<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Fox News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/fox-news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:30:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Barbra Streisand: “Barack Obama Has Not Put Anyone On Food Stamps,” Gingrich Racist For Saying So…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/barbra-streisand-barack-obama-has-not-put-anyone-on-food-stamps-gingrich-racist-for-saying-so/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/barbra-streisand-barack-obama-has-not-put-anyone-on-food-stamps-gingrich-racist-for-saying-so/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:12:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debate-moderated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[huffington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[said-black]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[williams]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/barbra-streisand-barack-obama-has-not-put-anyone-on-food-stamps-gingrich-racist-for-saying-so/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Feeling verklempt, Babs? Barbra Streisand via Huffington Post: . . . Also, recently in a debate moderated by Fox News analyst, Juan Williams, Gingrich was questioned about controversial remarks he had made about poverty and African Americans. Gingrich had previously said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. Juan Williams attempted to coax Gingrich ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/barbra-streisand-barack-obama-has-not-put-anyone-on-food-stamps-gingrich-racist-for-saying-so/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Romney&#8217;s Moronic Indulgence of Trump</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/romneys-moronic-indulgence-of-trump-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/romneys-moronic-indulgence-of-trump-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 03:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>richwas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biggest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[footage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama-twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[says-something]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seriously-hurt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time-the-effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trump]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/romneys-moronic-indulgence-of-trump-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Phil Klein calls Mitt Romney's joint appearance with Donald Trump to accept the latter's endorsement "the biggest blunder of his candidacy." I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's certainly up there. Consider that last time the effect of a Trump endorsement was polled, by Fox News in Spetember, it came out as a net negative : 31% would be less likely to vote for a Trump endorsee, only 6% more likely. Those who are working to re-elect Barack Obama are thrilled by the development, touting it on the @BarackObama Twitter account and in a blast email from the Democratic National Committee. Romney will most likely be the Republican nominee, and if Trump says something particularly incendiary, one can certainly imagine an attack ad using the footage of Trump and Romney. But even if this blows over and doesn't seriously hurt Romney, it's hard to see how it can possibly help. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/romneys-moronic-indulgence-of-trump-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Romney&#8217;s Moronic Indulgence of Trump</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/romneys-moronic-indulgence-of-trump/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/romneys-moronic-indulgence-of-trump/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 03:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biggest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[footage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama-twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[says-something]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seriously-hurt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time-the-effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trump]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/romneys-moronic-indulgence-of-trump/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Phil Klein calls Mitt Romney's joint appearance with Donald Trump to accept the latter's endorsement "the biggest blunder of his candidacy." I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's certainly up there. Consider that last time the effect of a Trump endorsement was polled, by Fox News in Spetember, it came out as a net negative : 31% would be less likely to vote for a Trump endorsee, only 6% more likely. Those who are working to re-elect Barack Obama are thrilled by the development, touting it on the @BarackObama Twitter account and in a blast email from the Democratic National Committee. Romney will most likely be the Republican nominee, and if Trump says something particularly incendiary, one can certainly imagine an attack ad using the footage of Trump and Romney. But even if this blows over and doesn't seriously hurt Romney, it's hard to see how it can possibly help. