Once the presidential nomination process is settled—and Lord knows that day can't come fast enough—Republicans will get back to doing what they do best, getting on Barack Obama's case. Incredibly, though, they'll have to do it without one of their most potent arguments. The Republican candidate, after all, can't effectively attack what he supports. Today both leading contenders for the nomination have defended the idea of government's forcing all consumers to buy something in the interest of the common good. An individual mandate is about health insurance today, but really no one has offered any good reason Washington couldn't force us to buy a government-sanctioned iPad or rubber ducky tomorrow. Even Obama feigned disapproval of the idea during his campaign in 2008. Yet Newt Gingrich has supported some variation of a federal health insurance mandate going as far back as 1993. The blog Verum Serum recently uncovered a conference call from May 2009—as ObamaCare was nearing a simmer—wherein Newt says he believes that “everyone must have health insurance. Or if you are an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond, but we would not allow people to be free riders, failing to insure themselves and then show up at the emergency room with no means of payment.” Without the help of Newt's false choices, a recent poll by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 54 percent of respondents take the “pure libertarian” position and believe that an individual mandate should be unconstitutional. Politically speaking, Gingrich may continue to rhetorically challenge ObamaCare's mandate as “unconstitutional,” but soon he's going to have to answer for his own long-standing support. Why did he change his mind? Even if he provides a compelling answer, it'll be too late. (“For 20 years, even conservative icon Newt Gingrich supported the basis of the president's health care plan. … I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message.”) The same gotcha exists for Mitt Romney, of course, who has never backed away from his support for a mandate or his Massachusetts plan. The only thing more annoying than his decision to remain consistent on this single issue is the epic dissembling he employs to defend it. We get it; federalism . We get it; the folks in Massachusetts believe that RomneyCare is a great idea. Guess what? The folks in Massachusetts think that a lot of dumb ideas are fantastic. I suppose Romney believes that voters should be impressed that as governor of Massachusetts, he didn't force West Virginians to use his top-down state-controlled health care system. Yes, federalism diffuses centralized power; it's a worthy process, a great idea, and it's got nothing to do with Romney's record. Put it this way: Just because I love the First Amendment doesn't mean I have to love the obscene things Joe Biden has done with it. No doubt, the impending presidential debate will center on the state of the economy—and general election voters are far less ideologically motivated than primary voters. Yet grander themes can move people. Obama will continue to spin tales about a nation strangled by capitalistic excess and inequity. It is an arching theme that plays on the fears of many nervous Americans and is sure to animate grass-roots supporters in urban tent environments everywhere. Republicans, in turn, have lost a genuine opportunity to point to the purest example of Obama's aversion to economic and individual freedom. It's the mandate that allows ObamaCare to assault religious freedom. It's the mandate, coupled with increasing regulatory burdens, that many people fear will limit consumer choice and competition. The entire project falls apart without the mandate. No doubt, Mitt or Newt will continue to promise to overturn the health care reform law—and, who knows, the winner may. Or perhaps the Supreme Court will save us all by deeming the mandate unconstitutional. But to think, after all the anger and frustration caused by ObamaCare—not to mention its persisting unpopularity—one of the strongest arguments against it has been dulled before the GOP presidential nominee could even make it. David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi. COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM More: The GOP’s ObamaCare Problem
Read more:
The GOP’s ObamaCare Problem
What I am about to say will probably not be very popular around here, and may end up costing me several good friends, at least on a temporary basis. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to say it anyway: when it is my turn to pull the lever on Super Tuesday, I’ll vote for Mitt Romney. And it won’t even be an especially difficult choice. I have said all along that as a Super Tuesday voter, I fully expected my choices to come down to Romney or one other option. I have thus been able to lay back in the weeds to see if a candidate who is preferrable to Romney would survive the early primaries. Now that it is apparent that the only serious alternative to Romney will be Newt, I can confidently say that the answer to that question is “no.” Let me explain how I reached this answer so easily. First, I begin with a strong presumption (which I have explained at greater length here ) that governors in general make better Presidential candidates, and better Presidents. Nothing that has happened during the course of this campaign season has convinced me that Newt in particular is exempt from the problems that plague legislator candidates; and in fact, quite a lot has reinforced that belief (most notably his haphazard campaign organization which failed to even get him on the ballot in Virginia or Missouri). In addition, Newt’s temperament and poor attention to detail, supposedly improved and mellowed with age, have recently again reared their heads as liabilities for Gingrich, when he was forced to shamefacedly admit that the angry denunciation of John King was premised upon an absolute fabrication. In addition to the problems presented by Newt’s lack of experience, he faces huge electability problems. He consistently gets slaughtered by Obama in head-to-head matchups worse than any of the other candidates , usually including Rick Santorum. For many candidates, you could write off this sort of early result as being the product of low name recognition; however, in Newt’s case, the problem is that he is well-known and yet disliked . A non-incumbent nominee with “very unfavorable” numbers north of 30 before the general election even begins faces a very steep uphill climb. Some folks insist, based on no evidence whatsoever, that Gingrich and Romney have equal chances of beating Obama. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about everything, but the actual evidence thus far suggests that Gingrich’s march to the White House is longer and covers much rockier terrain. Finally, on the merits, I have a hard time believing that Newt is substantially better than Romney from an ideological perspective. As Ben covered earlier today, Newt has been loudly and publicly in favor of individual mandates for the better part of two decades . His election-year conversion to principled crusader against individual mandates is every bit as transparent and cynical as any of Mitt Romney’s changes of position. Ditto his flips on global warming, etc. So far as I can tell, the chief difference between the two is that Gingrich will give you an “aw, shucks” smile and admit that he has flip flopped on this issue or that, whereas Romney and his many annoying defenders will try to tell you that he’s never flip-flopped on anything other than abortion. After all, who are you going to believe, them or your lying eyes? While I’m grated by this as much as anyone, it’s not really a convincing reason to vote for one candidate over the other. I get not really being enthusiastic about Romney being the Last Man Standing. Certainly on a personal level he rubs me the wrong way a lot of the time – his emotions don’t seem authentic or natural, and from an ideological standpoint he’s less than ideal (at least as far as I can tell, which is not very far). The question, “What sort of judges should I appoint?” is probably not even interesting to Mitt Romney, whereas it’s probably my most important question. But I figure, nominating a liberal justice has never helped a Republican win independents, but it has helped them lose Republicans, and Romney is smart enough to figure that out. And I will say, contrary to a large number of emotionally worked up people, that I will enthusiastically and without reservation be able to support him over Barack Obama. Even if he is as much of a blank-slate technocrat as the most recalcitrant of us fear, he will still be a huge upgrade over the current resident of the White House. At the very least, he has a proven record of fixing problems in an executive setting, and a pretty good understanding of how wealth is created, so he is light years ahead of the current resident of the White House. And if you’re seriously unable to see that, then I’m glad you’re one of the people whose life hasn’t gotten significantly worse over the last three years, but please leave the rest of us out of your pointless revenge fantasy. Mitt Romney wasn’t my first choice when this election cycle began, but in my mind he is clearly better than both Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama, and so on Super Tuesday, he’ll get my vote.
Scene: Mitt Romney and family standing in front of a very nice, large, expensive house with American flag waving in the breeze. I’m Mitt Romney and I’m a successful businessman. In fact, while my Republican opponents and the left’s class warfare machine want to hold it against me that I’ve earned more money than any of the other candidates, it’s something I can’t and won’t apologize for. Those who focus on my tax returns, trying to figure out how to turn my business success into political failure, completely miss the point. Speaker Gingrich’s earnings, much of which like our current president’s earnings comes from book sales, are largely the result of self-promotion. And while there’s nothing wrong with that, the handful of people he employs hardly speaks to a broader understanding of the real-world economy. Furthermore, Mr. Gingrich’s past earnings have, also like our current president, included more than a million dollars eventually taken from taxpayers. Cut to scene: A street of homes with foreclosure signs in front of them To be fair, Mr. Gingrich apparently did not recognize the national disaster his “client” was about to inflict on homeowners across the nation, ( Cut to image: Newt Gingrich reading something that looks like a history book) but then a “historian” should have known the inevitable outcome of government trying to buy homeowners’ votes without regard to economic consequences. Dissolve to sequence of images of happy-looking employees of Staples and other companies in Romney’s investment portfolio But here’s the main point: If I am earning investment returns as I am from my ownership of pieces of businesses, imagine how much money is being made not only by the other owners – which might include your very own pension plan – but also by those holding the more than hundred thousand jobs our investment has ended up creating? Cut to unpleasant image of Speaker Gingrich Speaker Gingrich is selling his influence, whether to Freddie Mac or health care companies. Cut to picture of Jack Abramoff with Newt Gingrich (if one can be found, otherwise just Abramoff, looking dark and evil) Even disgraced super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff said that Mr. Gingrich is “engaging in the exact same kind of corruption that America disdains.” Dissolve to scene: Salt Lake City Winter Olympics ski jumper launching into the air and making a perfect landing But when I served as Governor of Massachusetts, I took a yearly salary of $1, so there would be money in the state budget for me to retain key