Erick Erickson's Blog, page 89

The Danger Newt Gingrich Poses . . . to Mitt Romney

Ramesh Ponnuru is out with his endorsement of Mitt Romney. It's a reasonable endorsement that doesn't really try to do what so many others are doing — claiming Romney is something he is not.

But one line up front made me chuckle just a bit. It happens to be the first sentence.

Even though nobody has yet cast a vote in the primaries, Republicans are increasingly resigned to Gov. Mitt Romney's winning the party's presidential nomination.

This is the real danger that Newt Gingrich poses to MItt Romney. Suddenly, to many people, Romney does not look so inevitable. In fact, a friend of mine pointed out the other day that it seems every time the polling shifts against Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney's supporters or the Politico start claiming Romney is inevitable.

I have long thought the race was Mitt Romney's to lose and I am starting to think after his whining about Bret Baier's interview that even the Romney camp is starting to realize his days may be numbered.

The problem for Romney is reflected in the comments here at RedState and elsewhere. For the longest time our users here have been for Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. Suddenly, even the Perry supporters have decidedly turned toward Gingrich. Not all of them have, but a good number have. Perry may remain their first choice and for Cain supporters Cain may remain their first choice. But Newt is all of their second choice and they're going to defend him.

For the first time in the race there has been a rapid and remarkable shift toward vocal support for one candidate coming from the competing supporters of competing alternative candidates.

Romney was always inevitable until he was not. And three times now someone has gotten ahead of Romney. The first could be an anomaly. The second had to be considered. The third time must be taken quite seriously.

75% of the Republican voters have wanted someone who can hold their own in a debate with Obama and who is not named Mitt Romney. Suddenly Gingrich, by virtue of these several thousand debates we've had, has become that guy.

And his rise has been so dramatic and so affirming that so many really do not want Mitt Romney that Mitt Romney is looking less and less inevitable.

If Newt Gingrich can avoid his historic fate of imploding at the pinnacle of success, Mitt Romney will stay the bridesmaid at Newt Gingrich's wedding in August in Tampa.

I don't understand why they'd only run it once

Last night Rick Perry appeared on the Jay Leno show and this ad ran in Iowa. The campaign announced it would only run once. Perhaps they don't have the money to keep this ad up in Iowa. But it seems to me the ad strikes the right tone.

Frankly, they should have run something like this right after the debate performance. Now, the least they could do is run it a few more times. Team Perry has some really well done commercials. And of all of them, this one is rather necessary to get out there.

Morning Briefing for December 2, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

December 2, 2011

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

1. Obama's Dual Deficits

2. Why the Club for Growth PAC is backing Mark Neumann in #WISEN

3. Andy Stern. Scab for the Chinese.

4. So, Whose House is it Anyway?

5. Egypt 1 – Globalism 0

6. The Horserace

———————————————————————-

1. Obama's Dual Deficits

On Monday, President Obama announced to the people of Europe that the United States stands "ready to do our part" to help Europe resolve its debt crisis.

If only he were so ready to do his part to solve the U.S. debt problem.

Today marks the one-year anniversary of the report from the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission, the 18 member group the president tasked with finding a path to deficit reduction. But after establishing the commission himself, the president brushed their recommendations aside and continued with his record spending.

Over the last three years, President Obama has proven that while he may talk a good game about debt-reduction, he's unwilling to truly lead on the issue. He once promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. And then he produced three annual budgets with record deficits.

When the deficit-reduction supercommittee struggled to fulfill its charge last month, did the president step in to offer leadership? No, he simply refused to get involved. It was politically inconvenient, his team warned.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Why the Club for Growth PAC is backing Mark Neumann in #WISEN

ne of the biggest pick-up opportunities for Republicans next year is going to be in Wisconsin, where the Democratic Senator Herb Kohl is retiring. There is a three-way primary, and the Club for Growth PAC has already endorsed one candidate.

That candidate has already been endorsed by Jim DeMint's Senate Conservative's Fund, Senator Rand Paul, and Senator Tom Coburn.

His name is Mark Neumann, and he was tea party before being tea party was cool.

Erick has written many times on here about how conservatives need to "hold the freaking line". Mark Neumann's already been there in Congress as an original member of the class of '94, and he's done it under enormous pressure from the big-spending establishment.

Here's one example: in 1995 Mark fought against a Republican spending bill, and Republican leaders, including the uber-powerful Bob Livingston, informed him they were going to kick him off the Appropriations Committee as punishment.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Andy Stern. Scab for the Chinese.