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/romneys-moronic-indulgence-of-trump/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trump to Endorse Romney</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/trump-to-endorse-romney/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/trump-to-endorse-romney/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>FlodinCeglinski711</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[idiocy-on-china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keeping-himself]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stopped-talking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[television]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trump-the-most]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/trump-to-endorse-romney/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ As I predicted yesterday, it is now being reported that Donald Trump will endorse Mitt Romney rather than Newt Gingrich. It's no surprise to me since Trump's main issue (now that he's stopped talking about President Obama's birth certificate) is China. Mitt Romney has the most aggressively anti-China rhetoric of any of the candidates. Romney is right to focus on Chinese theft of American intellectual property but dangerously naive with his populist appeal to "unfair" Chinese trading practices, especially when based on the value of the Chinese currency. Trump was never actually going to run. He was just keeping himself in the news to boost his television ratings. Romney's sharing Trump's idiocy on China gives Trump the most graceful possible way to explain to the fawning news media while he is not entering the race. As for Romney, he should say "Thanks" to The Donald, but just once, and then never mention it again and do everything he can to keep Trump quiet, and far from the campaign trail. A Fox News poll suggests that three times as many voters are likely to vote against a candidate whom Trump endorsed as are likely to vote for the candidate for that reason. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/trump-to-endorse-romney/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trump to Endorse Romney</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/trump-to-endorse-romney/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/trump-to-endorse-romney/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LogemannCid284</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[idiocy-on-china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keeping-himself]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trump-the-most]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/trump-to-endorse-romney/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ As I predicted yesterday, it is now being reported that Donald Trump will endorse Mitt Romney rather than Newt Gingrich. It's no surprise to me since Trump's main issue (now that he's stopped talking about President Obama's birth certificate) is China. Mitt Romney has the most aggressively anti-China rhetoric of any of the candidates. Romney is right to focus on Chinese theft of American intellectual property but dangerously naive with his populist appeal to "unfair" Chinese trading practices, especially when based on the value of the Chinese currency. Trump was never actually going to run. He was just keeping himself in the news to boost his television ratings. Romney's sharing Trump's idiocy on China gives Trump the most graceful possible way to explain to the fawning news media while he is not entering the race. As for Romney, he should say "Thanks" to The Donald, but just once, and then never mention it again and do everything he can to keep Trump quiet, and far from the campaign trail. A Fox News poll suggests that three times as many voters are likely to vote against a candidate whom Trump endorsed as are likely to vote for the candidate for that reason. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/trump-to-endorse-romney/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fox: Trump for Romney</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/fox-trump-for-romney/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/fox-trump-for-romney/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MendesIdalia899</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donald]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-thumbs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thumbs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[will-give]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/fox-trump-for-romney/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Now we know. Fox News says for fact: The Donald will give his thumbs up to Mitt. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/fox-trump-for-romney/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fox: Trump for Romney</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/fox-trump-for-romney-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/fox-trump-for-romney-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrevorLandon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donald]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-thumbs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thumbs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[will-give]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/fox-trump-for-romney-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Now we know. Fox News says for fact: The Donald will give his thumbs up to Mitt. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/fox-trump-for-romney-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fear and Loathing in the Sunshine State</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/fear-and-loathing-in-the-sunshine-state/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/fear-and-loathing-in-the-sunshine-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Onoshobishobi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carolina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[top-ten]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/fear-and-loathing-in-the-sunshine-state/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ FORT MYERS, Fla. -- George Soros, Goldman Sachs, and other forces of the "establishment" are conspiring to support Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, Newt Gingrich warned Republicans here Monday, as Floridians prepared to go to the polls in their state's crucial GOP primary. Referring to an interview that Soros -- a billionaire notorious for his funding of left-wing causes -- gave to Reuters last week in Davos, Switzerland, Gingrich summarized Soros as saying, "We think either Obama or Romney's fine, but Gingrich, he would change things." The anti-Gingrich cabal, said the former House Speaker, also includes investment banking giant Goldman Sachs, which backed President Obama four years ago and now -- having profited from taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts -- is bankrolling Romney's campaign attack ads. "Those ads are your money recycled to attack me," Gingrich told the hundreds gathered outside Page Field airport here. He cited no evidence that Goldman Sachs was in cahoots with Romney, and the opacity of the "super PACs" which are pumping millions into this Republican primary campaign makes it impossible either to prove or disprove Gingrich's depiction of the malevolent forces arrayed against him. Yet he repeated similar accusations in different forums throughout the day -- on ABC in the morning, on Fox News in the afternoon, and at each of the five stops on his final whirlwind tour of the Sunshine State -- as if endeavoring to convince his supporters that they are victims of a vast conspiracy. Newt seemed to be providing a pre-emptive excuse for what polls indicate will be a decisive defeat for him in Tuesday's winner-take-all primary. Six polls within the past week have shown Gingrich trailing Romney by double-digit margins in Florida -- the Real Clear Politics average of Florida polls had Romney's margin at 12.5 points Monday -- a striking reversal of Gingrich's advantage after he beat Romney handily in South Carolina ten days ago. (See " The End of Inevitability," Jan. 22.) The rival campaigns suddenly seem to have switched roles. Gingrich's Carolina win was enough to inspire panic among Romney's supporters, with Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post warning that if Newt got the nomination he would "alienate virtually all independent voters, lose more than 40 states and put the House majority in jeopardy." But as evidence mounted that Romney's aggressive full-court Florida attack was succeeding -- and after Gingrich fared poorly in two televised debates last week -- it was Newt and his supporters who pushed the panic button, asserting that unless conservatives immediately rallied behind Gingrich, the "Establishment" would conspire to deliver the GOP nomination to Romney. Among those who have helped spread that message is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who last week issued a Facebook warning that " the GOP establishment [is] trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots " and " using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney's chief rival." Palin yesterday reiterated that charge during an appearance on Andrew Napolitano's Fox Business Network program, saying that "those inside the machine" are ganging up against Gingrich. For the first time during this campaign, Palin expressed a dismissive attitude toward another Republican challenger, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, telling Napolitano that the Republican choice is "one or the other" between Mitt and Newt, adding that it is "naively idealistic" to think either Santorum or Texas Rep. Ron Paul could mount a serious challenge to Romney. Because the Florida primary awards delegates on a winner-take-all basis, there is no benefit to candidates who can't contend for first place here. Paul skipped out of Florida after last Thursday's debate, while Santorum was forced to cut short his campaign in the Sunshine State because of his 3-year-old daughter's weekend illness. Both candidates, however, have vowed to continue the fight in upcoming caucuses and primaries. Santorum picked up the endorsement of influential conservative columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin Monday and, in an appearance in Missouri (which holds a non-binding primary vote next week), vowed to avoid "gutter politics" in his campaign. When the votes are counted tonight in Florida, Santorum will be watching the results with his supporters in Nevada, where Saturday's caucuses will be the next contest on the GOP campaign calendar. Meanwhile in Florida, the