If Ann Coulter’s frantic unhinged rants on Bill O’Reilly’s and Sean Hannity’s show are any indication of Team Romney’s current mood and moral, Florida is Mitt Romney’s Alamo.
From Matt Drudge, who apparently has ties to Romney advisor Matt Rhoades, to the National Review and all the lesser imps in between, it is apparent Romney is sounding the bugle and rallying the troops to man the walls for a last stand in Florida. Why else would some of the greatest conservative names and publications write blistering articles about Newt Gingrich they know themselves to be filled with half truths and childish innuendo? What is it these parties stand to lose that has them alienating the conservative base, their followers, and their subscribers.
Examples are everywhere and plentiful. This one is from Ann Coulters latest ode to Mitt Romney titled “Re-Elect Obama: Vote Newt!”
“This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as “drug seekers” and Ron Paul supporters.”
If I did not know any better I would have gotten the impression that Ann Coulter was calling Gingrich supporters drug addicts. I can only assume Ann Coulter is officially declaring her retirement after this primary if Romney is not the nominee. No one would make such idiotic comments about potential buyers of her books if she intended on writing one in the future. My advice to Ms. Coulter is to take a look in the mirror and You Tube her latest appearances before she starts labeling others “drug seekers”.
Matt Drudge has used the powerful Drudge Report with banner headlines attacking Newt Gingrich for days now. Blogs like Power Line and Hot Air run constant anti-Gingrich pro-Romney articles daily. One gets the impression that upon reading these blogs that a disclaimer of “My name is Mitt Romney. I not only approve of this message, I paid for it.” should be written in italics at the bottom of the page. To be sure the anti-whoever pro-Romney bent on these blogs has been going on for a while now. But since Newt Gingrich took down South Carolina, they have ramped up efforts to discredit him to such a furious clip that it is almost hard to keep up on why one should be hating Gingrich. Ethics charges, in which Gingrich was cleared of, crowd control at debates, to bringing up his and his wifes hair, nothing is off limits anymore. Soon we will see chickens, ducks, and sheep being catapulted over the walls of one of these debates Monty Python’s “Holy Grail” style trying to keep Gingrich and the audience out. Its like a high school hazing complete with adolescent antics, name calling, hormonal rage, and less planning. Credibility now seems to be an afterthought to these people.
The only explanation I can come up with is that Florida truly is Mitt Romney’s Alamo. Everything hinges on him winning Florida and his followers are treating it as such. Romney may continue if he loses, desperately hoping that Newt Gingrich will explode, which is another argument against Newt Gingrich I have yet to see an example of, but for the most part the Republican Establishment will themselves be moving on to their own Anyone-But-Romney candidate. The signs are already there that this is underway and Mitch Daniels seems to be plan B. What happens to Romney’s band of loyal pundits is any ones guess. I would recommend a nice long vacation, maybe some counseling. Some I fear will be wearing white sleeveless jackets in padded rooms while they are “away” trying to sort things out.
We will know soon enough.
He is just a fat guy in Maine.
The word I used in connection with the Baby Boomer problem in post #31 was transient. The problem is transient, because the Baby Boomers themselves are. Just as there’s a point where large numbers of Baby Boomers begin reaching retirement age, there’s another where they will begin reaching the end of their expected span of years. The interval in between was the period when the national debt should have escalated, and then diminished.
Unfortunately, a combination of irresponsible spending and equally irresponsible tax policies ran up enormous debt before we reached that long-expected period of negative program cash flow. It wasn’t the Social Security program that created this problem. It was politicians who bought favor and power by profligate spending, and politicians who bought favor and power by handing out irresponsible tax cuts.
So, how do we wish to respond? Do we want to deal with the irresponsible spending and the irresponsible tax policies that have totally screwed things up, or do we want to eliminate a fundamental entitlement program that has kept generations of average working Americans out of old age poverty for 75 years?
Concerning the “lock box”, no one ever expected Social Security trust fund dollars to be stuffed away into a mattress. You can’t remove such quantities of money from a national economy without negative consequences. The “trust fund” is essentially an accounting mechanism, that keeps track of the total extent an obligation that must be met using a portion of the GDP. This is not an obligation that must ever be met all at once. The total isn’t as relevant as the amount by which the cumulative obligation must be reduced in any given year.