Before you ask: I was raised in a union household. I know precisely what that word means, and I am using it precisely as my late father the local union president would have used it if he had lived to read this Wall Street Journal article by former SEIU boss Andy Stern. Let me summarize said article: I, Andy Stern, am a cheap date* who can be easily persuaded to publicly abandon support for the most successful economic/fiscal system in human history in exchange to a free trip to the Great Wall of China. But ignore for right now Stern's unfortunate (for him) timing in writing a remarkably servile paean to the planned Chinese economy at precisely (I'm fond of that word this morning, it seems) the moment when the Chinese economy is looking alarmingly fragile to the rest of the world. Let's instead talk about the state of organized labor in the People's Republic of China, shall we?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. So, Whose House is it Anyway?

Last year, the American people voted overwhelmingly for a Republican House of Representatives. Based upon their campaign pledges, the prevailing expectation of a "Republican House" was a body of revitalized Republicans who would not fund Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, downsize Freddie/Fannie, oppose appropriator-concocted omnibus bills, and fight for at least some of their priorities in the Ryan budget.

A year later, the prevailing sentiment amongst the GOP ruling class within the House is antithetical to those ideals. First it was the minibus; then it was the omnibus; now there's talk about a megabus (coupled with unemployment benefits and tax extenders). Instead of demanding that Democrats pass a proper budget and allow both chambers to vote on one bill at a time, they are willing to genuflect before Harry Reid and Senate Democrats. The fact that we are running late on appropriations is not the fault of Republicans, and the American people know that. Why reward Democrats for their insouciance towards our budget process by granting them all the major policy riders and spending levels?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Egypt 1 – Globalism 0

Let's stipulate upfront that the Muslim Brotherhood's Reagan-like domination of Egypt's Parliamentary Elections is probably an international setback to the United States, Israel and most of Southern Europe. Results thus far encompass areas that were probably most friendly to the Facebook Revolutionaries and the Western World they represented.

Amongst the cosmopolitan voters over at Starbucks, the Muslim Brotherhood holds leads in 50% of the seats. Their closest competition is an Islamist Party that caters to the Salafi School of Islam. The votes taking place in the coming days will be in the Egyptian countryside where The Muslim Brotherhood may well play Mitt Romney to a way more traditionalist Salafi alternative. The Facebook Revolutionaries will have gone from overthrowing a military junta to depending upon the Egyptian Army to protect them from being beaten down like a bunch of Coptic Christians.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. The Horserace

We are a month away from the actual horserace, but it has been going on a while. I have said repeatedly that the race is Mitt Romney's to lose. It looks like he just might lose it.

The race is Romney's to lose because the race has settled against his favor. The race has settled in "Not Romney's" favor. The problem, though, is "Not Romney" is not on the ballot. Because the 75% of Republican voters who do not want Mitt Romney cannot settle on an alternative, Mitt holding steady at second place benefits him. The 75% will divide up around him while his 25% holds steady.

But few of us, including me, could see Newt's resurgence. Brought on in an unusually debate heavy campaign season, the money has started pouring in and Newt has risen to replace Romney. Not only that, but Newt's rise has seen Romney's numbers start to fall. There is panic in the Romney camp.

Herman Cain's implosion has prompted more consolidation away from Romney toward Gingrich.

The question now is can Gingrich overcome his Sisyphean legacy? Gingrich historically has reached the top of the political pile only to spectacularly roll back down it. Conservatives in the 90?s came to loath him as an obstruction to conservative dominance. During the George W. Bush years, Gingrich charted a third way that is now starting to come back on him.

If Gingrich can weather the storm for the next three weeks, it becomes Newt Gingrich's race to lose. History is against him. The voters, so far, are for him. Waiting off stage for his second close up should the voters break out the hook for Gingrich is a governor from Texas — the man who inherited Gingrich's original campaign team.

We'll get into it all in today's Horserace.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The Horserace for December 1, 2011

We are a month away from the actual horserace, but it has been going on a while. I have said repeatedly that the race is Mitt Romney's to lose. It looks like he just might lose it.

The race is Romney's to lose because the race has settled against his favor. The race has settled in "Not Romney's" favor. The problem, though, is "Not Romney" is not on the ballot. Because the 75% of Republican voters who do not want Mitt Romney cannot settle on an alternative, Mitt holding steady at second place benefits him. The 75% will divide up around him while his 25% holds steady.

But few of us, including me, could see Newt's resurgence. Brought on in an unusually debate heavy campaign season, the money has started pouring in and Newt has risen to replace Romney. Not only that, but Newt's rise has seen Romney's numbers start to fall. There is panic in the Romney camp.

