Categories

Archive for the ‘John Kasich’ Category

John Boehner is failing. He’s playing President Obama’s game on President Obama’s court. He’s prosecuting the wrong case. Rather than discussing the terms of the fiscal cliff debate, Speaker Boehner should be talking about why Republicans’ pro-growth tax policies are America’s only hope for a variety of Obama-created ills.

First, Speaker Boehner should highlight the fact that President Clinton’s high tax rates didn’t trigger the great economy. He should remind the nation that it was Newt’s capital gains tax cuts that sent the economy into high gear. Prior to those tax cuts, the economy was doing ok. After cutting the capital gains tax, growth exploded.

Another thing that Speaker Boehner must do is remind people that Republicans’ insisting on balancing the federal budget helped strengthen the dollar, which led to a dramatic shrinking of America’s trade deficit. That especially affected gas prices.

Third, Speaker Boehner should shout from the rooftops that revenues during the Bush tax cuts were significantly bigger than revenues are today. If Speaker Boehner asked President Obama why he’s insisting on anti-growth policies that tamp the economy down rather than implementing new pro-growth policies that strengthen the economy, President Obama might well blow a gasket.

This is the debate we should start. This is the debate President Obama can’t win. This is the conversation that would expose President Obama’s motivation for imposing higher tax rates.

Rather than the pattern of proposal-counterproposal, then a counter offer to the counterproposal, with each side publicly stating that the other side needs to put forth a serious proposal, Speaker Boehner should ditch that pattern, especially the taunting language.

Instead, Speaker Boehner, followed by every Republican in Congress talking with their local newspapers and TV outlets about how cutting spending is what’s fair to taxpayers and how reforming the tax code, highlighted by fewer deductions and lower tax rates, would strengthen the economy.

Highlight the fact that this was the real reason why the economy was strong during the Clinton administration. Highlight the fact that the economy didn’t take off until Newt changed the trajectory of the debate.

President Obama is too arrogant to be frightened by that debate, which means Speaker Boehner should be able to turn this situation into a discussion on getting America’s economy going for the first time during President Obama’s administration.

With expensive utility bills, shrinking paychecks, high gas and grocery prices and unacceptably high unemployment rates, the indictment against President Obama’s mishandling of the economy should be lengthy and powerful.

Finally, he should unleash Paul Ryan. Speaker Boehner should insist on a televised fiscal cliff summit, with Ryan leading the prosecution of the case against President Obama’s reckless spending. Dave Camp should prosecute the case for why the GOP tax reform plan will strengthen the economy.

GOP senators and governors should take part in this summit, too. One tactic President Obama has overplayed is saying that ‘we can talk about that’ on a variety of policies, then dropping that position the minute he’s out of the room. Republicans should tell him that implementing a pro-growth economic plan is non-negotiable.

Finally, make the case that raising the top marginal tax rates won’t affect the Warren Buffetts of the world because their income comes from investments, not wages. Make the case that raising the top marginal tax rates will hurt small businesses, not the evil Wall Street fatcats President Obama always talks about.

President Obama’s policies are failing. Speaker Boehner’s ineptitude in highlighting those failures has the fiscal cliff conversation heading in the wrong direction. It’s time to change the direction of that conversation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If there’s a theme from tonight’s convention, it’s that the GOP is filled with rising stars that aren’t anything like Reagan’s Revolution or Newt’s Rebellion.

Tonight’s speeches were magnificent. The first speech I listened to was Sher Valenzuela, the GOP candidate for Lt. Governor of Delaware. She said that her and her husband started their own business because their son was an autistic child. Here’s her powerful speech:

There were 3 powerful parts of her speech.

The first powerful part of her speech talked about why they started their small business and their unwillingness to accept the doctors’ predictions. The second powerful part of her speech talked about how they grew their business, eventually growing the company to take business away from other countries’ businesses, including China. The third powerful spot was when Mrs. Valenzuela talked about how their son had just finished his first year of college.

