Categories

Archive for the ‘Rick Perry’ Category

Harry Reid is one of the most deceitful men to ever serve in Washington, DC. He isn’t too bright, either. The things he said in this video contradict each other:

Here’s what Sen. Reid said:

“From all the reports I’ve gotten, the answer for me is no, I won’t support it,” he said.

“I believe our No. 1 concern should be this narrow issue of we take care of this situation we have on the border. As I’ve been told, the Cornyn-Cuellar legislation covers a lot of other issues other than the problem we’re having on the border,” he said.

As foolish as that statement is, this statement is breathtakingly dishonest:

“The border is secure,” he told reporters after the Senate Democrats’ weekly policy lunch. “[Sen.] Martin Heinrich [(D-N.M.)] talked to the caucus today. He’s a border state senator. He said he can say without any equivocation the border is secure.”

I wish I’d been one of the reporters at Sen. Reid’s press availability. I would’ve asked him why a supplemental appropriation was needed to handle the flood of illegal immigrants if the border was secure. This isn’t rocket science. If the border is secure, then they wouldn’t be predicting 90,000 children from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

The best way to tell whether Sen. Reid is lying is to determine whether his lips are moving. If they are, it’s likely that he’s lying.

Rick Perry’s op-ed exposes Sen. Reid’s dishonesty:

In recent months, tens of thousands of children have come across the border and are now housed in federal facilities across the U.S., the result of failed federal policies and Washington’s indifference to securing the border.

I visited one of these facilities in June and saw these children, frightened and alone, who left their homes and families, survived a harrowing trip, and are now facing an unknown future. It was staggering to realize that this humanitarian crisis is not the result of a natural disaster, but of our nation’s own misguided laws and misplaced priorities. It’s nothing less than a moral outrage.

President Obama last week proposed $3.7 billion in spending to deal with the continuing crisis. But only a small fraction of that money would go to the actual core of this problem: the lack of sufficient resources to secure the border. The majority of the billions he proposes to spend—including on housing and transporting the minors around the country—is treating the symptoms of the problem instead of addressing its root cause.

Unlike Sen. Reid, Gov. Perry has been to the border. He’s seen the unaccompanied children. He’s gotten daily briefings from his staff on the flood of illegal aliens coming into the US.

Sen. Reid is attempting to hide the fact that 70% of the Border Patrol has been pulled from their normal jobs to help process the illegal aliens. There’s only 2 explanations for doing that. Either President Obama wants to leave the Tex-Mex border unsecured or the agents are being pulled to help with the flood of illegal immigrants who’ve crossed an unsecured border.

Just once, I wish a DC reporter would stand up to Sen. Reid and ask him why he’s saying such obviously contradictory things. You don’t need a $3,700,000,000 supplemental appropriation to handle a flood of illegal immigrants if the border is secure. Period.

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

Whether he realizes it or not, Sen. Rand Paul sounds frighteningly like President Obama. Sen. Paul’s op-ed sounds exceptionally dovish, starting with this:

President Obama has said he might use airstrikes in the future. I have also been open to the same option if it makes sense.

Notice the qualifier-filled statements from President Obama and Sen. Paul. It’d be surprising if President Obama did anything more than token air strikes. With Sen. Paul, we just don’t know, though his record is fairly isolationist and dovish. That isn’t the worst part, though. Sen. Paul’s intellectual dishonesty is frightening:

Said Perry forthrightly during a Republican presidential primary debate in 2012, “I would send troops back into Iraq.” Obviously, this is something he advocated long before the rise of ISIS. At the time, Perry urged the United States to return troops to Iraq to act as a balance against Iran, a country my colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham says we must work with to help beat back the extremists.

Does Perry now believe that we should send U.S. troops back into Iraq to fight the Iranians—or to help Iran fight ISIS?

Why would Sen. Paul ask that question? First, he notes that Gov. Perry made that statement in 2012, when the situation in Iraq was dramatically different. Why does Sen. Paul automatically assume that Gov. Perry’s policy would be the same today as it was in 2012? As intellectually dishonest as Sen. Paul’s assumption is, that isn’t the part that frightens me most. This question is:

How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country, a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves?

First, it assumes that Gov. Perry would send in troops, which isn’t a safe assumption. Second, it’s the wrong question. Why doesn’t Sen. Paul understand that troops deployed to Iraq wouldn’t be there to “die for a foreign country”? Why doesn’t he understand that they’d only be deployed to obliterate a terrorist training ground in the heart of Iraq?

