got one.

So while Romney got just shy of 2% more of the vote than Santorum in Michigan, he and Santorum split the statewide delegates and wound up tied 15 to 15 in Michigan.

But the Romney camp cannot have that. This is Romney's home state. Romney has to win.

So last night, the Michigan GOP's Credentials Committee voted to take a delegate away from Santorum and give it Mitt Romney.

They claim this had all been decided back on February 4, 2012, but it is clear from the memo documenting that meeting that no one else read the delegate count that way.

My friend Saul Anuzis who is a Romney supporter and who participated in the vote says it was all a misunderstanding, but the memo Saul links to is dated today, not from February 4, 2012.

This looks like Romney supporters changing a tie to a win. I suggest the Michigan GOP issue the original memorandum because this looks more like Romney supporters trying to steal a delegate than standard compliance. Back on February 14th, it appears some interpreted what would happen to be winner take all for the statewide delegates.

We should expect, however, the Santorum and possibly the Gingrich camps to seize on this. So the Michigan GOP needs to act quick to get this story to go away.

A Supernova Now Dark

There will be a number of posts from people on this site and others today about Andrew Breitbart. Editorially, you're supposed to have one post that everyone can rally around, but Andrew Breitbart was such a multifaceted fascinating renaissance man. We each have our own descriptions and stories of Breitbart.

When I first heard the news I thought it was another twitter hoax. But it sadly is not.

Andrew Breitbart was, in every room I ever saw him in, the brilliant bright light and ball of energy people gravitated to and fixated on. It is like a supernova has gone dark.

For all the focus on his activism — something he was highly effective at despite criticism from the left and media who were beaten at their own game by him — he is not often credited enough for being a dot-com entrepreneur.

Having worked at the Drudge Report keeping the lights on for Matt, Breitbart had the brilliant idea of getting the AP news feed and setting up Breitbart.com. Many sites then followed suit, but he was one of the first and definitely the most successful guy to do that.

He helped get the Huffington Post off the ground and then set about building the Big sites.

What I admired most about Andrew was his willingness to be the lightning rod despite criticism from both the left and the right. He was the lightening rod and when lightening struck, Andrew used the brilliant flash of light to direct everyone's attention to precisely what he wanted them to see. He was a master at it. The attention he garnered was never about getting attention for himself, but using the attention to tell the story and share the news he wanted told and shared.

This brilliant ball of energy has gone dark. My and our shared prayers are for his family, friends, and colleagues who will miss his friendship, leadership, and no doubt as I have more than once received, his 3 o'clock in the morning (Eastern Time) phone calls from the Los Angeles Freeway on his way home to his wife and kids that abruptly end when he gets pulled over by the police for using his cell phone while driving. But you never had to worry. He'd call and wake you back up around 4:30 to apologize for having called so late. I speak from personal experience.

God bless you, Andrew.

Senate GOP Leader Does Not Want to Anger Harry Reid With Obamacare Vote

I reported yesterday that Mitch McConnell is expressly blocking a vote on a conservative backed measure to repeal Obamacare, but there is news this morning that the situation is far worse than even I thought.

Alexander Bolton reports Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell intends to avoid any votes on repealing Obamacare this entire year lest he anger Senator Harry Reid.

Obstensibly, McConnell says a vote on the DeMint authored legislation would give the Democrats cover to vote against Obamacare headed into the election. But this makes no sense because McConnell intends to offer up Senator Blunt's amendment tomorrow on religious liberty, also letting Senate Democrats get on record defying the President on a controversial issue related to Obamacare.

In fact, however, Senate Republicans are willing now to go on record and offer up an even more damning reason — they don't want to upset Harry Reid.

Believe it or not, Senator McConnell also perversely appears to want to "shield his Senate GOP colleagues from voting to repeal popular portions of the healthcare law."

One lawmaker who spoke on background said McConnell is concerned that repeated efforts to force votes on amendments to repeal healthcare reform will lead to procedural stalemate with Democrats.

The senator said McConnell wants to schedule votes on other GOP-sponsored amendments on energy and jobs. McConnell, the senator said, anticipates that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would shut down those opportunities if Republicans insist on votes to repeal healthcare reform.