A problem developed with the trust fund accounting mechanism when politicians begin imagining it to be some sort of piggy bank instead of a record of cumulative program obligation. They seem to think that they can somehow be saving the same money that they’re currently spending, ignoring the fact that they’re actually running even worse deficits than they’re reporting. That’s been going on for around 30 years, and both democrats and republicans are to blame. Democrats tend to be more responsible for excessive spending, while republicans tend to be more at fault for irresponsible tax policies.
Mata The rose colored glasses are yours.Romney smoked Gingrich last night confirmed by R.C.P. poll of polls showing him up by 7.3% in Fla. Those cheering know what they saw.Newt needs Santorum out to be able to statistically compete with Romney in the upcoming contests.
Repubs and Conservs. are fleeing Gingrich believing him not only unwinnable but hurting the ticket at the House and Senate level.
Rubio is not backing Gingrich. A loss is coming. Mario could save him.But he won’t.
@sablegsd:
If people start buying into the lie that the economy is getting better, that would definitely doom Romney.
From 2001-2005 the average GDP growth rate 2.8%. The left screamed that was horrible.
The economy hits 2.8% for one quater and it’s proof of recovery and manna from heaven. Forget that the average for all of 2011 was 1.7%. Yeah, things are great.
Whatever is coming, I suspect you won’t be voting for any Republican anyway, however, you might want to get ready to eat some crow. It is not who wins and loses, it’s how the delegate totals are laddled out based upon the final tabulations.
Yes, Newt is a losing position, and losing popularity, due to the massive influx of negative ads and outright misrepresentations coming in thru the media, but it’s just too bad that most get their ‘information’ from the MSM, and vote accordingly….that’s the mark of the ‘good citizen’ to vote as you are told…..
We’ll just have to wait and see….right now, I’m a Ron Paul supporter…he cannot win, but maybe have some influence…..
The way thing are going now…I see 4 more years of Obama…..Requiescat in pace America……
Esd
Talk about smoking…??? What have you been in to, rich?
I don’t suppose it affects your BS when you see that none of the polls you cite are post last night’s debate, and thereby unrelated to any such “confirmation”. LOL
It might also be news to you that the viewship for Monday’s GOP debate (no numbers from last night that I’ve seen yet) was pretty pathetic. NBC, which aired the USF debate in Tampa came in fourth. Meaning more were watching Castle, a repeat of Two and a Half Men and the following shows, and a reun of Hawaii Five-O.
As I said, I think the on the ground campaigns are going to be the more effective indicator at this time. Especially since the reactions in Florida are that they aren’t discussing the issues of interest to them. The below just three days ago, after the Monday USF debate.
Then again, with moderators like Wolfe and Williams, the candidates are stuck answering the idiots questions like “why would your wife be a good First Lady”.
I see. And you *only* saw cheers for Romney? LOL Sorry, you’re still wearing the rose colored glasses you mention.
I don’t suppose you noticed the audience and their attire, did you? Lots of expensive suits on the floor. And of course, the RP voters can’t be kept away. More than one media outlet has notice it was a Romney predominate audience… even so, they boo’ed him for the lies about the ad, and rightfully gave applause to the other candidates when they liked what they heard.
Oh yes… latest fact check. Turns out that Romney’s investments in Fannie/Freddie were not out of his purview, hidden in a blind trust. They seem to show up in the 2008 filings (just before the crash), which makes his hypocrisy of saying he supported dismantling the GSEs, while busy investing in them, an extremely awkward moment.
Apparently he checks his principles at the door when it comes to placing his money.
Pile on with the lies in the attack on on Newt about ghetto Spanish, and Mitt’s got a desperate quality about him. A friend and I were discussing that Newt’s fiery approach in SC was appropriate for that audience, while the success of Rubio with a more measured and calm campaign called for Newt returning to his positive message (which started in IA) for the Florida audience.