Isn’t Sen. Paul bright enough to understand that a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East is a huge threat to the United States, not just to our allies?

This statement is frighteningly fictional:

Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia. He achieved a relative peace with the Soviet Union—the greatest existential threat to the United States in our history—through strong diplomacy and moral leadership.

Sen. Paul, it’s time you talked with people in the Reagan national security team. They’d tell you that he didn’t miss an opportunity to talk with dissidents jailed in the Soviet Union’s gulags. They’d tell you that he beefed up Radio Free Europe to tell dissidents that he was fighting for them. They’d tell you that diplomacy didn’t work until Reagan made it clear that he’d counter anything the Soviets would attempt to do.

The negotiations didn’t start until Reagan had frightened the bejesus out of President Gorbachev. Once he’d shown President Gorbachev who was the real superpower, then the negotiations started.

Reagan had no easy options either. But he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt.

If Sen. Paul meant that Jimmy Carter left President Reagan with a crappy hand, that’s right. If Sen. Paul means that there was any doubt in President Reagan’s mind that his plan would work and work fairly quickly, the answer to that question is an emphatic no. Reagan knew that the Soviet Union’s economy was on the verge of collapse. He knew that putting pressure on the Soviets would put them on the defensive.

Apparently, Sen. Paul doesn’t really understand the genius of President Reagan’s foreign policy genius. There’s no question whether Reagan was a hawk. It’s just that his foreign policy strategy was multi-faceted.

Sen. Paul’s op-ed is based on supposition, not fact. It’s based on something Gov. Perry said in 2012, not this summer. It’s apparent that Sen. Paul is as accomplished as President Obama in using strawman arguments. I expect that from this president. From now on, I guess I should expect it from Sen. Paul, too.

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

It’s sounding more and more like Gov. Rick Perry, (R-TX), is planning on running for president again in 2016. This op-ed sounds like the first shot against Sen. Paul:

This represents a real threat to our national security — to which Paul seems curiously blind — because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It’s particularly chilling when you consider that one American has already carried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedly killed four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

Yet Paul still advocates inaction, going so far as to claim in an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that President Ronald Reagan’s own doctrines would lead him to same conclusion.

The thing Sen. Paul’s supporters haven’t paid attention to is the fact that President Reagan was a confrontationalist. Though he didn’t fire a shot at the Soviet Union, he constantly confronted them strategically. He put in Pershing II missiles into western Europe. Doves like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry howled at the move, saying that this would just provoke the Soviets to become more expansionist.

Gov. Perry understands what President Reagan understood then. Gov. Perry understands that a vibrant, growing economy, coupled with the right strategic vigilance and interventionism, will thwart Putin’s expansionism and ISIS’ attempt to build a caliphate where terrorists can train for their next terrorist attack.

Here’s another shot frm Gov. Perry across Sen. Paul’s bow:

Reagan identified Soviet communism as an existential threat to our national security and Western values, and he confronted this threat in every theater. Today, we count his many actions as critical to the ultimate defeat of the Soviet Union and the freeing of hundreds of millions from tyranny.

At the time, though, there were those who said that Reagan’s policies would push the Soviets to war. These voices instead promoted accommodation and timidity in the face of Soviet advancement as the surest path to peace. This, sadly, is the same policy of inaction that Paul advocates today.

It isn’t that Gov. Perry is pushing war. It’s that he isn’t pushing for America to stick its head in the sand. Like I said earlier, Reagan brought the Soviet empire to its knees without firing a shot.

The Soviet Union had a terrible economy. Today, Russia’s economy isn’t much better. Putin is flexing his country’s muscles because he thinks he can get away with it. That’ll end the minute the US economy starts hitting on all cylinders and the right president starts inserting itself in the world.

Again, this doesn’t require going to war, though it’ll require beefed up intel operations in the world’s nastiest corners. That won’t matter to Paul’s most paranoid supporters. Paul’s most paranoid supporters will still hear the drumbeats of war.

Sane people, however, will hear things clearly. Far more people will agree with Gov. Perry than will agree with Sen. Paul. Let the jockeying begin.

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

For people who want to get an education in border security, I’d recommend watching this video:

I’ve been a secure-the-border guy from the start. It makes tons of sense. It’s the only thing that makes sense. I’ve been a build-the-wall guy, too. After watching Gov. Perry’s interview with Sean Hannity, I’m still a build-the-fence guy but I wouldn’t be if Rick Perry was president.