Later in the hour, Artur Davis delivered a powerful speech:

I suspect that he stunned people at the convention that there’s 6,000,000 people that voted for President Obama in 2008 that won’t vote for him again. He asked for the people in the hall to bear with him while he spoke to disaffected Democrats and independents. Here’s part of what he said:

DAVIS: When they say they have a duty to grow government even when we can’t afford it, does it sound like compassion to you or does it sound like recklessness? When you hear the party that glorified Occupy Wall Street blast success, when you hear them minimize the genius of the men and women that make jobs out of nothing, is that what you teach your children about work?

The CBC criticized Davis prior to his speech, possibly to dampen the impact his speech would have on those voters who’ve experienced buyers remorse.

If that was their motivation, it didn’t work. Davis gave a rousing speech that his President Obama right in his vulnerabilities.

John Kasich isn’t a rising star but his speech was important because of his accomplishments as the man with the plan that balanced the budget while creating tons of new jobs as House Budget Committee Chairman. His impact was to tell voters in confident tones that there’s a serious alternative to President Obama’s policies.

Gov. Scott Walker was a hit, partially because his reforms are working but mostly because he defeated the public employee unions and because he did what he said he’d do.

The first night of speeches got this convention off to a flying start. The GOP started on the right foot. Chris Christie’s speech was about setting the stage for a campaign on big things.

That’s Romney-Ryan turf, something that President Obama knows. That’s why they’ve attempted to make this campaign about anything but important things.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Newt Gingrich is one of the most astute political strategists in American history. I know that I’ll catch flack over that statement but there’s no denying his putting together a revolution that took back the House for the first time in 40 years.

That’s why I’m paying attention to Newt’s latest article:

The announcement that former President Bill Clinton had been personally asked by President Obama to place his name in nomination at the Democratic Convention struck me as potentially a major mistake.

Bill Clinton is one of the most effective and aggressive speakers in the Democratic Party.

His attacks on Republicans will be witty, memorable, and effective for the moment.

The problem for Democrats is that while those who listen to Clinton’s speech and cheer him will be excited, those who think about Clinton and Obama in the same thought will begin to realize how bad Obama really has been as President.

Republicans should take every opportunity to drive home the amazing contrast between Clinton’s bipartisan achievements working with a Republican Congress and Obama’s absolute inability to work across the aisle.

I’ve thought the same thing since the announcement. I can’t argue that Clinton won’t electrify the people watching, whether they’re in the convention hall or watching their TVs.

I don’t doubt that he’ll pull off convincing people, albeit momentarily, that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between himself and President Obama. That image won’t last long. It might not make it through the weekend.

If I’m the Romney campaign, I’d have ads in the can with Clinton “ending welfare as we know it” vs. President Obama gutting welfare reform, then finishing with a picture of Bill Clinton with John Kasich with captioning reading “four straight surpluses, millions of new jobs created” just to remind people that creating a robust economy isn’t impossible.

You wouldn’t need to highlight that against a clip of President Obama. The message is already etched into people’s minds. That’s already ‘baked into the cake.’

These statistics are a stunning indictment against this administration:

With Clinton and a Republican Congress unemployment fell from 7.3 percent to 4.2 percent. Under Obama unemployment has been stuck at 8.2 percent (now moving up to 8.3percent this month). Obama has the worst job collapse in 75 years. Obama has had over 8 percent unemployment for 41 straight months. In fact under Obama unemployment went up from 7.8 percent to today’s 8.3 percent.

President Obama’s $5.2 trillion in deficits is a sharp contrast to Clinton’s balanced budgets.

During the bipartisan period from 1995 to 1999, debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP dropped 23 percent. Under Obama, it rose from 40.5 percent in 2008 to an estimated 74 percent in 2012—an increase of more than 83 percent. And under President Obama, gross federal debt passed 100 percent of GDP for the first time since 1947.

When I was sworn in as speaker in January 1995, the Congressional Budget Office projected cumulative federal budget deficits of $2.7 trillion over the next decade. After four years of bipartisan rule, in 1999, the CBO projected a $2.3 trillion surplus, a turnaround of $5 trillion. Under Obama, the CBO this year estimated a ten-year cumulative deficit of $2.9 trillion.

The President’s jobs failure has left 46 million Americans in poverty, the largest number in history.