Herman Cain's implosion has prompted more consolidation away from Romney toward Gingrich.

The question now is can Gingrich overcome his Sisyphean legacy? Gingrich historically has reached the top of the political pile only to spectacularly roll back down it. Conservatives in the 90′s came to loath him as an obstruction to conservative dominance. During the George W. Bush years, Gingrich charted a third way that is now starting to come back on him.

If Gingrich can weather the storm for the next three weeks, it becomes Newt Gingrich's race to lose. History is against him. The voters, so far, are for him. Waiting off stage for his second close up should the voters break out the hook for Gingrich is a governor from Texas — the man who inherited Gingrich's original campaign team.

We'll get into it all in today's Horserace.

Because it has been a few weeks due to travel and holidays, let me re-state up front that while we all have our biases in the race for and against particular candidates (my bias is largely in the "not Romney" camp as opposed to for a particular candidate), this is my effort to try to be as objective as possible. It's not an endorsement of a candidate or a particular view, but how I see things shaping up whether I like it or not. That's why I always take the candidates in alphabetical order.

Feel free to disagree or hope I'm wrong. I frequently hope I'm wrong. But this is where I see it headed.

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann had a great Heritage/AEI debate performance, but it hasn't really gained her anything. She has no new message and her old message really isn't getting out. Her campaign is out of money and she is getting very little attention.

When candidates fall in the polls, they stop getting the media attention of the front runners. Sometimes the candidates can retool, tinker, and get back out there for a second take. That time has come and passed for MIchele Bachmann. Her campaign is all in for Iowa, but despite portraying herself as the hometown girl, she is not getting traction on the ground.

Herman Cain

Herman Cain's campaign is over. The moment a campaign let's slip it is reconsidering whether or not it should be in the race is the moment people start writing off the candidate.

Let's be real honest here. Herman's problems are largely staff related (pun alert). His staff has been rather inept these past few weeks dealing with the scandals or non-scandals. They've been inept dealing with his foreign policy missteps. They've been inept in responding to criticisms of his national sales tax portion of 9-9-9.

Ultimately though, the buck stops with the candidate. And if the staff is perpetually incompetent, at some point blame must ultimately lie with the candidate. A Herman Cain supporter called my radio show the other night angry. I'm used to Cain supporters being angry with me lately. They think I'm not grateful enough to Herman and that I should be the ultimate Cain cheerleader.

This guy was not angry at me. He was angry at Herman. He said he didn't believe the harassment charges. He wasn't sure about the affair, but the woman sounded legit. He didn't care though. There could be something in Herman's life that we don't know that affected him or it could be that it didn't happen. It did not matter. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God.

What bothered him and made him so angry was that he has put his reputation at stake, telling his friends that this businessman with no political experience could fix the country. His friends had dismissed him and he kept on. And people started thinking maybe Herman could fix the country.

But finally it became apparent that Herman can't even fix his campaign. And if he can't fix his campaign, regardless of the veracity of the actual allegations, there is no way he could fix the country. This guy felt betrayed that the man he thought was so competent without political experience could not even run a campaign without the campaign tripping over itself.

That's why Herman Cain's campaign is over. So should he get out? No. There's always another chance. He's got the money. But most importantly, if Herman Cain drops out now, voters will see it as an admission against interest that he had an affair. If he holds his head up through Iowa, it will all be forgotten. But the damage is done.

Newt Gingrich

Herman Cain's implosion has benefitted Newt Gingrich more than any other person. What is so fascinating is that you can see in the polls the horde of people who fled Perry to Cain have now fled Cain to Gingrich. The question for Gingrich is if he can hang on through December. The advantage is few people pay attention in December. But those who do pay attention become the information sources for those who do not.

Gingrich's problem is that there are a lot of very influential conservatives who feel very betrayed by Gingrich's positions over the years. They are now out to settle scores with him. Voters may like him now, but will they in three weeks? Already, Ron Paul has out one of the most effective attack pieces I've seen on the trail this year. Stuff like that is going to keep trickling out.

If Gingrich can hang on, I think the race locks quickly for him among the 75% who do not want Mitt Romney. But I am convinced if Gingrich collapses as he is historically prone to do because of his ego that both Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry will get another look. One other point about Gingrich — does he have the state level organizational support to make it through the other states? To a large degree that would come if he wins Iowa. But as we saw with Perry and with Cain, when a candidate suddenly and largely unexpectedly starts surging with not a lot of money in the back, the staff can start tripping over itself leading to chaos.