man who looks to be the loser in this winner-take-all primary was pushing an angry populist message yesterday to the supporters who gathered at the airport in Fort Myers. Gingrich warned that the Obama administration was attempting to impose a "dictatorship of anti-religious secularism," he promised to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and he denounced Romney as having "no clue what Reagan stood for." (One Romney ad cites Gingrich's long-ago criticisms of President Reagan, which Gingrich sought to refute by bringing the Gipper's son, conservative talk-show host Michael Reagan, to campaign for him in Florida.) Gingrich welcomed the endorsement of Herman Cain -- whose Tea Party-backed campaign was derailed by allegations of sexual misconduct -- saying that the Atlanta businessman's support would "send a signal that this is a grassroots populist conservatism versus the establishment." The crowd enthusiastically cheered. "We're in a very simple campaign," Gingrich said. "We are pitting people power against money power. No question -- you look at the list of top ten donors to Mitt Romney, that's money power. That is the establishment. Those are the people who would be happy, as George Soros said, with either Obama or Romney, and they do not want a conservative. Those are the people who have led the assault on me over the last couple of weeks, by all sorts of folks whose number-one goal is to keep power in Washington the way it is now." Gingrich then alluded to New York -- that is to say, the Wall Street financiers who he alleges have bankrolled Romney's campaign against him -- as having perpetrated a fraud that he promised to expose. "I want you to know, I do not believe it is legitimate for the current establishment to preside over the decay as long as they're doing well. I think we have an obligation to our children, to our grandchildren, to fundamentally change Washington and, frankly, to fundamentally change New York. We deserve to know the truth about the last four years. We deserve to know what happened to our money." The afternoon sun was shining brightly and, behind Gingrich, palm trees were swaying in the warm breeze, but he seemed to see no irony in issuing this dark and chilly warning against the menace of "money power" to a Republican audience in the Sunshine State. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/fear-and-loathing-in-the-sunshine-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gingrich&#8217;s March</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/gingrichs-march/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/gingrichs-march/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[general-sherman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/gingrichs-march/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ What happens after Florida's Republican primary today, which polls show Mitt Romney leading by double digits as the official ballot-casting day arrives? For Newt Gingrich, the answer may lie in some of his state's most famous military history. First, the other candidates: Mitt Romney will be working to solidify his lead. The fact that there are only caucuses over the week after the Florida contest (except for a meaningless primary in Missouri which will not result in the allocation of delegates) can only help the former Massachusetts governor whose caucus organization is only matched by Ron Paul's. Despite coming to Colorado on Wednesday to campaign ahead of that swing state's February 7 th caucuses, Rick Santorum will soon get out of the race primarily because he'll be out of money but he will say (and it will to some degree be true) that it's to be with his youngest daughter who was born with an inevitably fatal genetic anomaly and whose health has been bad in recent days. There are two things which could make this prediction wrong: First, the fact that he really doesn't have anything else to do and he's proven that he's willing and able to stick around on the lowest of budgets. Second, if he dislikes Newt Gingrich more than he dislikes Mitt Romney, he could stay in just to keep trying to split the "anti-Romney" vote. Your guess is as good as mine, though I'd have to think Santorum would prefer Gingrich to Romney. Ron Paul, who will also be in Colorado this week, will never get out of the race because he, like Santorum, has nothing else to do (since he's retiring from Congress after this term), and he has plenty of money to keep going. But he's basically a non-event since Ron Paul voters are just as likely to vote Libertarian, Democrat, or not at all, as to support either Romney or Gingrich. He will not run on the Libertarian ticket because it would put his son in an impossible position. Newt Gingrich has said that he intends to stay in until the nominating convention, and given how deeply personal his antagonism toward Mitt Romney has become, it's hard to see that as an idle boast. Newt is out for blood, feeling that he would be leading the chase for the nomination if only Romney weren't so well funded, and feeling wronged at every turn by a "Massachusetts liberal" dissembler. This despite a Gallup poll released Monday showing that on the question of who is more "sincere and authentic," Americans give Romney a 14 point edge over the former Speaker of the House… not to mention a 20 point lead on the question of presidential personality and leadership skills. But