If Mitt picks Paul Ryan or Bob McDonnell as his runningmate, they’ll likely campaign on a theme of ‘Reforms that work’. That’s a powerful message this campaign season. I might even be tempted to appropriate Bill Clinton language.

I’m one of the people that remember Al Gore before he flipped out. Bill Clinton put him in charge of a project called “Re-inventing Government.” There’s no reason why a Mitt-Ryan ticket or a Mitt-McDonnell ticket couldn’t run on the theme of “Re-inventing Government, Part II.”

That theme would play well with independents who aren’t that ideological. Independents want government to do its job right without intruding into their lives. Play on the themes of creating a robust domestic energy plan, getting rid of the corruption within the EPA and the crony capitalism of Solyndra.

Couple that with talking about building a 21st Century health care system and this could turn into a rout fairly quickly.

Doing those things would remind people of what it was like to have a functioning government that got things right without unduly burdening their families and their businesses.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After Tuesday’s defeats, questions started popping up about whether Newt was political history. I didn’t take those questions seriously because I knew CPAC was right around the corner. I knew that, if anyone was capable of a comeback, Newt at CPAC was the right combination. This speech proved I was right:
video platform video management video solutions video player
From the outset of the speech, Newt distanced himself from the DC GOP Establishment while aligning himself with the conservative movement’s activists. In doing so, he reminded people that he’s still the smartest man in the room on policies and solutions.

Reminding the faithful of all the things that the GOP Establishment deemed unrealistic, Newt riffed into a great set of ‘unrealistics’ but not until reminding his audience that CPAC was founded in the 1970s “to challenge the GOP Establishment.” Here’s the transcript of Newt’s ‘unrealistic’ riff:

GINGRICH: When Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1980, you could see the gap between the Establishment and the conservative movement. Reagan campaigned on supply side economics, lower taxes, less regulations, more American energy, praise for people who created jobs. The Establishment called it “VooDoo Economics.”

The GOP Establishment has a single word they use with contempt for conservative ideas. They say they’re ‘unrealistic’. So creating 16,000,000 new jobs under Reagan? Unrealistic. Ending the Soviet Union? Unrealistic. The 1994 Contract With America? Unrealistic. The 1994 House majority, which, by the way, was elected with the biggest single party increase in American history, 9,000,000 new voters? Unrealistic. Reforming welfare so that 2 out of 3 people either went back to work of went back to school? Unrealistic. Cutting taxes, including the biggest Capital Gains tax cut in American history and the first tax cut in 16 years? Unemployment drops to 4.2%, 11,000,000 new jobs? Unrealistic.

Not only was that list of things not unrealistic, they were accomplished because the ideas made too much sense to the American people. Reagan understood that the American people thirsted for inspiration. He supplied it in large doses.

The GOP Establishment doesn’t understand the American people. They can’t comprehend the power, enthusiasm, grit and determination of the TEA Party movement because it’s something happening beyond Washington’s Beltway. The DC Establishment of both parties doesn’t understand the identity of America throughout history.

The America that they don’t understand is the America President Reagan and Speaker Gingrich understand because they came from humble beginnings. That’s the America that Mitt Romney can’t tap into, not because he’s evil but because it’s totally foreign to him.

Rick Santorum is a fine man who understands America, just like John Kasich and Paul Ryan do. Of that group, only Congressman Ryan understands the greatness and genius of America like Newt Gingrich knows it.

It’s that greatness that intellectually seperates Newt Gingrich from the rest of the GOP presidential field. That Newt’s been MIA recently.

After Friday’s speech at CPAC, it’s safe to say that the special Newt is back.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The first thing I thought after reading this article is that ‘Ohio Mitt’ is back. First, let’s refresh people’s memories of Mitt’s bailing on John Kasich:

Campaigning in Ohio today, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney stopped by a Republican Party phone-bank making calls in support of Gov. John Kasich’s government union reform referendum, but refused to endorse the actual referendum. CNN’s Peter Hamby called the scene an “incredible moment in politics.”

But Romney would not say specifically if he supports S.B.5, which Ohio voters oppose by a 57-32 margin, according to a Quinnipiac poll out Tuesday

Instead, he issued only generic support for GOP efforts to control spending in Columbus.