Here's the Ron Paul ad:

Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman is rising in New Hampshire. If Huntsman comes back in New Hampshire, he is in the game. Here's the funny thing about Jon Huntsman. His record as a Governor is more conservative than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney combined. He is more pro-life than either of them. He is more economically wedded to the free market than either of them. He has better foreign policy experience than either of them. Huntsman should be a conservative hero in this race.

But he is not because of his own campaign's doing. The campaign made a conscious choice to give the middle finger to conservatives early on. Huntsman decided to cast himself as the moderate in the race — go to the left of Romney. I think his campaign thought Romney would run right. Instead they both tried to run up the center and Huntsman got to the left. He also, maybe he can't help himself, comes off as too condescending to a lot of primary voters. His attitude rubs people wrong in South Carolina and Iowa.

What's so tragic about the Huntsman race is that he has the boldest free market economic recovery plan. He has the most pro-life record of anyone in the race other than Rick Perry. He has the best jobs creation record of anyone in the race with the possible exception of Rick Perry. And he has run away from all of that to be the guy who doesn't offend the women of The View.

If Jon Huntsman made that decision, he might want to commit seppuku. If his campaign team did it, he should fire them. I have come to the conclusion that Jon Huntsman is more conservative than Mitt Romney and would be a more conservative President than Mitt Romney. I have also come to conclude that if the Huntsman campaign has anything to do with it, you will never ever know how conservative his record and economic vision actually are and he will lose as a result.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul continues to impress me with his video work, his commercials, and his appeal to a broad base of people on economic issues. Ron Paul actually has captured the zeitgeist on economic issues right now. Unfortunately he has a lot of baggage and it mostly comes from foreign policy views and prior statements.

I think Newt Gingrich is right. Ron Paul's voters are Ron Paul voters. They are not Republican voters. They will not go to someone else, but few others will go to Ron Paul. He is incapable of building a winning coalition for the primary. His views on our relationship with Israel are repugnant to many. His views on the war on terror scare the crap out of people. And ultimately, while he has captured the zeitgeist on economic issues, I don't think it would last through the general election.

Ron Paul will not be the nominee. But he just might take out Newt Gingrich.

Rick Perry

The problem for Rick Perry is that his campaign is now based on luck. If Newt Gingrich implodes, Rick Perry may get another look.

That's not a winning strategy. That's wishing on a star. But it still may happen.

Ultimately — and I am friends with a number of these guys but I won't mince any words here — I believe Rick Perry will get a second look by primary voters and I believe the Perry campaign will not be ready for that second look.

Here's the problem for Team Perry — they are not hungry. If Rick Perry loses tomorrow, all of his top people go back to the Governor's Mansion in Texas and govern Texas. They all view that as equally awesome to the White House, so they are not hungry for a win. They have nothing to lose so they don't mind losing. And I think that goes for the candidate too.

Reporters routinely tell me that Perry has perhaps the nicest of campaign staffs, but they also tell me that the Perry campaign is full of hubris and really does convey the attitude that it doesn't matter because they'll still have jobs the day after Perry drops out.

It is a psychological problem for Team Perry and I don't know that they get it. They are about to get a second look from a lot of voters in Iowa and elsewhere who are about to be scared to death over Newt Gingrich's social conservative record or lack thereof. And if the Perry campaign is yet again found wanting, and I sadly think it will be, we may just see the rise of Jon Huntsman.

Again though, right now, the second look depends on luck and it should not. The Perry camp is resting on a belief Newt will implode. They should be making their own luck as best they can. There are rumors of a staff shake up and a concentration in Iowa. They better do something. They've got a good staff in Iowa and a good ground game. They have the money, but they are running out of time.

Governor Perry, get ready for your second close up. You are just about to lose so make it count. One thing that could help you is if evangelicals in Iowa decide to unite behind you. That's a real possibility right now.

Mitt Romney

This remains Mitt Romney's race because while three-quarters of the GOP does not want Mitt Romney, the three-quarters of the GOP cannot make up its mind who it does want.

But weaknesses are starting to show up with Team Romney. Romney's rather petulant behavior with Bret Baier is just part of it. Whining about an interview on Fox News suggests a rather solid weakness for Romney and also suggests he cannot hold up to tough questions about his record.

Romney's got to take out Newt Gingrich. He's so far using the same tactic he tried with Rick Perry — the career politician track. I don't think that works for Romney. It just serves to remind everyone how utterly unsuccessful he is as a politician.

