Newt: Yeah, I’ll probably win South Carolina

posted at 2:00 pm on January 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Well, what exactly would you expect him to say? After telling MSNBC on Wednesday that “if Romney can win South Carolina, he’s probably going to be the nominee,” Newt Gingrich can’t say anything but victory will be mine … probably:

Barely equivocating, while still managing to hedge his bets, the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on CBS News’ Face the Nation that he was “probably going to win” in South Carolina.

“As a Georgia Reagan Conservative, I fit much more comfortably with the average South Carolina Republican,” he said, in comparison to a “Massachusetts moderate.”

South Carolina is actually a curious hill on which to make a final stand.  One might expect Gingrich to hedge his bets and hold out for Florida, where a pragmatist like Newt might find a little support.  This sounds like Gingrich might once again be confusing his role as candidate with his previous role as political analyst for the media, or his apparent secondary role now as campaign strategist.

Speaking of campaign strategist, the audience at Mike Huckabee’s candidate forum in South Carolina gave him an earful about his latest attack strategy.  When Gingrich mentioned Mitt Romney by name — a big no-no at this event, for which Huckabee scolded him — and accused him of “draining capital” from companies bought by Bain, Gingrich’s response provoked a chorus of boos:

I included the entire sequence so that the boos could be heard in context. By the end of Gingrich’s explanation, in which he warned that Romney as a nominee would face the same kind of attack in the general election, he received polite applause. However, thanks to the eruption of the Bain debate in January, the Obama re-elect campaign has already begun attacking Romney as “a corporate raider”:

For months, President Obama’s re-election team and the Democratic party have acted on the presumption that Romney will be the GOP nominee. Today, the Obama campaign released a four-page memo focusing on Romney’s business record. The memo slams Romney as a “corporate raider,” borrowing the slur used in a series of ads sponsored by a pro-Gingrich super PAC.

The super PAC ads, cut from a 28-minute web video called “King of Bain,” hit the South Carolina airwaves on Thursday and call Bain Capital “more ruthless than Wall Street.”

The Obama campaign memo, penned by Stephanie Cutter, mirrors that argument. “With the devastation he left in his wake, Romney’s business record doesn’t reflect the virtues of free enterprise so much as the worst exploitation of it,” Cutter wrote.

One could make the argument that the attacks by Gingrich and Rick Perry will make Romney stronger by forcing him to hone his response to the Bain attacks now, rather than in October.  It could also be true that the awful job of research and seriously misleading presentation in “King of Bain”, coupled with Gingrich’s falling status in the primaries, will give the Bain attack a stink of desperation that will make it very difficult for Obama to exploit in the fall.  But it’s equally likely that having these kinds of wild, inaccurate attacks come from Republicans will give Obama more credibility to pursue these attacks in the fall, if Romney wins the nomination.

Right now, though, I’d worry more about finishing second than first if I were Gingrich’s campaign strategist.  Rick Santorum’s endorsement by the ad hoc congress of family-values activists in Texas yesterday makes the former Senator likely to gather momentum as the conservative consolidation candidate, especially with Republicans sore enough in South Carolina to boo the new eruption of Nasty Newt at what was supposed to be a positive forum yesterday.  Until now, Gingrich had almost evenly split half of the evangelical vote in the state with Santorum (25/23) with a lack of any direction from movement leaders.  Now that evangelicals have moved as a bloc in favor of Santorum, those numbers will likely change quickly this week.

How worried is Gingrich about this development?  Yesterday, his campaign released a statement calling the vote a unanimous endorsement of “Not-Romney,” and chastising Santorum for “misleadling” people over the nature of the endorsement:

150 Christian Leaders Unanimous in Their Support for Not-Romney

Atlanta, GA – Newt 2012 National Co-Chair J.C. Watts released the following statement today reacting to a meeting in Texas of Christian leaders splitting their support between Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

“Congratulations to Rick Santorum. It is a very strong sign for the GOP that Gingrich and Santorum were separated by only nine votes on the first ballot cast today. Both candidates have friends in the evangelical community who are committed to helping nominate a conservative. It is clear that 100% of those attending are not for Governor Romney, but in fact are splintered in whether to support Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. With a great deal of respect, it is misleading for the Santorum campaign to claim they won the endorsement of 150 evangelical leaders.”