personnel. When I left Bain Capital for two years to turn around the consulting firm I used to work for, I did it successfully — again taking an annual salary of just $1. And when I took over management of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002 after the worst corruption in Olympic history had nearly destroyed the Games, I took a salary of $1 and turned a potential loss of nearly $400 million into a $100 million profit for the organization, the state, and the Utah Athletic Foundation. Cut to image of successful-looking Romney In other words, the fact that I’ve been a successful businessman means I can put my mind to doing what needs to be done without worrying about how I’m going to turn my position into a lobbying contract later in life. Cut to same image of Gingrich with Abramoff, or side by sides I won’t be worried about offending some politician, bureaucrat, or K Street influence peddler who might hold a grudge when I’m looking for a job later because, as much as President Obama and his friends in Occupy Wall Street don’t like it… Fade to first scene of Romney and family in front of nice, big, expensive house. …I won’t need a job later. I won’t need to focus on anything but the absolutely critical jobs at hand, whether undoing the tremendous economic damage caused by the Obama Administration or reminding Iran that the United States will not be pushed around by terrorism-supporting radicals and won’t apologize for standing up for our allies. Zoom in to Romney’s face, though not too tight a shot, still showing American flag flying near house. Unlike our current president who spends more time golfing than leading, and unlike our former Speaker of the House who looks at every opportunity to serve as an opportunity to profit, I give you my solemn word that I will focus on nothing else but the most important issues facing our nation, to returning prosperity and safety to our and our children’s future.
Glib and cocky as ever, Barack Obama used his State of the Union address on Tuesday night to push his sophomoric and gimmicky socialism. While the nation drowns in debt and the economy continues to teeter, Obama devotes himself to the empty symbolism of the “Buffett rule.” He had the Omaha billionaire’s secretary placed in a seat of honor near the First Lady. Barack and Michelle are the quintessential champagne socialists, enjoying the trappings of power — the First Lady donned an ostentatious royal blue designer dress that probably cost more than several months of her prop’s secretarial salary — while decrying the excesses of the rich. The speech was immensely dull, revolving around the usual tedious laundry list of nothing proposals. It made Monday’s sterile Republican presidential candidates debate look stimulating. Obama conceives of himself as the great puppet master of the American economy, doling out “rewards” and “punishments” to the business community. He paid tribute to the widow of Steve Jobs, also strategically placed in the audience. This seemed odd. Didn’t Steve Jobs regard Obama as an anti-business president? Jobs was also known for shipping jobs to Asia, owing to the left’s stifling regulations. Obama, in this address, made a special point of condemning this practice, vowing to reward companies that keep jobs at home and punish companies that go global. It is clear that Obama doesn’t want companies to prosper here or abroad, unless they somehow fit into his statist schemes. The speech was full of dreary government-knows-best proposals. The great community organizer announced that community colleges under his leadership will play a pivotal role in the revival of the American economy. Community colleges can become “community career centers” that tutor Americans in new skills, he said. Obama also revealed his high hopes for wind farms and other forms of “clean energy.” He made liberal use of the word “investment” as his euphemism for new government programs. Near the beginning of the speech, he praised bailouts (he bragged at length about bailing out the American auto industry); by the end of it, he had vowed to end them. He professed great regard for the martial virtues of America’s soldiers, holding them out as an example to bickering and undisciplined politicians. Candidate Obama had said George W. Bush’s wars ruined America’s standing in the world. But now he says that the returning soldiers from Iraq elevated the world’s “respect” for America. Having already turned America’s military over to gay rights activists, he now unleashes environmentalists on them too. One of the military’s new missions, according to his State of the Union address, is to offer a helping hand in the search for “clean energy.” Obama strained hard to remind Americans that Osama bin Laden was killed on his watch and that he is passionately pro-military. He said that he wants to set up a jobs program for returning vets. He rejected the assertion that America is in decline. “America is back,” he declared. Sensing that he needed to offer a few words in support of leaner government, he quoted a line from Abraham Lincoln to the effect that government should only perform those tasks beyond the power of the people. Never mind that most of the proposals in the speech were a violation of this principle. By “shared responsibility,” the jargony phrase with which he peppered the speech, he means a fatter federal government that swoops down and takes responsibility from the people. “Spreading the wealth around,” as he said to Joe the Plumber in 2008, is his organizing principle. Wealth belongs to the government automatically, under this thinking, and so any money not taken by Obama constitutes in his mind reckless government “spending.” It pains him to think that millionaires are making profits off already-taxed money. He proposes the Buffett rule to correct this injustice and usher in a new era of income equality. This isn’t “class warfare,” he said, but “common sense,” a threadbare claim the 2012 race will test.