But as I said, with those popcorn novices like you, sitting on the sidelines patiently waiting for Superbowl, you jeer when Newt gets fiery, then you consider him failing when he dons a calm, non combative demeanor.
You’re getting desperate, rich. Ain’t good for your health. In case you still haven’t figure it out, there’s no overwhelming love for Romney. So far there’s not even a solemn resignation for a Romney nomination, and the fight continues strong.
You’d better buckle that seat belt, and let the Republicans pick their own candidates. I assure you, none of us really care who you like, nor that you are busy pushing Obama’s best nemesis for the general for your own reasons. Not only that, your also wrong on your data far too often.
Oh yes, rich wheeler… as I pointed out, Rubio likes Newt… au contraire to your lib/prog wisdom. He’s not endorsing anyone and is staying neutral.. as I think he should. I did not say he was backing Newt. I merely countered your ill-informed propaganda that Rubio did not like Newt and would “blow him out of the water”.
Stay focused, rich. Beginning to think you’re hitting the sauce, guy….
MATA
I don’t know what we would do without you , pinning down the lies from the trolls adoring blindly the
socialist communist agenda , which the DEMOCRATS are shoving down the throats of the AMERICANS,
against their will,
bye
@MataHarley: I meant to reply to this post yesterday but caught up in life. Go figure. Anywho….
I thought it an excellent post that really would be an excellent article on its own. People don’t understand that the needs of the military change with the coming and going of the threats of the time and not every side of the issue agrees where and how much is funding is needed. As you so effortlessly pointed out we do not need to geared to engaging the Russian horde in the Fulda Gap. The threat now is far more fluid. A quick agile military is what is needed not some huge lethargic monstrosity that takes months and years to build up, get in theater, and execute the mission. It will be like using an anvil trying to kill a fly when a fly swatter is what is needed. I faced it when my re-enlistment came up years ago. They we taking away my beloved CAV unit, replacing my dinosaur M60A3 MBT with Hummers armed with TOW missiles. I just couldn’t be a jeep jockey and to my Honorable Discharge. I understood it. Even agreed with it but…..
Well you know. I vote for making your post a full-fledged article. IMHO of course.
Michael Henkins, been planning on putting together an Abrams counter piece that includes more of Newt’s past. Just haven’t found the time to devote to the more indepth article and composition.
So many think that because Newt advertises he is firmly on board with Reaganomics, that he’s trying to campaign as a Reagan clone. ’tisn’t true, because he has a different view of the military and future conflicts. I can understand why the military reformists looked at that era, and felt that a military build up preparing for a fight with a better equipped and outmanned Russian military – on their own turf to boot – was insane. But Reagan’s bets and decisions turned out very well. And despite’s Newt’s criticism and beliefs, he voted with the caucus to follow Reagan’s wishes.
But definitely a remaking of our military should be considered since our primary enemy is a stateless gang of jihadists. This doesn’t, IMHO, preclude that we don’t need foreign bases. On the contrary, I not only think we need them, but I do agree that the Info age intel load, combined with the HUMINT we can only get outside of our borders, mandates we maintain presence in areas of the world that would facilite a quick agile military. And that also includes keeping a very strong Naval force, both Pacific and Atlantic, as well
I can understand Defense restructuring and cuts, but that doesn’t mean I approve Obama’s vision of the military and where he’s cutting. And I sure wouldn’t trust Ron Paul’s extreme vision either. Nor would I trust Romney with our military.
But I’ll try to get the dedicated post out… perhaps this weekend. I doubt it will get much readership in this contentious primary times tho.
@Hard Right, #56:
The economy is getting better.
How were things looking at the end of 2008, compared with how they’re looking now?
Why would anyone want to go back to the same policies that culminated in the Great Train Wreck of 2008? Other than the people who first plundered the financial system and then successfully mugged the taxpayers, of course.
The “Thank you Sir may I have another?” attitude totally baffles me.
Mata I’m getting desperate, Laughable. I’ve got no dog in this race. You’ve got an excuse for everything.
“Did I notice how people were dressed” I realize Newt would look about the same in a burlap bag but puleez.
Romney jumped 6 points since yesterday. You better hope they didn’t include the debate.