Well, no, this was a vote for the endorsement of the entire assembly, not an accidental gathering that just so happened to run into each other coincidentally in Texas over the weekend.  The explicit purpose of the assembly was to unite behind one particular candidate to challenge Mitt Romney, not to proportionally allocate endorsements, and  both Watts and Gingrich know this perfectly well.  That’s why it took three ballots to choose Santorum.  To argue otherwise is itself misleading, and yet another whiff of desperation.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Ed,

Gingrich’s response provoked a chorus of boos

This is absolutely BS and nothing but journalistic license and smear! You are really dredging the bottom of the barrel now to find any way possible to discredit Gingrich.

Newt was explaining the “creative destruction” that Romney and Bain used to close a steel mill in SC.

Newt is NOT against capitalism. Newt is against Romney’s use of amoral and unethical looting/raiding of a company such that the company goes under and the employees are unnecessarily jobless.

Good grief Ed,you and HA must be on Romney’s payroll that you are having such difficulty understanding this simple concept!

Or, maybe Newt is just too smart for you!!!

Sparky5253 on January 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Sparky5253 on January 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM
I have been taken by the unrelenting Hot Air attack on Newt. It makes me think that there is a corporate -owner mandate of sorts, something like what has changed Fox News.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Yes, I haven’t heard anything about Hot Air ownership or sponsors, but did hear rumblings about some other anti-Newt news/internet organizations. Have to look into it and get more specific info.

IndeCon on January 15, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Someone, pronto, please provide the video where Newt was booed. I saw the entire 2 hours of Huckabee’s show.

Drudge, because of his friend Ann Coulter, hyped this but there was nothing there there.

All who report media nonsense, spontaneously combust; media, you too.

Schadenfreude on January 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Yeh and the only dummies buying it will be the people who will vote for him anyway.

CW on January 15, 2012 at 2:59 PM

59,028,444 people voted for Kerry in 2004. Over 59 million dummies.

Mitt needs a GOTV drive to end all GOTV drives, because Team Obama will use the same questionable tactics they used in 2008 (NPOs like ACORN, the Black Panthers, infiltrating/polluting college campuses and collaborating with the OWS pukes).

That alone is gobsmackingly obvious.

Read the effing constitution and think about the fact that Romney was in one of the most liberal states and realize they were going to get a state health plan one way or another.

CW on January 15, 2012 at 2:59 PM

So… why didn’t he run for governor of Utah then? Or Michigan? Or Indiana? Heck, I’d have taken him over Bob Taft as Ohio’s governor at that period, but a day-old ham sandwich would have been better than Bob Taft (who nearly destroyed the Republican Party in Ohio in 2006).

What compelled Mitt to govern a state like Massachusetts? Did he have a gun pointed to his head and be demanded to do so against his own free will?

Myron Falwell on January 15, 2012 at 6:15 PM

“We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we’re unfortunate. We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of the threat.

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.”

– Newt Gingrich, one of the 71 co-sponsors of the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 a/k/a the Fairness Doctrine, which was defeated in the Senate, 27 November 2006

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

– Benjamin Franklin

Resist We Much on January 15, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Pigs will fly over Tehran and be welcomed by Achmedittojohn on the day Newt wins in South Carolina.

skatz51 on January 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM

From the standpoint of the likelihood that Romney will still won the nom it would likely be a good thing. Romney will need to be steered to the right.

CW on January 15, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Oh goody. That’s another four years of my life I’d like to have back… in advance.

Myron Falwell on January 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM

I’m watching Fox News Sunday and this guy from Newt’s PAC who made the attack film on Bain is getting his arse handed to him by Chris Wallace. Chris said Fox discovered that Bain did not sell the plant in question, the Canadian pension fund that bought it did. While Bain owned it, the worker being interviewed got a 30 percent raise.

This putz also insists that Bain sold the company and Mitt was the CEO, and Chris said that patently is wrong and it can be proved that this film is wrong.

