Erick Erickson's Blog, page 81

Ted Kennedy Prepared Barack Obama's Attack Ads

In 1994, Ted Kennedy ran against Mitt Romney. Romney ran on his jobs record in the private sector. Sound familiar? Well, get ready for Barack Obama's ad campaign against Mitt Romney. Ted Kennedy already produced the ads and I've got them.

We're going to hear about Bain Capital taking federal bailout money. We'll hear the tales of woe from people Mitt Romney ordered laid off.

Yes, you can say we'll hear all the same stuff about Barack Obama, but every poll shows voters still do not connect Barack Obama to his policies. Policies are esoteric things. The people in these ads, however, connect their firings to Mitt Romney.

The ads are below the fold. If you don't see them here, you'll see them on the campaign trail once Romney is the nominee.

Oh, and in addition to campaign ads featuring every person every laid off on orders from Mitt Romney, you'll also get to see his house in Utah, his stone cottage, and his Belmont home.

The closest equivalent to Campaign 2012 with Barack Obama running against Mitt Romney won't be found in the recent era. You'll have to go all the way back to France, 1793, and the campaign of Robespierre against Marie Antoinette.

Talk about a bloody political season, metaphorically speaking of course.

Hat tip to Business Insider and Legal Insurrection.

Morning Briefing for December 29, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

December 29, 2011

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

Dear Morning Briefing subscriber:

So I'm supposed to be on vacation. Seriously. I hope you had a Merry Christmas. I'm still enjoying my Christmas vacation — my first vacation in four years from RedState.

But yesterday my emails were piling up (over 4,000 unread since Sunday) and I kept reading RedState and twittering and had to fill in for Neal Boortz anyway. . . . okay, I'm addicted. I'm back early. Vacations are for ninnies.

Here we go . . . the Morning Briefing is back. Just don't tell my wife I sneaked out bed this morning. She's still asleep and convinced I'm still focused on vacationing, not Iowa. Pfffft.

Erick

P.S. — I'll even have a Horserace post for you at noon today and delivered to your email inbox shortly thereafter.

1. Ted Kennedy Prepared Barack Obama's Attack Ads

2. Yesterday, December 28, 2011, Mitt Romney Calls Obamacare "Conservative"

3. No Surprise, Iowa Social Conservatives Are About To Shoot Us All in the Foot Again

4. The Iowa Caucus Procedure

5. The Colorado Model & The Left's Stratagem For Turning Red States to Blue

———————————————————————-

1. Ted Kennedy Prepared Barack Obama's Attack Ads

In 1994, Ted Kennedy ran against Mitt Romney. Romney ran on his jobs record in the private sector. Sound familiar? Well, get ready for Barack Obama's ad campaign against Mitt Romney. Ted Kennedy already produced the ads and I've got them.

We're going to hear about Bain Capital taking federal bailout money. We'll hear the tales of woe from people Mitt Romney ordered laid off.

Yes, you can say we'll hear all the same stuff about Barack Obama, but every poll shows voters still do not connect Barack Obama to his policies. Policies are esoteric things. The people in these ads, however, connect their firings to Mitt Romney.

The ads are below the fold. If you don't see them here, you'll see them on the campaign trail once Romney is the nominee.

Oh, and in addition to campaign ads featuring every person every laid off on orders from Mitt Romney, you'll also get to see his house in Utah, his stone cottage, and his Belmont home.

The closest equivalent to Campaign 2012 with Barack Obama running against Mitt Romney won't be found in the recent era. You'll have to go all the way back to France, 1793, and the campaign of Robespierre against Marie Antoinette.

Talk about a bloody political season.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Yesterday, December 28, 2011, Mitt Romney Calls Obamacare "Conservative"

This isn't a flash back. This is yesterday. Mitt Romney is again declaring the foundation of Obamacare, the individual mandate, "conservative."

To be sure, it is conservative that one takes responsibility for their own healthcare. But the conservative solution is not to force Americans to buy a product. Forcing Americans, through penalty of law, into purchasing or refraining from purchasing a product is not and will never be conservative.

What's conservative? Well, if the person doesn't want insurance, don't let them get out of paying their medical bills through bankruptcy. But forcing them to buy insurance? Not only is it not conservative, we can see in Massachusetts that health care costs have continued to go up as has the cost of government.

So not only is Mitt Romney's plan not conservative, it does not even work.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. No Surprise, Iowa Social Conservatives Are About To Shoot Us All in the Foot Again

I'm hearing several campaigns and external pollsters have a surge for Rick Santorum. With the National Review folks fawning over him again, it probably means a surge is real and any surge by Rick Santorum is another factor ensuring Mitt Romney wins the nomination. (To be fair, this doesn't look like real momentum)

Santorum has no money or organization outside of Iowa and cannot win the nomination, but Iowans love a guy who sucks up to them and makes sure they know he loves the babies.