Still, the stars are still mostly aligned for a Romney nomination because no one else can get their act together. If Gingrich holds on through the digital rectal exam he's about to get, Mitt Romney stays a bridesmaid. If Gingrich collapses and neither Perry nor Huntsman are ready, Mitt Romney does what his father could not — secures the Republican nomination.

Rick Santorum

I'm starting to feel sorry for Rick Santorum. Evangelicals in Iowa have been privately meeting to see if they could unite behind a candidate. Santorum could arguably be that guy given his record. But Santorum can't get people convinced he can win and no one wants to back a guy who looks like a loser. I see no way Santorum becomes the nominee, even if he were to surprise everyone and win Iowa. He has no money and no organization. I have never understood the rationale for a Santorum run and I'm starting to think he doesn't understand it either.

Is Mitt Romney as Whiny as Barack Obama? Or Just Not Really Vetted?

If you haven't seen the Bret Baier interview with Mitt Romney it is now abundantly apparent why Mitt Romney will not sit in the middle chair and take tough questions from the roundtable — his skin is as thin as Barack Obama's. (To Bret's credit, he had the roundtable panel submit questions and Steve Hayes asked an awesome one. You'll have to watch the interview to see it)

Bret Baier asked Romney, "About your book, you talk about Massachusetts healthcare. We've heard you many times, in the debates and interviews, talk about how it is different in your mind than the president's healthcare law, Obamacare. The question is, do you still support the idea of a mandate? Do you believe that that was the right thing for Massachusetts? Do you think a mandate, mandating people to buy insurance is the right tool?"

Romney's response? "Bret, I don't know how many hundred times I've said this, too. This is an unusual interview."

But after the interview it became more troubling. Mitt Romney actually complained that some of the questions were "uncalled for." Yes folks, the former Governor of Massachusetts actually complained that Bret Baier — Bret Baier of Fox New's Special Report, the guy I hate because my six year old has a massive crush on him and he could kick my ass on the golf course — that Bret Baier asked questions that were "uncalled for" like this one:

BAIER: In recent days, you've charged that Speaker Gingrich was proposing amnesty essentially with what he said in that last debate.

You were attacking him on immigration, but you took what seemed like a very similar position back in 2006-2007, telling Bloomberg that some illegal immigrants need to be allowed to stay, come out of the shadows, and, quote, "we need to begin a process of registering those people, some being returned, some beginning the process of applying for citizenship and establishing legal status. We're not going to go through a process of tracking them all down and moving them out."

ROMNEY: Right.

BAIER: Is that different than where you are now?

H – E – Double Hockey Sticks people. Good grief.

For context, for the past few weeks Herman Cain has been forced to answer whether he had sexual relations with a host of women. Newt Gingrich has been forced to answer questions about his business relationships. Rick Perry has been forced to answer questions about the HPV vaccines.

And suddenly Mitt Romney thinks it is uncalled for to ask him why he has changed his position on so many issues so often around the time he begins a quest for a different political office?! If reasonable questions from a Fox News reporter are "uncalled for" and "unusual," there may not be big boy pants big enough to hold Mitt Romney and his tears once the mainstream media starts asking him the questions he has so far done his level best to avoid.

I think what we are seeing is that Mitt Romney did not truly get vetted in 2008. Remember, Giuliani was in first place and the media fixated him until he started to collapse. Then McCain and Romney both started rising and the media was so orgasmic over McCain as the comeback kid they ignored Romney until just as they were turning their gaze to Romney a guy named Huckabee took off like a rocket. It became all Huckabee all the time.

This time around, the race has been so fluid and so many have bounced ahead of Mitt Romney, he's largely avoided the TSA/MSM pat down. Hell, everyone figured they could just do it in the general election.

But now Mitt Romney is having to get out there because people are starting to notice he is avoiding tough questions. And it seems more and more the man just cannot take the daily grind of people asking him about . . .wait for it . . . wait for it . . . . . . his record.

Make the Payroll Tax Cuts Permanent

I never thought I would see the day, but Democrats are outmaneuvering Republicans on a tax cut — the payroll tax cut. They want an extension again. Let's understand that the Democrats don't serious want to help the working-class. They are admitting the working-class is no longer part of their coalition.

But they do want to score points against the GOP and, like clock work, the GOP is throwing the ball into the Democrats' basket for them.

Republicans are arguing that another extension will (A) further undermine the solvency of social security and (B) not actually be pro-growth because it leaves uncertainty in the system over whether or not it will happen again.

Right now the Democrats are out flanking the Republicans on the payroll tax cut. It's like the FEMA disaster stuff. Right as images are on every television in America showing houses destroyed by hurricanes, the GOP decides it needs to offset FEMA spending with cuts or else.