“I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues,” Romney said, after being pressed by reporters. “Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party’s efforts here.”

Got that? Mitt stopped at a call center to get out the vote in support of “Gov. John Kasich’s government union reform referendum” but he wouldn’t take a stand on the ballot issue. Fast forward to today:

“I’m not going to get into the back-and-forth on the congressional sausage-making process,” Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said in Keene, N.H., as the day began. “I hope they’re able to sit down and work out a solution that works for the American people. My hope is that the solution includes extension of the payroll tax holiday.”

That’s right. Mitt didn’t stand with conservatives on another important issue. Unfortunately, this isn’t surprising. Mitt isn’t a leader. Mitt’s a slick-sounding fake. Compare that with a real leader:

In Iowa, Gingrich called a two-month extension “insufficient” and scolded the Democratic-controlled Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama’s administration for “lurching from failure to failure” and marveled: “They can’t figure out how to pass a one-year extension, so the Senate leaves town?”

When the going gets tough, Mitt’s hidden. He’s run rather than be a leader.

By comparison, Newt didn’t hide. He jumped into the fight after analyzing the situation. Then he highlighted the Democrats’ spinelessness and duplicitousness.

That’s what real leaders do.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Though I don’t recall ever posting anything about Thomas Sowell, I’ve always been a huge fan of his clear-thinking conservatism. I don’t think I’ve posted anything praising Chad the Elder from Fraters Libertas. That’s about to stop. Chad’s post focuses on Dr. Sowell’s article on the fight between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
First, here’s Dr. Sowell’s analysis of the competition between Speaker Gingrich and Gov. Romney:

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Dr. Sowell is spot on with that analysis, which is standard with him. In fact, I wrote something on the subject here:

Newt helped push the Reagan tax cuts through Tip O’Neill’s House. He pushed through the reforms that ended welfare as we know it in 1996. His policies, John Kasich’s negotiations and Bill Clinton’s signature produced 4 straight surpluses, including the biggest surplus in U.S. history.

Yes, Newt’s said some stupid things but he’s enacted tons of conservative-friendly legislation. At the end of the day, I’m infinitely more worried what’s signed into law than what people say.

By comparison, Mitt hired John Holdren to be his environment czar. Holdren is the far left radical that advised Paul Ehrlich when Ehrlich wrote the Population Bomb, which was an early missive in the global warming/global cooling hoax. Then Mitt took Holdren’s advice and proudly implemented the most stringent CO2 emission standards in the northeast.

Mitt raised taxes and he signed Romneycare into law. I’m surprised that he didn’t find time to sign Card Check into law, too. Mitt’s done more than President Obama did in enacting the progressives’ agenda.

If Mitt wants to have an honest talk about his conservative legislative accomplishments, the conversation wouldn’t last a full minute.

I’m astonished that the lemmings in the press haven’t questioned Mitt’s capitalist credentials in any serious fashion. Capitalists don’t sign an executive order capping CO2 emissions. Mitt Romney didn’t just sign an executive order that capped CO2 emissions. He took it a step further.

While dumping huge new costs on power plants, he also included price caps in his executive order to prevent these power plants from raising rates. That’s what Nixon and Carter did with gas. That’s what Obamacare does with health care.

The thought that Mitt is attempting to sell himself as a conservative is insulting. He is what he once said he is: a moderate, a progressive.

Here’s Chad’s closing argument ridiculing Mitt’s conservatism of convenience:

If one chooses to, it’s easy to find flaws with Gingrich’s candidacy just as is with any of the other possible alternatives to Romney. But tearing down Newt doesn’t make Mitt any more palatable to conservatives. It seems the strongest case for Romney is that he’s not as bad as Gingrich with this or Perry with that or Bachmann with another thing. And it’s true that Romney’s carefully calibrated positions and cautiously worded statements have allowed him to make his way through the campaign while making few waves or offending anyone. The question remains whether that’s what voters are looking for right now or if instead they’d prefer to take their chances with a candidate who’s not afraid to upset an applecart or two along the way.

Chad’s right in asking the key question: whether Mitt’s the candidate that voters are looking for. Thus far, the data says that he isn’t. At best, he’s a plurality candidate.