Newt can be fiery or a dolt. Who really cares.
Did you forget I thanked Newt for his expose and beatdown of Romney in S.C.? Last night Romney returned the favor. Thanks Mitt
btw My health is great.Thanks for asking
Really? And yet you’v been shoving and warning all of us for months that it should be a Mittens/Rubio ticket at every opportunity for how long now?
So if you have no dog in this race, why the big Mittens fan, rich? I think you doth protest too much, and you realize the advantage of Obama running against the very evil capitalist he demeans in every speech.
That’s interesting. Me, on the other hand, will always scope out the audience. Blue collar workers? Military? (Appropriate since Jacksonville has the third largest Naval facility) Held in a moderate and somewhat wealthy Florida County. Always close run between the GOP and Dem candidate… spreads generally a couple of percent. Decidedly moderate audience and fairly well to do. Most upper 30s to perhaps 50s… no overabundance of youth (at least on the main floor and in camera view) and few military uniforms to be seen.
This gives me a couple of things to ponder for audience reception:
1: Were they indicative of Jacksonville’s largest single employer, the military, they’d tend to lean for Ron Paul … that is if you want to believe Ron Paul’s fantasy that “the military supports him over the other candidates”. Exit polls in SC, another large military state, sort blew that out of the water.
2: If they were middle aged, and comfortable financial status, they are the likely profile of previous elections, trending moderate. So it’s not likely they’d go for Santorum or Paul.
That leaves Newt and Mittens… and who’s the more moderate of the two?
One can learn a lot by know the demographics, their political history, and watching the people, rich.
Why do you keep missing the points about polls I keep making, rich? Watching polls is like watching the stock market every day, or even all day. One day it’s up, one day it’s down… all depending on “events on the ground”, so to speak.
What happened in the past week? Romney piled on the money with negative lie attack ads on Newt, and Abrams’ article of mistruths about Newt went viral nationally. This always tends to affect sample polls, just like an announcement that the central banks are going to infuse more cash, or an optimist unemployment report bolsters the stock market trading.
That’s the way the politician with the most money works… when he’s losing, he saturates the airwaves with negatives that put the opponent on defense. And in the case of Romney, he’s got a full war chest, and a national media and establishment Republican party willing to help.
Yet Newt is still standing… hummmm
As far as I can see, the trending is following the national ads and nationwide media assaults. But little is tied to the debates because the viewship has been very low.
You have to remember, Florida was my childhood stomping grounds, and most of my family still lives there so I visit quite often.
So just how did Romney “expose” and “beatdown” Newt last night? What am I missing?
1: The Spanish ghetto language attack? oops… a lie
2: Are Newt’s GSE investments the same as Romney’s? Nope… Newt wasn’t trying to dismantle them, so his investments, regardless of size, are not in direct opposition to his principles.
Romney? Wanted to dismantle them, but made sure he got in on the tail end of the subprime money. No problem with placing his money there, but considering his distaste and position that he felt he should dismantle them, why support them? Top it off with the reality that Romney outright lied about his “blind trust”. Turns out his GSE holdings were only “blind” for political convenience in a debate.
3: Newt a lobbyist? He doesn’t even call him a lobbyist anymore. He’s redefined it as an “influence peddler” because he knows Newt didn’t lobby.
So tell me again about the exposing and beatdown of Newt by Romney? Or is this just a dream you had?
Mata As you know I am also a child of Fla. and as an adult have been a constituent of Col. West’s district.
Debate is futile. You know I SUPPORT Obama over Mitt or Newt and favor a prolonged nasty race. Looks good.
Like MOST Repubs.Conservs Indies and Dems I truly believe a Romney/Rubio ticket has best chance of beating BHO.I HAVE SAID THAT SINCE DAY ONE.
My one request.If Romney wins Fla. don’t blame the MSM. Pick another excuse. Thanks
You “support” Obama, and “believe a Romney/Rubio ticket has the best chance of beating” your supported candidate.
So we’re to assume you’re so kind as to nudge us into a helpful direction?