Rick Perry’s understanding of border security is only surpassed by his commitment to border security. If President Obama was as committed to securing the border as Rick Perry is, the border crisis wouldn’t have happened.

Also, Gov. Perry wants additional National Guard troops on the border so the Border Patrol “can do what they do best”, which is interdict drug traffickers and gather intel into cartel operations. That’s a show of commitment to border security that this president hasn’t shown.

One of the things that impressed me during the video is Gov. Perry’s understanding of the homeland security issues caused by illegal activities along the border. Gov. Perry’s explanation of the equipment that’s used along the border was informative. The gunboats that patrol the river are impressive. They are big, wide boats with 3 outboards mounted on jack plates. Each of the outboards are 300 hp. A boat that big usually needs lots of water to navigate. Gov. Perry said these specially-crafted rigs can operate in a foot of water.

Having fished in bass tournaments, I know a little about boats that can operate in extremely shallow water. Having fished walleyes in big water, I know a little about big, deep-water boats. A tournament walleye boat like the old Ranger 690 Fisherman required 16″ of water to operate. That boat was 18′ long.

By comparison, the gunboats that they use on the Rio Grande look like they’re at least 24 feet long. They’re loaded with some pretty lethal armaments, too, which weigh quite a bit. That these boats operate in a foot of water is astonishing.

I can’t impress on people enough how informative this is. I’d strongly recommend that you watch Hannity’s interview with Gov. Perry, too:

I’ve been impressed with Gov. Perry throughout these interviews. Yes, he’s taken a couple shots at the president but he’s mostly been focused on solving the border crisis. He’s shown he’s serious about securing the border. Most impressively, he’s shown a great command of the issues.

It’s understatement to say that Gov. Perry had a couple rough debate performancess in 2012. Predictably and justifiably, he got criticized for those performances. If this Rick Perry had shown up in those debates, he might’ve been the GOP presidential nominee. This Rick Perry is impressive.

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

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s Washington Post op-ed is obviously trying to prebut Texas Gov. Rick Perry prior to Perry’s visit to Maryland:

With gridlock and partisanship having all but paralyzed Washington, governors are at the forefront of our country’s policy divide. On the No. 1 issue facing our nation, how to ensure that Americans are winners, not losers, in the 21st-century economy, two divergent approaches frame the debate. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is highlighting this debate with his trip to Maryland on Wednesday.

The contrast is clear: Should we slash taxes on the wealthiest Americans, crippling our ability to invest in schools, job training, infrastructure and health care, because we believe that even lower taxes for our wealthiest will magically lead to jobs and robust economic growth? Or should we make tough choices together that provide the resources to invest in schools, bolster growing industries and create quality middle-class jobs?

First, it isn’t government’s responsibility to “ensure that Americans are winners, not losers.” Government’s responsibility is to put in place policies that give Americans the ability to win within the limits of the Constitution.

Second, raising tax rates doesn’t automatically increase revenues. Gov. O’Malley should know that because Maryland’s so-called Millionaires Tax failed miserably:

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year, even at higher rates.

Apparently, Gov. O’Malley’s staff didn’t inform him that his fight with Texas was settled in 2009. Quoting the WSJ, Maryland collected “6.25% of nothing” on 1,000 returns. Predictably, those millionaires left Maryland for greener pastures, mostly to northern Virginia.

Rather than collecting an additional $106,000,000 in taxes, Maryland lost $100,000,000. That’s what’s properly known as a miserable failure. Gov. O’Malley apparently hasn’t figured out that raising taxes isn’t the same as increasing tax revenues. Increasing the size of a state’s economy is what will increase a state’s ability to “invest in schools, job training, infrastructure and health care”, if that’s what they want to do. Maryland found out recently that raising tax rates doesn’t automatically increase revenues.

Taking advice from the governor that chased 1,000 millionaires from his state in on of his first major initiatives isn’t smart. In fact, listening to him on tax policy is foolish.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Several things caught my attention tonight about the GOP nomination race going forward. Here’s my take on what’s happened this week:

1. Mitt has a glass chin. Mitt’s great at throwing punches but he’s worthless when he’s attacked. The “looks presidential” Mitt disappears the minute he’s challenged or criticized. Considering the fact that President Obama, the pro-Obama superPACs and his media allies won’t play by Marquess of Queensberry rules, this puts Mitt at a significant disadvantage.

ADVANTAGE: President Obama

2. Newt’s capable of giving as good as he gets. There’s no question but that President Obama, like all narcissists, hates criticism. Similarly, there’s no question but that Newt’s substantive, issue-based criticisms will rattle President Obama.