As Dr. Sowell wrote, plurality, consensus candidates don’t win elections. Just ask President McCain.
Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It isn’t news that Ann Coulter loves hearing the sound of her voice more than she loves conservatism. It isn’t surprising that, as a member of the Agenda Media, she’s supportin Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, 2 of the 3 most liberal candidates in the race. You didn’t know that AC’s supporting RP? Thanks to Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft’s post, we can watch the video of her going full lunatic:

It’s disappointing that Coulter would give Mitt Romney a total pass on the BS that he’s peddling. That’s why it’s impossible for me to think of her as a serious person anymore.

Why hasn’t Ms. Coulter questioned Mitt’s premise that you have to work in the private sector to know how to create jobs? Is she willing to ignore facts? Apparently.

When President Reagan took office, he’d never run a company. During his administration, he put in place policies that gave companies the incentive to create 20,000,000 new jobs.

That information alone refutes Mitt’s schtick that he’s the only person with the ability to create jobs.

That’s before piling on the facts that Newt Gingrich, John Kasich and Bill Clinton didn’t have much experience running a small business or a corporation when they put in place policies that led to 20,000,000 new jobs getting created during Clinton’s term in office.

Doesn’t this information totally discredit Mitt’s sales pitch? As a matter of fact, it does. Why isn’t Ann Coulter criticizing Mitt for that sales pitch? I’ll bet we’ll never find out.

Another thing that the Agenda Media, Ms. Coulter included, hasn’t talked about or investigated is the fact that Mitt’s been rescuing the Olympics, running for governor or running for president since February, 1999.

Since leaving Bain Capital, he’s hired John Holdren, now President Obama’s Science Czar, to advise him on global warming. That’s a stunning success for the greenies because Mitt listened to Holdren in signing an executive order putting the strictest limitations on CO2 emissions in the northeastern states.

Mitt wasn’t satisfied that he’d just imposed millions of dollars of costs on Massachusetts energy companies. Again, he took Holdren’s advice in signing an executive order imposing price controls on Massachusetts energy companies.

Perhaps Ms. Coulter or the rest of the Agenda Media can explain what capitalist principle Mitt followed in imposing price controls on companies. That might happen but I doubt it. I’m betting Lucifer will hand out skates before Ms. Coulter explains what capitalist principle led Mitt to impose price controls on people.

Since leaving the private sector, Mitt signed Romneycare into law, a law that he’s still defending. Mitt’s clung tightly to his Tenth Amendment argument.

It’s a phony argument that’s actually laughable. Has anyone beside me said that government doesn’t have the authority to tell private citizens that they have to buy anything as a condition of their existence? That’s true whether it’s the federal, state or local government attempting to impose the purchase.

The only time they have the right to impose our purchasing a product is if we choose to engage in a privilege. Driving is one such instance.

Somehow, Ms. Coulter’s conservative principles appear to have left for a Christmas vacation. When they’ll return is anyone’s guess. In fact, it’s questionable that they’ll ever return.

It’s worth noting that Mitt didn’t sign the CO2 limits executive order in 2003. Mitt didn’t sign Romneycare into law in 2004. Mitt signed the CO2 executive order and the price controls executive order in December, 2005. Mitt signed Romneycare into law in April, 2006.

That’s awful enough but it’s worse than that. Mitt’s still defending Romneycare even though he’s admitted that it doesn’t do a thing to lower health care costs.

Mitt said Saturday that he’s the ideal TEA Party candidate. That’s BS. Mitt isn’t a conservative. He’s a liberal. I can’t explain why Ann Coulter or the rest of the Agenda Media isn’t exposing him as such.

It’s time that conservatives started ignorning Mitt. It’s time they started ignoring AC, too. They aren’t intellectually honest and they certainly aren’t principled conservatives.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A major contributor to Republican campaigns in Ohio has called for Kevin DeWine’s resignation. DeWine is the chairman of the Ohio Republican Party.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A generous Republican donor from Northeast Ohio has called for Ohio GOP Chairman Kevin DeWine’s resignation, stoking speculation of a rift between the party’s leadership and Republican Gov. John Kasich’s administration.