Newt will have none of it. He wants to break the will of those supporting Romney. In 1864, the Union's Major General William Tecumseh Sherman issued orders prior to his (in)famous March to the Sea. Included in these orders was direction to army commanders that if local inhabitants "burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility." So, what happens after Florida? My prediction: Mitt will spend much of the next month prior to the March 6th "Super Tuesday" primaries campaigning in Ohio, the most important state until Texas' April 3 contest. But Gingrich's strategy may not be that straight forward: As Charles Krauthammer mentioned on Fox News on Monday, Gingrich may in fact focus on trying to win a few smaller states, especially southern states, to get to a plurality of delegates in 5 or more states. He's got South Carolina and you have to figure he'll take home state of Georgia. He needs three more, and like General Sherman he will do whatever it takes. And here's why...quoting from the Rules of the Republican Party : Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. If Gingrich can get a plurality of delegates in 5 or more states, he will have his name entered into the nomination and perhaps turn the convention into a circus depending on a few other factors, particularly how large Romney's delegate lead is at the time (assuming Romney will be leading as political bettors seem to think it will). Gingrich feels deeply wronged by Romney and by the vicissitudes of election politics. After all, Gingrich's dramatic post-South Carolina surge and his equally dramatic collapse was the second time he's had momentum which put him ahead of Romney in national polls (although he never overtook Romney in betting odds at intrade.com). Gingrich has been on his share of political rollercoasters but probably never anything like this. It's a minefield of "what if"s and "if only"s that would be particularly hard for a man with Gingrich's ego to peacefully coexist with. What if Rick Perry had gotten out earlier and perhaps given me a chance to prevent Santorum's Iowa surge and take the first caucus? If only Mitt Romney and his friends weren't so rich. What if that Freddie Mac news had never come out? If only I could control the debate rules. It's hard to go from being the master of the universe to just another player on the political chessboard, maybe more than a pawn but certainly not the king. Newt Gingrich is out for bloody revenge against the man who is about to snatch away the brass ring that was tantalizingly near to the former Speaker's grasp. Like General Sherman, he shows no qualms against instigating war in which the vast majority of the damage is fundamentally unnecessary but simply meant to destroy the psychology of the enemy. And, in another historical irony, Gingrich, like General Sherman, believes that in his cause "the rich…are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious usually neutral or friendly." Unless saner heads prevail -- and Gingrich is not known for being easily persuaded into a more temperate course -- the rest of the Gingrich campaign will be the political equivalent of Sherman's March to the Sea, leaving behind miles of scorched earth (including, like Sherman, much of Georgia) that may not be arable political land for Mitt Romney for months to come – with all the possible ramifications for the most important presidential of most Americans' lifetimes. As far as Gingrich's upcoming Sherman-inspired march goes, Newt is a professor of history who lectures at the National War College, and he's from Georgia on top of it all. No doubt he thought of these comparisons before you or I did, and no doubt someone with him at the time would have seen an unmistakable, if brief, smile pass over his face. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/gingrichs-march/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Newt Much Better on the Question of Mandates?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/is-newt-much-better-on-the-question-of-mandates/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/is-newt-much-better-on-the-question-of-mandates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>SchoensteinNassr661</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[generals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/is-newt-much-better-on-the-question-of-mandates/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Yesterday I wrote an article on why I view the inevitability of an Obama defeat at the hands of Romney to be less than inevitable .  Mostly I attributed this to weakness on a core issue: Obamacare.  From my view, Romney cannot adequately take on this topic so long as he insists on defending the principles put forth in Romneycare. His state&#8217;s rights position plays ok with the base, but I believe it will be less than compelling to the general electorate when it comes time to decide what separates Obama &#038; Romney on this issue. In passing, I mentioned that Gingrich, who previously supported the mandate as well, has since determined that he was wrong and will take that to his debates with Obama should he win the nomination.  I based that on this exchange which took place in the South Carolina debate earlier this month: For the video impaired, Santorum attacked Newt on his support of mandates and questioned his ability to truly stand up to Obama on this issue of healthcare reform, to which Newt responded: &#8220;Of course you can. I&#8217;d say, you know, I was wrong and I figured it out.  