There’s no reason to think that this advantage is limited to the debates. Newt will criticize President Obama for vetoing the Keystone XL Pipeline project. When Newt accuses President Obama for caving into the militant environmentalists rather than doing what’s right for America, Newt will put President Obama on the defensive.

ADVANTAGE: Newt

3. Message and connecting with voters vs. money and organization. Thus far, Mitt’s outspent his opponents by a wide margin. He’s widely acknowledged as having the best ground game of the 4 left standing, with RP a close second. Thus far, that hasn’t translated into victories. In fact, after tonight, it’s left more questions unanswered than anything else.

Newt started an online money bomb minutes after being declared the winner of South Carolina’s winner. Then there’s the well-funded pro-Newt superPAC. Combine that with the visceral connection people fel with Newt during Newt’s dressing down of Juan Williams, then strengthened when he eviscerated CNN’s John King and you’ve got the groundwork of an energized nationwide organization.

4. It seems like forever ago but Rick Perry’s dropped out. Still, Gov. Perry’s dropping out is a big deal, though not for the reasons most pundits and consultants think. I wrote about it here:

It’ll be interesting to see the media’s reaction to Gov. Perry’s endorsement. That said, the biggest thing, in my opinion, is the fact that tons of TEA Party organizations “from 25 states” will essentially pledge to be Newt’s organization in those states. Potentially, the TEA Party’s energy is a difference-maker. Look at the difference they made in last year’s midterms.

Mitt has a strong organization, he’s got a decent message but he doesn’t have the TEA Party support, organization and enthusiasm that Newt now has. Newt’s a fighter. That’s what the TEA Party is about. Fighting for the TEA Party’s principles fits Newt’s personality. Mitt doesn’t have a personality.

ADVANTAGE: Newt

4. Newt’s ‘attack’ on capitalism. Mitt’s made it clear that he’ll continue to use the line that Newt’s attacks on Bain are a full frontal assault on capitalism. Mitt’s made clear that he’ll try to convince voters that Newt’s attacks on capitalism disqualify him as the GOP nominee.

People won’t buy into that. Newt’s gotten the endorsement of Thomas Sowell, Michael Reagan and Art Laffer, 3 of the most passionate free enterprise, supply-side proponents of the past 30 years. Good luck selling that. Which leads to point 5.

5. Mitt’s attacks aren’t powerful. Mitt’s attacks are more vindictive and petty than powerful. Think jabs, not uppercuts and haymakers. When Mitt’s tried zinging people, especially Newt and Rick Santorum, they’ve dusted themselves off, then returned a solid left to the jaw.

Think Mitt’s saying that Romneycare was a great exercise in free market capitalism. Here’s Santorum’s response:

Ninety-two percent of people did have health insurance in — in Massachusetts. But that wasn’t private-sector health insurance. A lot of those people were, as you know, on Medicare and Medicaid. So they’re already on government insurance, and you just expanded.

In fact, over half the people that came on the rolls since you put Romneycare into effect are fully subsidized by the state of Massachusetts. And a lot of those are on the Medicaid program.

So the idea that you have created this marketplace in, with this government-run health care system, where you have very prescriptive programs about reimbursements rates. You have very prescriptive programs just like what President Obama is trying to put in place here.

Mitt tried his best to ward off Santorum’s accusations. In the end, they didn’t faze Sen. Santorum.

Non-DC-based GOP activists want someone who hits hard and whose opponents stay down. That isn’t Mitt.

ADVANTAGE: NEWT

6. Capturing the moment, seizing the opportunity. Newt’s ability to seize a moment is the best I’ve ever seen. It’s instinctive but it’s more than that. It’s a result of knowing the issues cold, combined with his quick wit, that seperates him from the rest.

The bottom line is that Newt’s proven, time and again, that he’s quick to spot an opportunity, then capitalize on it. Mitt has many solid qualities but that isn’t one of them.

There’s alot of primaries and caucuses still ahead. The things that must be troubling Mitt’s advisors is that Mitt’s weaknesses are getting exposed. Early on, Mitt’s weaknesses weren’t exposed, mostly because the storyline from debates was that “nobody laid a glove on Mitt.”

That’s nice but those ‘nobody laid a glove on Mitt’ days are ancient history. They aren’t returning either.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

This afternoon, I wrote this post stating that the Senate will return to work so that the payroll tax holiday could be properly implemented. I stand by that prediction.