Jon Lindseth, a businessman from Hunting Valley who has contributed about $200,000 to Republican candidates since 2001, sent DeWine a brief e-mail on Thursday expressing his displeasure.

“Enough is enough,” said the e-mail, obtained by The Plain Dealer. “You crossed the line. Time for you to resign.”

The root of the problem appears to stem from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s now-infamous stop in the Cincinnati area this week.

Kevin DeWine’s stunt backfired on both DeWine and Gov. Romney. Ohio Republican insiders say that DeWine’s biggest problem is that he’s listening to Brett Buerck too much. Buerck is one of the Republicans that helped Ohio Republicans earn the reputation of being corrupt. This article explains how corrupt Buerck is:

Brett Buerck, Householder’s former chief of staff, closed his lucrative political consulting firm, First Tuesday, and is now a first-year law student at Ohio State University.

His sidekick, fund-raiser Kyle Sisk, lost his major Republican accounts, sold his home after claiming that records subpoenaed by a grand jury had been stolen from his billiards table and is involved in an undisclosed business venture.

Both declined to discuss the investigation.

At the Statehouse, Householder’s hand-picked successor, Jon Husted, has earned plaudits for a more inclusive and collegial leadership style as he works to shed the nickname “Little Larry.”

Husted, a Dayton-area Republican, fired Buerck and Sisk as consultants to the House GOP in 2004. Since then, he has publicly distanced himself from the pair while quietly helping behind the scenes. He wrote Buerck a letter of recommendation for law school, and his wife, Realtor Tina Husted, was the listing agent for the sale of Sisk’s $300,000 home.

‘The best and worst of everything’

Householder’s meteoric rise from insurance agent in hardscrabble New Lexington to House speaker is due in large part to the political prowess of Buerck, his brilliant, ruthless and hyper-vigilant top aide.

But it was Buerck who ultimately also brought Householder down by alienating colleagues who turned to law enforcement authorities and the news media.

Just 30 years old when he resigned from the House in August 2003, Buerck launched First Tuesday and within two months was pulling in more than $80,000 a month. His clients included two obscure Dayton firms whose goal was Householder’s goal, to install Husted as House speaker and Sen. Jeff Jacobson as Senate president.

Their plan nearly worked, but it collapsed the following summer after Husted and Jacobson, a suburban Dayton Republican, admitted they had routed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Buerck and Sisk through a tiny nonprofit called Citizens for Conservative Values and JSN Associates, a consulting firm run by James Nathanson, one of Jacobson’s closest friends.

In the following months, Buerck lost most of his consulting clients as friends and colleagues deserted him.

My Ohio contact said that there wasn’t a line Buerck wouldn’t cross. Based on this article, that’s pretty believable.

In 2006, alot of Republicans lost their House seats thanks to the plethora of GOP scandals that year. There was the Bob Ney-Jack Abramoff scandal, the Taft scandal and, apparently, the Buerck ripoff.

This is the picture of the ‘guy behind the guy’:

Buerck and Sisk raised millions of dollars for Householder and House Republicans by threatening to withhold financial support from wayward members who didn’t vote in lockstep with Householder on key pieces of legislation.

They also strong-armed members to embrace no-new-taxes pledges, using political nonprofits such as the Ohio Taxpayers Association to wage scorched-earth campaigns against Democrats and uncooperative Republican primary opponents.

“When I was trying to put together my first campaign brochure, they kept giving me paragraphs and I kept sending them back and saying, ‘I do my own writing,’ ” said Rep. Jim McGregor, a suburban Columbus Republican. “It’s the coin of the realm, it’s the only thing I have to give my voters, so I told them, ‘I can’t have you writing my words.’ “It was pretty confrontational.”

It’s painfully obvious that Mssrs. Buerck and Sisk are total control freaks. People with that type of personality frequently believe tha the ends justifies the means.

I don’t have proof but it wouldn’t be difficult for me to think that Mr. Buerck talked DeWine into embarrassing Gov. Kasich. Gov. Kasich has a lengthy history of being a man of integrity. He’s consistent to a fault. He started submitting balanced budget blueprints in 1989. He didn’t stop submitting balanced budget blueprints until he retired from Congress in 2001.