You were wrong and you didn&#8217;t.&#8221; Santorum quickly pointed out that after holding the position strongly for over 10 years, it may not fly in the debates. When I witnessed this exchange, I decided that Newt had done an adequate enough job of acknowledging that he&#8217;d made a mistake and that overall, I was satisfied. That was before I saw a video at Verum Serum . NEWT GINGRICH CONFERENCE CALL ON THE WHITE HOUSE HEALTH REFORM INITIATIVE The real foundation, the most important, uh, part of this is individual rights, responsibilities, and expectation of behavior. Uh, we believe that there should be must-carry, that everyone should have health insurance, or if you&#8217;re absolute, uh, libertarian we would allow you to post a bond.  But we would not allow people to, uh, be free riders failing to ensure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room, uh, with no means of payment.   Uh, if you have, uh, must carry, then the insurance companies have told us that we can have must-issue and you will therefore have a system in which you don&#8217;t have to worry about cherry picking and maneuvering.  As we move beyond today&#8217;s press conference, this is kind of general model we&#8217;re going to be advocating&#8230; Now as I said, I&#8217;m not surprised by the fact that he supported the mandate.  This was known before he ever announced his bid.  What I didn&#8217;t realize was that his support of it went well beyond mere theoretical and into the realm of advocacy. This wasn&#8217;t a press conference discussing random possibilities.  This was a press conference specifically discussing the health care bill that was being debated at that moment which ultimately became the monstrosity known as Obamacare. I can see a couple of responses from the Newt campaign.  One would be &#8220;Hey, this was May 2009.  By March 2010 when the bill passed, it was much different!&#8221; They&#8217;d be right. It was much different by March.  It was better .  Back in May of &#8217;09 the public option was still on the table and gov&#8217;t funded abortions were still lacking an executive order to prevent them (which of course it really doesn&#8217;t prevent but I digress). Another would be, &#8220;Yes, he supported the mandate, but he didn&#8217;t write something incredibly similar into law like Romney did!&#8221; Also true.  But in my mind, Gingrich may have done something equal if not worse, unless I&#8217;ve completely misunderstood what the word &#8220;advocate&#8221; means. But enough of my theorizing, I reached out to his campaign and politely said &#8220;WHAT THE HELL???&#8221; To their credit, they responded by pointing me in two directions.  One was to this video excerpt from Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier in which Newt &#038; the panel were discussing one of the debate moments in November: BRET BAIER: There was a moment in the debate where you had an exchange with Mitt Romney and you said that his Massachusetts healthcare plan was far more big government than he talks about.  Then he said &#8216;well we got the mandate idea from you.&#8217; Then you said &#8216;well this is&#8230;you got it from Heritage and you.&#8217;  and you said &#8216;well yes.&#8217;  What is your stance on the mandate and &#8230; clear that up. NEWT GINGRICH: Look, Heritage Foundation and most conservatives including me, during the period of the fight over Hillarycare, accepted the idea of a mandate.  And, gradually virtually everybody came to the conclusion that a mandate doesn&#8217;t work in part because it means more and more and more government definition of what are you mandating.  Which is exactly the point I was making the other night with Mitt.  Now, my answer to Mitt would be &#8216;ok, I may once have advocated, I concluded I was wrong.&#8217;  Why hasn&#8217;t he concluded he was wrong? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: In concluding you were wrong, was it on the grounds that it&#8217;s bad policy? Or that it&#8217;s unconstitutional? GINGRICH: Well I&#8217;m not a constitutional lawyer but I believe that it is unconstitutional for the Congress to require you to buy something (crosstalk).  Because the&#8230; then the Congress could require you to do anything. KRAUTHAMMER: So you&#8217;re saying that in principle it was a terrible idea.  Even if as policy it might work. GINGRICH: Yes. BAIER: And that&#8217;s a change for you? GINGRICH: That is a change.  There&#8217;s no question.  That&#8217;s a change for the Heritage Foundation. A lot of us&#8230;in &#8217;93 as opposed to Hillarycare thought that was the less destructive alternative.  The longer we dealt with it the more we concluded it was hopeless. This laying out of the facts just doesn&#8217;t seem to jive with how things turned out.  Clearly Speaker Gingrich supported mandates well beyond the time that Hillarycare was being debated, and furthermore, it wasn&#8217;t simply a &#8220;we can&#8217;t think of anything else&#8221; if you listen to what he said in the &#8217;09 video.  This was a well thought out and reasoned position that he said he not only believed had to happen but would be advocating for as the bill that would eventually become Obamacare was being debated. Note also the question Krauthammer asked. &#8220;In concluding you were wrong, was it on the grounds that it&#8217;s bad policy? Or that it&#8217;s unconstitutional?