Get real, rich…
All winners are the result of media, ads, and some debates, rich. It’s not an “excuse”. It’s an accurate observation of the effect that ads, media coverage and headlines have on the voters. Why do you think politicians get war chests? To use these tools to their advantage. duh
Most of it is timing… can you sink the front runner at the right time, in the days before the primary vote, and eke out a victory? Romney tried in IA, and succeeded. The media establishment tried in SC with Marianne’s interview, and failed miserably. Romney, plus some help from Abrams and the establishment GOP and media, is trying it again with lies about the Newt/Reagan relationship, the Spanish ghetto etal. Whether he will succeed remains to be seen. But it’s naive to suggest negative campaigns do not have an effect.
Now when the negative campaigns are based on obviously lies, the business of politics become even more sleazy. And I’m not interested in my POTUS being that sleazy. Already have one… and it’s not set well with me for over three years.
@Greg:
Common sense and reality baffles you, so I am not surprised. You blame the GOP when the facts show it was the dems that were mostly responsible.
Little hint for you greg, 1.7% doesn’t even cover those entering the workforce for the first time. That is a recovery? No.
Look, I have seen you lie outright to defend the Dems and not once have you ever gone against them so you’ll excuse me if I don’t listen to you.
You can claim the economy is recovering or even recovered, but it isn’t. It’s higher than 2008, but recovered? No. Say you fall into a 9 foot deep hole. If you climb halfway up and get stuck, is that what you would call a recovery? Neither would I. Until you get completely out of the hole, you have not recoverd. We’re still in the hole greg.
Why I’m wasting my time talking with a marxist is beyond me.
To put it simply, way behind historic recovery schedules, Greg. But I know you do better with pictures…
HR is correct. That today’s status is at best a hair ahead of the status when we crashed in 2008, if not slightly worse. Look at the inset close up, with the shaded area being the start of the 2008 recession.
So after declining even more, we’re barely back to where we were when we started.
Yet look at the GDP growth during the post Carter recessions years.
Clearly the Obama policy has had lack luster, if not detrimental to the recovery effect. Live with it…. we all have to.
@MataHarley, #69:
When was the last time that there was a global economic disruption as serious as the one that began in late 2007?
When was the last time we came as close to a total economic catastrophe as we did in 2008?
Obviously the recovery schedule of this one will be much different than those relating to the relatively minor economic events republicans want to make comparisons with.
Actually, to have landed on our feet in 2009 and to be where we are now is remarkable–particularly when the party that gave us the crash in the first place has done everything in their power to retard recovery on their opponent’s watch.
@MataHarley:
I was just looking for that chart when I saw your post, Mata.
Isn’t it telling?
Since WWII every other president has put into place policies that have helped the economy recover….or they have lost their re-election and the new president did so.
Obama’s policies are fully to blame for that drop in the curve away from our normal growth.
He could have done so many other things to help, had he chosen to.
Now we will have to see whether a new president can turn this big economy around in less than 4 years, after 2012.
He’s certainly dug a big hole.
And, btw, our GDP raw numbers came out today…..look for them to be revised …downward.
Today’s Chart Of The Day is very telling:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-core-economic-growth-slowed-sharply-in-q4-2012-1?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Money%20Game%20Chart%20Of%20The%20Day&utm_campaign=Moneygame_COTD_012712
‘Core Economic Growth Slowed Sharply In Q4’
“…..The measure of final sales, which is a “core” view of the economy that removes the effect of inventories, grew at an annual rate of just 0.8% in Q4….”
Is Greg actually supporting Obama or am I missing something? I thought anyone with a brain jumped off that bus long ago.
Not much of a history buff, eh Greg? It’s called a much larger catastrophe, called the Great Depression in the 30s. Even the the St. Louis Fed Reserve analysis points out that altho this is somewhat worse that the 1973 and 1983 recessions, it’s a far cry from the 30’s Great Depression. In fact, using the same indicators to examine the recessions, they said that “…the current recession has been worse than average; however, the declines are not unprecedented.”
The Great Depression included a wipe out by the stock market, and the largest damage was the collapse of the banking system.
Sound familiar?
Of course the stock market and banking health are not disconnected… as bailout of the banks actually resulted in a booming stock market, combined with dangerously long term, low rates.