Now Chris is hammering this guy on Newt’s private equity firm experience. He says Newt still has a tidy sum of money in Forstmann buyout funds. Chris basically asked whether it is hypocritical for the Newt PAC to launch attack ads against VC/PE when their candidate is in the same business.

This guy is beady-eyed and slimy and apparently just plain wrong. What’s sad is that he denied any falsehood or misunderstanding about inaccuracies in the film, which Fox checked out.

Newt is capable of sinking his own boat, but these guys are a giant torpedo in the hull. Whoa, did they get slapped around by Chris.

Philly on January 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM

PatMac on January 15, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Yes, I did see it. It’s about damn time he gave a speech like that. I certainly hope his advisers insist that he do that all the time now instead of the mealy-mouthed pronouncement he made about “Obama being a nice guy” (translation: can’t we all just get along and stop with this nasty rhetoric like the RNC said?).

It’s yet another instance where Romney is doing his chameleon act — seeing what the other candidates are saying first, then using it himself if it’s successful; not using it if it falls flat. That’s not what I would call aggressive leadership. It does nothing to inspire my confidence that he really does know how to take the fight to Obama.

PatriotGal2257 on January 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

I believe the vitriol against Gingrich is because, deep down, Mittsters know that Newt would be a much better nominee and president. Romney’s attack ads and the Mitt media savaging stole Iowa from Newt, but he’s still a big threat. Thus, the second savaging of Newt.

IndeCon on January 15, 2012 at 5:54 PM

To put it politely, Newt is a terrible campaigner. He just… IS – “social engineering” notwithstanding. Why in the hell he had NO response or rebuttal to the SuperPAC tidal wave against him just boggles the mind.

Myron Falwell on January 15, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Someone, pronto, please provide the video where Newt was booed. I saw the entire 2 hours of Huckabee’s show.

Schadenfreude on January 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I watched the entire two hours myself and I didn’t hear anything like sustained, loud booing — as in “get the hell off the stage; we totally reject everything you say” — as is being claimed.

Unless, that is, one or two catcalls are interpreted to mean a total rejection of a candidate and his platform.

PatriotGal2257 on January 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Everyone knows Newtie is the smartest cat in the alley, especially Newt./

jeanie on January 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Newt is capable of sinking his own boat, but these guys are a giant torpedo in the hull. Whoa, did they get slapped around by Chris.

Philly on January 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM

I just got done watching it too. Man, that was brutal. You could almost see the sweat running off that dudes face.

That dude is going to really sink the Newt.

JPeterman on January 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I’m watching Fox News Sunday and this guy from Newt’s PAC who made the attack film on Bain is getting his arse handed to him by Chris Wallace. Chris said Fox discovered that Bain did not sell the plant in question, the Canadian pension fund that bought it did. While Bain owned it, the worker being interviewed got a 30 percent raise.

This putz also insists that Bain sold the company and Mitt was the CEO, and Chris said that patently is wrong and it can be proved that this film is wrong.

Now Chris is hammering this guy on Newt’s private equity firm experience. He says Newt still has a tidy sum of money in Forstmann buyout funds. Chris basically asked whether it is hypocritical for the Newt PAC to launch attack ads against VC/PE when their candidate is in the same business.

This guy is beady-eyed and slimy and apparently just plain wrong. What’s sad is that he denied any falsehood or misunderstanding about inaccuracies in the film, which Fox checked out.

Newt is capable of sinking his own boat, but these guys are a giant torpedo in the hull. Whoa, did they get slapped around by Chris.

Philly on January 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Don’t tell the children….there minds are made up…you’ll cofusethem with the facts and they will have to admit that vtheir worship of Newt and Perry is delusional.

jibjab75 on January 15, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Yes, I did see it. It’s about damn time he gave a speech like that. I certainly hope his advisers insist that he do that all the time now instead of the mealy-mouthed pronouncement he made about “Obama being a nice guy” (translation: can’t we all just get along and stop with this nasty rhetoric like the RNC said?).