&#8221; This is the question I&#8217;ve been saying will be asked in the generals and for which neither Newt nor Romney has a good answer. Their objections about constitutionality and process leave room for the idea that in theory, they still like the whole idea and want states to do it. All of them. This is not going to be a compelling argument against Obamacare: &#8220;Vote for me! I&#8217;m the guy that wants 50 separate versions of Obamacare instead of just one!&#8221; Yet continually, this question is glazed over quickly by supporters of Romney (and now potentially Gingrich) who wish to act as though screaming &#8220;FEDERALISM!!!&#8221; at the top of their lungs will somehow trump the fact that they don&#8217;t seem too far off from Obama in practice, rather just different in process. The campaign also sent me this bit in Newt&#8217;s defense from  Legal Insurrection who claims that the &#8217;09 support of mandates was not support of the mandates that exist in the final form of Obamacare. The blog Verum Serum claims to have found an audio recording showing that Newt Gingrich supported Obama’s federal mandate, in a post titled  Gingrich Called for ObamaCare Mandate in May 2009 …. Breitbart TV  picked up on that theme, asserting “this is the first example of Gingrich specifically endorsing President Barack Obama’s federally mandated version which many conservatives believe is unconstitutional and Gingrich has described as “clearly unconstitutional.” This is wrong.  I have listened to the  entire audio recording , and Newt does not endorse the Obamacare mandate, in part because the speech took place before even the earliest draft of Obamacare had been proposed. The actual discussion in the recording is nothing new, listen for yourself, it shows Newt saying what he has said before about not allowing free riders at hospitals including either having insurance or showing that you have the ability to pay.  You can like it or not, but it’s not new or news, as Verum Serum acknowledges in its post. The recording does not support the conclusion that Newt supported Obama’s federal mandate, which uses the police powers of the state to force people to buy insurance or face penalties. At the time of Newt’s presentation, in May 2009, the earliest versions of Obamacare had not yet been released.  Newt specifically notes that the details of what would be proposed were unknown and (at 27:00) the process was still in the “wish list press conference stage.” I think I covered this above.  I&#8217;ll grant you that everything was theoretical at the time and not in true bill form, but we certainly knew that the public option was on the table.  And LI may be right that the mandates were not under discussion, but isn&#8217;t that worse? After all, in 2008, Barack Obama himself made it clear he was against mandates: As LI noted, the ultimate form of Obamacare wasn&#8217;t under discussion in May of &#8217;09. There were rumblings that something involving mandates might be coming, sure. Even Obama mentioned the concept as early as June 2009. But the specific mandate that Gingrich discussed was one which would allow you to choose not to participate by posting a bond or paying a fee? The only person as of May 2009 that I can find really talking about that specific type of mandate was &#8230; um&#8230; Gingrich! So I can only conclude that Obama was convinced that mandates were the right answer.  By who? I guess an advocate.  Know any Newt?  Oh that&#8217;s right.  You called yourself an advocate for the mandate, so I guess that answers that question. Now the Romney fans are piddling all over themselves with joy to catch Gingrich supporting policies that he attacks Romney for.  They think it&#8217;s just going to be curtains for his campaign that he&#8217;s on record supporting things while simultaneously trying to destroy Romney for it. I wish I could smack them all on the head.  What the hell do you think will happen to Romney when he tries to do the same thing? I&#8217;ve got a request in with Newt&#8217;s campaign for a more substantial response to this issue and if I get one, I&#8217;ll update this post with it. If we&#8217;re going to have a good candidate, these issues which could mire them in the generals, must be flushed out and must be talked about.  I&#8217;ve already publicly acknowledged that my favorite candidate among the remaining 4 is Newt Gingrich.  I&#8217;ve even gone on record as saying that if we are going to lose, I&#8217;d rather lose with Newt because at least it will be an honest campaign and Newt will go down fighting harder than anyone else on that stage. However, if he can&#8217;t provide a better and more substantive answer as to why this wouldn&#8217;t be a problem, then we are going to have trouble with a Newt nominee. The answer here, for Newt &#038; Romney, is to provide true analysis of the mistake.  A real answer as to what changed and what is going to be better.  We aren&#8217;t going to win if either of these two guys gets the nomination and gives the kind of half-assed answers they&#8217;ve been giving on this question. Cross-Posted at  BenHoweShow.com ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/is-newt-much-better-on-the-question-of-mandates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