With Gov. Kasich, what you see is what you get. It’s really that simple.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Politico offers a sneak peak at George Will’s Sunday column. Suffice it to say that he isn’t a fan of Mitt’s:

Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable, he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate: Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the tea party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.

Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from ‘data’…Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for THIS?

With the nation at a crossroads, what this nation needs is a visionary, someone to inspire them with great ideas. We need a real leader.

This week, when Gov. Romney initially refused to support Gov. Kasich’s SB5 law, it was proof that Gov. Romney didn’t have a spine. When he apologized “if I caused any confusion”, he finally said he supported Gov. Kasich “110%”. That isn’t leadership. That’s shapeshifting at its finest.

We don’t need someone who’s constantly revising his core beliefs. That’s assuming he has core beliefs. Based on this op-ed by Doug MacKinnon, Club for Growth doesn’t think Romney has a spine either:

“The big problem many conservatives have with Mitt Romney is that he’s taken both sides of nearly every issue important to us. He’s against a flat tax, now he’s for it. He says he’s against ObamaCare, but was for the individual mandate and subsidies that are central to ObamaCare. He thinks that collective bargaining issues should be left for states to decide if he’s in Ohio, but he took the opposite position when he was in New Hampshire. This is just another statement in a long line of statements that will raise more doubts about what kind of President Mitt Romney would be in the minds of many Republican primary voters.”

Gov. Perry perhaps said it best during his interview with Bill O’Reilly Tuesday night. That’s when Gov. Perry questioned how a man in his 50′s or 60′s could change his mind on so many fundamental issues that late in life.

It suggests that these changing positions weren’t part of major epiphany but rather are the determination made by a man who knew he wouldn’t stay viable if he kept espousing his real positions.

The TEA Party was the reason for last year’s historic defeat of the Democrats. Having a technocrat like Mitt Romney, who is, at best, disinterested in the TEA Party would throw cold water on the TEA Party movement. Most importantly, TEA Party activists demand sincerity from politicians. If a politician says they’re going to do X, they’d better get X done or at least say that they worked hard to get it accomplished.

If Republicans want to keep the momentum going that started with the TEA Party movement, they can’t nominate the anti-TEA Party candidate.

Mr. Will is right that conservatism isn’t informed by “data.” The TEA Party’s principles aren’t determined by data either. Conservatism’s principles are rooted in documents like the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. That’s why they believe passionately about concepts like federalism and limited government.

Mitt Romney doesn’t have deep-rooted principles. That’s the message of Mr. Will’s column. With respect to Mr. Will’s question, no, it shouldn’t come to this.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The first thing I thought of after reading Greg Sargent’s post about Mitt’s union stumbles in Ohio, I’m left wondering which version Gov. Romney will stick with. Here’s what his press person said yesterday:

His reluctance is about preserving states rights. “Gov. Romney believes that the citizens of states should be able to make decisions about important matters of policy that affect their states on their own,” Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul explained.

That’s significantly different than Mitt’s version this morning:

Per @GarrettNBCNews, Romney says he “fully supports” Gov. Kasich on Issue 2 and apologizes for yesterday’s confusion.

It’s getting confusing. Was Mitt silent yesterday because he believes in the Tenth Amendment? Or does he stand with Gov. Kasich today for political expediency and because he now understand the firestorm his campaign is in right now? Or is this the rollout of Mitt 48.0, the one who’s shown that he doesn’t have a spine but he does have the awareness to know that he’s in trouble?

Perhaps it’s D, none of the above. Perhaps, it’s just Mitt getting himself in trouble by being for something unpopular without saying he’s for something unpopular.

Isn’t that kinda like John Kerry’s “I actually voted for it before I voted against it” moment? Coming to think of it, wasn’t Kerry’s waffling moment the turning point in the election, the point where people realized that he’d say or do anything to get elected?

Might this be Mitt’s moment of disaster episode where people just notice he’s the type of spineless politician the American people despise?

Only time will tell about the long-range impact Mitt’s momentary obfuscation will have on the campaign. Still, it’s difficult to picture this not being another significant setback for Mitt.

In the long run, it’s probably easier to grow a spine than to continually change stories. Perhaps, that’ll be Mitt 49.0.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,