You know the difference between the Great Depression and now? The Fed let the banking system collapse. Bush and Obama did not… altho Obama could have reversed much since Bush only doled out half of the $700 bil TARP funds. So both are culpable.
Yes, there was the very painful recovery during the Great Depression, but pain is a part of the recovery process. You can’t change that.
But you can let it correct without piling on to the national debt.
So… now that you know the US recovered from Great Depression without bailouts and “saving” the banking system… how long did it take, Greg?
Oh, wait… you’re not a history buff. LOL Okay, some history and more “pictures” for you.
Below was a “chart of the day” (investor subscription service) from circa April 2009. As noted, and confirmed officially, the 2008 “recession” start was actually adjusted to Dec 2007 instead. So that’s our starting point… from Dec 2007.
The “official end” to the recession was June 2009…. or 1 year, six months – or 18 months.
Did you feel it? Don’t feel bad. Most haven’t. In fact we’re not really sure if it’s just a long recession, or we’re in a new one that hasn’t quite yet officially surfaced. There is dissent about the end of the recession, but for you, we’ll pay with the best numbers possible for your icon.
What’s the average recession recovery? Here’s the picture for you. Just under 15 months for an average. Below chart is from April 2009.
To recover from the Great Depression – without bailouts, piled on national debt and interest on that debt, and letting the banks face the real regulators of profit and loss – was about 45 months…. or 3.75 years.
Funny, we’re beyond that point now… and it still looks and quacks like a duck… er, recession.
You see, the banks have been bolstered up by central banks of all countries. So has the housing bubble. So the debt’s increased, the banks weren’t allowed to fail, and when the rates go up, interest becomes more expensive, more assets on the banks’ books become toxic and we start all over again.
But I digress… that’s down line and most have no vision (or stomach) for such reality.
But wait… I’m not done with you yet, Greg. Because you’ll sit back and excuse this admin’s bad decisions by saying “hey…. only 18 months! Not bad” pfft….
Not so fast… the price of the 18 months is the debt to GDP ratio, which affects growth potential. So another pretty picture for you that shows the superior recovery of the Great Depression, using the debt to GDP.
Notice the rapid turn around following the Great Depression, and and the elongated increase … and still increasing… debt to GDP ratio now. And this is from Seeking Alpha back in June 2009.
Think our debt to GDP ratio is less now than then? Of course not…
Pictures tell the true story, Greg. Bottom line… no – your hero wasn’t dealt the worst hand in history. But he’s sure made it in to the worst recovery and debt increase in history.
@Greta:
Greta, Greg is basically a marxist and propgandist for the left. A while back he asked for proof a dem said something he claimed they hadn’t. That proof was presented in the form of a You Tube video. Well, there was a synchronization problem between the sound and the video. Greg then claimed that audio from another video had been fraudulently laid over the video shown. He was serious.
Hey greg, another point of fact-obama played a direct role in causing the crash. How poetic that it comes back to bite him in the ass.
The editing function isn’t working for me.
Greta, the audio clearly was for the video, but wasn’t exactly matching the timing of the dems mouth.
Greg seized on this. So either he knew it wasn’t a fraud, or he is soooooo far gone he can never be reached by reality. I’m thinking both.
@MataHarley: Jeffery Lord did a great article on the Abrams hit piece.
Rush talked about it and I found this link.
The Elliott Abrams–Jeffrey Lord Dispute
Project Manager jobs
hi,
I just had a great idea, if they can do it,
how about all the CANDIDATES GET IN TOGETHER FOR THE ONE PRESIDENCY POSITION,
WE LIKE SOME OF EACH ONE, LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE TO MAKE ALL OF THEM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WOW i CAN SEE IT, THE GREATNESS OF AMERICA WITHIN THE SOULS OF THOSE GREAT CANDIDATES , AND WHY NOT, IT WOULD BE A FIRST BUT NEEDED FOR AMERICA TO FIND HER GREATNESS IN ALL.
NOW DON’T TELL ME IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO DO,
I say nothing is impossible for AMERICA, and the damage done is so great, we have to invent and use all there is available to repair it faster.