Imagine my disgust, then, when I watched Special Report’s opening All Star Panel discussion. I didn’t expect much from Juan because, in his mind, any news benefits President Obama and the Democrats. I wasn’t surprised that David Drucker said that Republicans had given Democrats a new opportunity to demagogue them. (That’s my phrasing, not Druckers’s.)

When the discussion finally got to Charles, a voice of sanity was finally heard, albeit temporarily. Mr. Krauthammer rightly stated that the bill couldn’t be properly implemented, that House Republicans were doing the right thing, then unfortunately saying that House Republicans would take a beating politically for doing the right thing.

I was with Charles until that last sentence. That’s when he lost me.

Republicans won’t lose this fight politically. That’ll only happen if they assume the fetal position on this issue. That’ll only happen if they don’t constantly pound home the truth about the House Republicans’ plan. If Republicans consistently tell the American people the truth, Democrats will cave because Republicans will win overwhelming support for their plan.

If Senate Democrats won’t give in on the Keystone XL Pipeline project, fine. I’d double dog dare them to stand in the way of maintaining great international relations with our Canadian allies. I’d double dog dare them to listen to their militant environmentalist base instead of doing what’s right for securing energy independence.

In fact, I’ll triple dog dare them to insist on sticking with a 2 month extension of the payroll tax “long weekend” (that’s Charles’s spot on description of the bill passed by the Senate) instead of passing a year-long extension of the payroll tax holiday.

With video all over the internet of President Obama saying it’d be unconscienable not to extend the payroll tax holiday for the full year, the advertising that could be run against stubborn Democrats wouldn’t take a full morning to put together.

My recommendation to Republicans is simple: let’s have this fight. Let’s crank up the decibels. Let’s have GOP presidential candidates weigh in on the fight.

Then, in the end, let’s watch the Democrats assemble their circular firing squad and point fingers on why they didn’t win…again.

Finally, I’d love having the opportunity to criticize the media for not reporting the truth about this issue. While we’re hammering the Democrats, let’s file the indictment against the Beltway’s Agenda Media for not giving the American people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The more I think about it, the more I can’t wait to start the battle.

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

Ed Morrissey does a great job of outlining why he’s skeptical of the PPP polling that shows Ron Paul leading in Iowa:

PPP says that they are polling likely Republican caucus-goers, but there’s a reason for a little skepticism on their sample. At 597 respondents, the size is respectable enough, but its composition and definition of “likely” is quite shaky. Only a little over half (55%) bothered to caucus with Republicans in 2008, an election primary with as much publicity and import as this one. Thirteen percent caucused with the Democrats, which is reasonable because (a) Democrats aren’t conducting a primary this cycle, and (b) some who caucused with Democrats might be inclined to support Republicans this year.

However, almost a third (32%) didn’t caucus with either party in 2008. How can they be considered “likely” caucus-goers in this cycle? It can’t be because Ron Paul is running this time, because he was running in 2008 as well.

There are other reasons for skepticism. RealClearPolitics notes two other polls taken in almost the same timeframe as PPP’s survey, and Paul was below 20% in both (Rasmussen and Insider Advantage). They all show fairly close margins, but the PPP looks like a bit of an outlier — at least for now.

I agree with Ed’s opinions but I’d like to add two other things that I think are noteworthy, one of which Ed touches on. First, Ron Paul’s support, for the first time ever, extended beyond his usual die-hard base.

Ed’s post about the racist material published in Paul’s name in Paul’s newsletter will, I think, stop the Paul boomlet in its tracks. James Kirchick’s article is just another nail in Paul’s Iowa coffin. I fully expect his numbers to tank long before the caucuses.

Nutty Uncle spent way too much time on stage Thursday night to help Paul, too. It was just another display of Paul’s conspiracy theorist side. That won’t hurt him with his loyal base but it’ll cripple him with thoughtful people who were recent converts.

I still fully expect Newt to win the Iowa Caucuses, though it’ll be a tight race. I also think that Mitt will drop, especially in western Iowa, because Mitt played the class warfare card in yesterday’s interview with Chris Wallace. Playing the class warfare card won’t endear Mitt to hard-working Iowans.

This race is fluid. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rick Perry and Rick Santorum finish with a ticket out of Iowa.

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

Jazz Shaw’s post is another nail in this administration’s political coffin. It should infuriate everyone, at least those whose minds aren’t militant environmentalists. Here’s what I think should be considered the first count in Jazz’s indictment against this administration:

Under President Obama’s watch, the Environmental Protection Agency has set up the first national standards for mercury emissions and other dangerous chemicals from coal and oil-fired power plants.