Why would Senator Harry Reid take action against the Republicans if such votes were hurting the Republicans? Answer: he would not. Democrats are well versed in the art of staying out of the way when Republicans hurt themselves.

Reid would take the actions Republicans fear because he knows that a majority of Americans still oppose Obamacare, it is one issue that unites independent voters with Republicans, and his anger would stem from Republicans reminding the American people which Democrats must go this pivotal election year in order to repeal Obamacare.

But hey,

Some of the healthcare law's biggest critics in the upper chamber do not think another vote is necessary.

"People are on record," said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), one of McConnell's deputies.

Why the hell do we even need a Democratic Party when Senator McConnell does their bidding for them?

If You Use Georgia Pacific Paper Products, Barack Obama Wants You To Turn Yourself In

Georgia-Pacific makes a lot of household paper products. Quilted Northern toilet paper, Angel Soft toilet paper, Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Vanity Fair napkins, etc. If you use any of them, Barack Obama wants you to report yourself to the government. No, I'm not making this up.

On twitter last night, whoever the idiot is who runs the President's twitter feed (I assume it is not him), put up this tweet reading:

Add your name to demand that the Koch brothers make their donors public: http://OFA.BO/mfLtZX

Now, I know the President is pretty clueless about the free market system, but I did not realize he was that clueless. The Koch Brothers make their money by providing goods and services within the free market. Their donors are actually customers buying products. That's how they got their money. And in Barack Obama's America, it is increasingly hard to do in the private sector.

In truth, I have no doubt the President really wants to target for harassment those people contributing to political groups organized by the Koch Brothers. You are willfully naive if you think that won't happen. Look what happened to so many who contributed to Proposition 8 in California. Look at the labor union goons who show up at people's houses to harass them and their families.

It is not disclosure the President wants. It is a list of names his supporters can intimidate and harass.

In the 2008 campaign, the President's campaign intentionally turned off the safeguards to his online donations form — the safeguards used to make sure his campaign complied with federal law accepting campaign donations. Because those safeguard were out, foreign citizens outside the country were able to donate to the President's campaign. Small donors are not disclosed.

If the President is serious about disclosure, perhaps the President should release the names of his small donors. We know John Galt of Ayn Rand Lane was one of his donors with no problem. Who else did so? Oh, some Palestinians in October of 2007 who donated from a refugee camp in Gaza. They weren't caught until sometime around August of 2008 after 32 successful contributions.

The Obama campaign has had a storied history of returning contributions really, really slowly.

So, Mr. President — if you believe in transparency, given your campaign's ridiculous history of allowing phony low dollar contributions from made up people, why don't you realize all your low dollar donors before you start demanding the Koch Brothers release anything?

By the way, do we want to talk about foreign donors to labor unions?

Morning Briefing for March 1, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

March 1, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. If You Use Georgia Pacific Paper Products, Barack Obama Wants You To Turn Yourself In

2. Exclusive: Newt Gingrich Talks to RedState

3.

4. Matt Yglesias and the Totally Awesome Energy Narrative

———————————————————————-

1. If You Use Georgia Pacific Paper Products, Barack Obama Wants You To Turn Yourself In

Georgia-Pacific makes a lot of household paper products. Quilted Northern toilet paper, Angel Soft toilet paper, Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Vanity Fair napkins, etc. If you use any of them, Barack Obama wants you to report yourself to the government. No, I'm not making this up.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Exclusive: Newt Gingrich Talks to RedState

Yesterday I had the privilege of conducting the first interview with Newt Gingrich in Atlanta, Ga. following the primary elections in Arizona and Michigan. The former speaker seemed resigned to the results and matter-of-fact about Tuesday night's results, emotionless about facts he can now do nothing about. He spoke quietly and calmly with intensity, if not energy.

I started our interview asking him about his path to victory, given he is now behind Rick Santorum in delegates. He pointed out how few primaries we have had compared to prior years and how many delegates are up for grabs still.

Calling Rick Santorum a "big labor Republican", Gingrich made clear he thought neither Santorum nor Romney would play well in deeply red states, as we saw in South Carolina — states that are about to be up for grabs on Super Tuesday and shortly thereafter. He views Mitt Romney as someone who cannot sell himself to the voters because Romney does not know himself who he is.