PatriotGal2257 on January 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Romney was just trying to seem less ready to feed red meat to the right, and give Obama the theoretical benifit of the doubt, by saying in essence, “{He may be sincere in thinking he’s doing whats right for the country, but if so, he is sincerely and dangerously wrong and must be stopped from bring this nation to it’s knees.”This arguement is wise, because it does not alienate the vmoderates, while still pointing out that Obama is terrible for the future of the nation.

In case you all forgot WE NEED THE MODERATES TO WIN.

jibjab75 on January 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Newt is just plain unprepared to be any kind of executive, let alone the chief.

ray on January 15, 2012 at 7:43 PM

“And let me say to all of my friends on both sides of the aisle, we have every opportunity through reform to shrink the Pentagon to a triangle; we have every opportunity to apply the lessons of downsizing, the lessons of the information age. And just because something is in uniform doesn’t mean it has to be saluted, but instead, we should be getting every penny for our taxpayers, and we in the Congress should be looking at long-term contracting as one way to dramatically lower the cost of defense.”

– Speaker Newt Gingrich, 7 January 1997

Resist We Much on January 15, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I haven’t seen Chris Wallace destroy anyone lately the way he took down Newt’s money man. That was brutal and I hope HA posts the clip.

Philly on January 15, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Oh grow up. Whether it was boos or “mild groans,” the POINT is that those in attendance were not happy that Newt couldn’t play by the rules. When you are reduced to arguing the decibels of displeasure aimed at your candidate, your candidate is done.

Rational Thought on January 15, 2012 at 3:14 PM

oh I get it. Like the audience boos way back when the gay soldierin Afghan asked his question? Clearly the audience booed him/

AH_C on January 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Oh grow up. Whether it was boos or “mild groans,” the POINT is that those in attendance were not happy that Newt couldn’t play by the rules. When you are reduced to arguing the decibels of displeasure aimed at your candidate, your candidate is done.

Rational Thought on January 15, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Seriously? Ed said it was an “earful.” I listened twice and could barely hear anything. Someone here said Fox edited the boos out, but Ed says it’s the “entire sequence so the boos could be heard in context.” Which is it?

It’s showing me that HA is gaining a more and more pro-Romney slant and a more and more anti-Gingrich slant. Why so coy? If HA bloggers don’t like Gingrich, they can come out and say that, but they shouldn’t spin a non-factor into a big deal in order to support their cause. First National Review, now HA? I’m distressed. There’s no way we’re getting a conservative nominee. I’ll pray for the country, I’ll work for my local rep, but I won’t campaign for Romney.

wordmum on January 15, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I haven’t seen Chris Wallace destroy anyone lately the way he took down Newt’s money man. That was brutal and I hope HA posts the clip.

Philly on January 15, 2012 at 7:54 PM

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, you can watch it right here.

The article attached to the video pretty much debunks the entire film.

JPeterman on January 15, 2012 at 8:04 PM

The Headline asks:

Where’s Newt? SC campaign stumbles plague Gingrich.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GINGRICH_STAGECRAFT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-15-10-09-53

Probably at a Greek Island Cruise!!!

With his erratic behavior and lack of organizational skill, yes he should be taken seriously as a potential nominee.

galtani on January 15, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Thanks, JPeterman.

Philly on January 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Romney was just trying to seem less ready to feed red meat to the right, and give Obama the theoretical benifit of the doubt, by saying in essence, “{He may be sincere in thinking he’s doing whats right for the country, but if so, he is sincerely and dangerously wrong and must be stopped from bring this nation to it’s knees.”This arguement is wise, because it does not alienate the vmoderates, while still pointing out that Obama is terrible for the future of the nation.

In case you all forgot WE NEED THE MODERATES TO WIN.

jibjab75 on January 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM

You forgot your sarc tag.

Benefit of the doubt? It sure looks like more of the same GOP spinelessness to me, which, if I were a moderate, I’d be laughing myself silly over.

The moderates I know are too diffident to say so, but scratch the surface and they’re all Democrats.