I have never understood the GOP's willingness to stand on principle only during suicide missions.

The Republican Party is the party of tax cuts. The Republican party believes that temporary tax cuts subject to congressional renewal schemes are not pro-growth because of the uncertainty they leave.

So instead of going along with the Democrats' efforts to temporarily extend the payroll tax cuts, the GOP should make them permanent. In fact, the House of Representatives should pass a very clean piece of legislation doing nothing but making the payroll tax cut permanent.

Just do it. The Democrats want to nibble away at the GOP on the tax cut issue. Force feed them a permanent cut.

"But wait," you say. "That will undermine the solvency of social security."

So.

If you really think there is a social security trust fund and it is solvent, you really need a reality check.

A permanent tax cut is pro-growth in a way temporary tax cuts are not. The real fight here will be on unemployment benefits. This fight is just a distraction, but one the GOP will get hung up on. So go big or go home.

At the same time, a permanent cut would accelerate the time table at which social security must absolutely be fixed. The GOP will always support the temporary tax cut because they cannot stand for the Democrats to outflank them on that issue. So they should instead one up the Democrats and fight to make the cut permanent.

That will put the Democrats on their proper and natural side — opposing tax cuts.

Morning Briefing for December 1, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

December 1, 2011

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

1. Make the Payroll Tax Cuts Permanent

2. Is Mitt Romney as Whiny as Barack Obama? Or Just Not Really Vetted?

3. The College of Hypocritical Big Government Cardinals

———————————————————————-

1. Make the Payroll Tax Cuts Permanent

I never thought I would see the day, but Democrats are outmaneuvering Republicans on a tax cut — the payroll tax cut. They want an extension again. Let's understand that the Democrats don't serious want to help the working-class. They are admitting the working-class is no longer part of their coalition.

But they do want to score points against the GOP and, like clock work, the GOP is throwing the ball into the Democrats' basket for them.

Republicans are arguing that another extension will (A) further undermine the solvency of social security and (B) not actually be pro-growth because it leaves uncertainty in the system over whether or not it will happen again.

Right now the Democrats are out flanking the Republicans on the payroll tax cut. It's like the FEMA disaster stuff. Right as images are on every television in America showing houses destroyed by hurricanes, the GOP decides it needs to offset FEMA spending with cuts or else.

I have never understood the GOP's willingness to stand on principle only during suicide missions.

The Republican Party is the party of tax cuts. The Republican party believes that temporary tax cuts subject to congressional renewal schemes are not pro-growth because of the uncertainty they leave.

So instead of going along with the Democrats' efforts to temporarily extend the payroll tax cuts, the GOP should make them permanent. In fact, the House of Representatives should pass a very clean piece of legislation doing nothing but making the payroll tax cut permanent.

Just do it. The Democrats want to nibble away at the GOP on the tax cut issue. Force feed them a permanent cut.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Is Mitt Romney as Whiny as Barack Obama? Or Just Not Really Vetted?

If you haven't seen the Bret Baier interview with Mitt Romney it is now abundantly apparent why Mitt Romney will not sit in the middle chair and take tough questions from the roundtable — his skin is as thin as Barack Obama's. (To Bret's credit, he had the roundtable panel submit questions and Steve Hayes asked an awesome one. You'll have to watch the interview to see it)

Bret Baier asked Romney, "About your book, you talk about Massachusetts healthcare. We've heard you many times, in the debates and interviews, talk about how it is different in your mind than the president's healthcare law, Obamacare. The question is, do you still support the idea of a mandate? Do you believe that that was the right thing for Massachusetts? Do you think a mandate, mandating people to buy insurance is the right tool?"

Romney's response? "Bret, I don't know how many hundred times I've said this, too. This is an unusual interview."

But after the interview it became more troubling. Mitt Romney actually complained that some of the questions were "uncalled for." Yes folks, the former Governor of Massachusetts actually complained that Bret Baier — Bret Baier of Fox New's Special Report, the guy I hate because my six year old has a massive crush on him and he could kick my ass on the golf course — that Bret Baier asked questions that were "uncalled for".

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. The College of Hypocritical Big Government Cardinals

There is an old adage in Washington that describes the political system as consisting of three political parties; Democrats, Republicans, and Appropriators. The Appropriations Subcommittee chairmen, often referred to as the "College of Cardinals," usually agree to concoct legislation that fuses the worst elements of the evil and stupid parties, resulting in something worse than a pure Democrat proposal.