In the interview, more to be aired today, Gingrich also responded to Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) claiming Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney are at war with Islam. We delved into Operation Fast and Furious, energy prices, and Gingrich's plan to save upwards of $500 billion a year by transforming the federal government with Lean Six Sigma.

I'll send you an email later today when the full interview is online. It is quite interesting.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3.

Richard Lugar does not even own a home in Indiana anymore. Despite this, someone thought it would be a good idea for his campaign to attack challenger Richard Mourdock for absenteeism.

4. Matt Yglesias and the Totally Awesome Energy Narrative

Dig the moats, unroll the concertina wire and man the battlements! With the looming possibility of $4.00 per gallon gasoline at the pump, the Left's defense of President Obama's disastrous energy policies has begun in earnest.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Exclusive: Newt Gingrich Talks to RedState

This morning I had the privilege of conducting the first interview with Newt Gingrich in Atlanta, Ga. following the primary elections in Arizona and Michigan. The former speaker seemed resigned to the results and matter-of-fact about Tuesday night's results, emotionless about facts he can now do nothing about. He spoke quietly and calmly with intensity, if not energy.

I started our interview asking him about his path to victory, given he is now behind Rick Santorum in delegates. He pointed out how few primaries we have had compared to prior years and how many delegates are up for grabs still.

Calling Rick Santorum a "big labor Republican", Gingrich made clear he thought neither Santorum nor Romney would play well in deeply red states, as we saw in South Carolina — states that are about to be up for grabs on Super Tuesday and shortly thereafter. He views Mitt Romney as someone who cannot sell himself to the voters because Romney does not know himself who he is.

In the interview, more to be aired tomorrow, Gingrich also responded to Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) claiming Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney are at war with Islam. We delved into Operation Fast and Furious, energy prices, and Gingrich's plan to save upwards of $500 billion a year by transforming the federal government with Lean Six Sigma.

There was one question, though, with an answer that really stood out. I asked Speaker Gingrich if the economy does improve and the Republican rationale this campaign season has been that they will fix the economy, on what turf do Republicans try to win the 2012 election if suddenly the voters think the economy has turned the corner.

You can hear that answer and more in my exclusive interview with Newt Gingrich.

Tomorrow we'll run the full interview.

Not Defending Romney Moves to Godwin's Law: How Seth Ellis Proves Me Right

In my morning post on Mitt Romney's wins I noted that the press is now starting to trot out stories about the Mormon Church, its race issues, baptizing the dead, etc.

Contained in that post Seth Ellis goes there where there is pulling a David Brooks, comparing critics who I assume include me to Nazis, and violating Godwin's Law.

So first, I win. Thanks Godwin's Law. But look at Ellis's comment:

First they came for the Mormons. I am disappointed that Erick would promote this story as a reason not to select Romney without pointing out how shameful of an attack this is. It is an assault on religion, and it is no different from what they did to Santorum. The only difference is that Romney its smart enough to not fall for it. We cannot stand idly by as the media continues its assault on religion.

It is exactly this sort of comment from Erick that leaves so many of us skeptical on Erick's claim that "his Mormonism has nothing to do with it".

Note first the "first they came for the Mormons" and see David Brooks from yesterday.

Second, note that Seth Ellis proves me right.The Democrats smell blood in the water. Romney is weak. He's headed into the South with his negatives going up. And whether you agree or disagree, as I noted here accurately on January 24, 2012:

the secularists in the media — not the Democrats, but the media to the extent it can be separated from the Obama Machine — will spend six months creeping out independent suburban voters about Mormons, holy underwear, Kolob, postmortem baptism, and views on black people and then, as the coup de grace, Barack Obama will fire up millions of dollars of ads on Bain Capital raiding pension funds forcing the government to cover the debt so Mitt Romney could make millions whether he won or lost a deal.

It is beginning. It is beginning early because Democrats see Romney going into Southern states and more conservative states hemorrhaging and they think they might now have a chance to pick him off and get Santorum — something they did not think was possible just a month ago.