The new rules will help to clear our skies of pollutants that can make health problems like asthma and bronchitis worse, saving up to 17,000 lives each year.

What’s interesting is that this information came from President Obama’s re-election website. What’s more important is Jazz’s insights into the heart of the matter:

Wait a minute…the EPA is supposedly in the process of reviewing more than a million comments from citizens, energy producers, workers and everyone else. There allegedly isn’t a decision yet. But somehow Barack Obama already knows the outcome? Was this question ever seriously being looked at, or was it a fait accompli before the first screams emerged about the lost jobs to come and the strain on the energy grid, particularly in Texas and adjoining states?

Jazz, the answer is simple. This administration gave us their blueprint during the 2008 campaign. Let’s remember this golden oldie:

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

President Obama isn’t reining in the EPA because he’s loving what they’re doing. This isn’t surprising if it’s viewed through history’s lens.

In fact, President Obama’s EPA is giving the GOP nominee a tremendous gift for this year’s campaign. The GOP nominee will be able to highlight the exorbitant energy prices. He’ll also be able to highlight the fact that this administration is attempting to do its best to derail the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

This administration’s regulators, whether they’re EPA or NLRB regulators, are the mother lode of political targets.

With $3 gas, with construction unemployment hovering around 14%, unemployed union workers and average families won’t be forgiving to an administration that’s intent on making their lives more expensive.

To be fair, Newt and Mitt would be able to make a strong case that this administration’s decisions are disastrous. It’s my belief that Newt would do better at making the case but that’s my opinion.

Actually, another person who’d be fantastic at making this case is Rick Perry. I’m not saying he’d be fantastic at debating President Obama on a wide range of issues but Gov. Perry would beat him to the proverbial bloody pulp on energy and EPA issues.

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

It’s a well-known fact that George Will has hated Newt Gingrich for at least 2 decades. It’s unfortunate that a brilliant man would be so filled with hate that he’s let that hatred spill into his latest column so badly. I’ve been reading Will’s columns for a quarter century. This is one of his worst. Here’s what he said:

Republicans are more conservative than at any time since their 1980 dismay about another floundering president. They are more ideologically homogenous than ever in 156 years of competing for the presidency. They anticipated choosing between Mitt Romney, a conservative of convenience, and a conviction politician to his right. The choice, however, could be between Romney and the least conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich.

Newt’s more liberal than Mitt? More liberal than Huntsman? More liberal than Ron Paul? Mr. Will’s hatred has affected his thinking to such an extent that he’s losing credibility.

Does Mr. Will think that balancing the federal budget 4 straight years is proof of Newt’s liberalism? Does Mr. Will think that helping pass the Kemp-Roth tax cuts that triggered the explosive job growth of Reagan’s administration is proof that Newt’s a liberal?

What’s worst is that Mr. Will didn’t stop there. In fact, he lost tons of credibility in saying this:

Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how.

Making a statement like that isn’t just stupid. It’s beyond provable.

Mr. Will’s sloppy statements plead with us to ignore that Newt’s original Contract With America wasn’t Marxist. Mr. Will’s statements beg us to ignore the fact that Newt’s 21st Century Contract With America is actually muscular capitalism. Mr. Will wants us to think that cutting the corporate tax rates from 35% to 12.5% tilt towards Marxism, that eliminating the capital gains and estate taxes aren’t capitalist economic principles.

That’s before talking about Newt’s desire to terminate the EPA and neuter the NLRB and the FCC. Marxism wouldn’t think about eliminating the tools that would allow the central government to inhibit manufacturing while giving bureaucrats the ability to control our communications while telling corporations what they can and can’t do.

After spending the opening of his column ripping Newt, he then turns his attention to praising Gov. Perry and Gov. Huntsman. Here’s what he said about Gov. Huntsman:

Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

It’s true that Gov. Huntsman’s policies sound conservative. His difficulties start with the fact that he’s governed as a liberal. Policies are just words on a piece of paper. Conservatism is based on a person’s actions, not their words.

On that basis, Gov. Huntsman is a liberal. That’s before considering his national security beliefs are as pacifistic as Jimmy Carter’s and Ron Paul’s.

Mr. Will’s judgment is impaired by his hatred of Newt Gingrich. That’s the only explanation for his making the unsubstantiated statements he made in this column.

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