As a pro-lifer myself, I have to throw up a bit in my mouth that Iowa conservatives are seriously considering Rick Santorum, which will only help Mitt Romney, a guy who even after his supposedly heartfelt conversion to life put some seriously pro-abortion judges on the Massachusetts bench hiding behind the "Well it was Massachusetts for Pete's sake" defense.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. The Iowa Caucus Procedure

Ever wanted to know what the Iowa caucuses are like? The IA-GOP sent out this statement to give you an idea.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. The Colorado Model & The Left's Stratagem For Turning Red States to Blue

Although it's being deployed in several states like Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and others, there are still many who have never heard of the Colorado Model. What's worse, despite all the Left's bemoaning of the "vast right wing conspiracy," Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or whatever enemy they can dream up, there is still nothing like the Colorado Model on the Right.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The Iowa Caucus Procedure

Ever wanted to know what the Iowa caucuses are like? The IA-GOP sent out this statement to give you an idea:

· All caucus participants arrive at their precincts where they will sign in at the door upon arrival. Caucuses will begin at 7:00PM CT.

The caucus meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance. A caucus chair and secretary will be elected by the body to run the meeting and take notes.

After the chair and secretary are elected, candidate representatives from each campaign are given time to speak on behalf of their candidate.

Once the speakers have finished, sheets of paper are be passed out to every registered Iowa Republican from the precinct. Voters then write down their candidate preference.

All votes are then collected.

Every vote is counted. The caucus chair and secretary will count the votes in front of the caucus and a representative from each campaign is allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The results are recorded on an official form provided by the Republican Party of Iowa and are announced to the caucus.

A caucus reporter is chosen to report the results to the Republican Party of Iowa, accompanied by campaign representatives to verify the results reported to Iowa GOP officials.

RPI officials do not count results; they aggregate them from around the state and report them to the media. To ensure consistency in reporting, campaign representatives have the opportunity to be present with RPI officials as votes are reported to the public.

We will be reporting the votes for Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, "No Preference," and "Other."

"No Preference" votes include those who vote "present," "no preference, "uncommitted," or "none of the above."

Within fourteen days of the caucus, certified results will be released for a complete breakdown of all caucus votes that were cast by precinct.

After the Presidential preference poll is completed the caucus will elect precinct committee representatives; delegates, alternates, and junior delegates to the county convention; and discuss and submit platform resolutions for consideration at the county convention.

No Surprise, Iowa Social Conservatives Are About To Shoot Us All in the Foot Again

I'm hearing several campaigns and external pollsters have a surge for Rick Santorum. With the National Review folks fawning over him again, it probably means a surge is real and any surge by Rick Santorum is another factor ensuring Mitt Romney wins the nomination. (To be fair, this doesn't look like real momentum)

Santorum has no money or organization outside of Iowa and cannot win the nomination, but Iowans love a guy who sucks up to them and makes sure they know he loves the babies.

As a pro-lifer myself, I have to throw up a bit in my mouth that Iowa conservatives are seriously considering Rick Santorum, which will only help Mitt Romney, a guy who even after his supposedly heartfelt conversion to life put some seriously pro-abortion judges on the Massachusetts bench hiding behind the "Well it was Massachusetts for Pete's sake" defense.

Let's remember Rick Santorum could not even win re-election in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Rick Santorum also supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the U.S. Senate back in 2004.

But most damning to me is Rick Santorum's actual record in the Senate and House of Representatives. I keep hearing him say he was such a paragon of fiscal conservative virtue, when he was anything but that. He was as go along to get along as all the other Republicans who led to our downfall.

Making Santorum worse, he was always the guy saying, "I had to do this, but wait till I get to leadership. I'll be there for you in leadership." It's what he is saying now. Only it isn't true and never was.

He supported steel tariffs in Pennsylvania, which did him little good in his own re-election effort.

He supported No Child Left Behind.

He supported the prescription drug benefit.

He supported the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, according to Club for Growth, "Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina."

Santorum decided, after leaving Congress, to oppose earmarks, but he sure did love them while he was there. He voted against the Farm Bill in 2002, but he voted to extend milk subsidies to save the poor Pennsylvania farmer.

In the House, Santorum opposed NAFTA and offered legislation to impose steel tariffs. He wanted to tax imported honey and Chinese imports.

Throughout his career, Santorum has tried to have it both ways. For example, as the Club For Growth documents

He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 1995 and 2005. But on the same day he voted NO in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage, which he later boasted about to skeptical voters in a 2006 campaign brochure he released called "50 Things You Didn't Know About Rick Santorum."

In other words, the Santorum I have observed for a decade is the Rick Santorum on the campaign trail now — a guy trying to have it both ways through too clever by half stunts like voting against the minimum wage while authoring a bill to raise the minimum wage so no one can pin him down on his record.