This is exactly what transpired with the so-called minibus bill. The Republican-controlled House passed an agriculture appropriations bill that breached the spending caps of their own budget, but nonetheless remained within the confines of the spending levels established under the Budget Control Act. The Senate, after failing to pass a budget for over 900 days, tacked on two other appropriations bills that funded four other departments, and sent them straight to conference committee without the House ever voting on two-thirds of the bill. They added in more food stamps spending, $2.3 billion in non-offset disaster spending, and gutted all Republican policy riders. Then the bipartisan College of Cardinals went to conference committee for a compromise. This "compromise" contained even more spending on WIC and international food aid, and added a provision, which was inserted into the conference report, to expand the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

From the Mail Bag: Anti-Mormon Bigot Edition

Yes, it is because we are anti-Mormon bigots. That's it. It has nothing to do with this or with this.

From: greg@capitol-ideas.com

Subject: Romney

Date: November 30, 2011 10:34:47 AM EST

To: contact@redstate.com

Thanks a lot for playing the Huckabee this year! Huckabee, the bigoted Baptist, took Romney out in 2008 when he colluded with McCain just so a Mormon wouldn't be elected and what happened? We got Obama!

Romney is true to his principles. You just haven't taken the time to really understand him.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because he's a Mormon.

GM Jarrard

Robert Novak, the Prince of Darkness, Wrote About Gingrich

When I write about forgiving Newt Gingrich's sins and whether or not he has matured, it is stuff like this, not his personal life, that I am referring to:

THE READER'S DIGEST profile of Speaker Gingrich that I had been working on since October appeared in the April 1995 issue under the title "Will Success Spoil Newt Gingrich?" I am sure it was not what Newt had in mind when he gave me so much of his valuable time. The Gingrich profile and other Reader's Digest articles still came out under the Evans & Novak byline as they had since we started writing for the world's largest circulation magazine in 1981. Rowly and I were listed on the masthead as "Roving Editors," producing four articles a year. The Digest was the most heavily edited publication we ever wrote for, but William Schulz, a conservative who ran the Digest's Washington office, was the best editor I ever encountered and always improved my copy.

Schulz had less to do with the final nature of the Gingrich article than another conservative, Kenneth Tomlinson. A former newspaper reporter and longtime Reader's Digest staffer, Tomlinson had headed the Voice of America in 1982–84 during the Reagan administration and returned to the magazine as managing editor, to become editor in chief in 1989 at age forty-five. Ken was much more intimately involved in what I wrote than his predecessors, always in a positive way. Even before Gingrich was sworn in as speaker, Tomlinson expressed to me misgivings about him. He urged me not to go overboard on Newt, and I was having second thoughts myself, starting with the aborted $4.5 million book contract.

Gingrich put the House on a backbreaking schedule to pass elements of the Contract with America that were mainly procedural. Was this revolution merely cosmetic? I thought Newt sometimes got entangled in the trivial, as in renaming the House's standing committees. On Monday, December 5, 1994, nearly a month before the new Republican Congress was sworn in, I was addressing right-wing congressional staffers, activists, and lobbyists, giving an optimistic preview of the Gingrich Revolution when I got this question from the audience: "What would you say, Mr. Novak, if I were to tell you that half the Democratic professional staffers on the House Appropriations Committee are being retained by the Republicans?" "I would say it was an outrage," I replied.

It was all too true. In addition to 35 Appropriations staff members allocated to the Democratic minority, I learned that 50 out of the 119 staff slots allocated to the Republicans were actually holdovers.

Novak, Robert D. (2007-07-10). The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington (pp. 524-525). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

That was Robert Novak, the celebrated journalist and conservative commentator in his memoirs. But that wasn't all Novak had to say.

I had thought Gingrich reached four rungs down the seniority ladder for [Bob] Livingston to get a conservative reformer ending this buddy system of appropriators, but that was not it at all. I now realized that Gingrich was not trying to break this closed circle but merely trying to get a younger, more competent appropriator than the old-timers ahead of Livingston in seniority. Livingston was keeping the Democratic staffers because he was an appropriator at heart. Four days after seeing Livingston, I came to total agreement with Ken Tomlinson that we had better hedge our bets about Gingrich in the Reader's Digest article.

On that day, February 10, I breakfasted with Gingrich in the House Members Dining Room. He already had ceased to be the exuberant visionary who had so excited me after his 1994 election triumph. He seemed less tired than just plain bored with the workaday world of legislation. I noted speculation about Gingrich for president in 1996, expecting a routine denial. Instead, Newt said: "Well, wouldn't you say that I had accomplished everything here [in the House] that I could?"