PatriotGal2257 on January 15, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Those of you Romney-haters who claim Romney is just Obama-Lite couldn’t be more mistaken. Would Obama call his buddies on the NLRB “Union stooges” as Mitt has? Would Obama say that his first act in office would be “Repealing Obamacare?” Would Obama, upon re-election, open up oil drilling and domestic energy processing as soon as possible? Upon re-election, would Obama start streamlining the fed government and start cutting unnecessary programs? Unlike Obama who never worked in the private sector, Romney is a turn-around specialist. Whether you think his Bain years were a negative or not, you just can’t deny that Romney took ailing entities and turned them around. Sure, a few failures but just think of what he could do to this bloated federal bureaucracy. The man definitely understands business and knows what kind of atmosphere is needed to promote massive growth in the private sector. There are many more example like these. Throw in his complete turnaround of the failing, scandal-ridden, ripe with fraud and bribery 2002 Winter Olympics (which was turned into a case study for a course taught in Harvard Business School and ended up being the most profitable Olympics in history) and a 4 year governorship – makes Mitt Romney the absolute best candidate to serve as POTUS. And serve he will by not accepting salary as POTUS. While MA governor, he accepted a one dollar a year salary and while running the Olympics, he donated his salary plus severance payments to charity along with an add’l one million dollars back to the games itself. Sure, he’s very wealthy but many in his shoes would accept payment. Plus, if you think the media seems to be in the tank for Romney, once again you are sorely mistaken. The media is doing everything in it’s power to extend this GOP primary campaign as long as humanly possibly in order to inflict as much damage as possible to the eventual GOP nominee. Of course, this is all done because of their love and admiration for the community organizer. Newt and Perry’s attacks on Romney’s Bain years is one of the biggest political goof-ups in history. So-called conservatives attacking free enterprise? Ronaldus Magnus would be rolling over in his grave

BabysCatz on January 15, 2012 at 8:55 PM

BTW – watching the Huckabee forum, Newt is mentioning Ronaldus Reagan in practically every other sentence. What would Reagan think of Newt’s Romney’s Bain attacks?

BabysCatz on January 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I believe that a person with strong conservative convictions will almost always gain a major, long-term following. Those who follow such a person are doing so precisely because he or she has strong conservative convictions. They see that person as standing for something. That person does not equivocate, does not waver and is like a rock in his or her belief that it is the best path to the prosperity and health of our nation.

What did watering down conservatism get us? It got us the usual list of political wimps: George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain. You could also add Karl Rove, John Sununu, good ol’ Mitt and many more. What do they have in common? Not only that they’re not conservative, but they don’t like and are threatened by conservatism and they don’t want it anywhere near the corridors of power in Washington.

PatriotGal2257 on January 15, 2012 at 9:04 PM

I met Newt briefly at Atlantic Aviation in Charleston, SC back in July. He seemed a likeable enough guy and he sincerely expressed his admiration and thanks for my service. At the time, he had not declared for the race; I imagine that trip was simply to shore up support for his eventual campaign. Thinking after the fact, though, he seemed to lack that presence, that “presidential” intangible that has propelled so many other candidates to victory despite shortcomings in their platform. In fact, his mannerisms belied a sense of more of a kindly grandfather than a steely-eyed campaigner for President of the United States. I have no doubt that his convictions are strong, after all, he has been involved in one of the most grueling employs in the country–politics–for decades. Unfortunately, what the Party needs, no, what Conservatives need, is a leader who puts his own convictions at the service of his countrymen, and fights for conservative principles first and foremost. I truly wish that November 2012 will offer a glimmer of hope for men and women who are tired of the status quo in Washington…With regret, however, I know that will probably not happen in my lifetime, perhaps ever.

On a lighter note, what a great time of year this is! Divisional championships next week, the Superbowl after that, and March Madness in less than two months!

m064404 on January 15, 2012 at 9:34 PM

So… why didn’t he(Romney) run for governor of Utah then? Or Michigan? Or Indiana? Heck, I’d have taken him over Bob Taft as Ohio’s governor at that period, but a day-old ham sandwich would have been better than Bob Taft (who nearly destroyed the Republican Party in Ohio in 2006).

What compelled Mitt to govern a state like Massachusetts? Did he have a gun pointed to his head and be demanded to do so against his own free will?