Rick Santorum is more conservative than Mitt Romney. He is a strong social conservative and has taken a lot of bullets from the left because of his stand. But he is not as strong a fiscal conservative as he claims and the real issue here is social conservatives in Iowa risk Mitt Romney's election by supporting a guy who cannot get traction or money outside of Iowa.

Rick Santorum will not be the nominee. That's the reality. But his rise hurts Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry in Iowa — all of whom have better organizations and better shots beyond Iowa.

What's the Difference Between the Heritage Foundation & Newt Gingrich & Mitt Romney

UPDATED: Corrected to note that, like Heritage, Gingrich too no longer favors the individual mandate.

——

The individual mandate is an idea from the Heritage Foundation. Unfortunately, the person who came up with the individual mandate never lost his job and Heritage as the brain child has given cover to both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for their support of it.

But the individual mandate is not conservative despite its Heritage Foundation origins and gives to the congress more power than is allotted it in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Consider, though, that MItt Romney stills cling to the individual mandate as a good idea. The Heritage Foundation itself has long since apologized and repudiated the individual mandate. Back in 2010, Robert Moffitt of the Heritage Foundation wrote, "Our research in the ensuing two decades has led us to realize our initial idea was operationally ineffective and legally defective."

Unfortunately, its creator is still around no doubt coming up with other bad ideas using the Heritage label to defend. But fortunately, the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich, unlike Romney, is willing to admit when it makes a mistake.

What's the Difference Between the Heritage Foundation & Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney

The individual mandate is an idea from the Heritage Foundation. Unfortunately, the person who came up with the individual mandate never lost his job and Heritage as the brain child has given cover to both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for their support of it.

But the individual mandate is not conservative despite its Heritage Foundation origins and gives to the congress more power than is allotted it in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Consider, though, that MItt Romney and Newt Gingrich still cling to the individual mandate as a good idea. The Heritage Foundation itself has long since apologized and repudiated the individual mandate. Back in 2010, Robert Moffitt of the Heritage Foundation wrote, "Our research in the ensuing two decades has led us to realize our initial idea was operationally ineffective and legally defective."

Unfortunately, its creator is still around no doubt coming up with other bad ideas using the Heritage label to defend. But fortunately, the Heritage Foundation, unlike either Romney or Gingrich, is willing to admit when it makes a mistake.

TODAY, December 28, 2011, Mitt Romney Calls Obamacare "Conservative"

This isn't a flash back. This is today. Mitt Romney is again declaring the foundation of Obamacare, the individual mandate, "conservative."

To be sure, it is conservative that one takes responsibility for their own healthcare. But the conservative solution is not to force Americans to buy a product. Forcing Americans, through penalty of law, into purchasing or refraining from purchasing a product is not and will never be conservative.

What's conservative? Well, if the person doesn't want insurance, don't let them get out of paying their medical bills through bankruptcy. But forcing them to buy insurance? Not only is it not conservative, we can see in Massachusetts that health care costs have continued to go up as has the cost of government.

So not only is Mitt Romney's plan not conservative, it does not even work.

By the way, for those who want to obfuscate on the federalism issue, yes, this is a federalist issue. It is perfectly legitimate for Massachusetts under its constitution to do this when it is not permissible for the federal government to do it under Article I, Section 8. But just because something is constitutional or not does not make it conservative. Constitutional and conservative are not exactly the same things.

Yes, I am comfortable supporting Newt Gingrich

A few weeks ago I said I wasn't sure I could get comfortable with the idea of supporting Newt Gingrich. I laid out my case then and there is no reason to go back into it now.

I still find it incredibly hard to believe that the two guys at the top — excluding the 9/11 truther nut — both support the individual mandate.

I continue to hope Perry surprises in Iowa and Huntsman surprises in New Hampshire. At least then we'd have a pretty awesome race with two governors with conservative records we can all be proud of.

But as between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, I have to take this one moment away from my first vacation from RedState in four years (I have 4,335 emails I have not looked at that have come in since Christmas morning) and my cigar and rocking chair to say I am comfortable with Newt Gingrich now if I must choose between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

Put simply — as Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney moved the state left, socializing its healthcare system and doing nothing to stop gay marriage until he knew it was too late to do anything about it.

As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich moved the nation right with a balanced budget and welfare reform.

Maybe the poll trends in Iowa are real and Rick Perry is going to surprise people with a respectable finish. But if not, I'm not as bothered as I once was.

I could and would go with Gingrich over Romney. But I'm still kind of hoping I won't have to.

Merry Christmas

From all of us here at RedState to all of you, we wish you a very Merry Christmas!

— Erick

The Gospel of Luke 2:1-20

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

"Glory to God in the highest,

and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about."

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.