Read the original:
Obama’s Open Buffet
The left is having a field day saying that Newt Gingrich’s South Carolina debate answer (blasting a question by Juan Williams, who actually is a prince of a guy) about Barack Obama being a “food stamp president” was somehow a “dog whistle” to racists, and that his success in South Carolina was partly due to his tacit racial appeals to the SC voters’ supposedly latent racist sentiments. We’ve heard it all week; heck, Ed Schultz has been saying it since last May. Last night on Schultz’s show , Chris Matthews was at it again: [O]ne thing that bothered me personally as an American, and you talked about it, I believe, and so is Al Sharpton, this idea of talking about food stamps, which we all know is code. And to use that the night he won here, Saturday night, coming in to the panhandle of Florida, playing with the Southern people for the Southern tradition, white people, trying to play them like a banjo, I think that`s what he`s up to. Schultz himself continued to push this line relentlessly, and encouraged Martin Bashir to say this: We traced back an editorial from the “New York Times” in 1994 where they accused him of using coded language in exactly the same way. He`s doing exactly the same thing. It`s almost 20 years. He`s the expert at this. He barely conceals a nasty, virulent racism, and then he points it repeatedly at both the president and also at those who are picking up Food Stamps who need them. And so on it went, at sickening length. Well…. When people who have worked with Newt Gingrich describe his ” Jekyll and Hyde personality ” (a comment I’ve seen numerous times), they may actually be underplaying the truth. Gingrich doesn’t just have two personas; he has probably a half dozen or more. (He is vast! He contains multitudes!) For every Mr. Hyde there is also a Mr. Sieke; for every Dr. Jekyll there is also a Dr. Heckle. Trying to figure out which Newt was which was so impossible that it drove his colleagues to distraction while he was Speaker, which is one reason things fell apart so badly. Nevertheless, in all of those Newtonian personalities, never have I seen even the slimmest hint either of racism or of tacit approval of the racism of others. Indeed, just the opposite: For all of his other flaws, Gingrich, from my observations, has been one of the Republican leaders most open to and insistent on outreach to minorities. I can’t cite a specfic example from memory, but during his Speakership the overall tenor was clear: Gingrich detested racism. The “good Newt” is a compassionate man and a man dedicated toward equality before the law. The good Newt also was the one who has never gotten his due credit for insisting that the GOP make it a priority to improve the city of Washington DC — to end the municipal corruption, to improve its governance, to prove that a majority-black city doesn’t need to be a city that people give up on. In fact, to the extent that the urban renaissance of DC was due to federal policy (which was indeed a significant extent, although of course the locals had much to do with it, obviously), that renaissance was driven by two men: Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Speaker Newt Gingrich. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind I remember Gingrich once saying — it might have been as recently as last year, or it could have been years ago — that one main reason he was a “Rockefeller Republican” in the 1960s was because he thought the Northeastern Republicans of the time were more “progressive” (in the good sense of the term) on racial issues. Well, while evidence shows that was far from the only reason he was with Rocky (Gingrich was, at the time, a liberal Republican on many issues), it absolutely rings true when he cites his concern for civil rights as one of the issues that motivated him. Yesterday, I cited at great length an absolutely scathing column that Mickey Edwards, former congressman and former chairman of the American Conservative Union, wrote about — meaning against — Gingrich last month. Yet even in that column, Edwards noted, as a compliment, that one reason he came to know Gingrich particularly well was that he, Edwards, included Gingrich in a group dedicated to reaching out to minorities: During his first term, I established a small gathering of members I considered to be intelligent, thoughtful, and committed to an optimistic and big-tent conservatism. Newt was one of the members I invited to participate, along with friends like Jack Kemp, Bob Livingston, and Ed Bethune, each of whom had reached beyond the stereotypical conservative constituency and had worked assiduously to reach out to minorities and people with new approaches to problem-solving (Kemp was probably the archetype). Some character traits don’t change. I happen to think that trait, the one that detested racism, is one of Gingrich’s constants. Real racism is awful, and it should be denounced at every opportunity. There are plenty of conservatives who do so, and rightly so. But fair is fair. It is utterly unfair to equate references to Food Stamps to a racist dog whistle, and it is unfair to put Gingrich in the camp of those who deliberately play on racial stereotypes. There are plenty of other reasons to worry about nominating Gingrich for president. But as for racism, that dog won’t hunt.
Link:
Gingrich is No Racist