Myron Falwell on January 15, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Mitt saw that the liberal bastion that Kennedy had built in Mass. was bad for the country, and had the “intestinal fortitude” to go and take the battle to the enemy on their own ground. He went into the dragon’s lair…and succeeded in moving the state to the right…but those Romney haters in this forum refuse to give him the credit he deserves, and try deceptively to convince others that he is a liberal.

Mitt didn’t collude with Pelosi – Newt did.Mitt didn’t attack Paul Ryan’s plan as “rightwing social engineering…Newt did. You people have SOME nerve.

jibjab75 on January 15, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Mitt saw that the liberal bastion that Kennedy had built in Mass. was bad for the country, and had the “intestinal fortitude” to go and take the battle to the enemy on their own ground. He went into the dragon’s lair…and succeeded in moving the state to the right…but those Romney haters in this forum refuse to give him the credit he deserves, and try deceptively to convince others that he is a liberal.

Mitt didn’t collude with Pelosi – Newt did.Mitt didn’t attack Paul Ryan’s plan as “rightwing social engineering…Newt did. You people have SOME nerve.

jibjab75 on January 15, 2012 at 10:14 PM

NEITHER Mitt or Newt were or are appealing candidates. For a multitude of reasons.

And sorry, but championing single-payer healthcare is NOT taking a state “to the right.” That alone is laughable and destroys your argument.

Mitt will win the nomination because of crap competition. And he’ll lose to Obama in the general. And even if he wins, you can still kiss the America we know and love goodbye.

Myron Falwell on January 15, 2012 at 11:35 PM

If Mitt wants to get the fiscal conservatives on board, he ought to move to a supply-side economic agenda. Rather than just drop Corporate tax rates to international averages, he should discuss matching the Corportate Tax rates of countries like Canada (soon to be 12.5%) that are luring US companies north. He also should drop the capital gains rates for actual venture capital capable players who have incomes over 200K instead of dropping capital gains rates only for those with little descretionary income to invest. Calling for broadening the base while lowering marginal rates will also encourage small businessmen whose business income is taxed at personal income tax rates to grow their business as an investment’s return is calculated at marginal tax rates.

Such a move would knock the props out of Newt’s argument that Mitt will just continue the status quo economically. Vowing not just to give waivers on Obamacare but actually pledge to repeal it while legalizing sale of health care plans across state lines wouldn’t hurt either.

Until he does, Newt will have the argument that he is the apostle of Reaganism while Mitt will just be a better manager of a system that is sinking.

KW64 on January 15, 2012 at 11:35 PM

I was willing to overlook Newt’s statist peccadillos, because he could spout a good conservative line when he wanted to, and was clearly the most entertaining guy in the room. But his pique at being attacked in Iowa, and his own assault on Bain Capital was too much for me. His gravitas has come loose and is rolling all over the boat.

I’d have preferred Rudy Giuliani over all of them, but it looks like Mitt is going to be nominee. Oh well. If it’s a foregone conclusion by the time of the Mass. primary, I may well take a Democrat ballot and vote against Elizabeth Warren. Scott Brown may be a RINO, but he’s vastly better than the socialist Warren, who would take us back to the days of Teddy Kennedy, and worse.

MrLynn on January 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM

If Mitt wants to get the fiscal conservatives on board, he ought to move to a supply-side economic agenda. Rather than just drop Corporate tax rates to international averages, he should discuss matching the Corportate Tax rates of countries like Canada (soon to be 12.5%) that are luring US companies north. He also should drop the capital gains rates for actual venture capital capable players who have incomes over 200K instead of dropping capital gains rates only for those with little descretionary income to invest. Calling for broadening the base while lowering marginal rates will also encourage small businessmen whose business income is taxed at personal income tax rates to grow their business as an investment’s return is calculated at marginal tax rates.
KW64 on January 15, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Lowering taxes is all good, but I haven’t heard Mitt talk much about cutting CURRENT federal spending, so lowering taxes with the hope jobs will come back soon and raise revenue in order to pay for expenses is a gamble that could lead us into further debt.

Federal deficit spending is more destructive than taxing.

V-rod on January 16, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2