They think they can start unloading the opposition research, which will include lots of stories about the Mormon Church.

So back to Seth Ellis. He writes

I am disappointed that Erick would promote this story as a reason not to select Romney without pointing out how shameful of an attack this is.

Each day the GOP spends defending Mitt Romney's faith, which polling of independent and secular leaning voters shows hurts Romney more with them than with evangelicals (specifically, I believe, a Pew poll on the matter), is a day the GOP is not going on offense against Barack Obama.

More troubling, the reality is that most Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians, so while the left is attacking the Mormons and the right is defending Mormons, you're going to have a lot of Christians happy to defend Mormons, but make it all the more awkward when distancing themselves from Mormons at the same time.

Just as Santorum's devout Catholicism will come under attack from the left, you must be nuts to think Romney's faith won't come under attack as well. The difference is the groups that will and will not rally will be different and potentially more disadvantageous toward Romney.

And that is the point again. The more we're all forced to defend Romney on this issue, the more the press will focus on it, and the more our attention will be distracted away from Obama. It is not fair. But it is reality.

My opposition to Mitt Romney has nothing to do with his faith. It has everything to do with his opportunism. But I'm also not so naive as to think it will not be one more attack used by the left.

And, by the way, had hypersensitive Seth not already developed a bunker mentality I suspect many Romney supporters will soon develop, would probably recognize that that line in my post was not meant to be me attacking Mitt Romney, but pointing out that the left's assault is already beginning. And Seth's overreaction shows just how badly many Romney supporters are going to handle it.

I'd let him respond, but stooping to Godwin's Law gets you banned around here.

Mitch McConnell Blocks Conservative Effort Against Obamacare

On Thursday, the Senate will consider Senator Roy Blunt's amendment to the Senate version of the highway bill. It is the only amendment the Senate GOP will offer up.

On its surface, it is a good amendment. It will allow religious employers to opt out of the new Obamacare mandate on contraception and abortifacient drugs. But strategically, it is another lame effort by Senator Mitch McConnell to let Senate Democrats in swing states absolve themselves of any blame for what Barack Obama has done.

See, the highway bill probably is not going to pass. So Senator Blunt's amendment won't actually pass. But Senate Democrats can vote for it and then claim in their 2012 election that they too oppose the President, but alas their measure failed. At the same time, no outside groups want a vote right now. If there is a vote this week and the bill ultimately dies, the issue goes away in the press and Christian groups are only now whipping up opposition to the HHS regulation. Roy Blunt's amendment comes too soon and takes off the table an issue social conservatives care about just as Republican leaders are whispering that the issue hurts them (coincidence?).

Consider the alternative. There is another amendment Senator McConnell expressly refuses to bring up this week as an alternative — an amendment by Senator Jim DeMint for full repeal of Obamacare.

"Wait," you say, "It'd never pass." True. But neither with Roy Blunt's. The difference is that Roy Blunt's gives the Democrats cover to say they oppose the President without actually opposing the President and Jim DeMint's amendment puts many swing state Democrats in the awkward position of either reminding voters of their support of Obamacare or suddenly flipping their support to try to save their political skin.

Oh, and as a bonus, with more polling out showing a majority of Americans still oppose the individual mandate, it is a great reminder of who is on the right side of history.

But then Mitch McConnell has a history of being a bad strategist while claiming to be the Darth Vader of Senate strategists. Of course, Darth Vader did lose the Death Star twice to a rag tag group of rebels, so I guess it kind of fits.

Three Percent

When you have a candidate few people really like, whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep, whose raison d'etre (a 4am fancy word) is fixing an economy that is fixing itself without him, and who only wins his actual, factual home state by three percentage points against a guy no one took seriously only two months ago, there really is little reason for independent voters in the general election to choose him if the economy keeps improving.

Seriously, putting it bluntly, conservatives may not like Barack Obama, but most other people do. And when faced with a guy you like and a guy you don't like who says he can fix an economy that no longer needs fixing, you're going to go with the guy you like.

If Republicans in Washington are not panicked and trying desperately to pull Bobby Jindal in the race tomorrow, or someone like him, the party leaders must have a death wish.Mitt Romney continues to run an uninspiring campaign only able to win by massively outspending his opponents to tell voters how much worse the other guys are. That may work in the primary, but it will not work in a general election where the President of the United States won't be outspent 5 to 1.