I first thought he might be joking. But he wasn't. Nothing substantive had been accomplished in the 104th Congress—no tax reform, no expenditure reform, no welfare reform, no tort reform. Yet Gingrich was ready to move on, his attention span apparently exceeded.

Novak, Robert D. (2007-07-10). The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington (p. 526). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Are Conservatives Ready to Forgive Newt Gingrich His Sins?

I am now officially a self-declared member of the "Not Romney" camp. I will absolutely, positively support Mitt Romney should he win the GOP nomination, but I believe the GOP would meet certain doom if he is the nominee. Therefore, should Gingrich be the only other choice, I'd side with Gingrich over Romney.

But I think in the next few weeks conservatives must ask themselves if they are ready to forgive Newt his sins. I'm not talking about his adultery and wives. I'm not really even talking about his ego. What I am talking about is only tangentially related to his sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.

It was, after all, Newt Gingrich who advocated for an individual mandate long before Mitt Romney ever did. Gingrich has, like Clinton before him, been a "third way" fan of new fangled ways to do things. The conservative warrior people tend to think Gingrich is, often is not. Newt has a fascination with the shiny in policy and technology, hence the latest oppo drop on Newt that he once praised Donald Berwick, the Obama appointee chosen to oversee the death panels and shoving of grandparents over the medical cost savings cliff.

To be fair to Gingrich, he was offering legitimate praise to Berwick way back when and Berwick's own writings that Newt praised would be damning to Obamacare. But it is the first of many attacks. [UPDATE: A friend tells me I misread an email from him on this Berwick matter and, considering he is an expert, said I should note that the bit Berwick wrote that Newt praised actually was not good. In fact, he notes that Berwick is more extreme than Obama. Sorry for misreading the info.]

The real issue for Gingrich is that he is the Great American Sisyphus, always rolling his political rock up a hill only to see it go tumbling back down. And unfortunately for many, when Newt reaches the top of the hill and his political career starts its roll back down the hill, many others get rolled over in the process.

Gingrich is going to need to convince people he has changed. Conservatives must be ready to forgive him his sins. And as conservatives come to terms with Gingrich's sins, they are going to be confronted by a man named Tom Coburn who wrote a book called Breach of Trust and a man named Robert Novak who wrote the foreword to that book. One excerpt will be particularly troubling to conservative activists currently enamored with Newt's debating skills.

Gingrich either felt that he could not use his office to control spending or was not willing to lose his office to control spending. This goes to the heart of the matter: If your decisions are based on not losing a position, you cannot effectively serve the best long-term interests of the country.

Sen. Tom A. Coburn M.D.;John Hart. Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders (Kindle Locations 1283-1285). Kindle Edition.

If Newt can withstand the rehashing of Tom Coburn's book — a book that portrays Gingrich as talking the talk, but betraying the talk once in office — we may have our anti-Romney. If not, I think Rick Perry may yet have a second coming if he is ready. I say that having asked many callers to my radio show who are Cain supporters where they would go. Most say Newt. The others Perry. And if Newt implodes? They almost always say they'd go to Perry — Romney is rarely their choice.

Some excerpts from Breach of Trust below the fold.

Coburn made his presence felt immediately. It became clear to him that Speaker Gingrich, House Majority Leader Armey and the rest of the Republican leadership were not what they pretended to be. They were revolutionaries in name only, content to take possession from the Democrats of the machinery of government and then run it virtually unchanged. That froze in place the system of pork barrel spending that young Woodrow Wilson described in Congressional Government more than 130 years ago.

Sen. Tom A. Coburn M.D.;John Hart. Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders (Kindle Locations 55-58). Kindle Edition.

Gingrich talked a lot about the importance of listening, but he was often not interested in discussing our ideas. He had a saying on his wall in the Speaker's office that he quoted often: "Listen, learn, help, and lead." The freshmen later developed our own quote about Gingrich: "Fire, Ready, Aim."

Sen. Tom A. Coburn M.D.;John Hart. Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders (Kindle Locations 849-850). Kindle Edition.

Gingrich would receive our input, but he rarely took it seriously. He usually made us feel as if we didn't have much value because we didn't know anything about the political game in Washington. We were from the outside and wet behind the ears in terms of politics, and we obviously didn't know as much about history as he did. It would not take long for us to become "the conservatives" to him.

Sen. Tom A. Coburn M.D.;John Hart. Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders (Kindle Locations 850-853). Kindle Edition.