Three percentage points. In his home state. In his wife's home state. In the state his father served as Governor. Three percentage points against a guy few took seriously two months ago and who just three weeks ago no one expected to give Romney a run for his money in Romney's home state.

And this is our nominee — a guy who can only win in states with a home state advantage, New Englanders and New England transplants, and Mormoms. There are a lot more outside those categories than inside them and that is shaping up to cause him heartburn on Super Tuesday. And let me tell you what else is going to happen: Democrats sense such a strong vulnerability now and sniff a chance of a Santorum nomination, they aren't going to wait for the general election to start dumping oppo research on Romney. Get ready Romney supporters, this is just the opening salvo.

But I suspect he will be the nominee. At least we can be rid of him and, hopefully, his most ardent cheerleaders on November 7th when what the rest of us know will happen unless an economic catastrophe happens.

Hello? Bobby Jindal? You paying attention?

Morning Briefing for February 29, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

For February 29, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Three Percent

2. Mitch McConnell Blocks Conservative Effort Against Obamacare

3. Is David Brooks Comparing the Tea Party to Nazis?

4. Your Offensive Obama Oil Policy Infographics of the Day

———————————————————————-

1. Three Percent

When you have a candidate few people really like, whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep, whose raison d'etre (a 4am fancy word) is fixing an economy that is fixing itself without him, and who only wins his actual, factual home state by three percentage points against a guy no one took seriously only two months ago, there really is little reason for independent voters in the general election to choose him if the economy keeps improving.

Seriously, putting it bluntly, conservatives may not like Barack Obama, but most other people do. And when faced with a guy you like and a guy you don't like who says he can fix an economy that no longer needs fixing, you're going to go with the guy you like.

If Republicans in Washington are not panicked and trying desperately to pull Bobby Jindal in the race tomorrow, or someone like him, the party leaders must have a death wish.

Mitt Romney continues to run an uninspiring campaign only able to win by massively outspending his opponents to tell voters how much worse the other guys are. That may work in the primary, but it will not work in a general election where the President of the United States won't be outspent 5 to 1.

Three percentage points. In his home state. In his wife's home state. In the state his father served as Governor. Three percentage points against a guy few took seriously two months ago and who just three weeks ago no one expected to give Romney a run for his money.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Mitch McConnell Blocks Conservative Effort Against Obamacare

On Thursday, the Senate will consider Senator Roy Blunt's amendment to the Senate version of the highway bill. It is the only amendment the Senate GOP will offer up.

On its surface, it is a good amendment. It will allow religious employers to opt out of the new Obamacare mandate on contraception and abortifacient drugs. But strategically, it is another lame effort by Senator Mitch McConnell to let Senate Democrats in swing states absolve themselves of any blame for what Barack Obama has done.

See, the highway bill probably is not going to pass. So Senator Blunt's amendment won't actually pass. But Senate Democrats can vote for it and then claim in their 2012 election that they too oppose the President, but alas their measure failed. At the same time, no outside groups want a vote right now. If there is a vote this week and the bill ultimately dies, the issue goes away in the press and Christian groups are only now whipping up opposition to the HHS regulation. Roy Blunt's amendment comes too soon and takes off the table an issue social conservatives care about just as Republican leaders are whispering that the issue hurts them (coincidence?).

Consider the alternative. There is another amendment Senator McConnell expressly refuses to bring up this week as an alternative — an amendment by Senator Jim DeMint for full repeal of Obamacare.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Is David Brooks Comparing the Tea Party to Nazis?

David Brooks seems to forget it was the tea party movement that handed the Republicans control of the House in 2010. Today he laments the rise, again, of conservatives and views his ideological drift to the left as standing still with conservatism moving away from him. He really does lack serious self-awareness.

How silly.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Your Offensive Obama Oil Policy Infographics of the Day

If you're looking for a single picture that captures the salient points of President Barack Obama's oil policy, here it is. Courtesy of the Republican Study Committee.

Please click here for the rest of the post.