Archive for January, 2012

When the Senate voted to not confirm Ellen Anderson as chair of the Public Utilities Commission, aka PUC, there was a good reason for it. Sen. Gimse explains it perfectly here:

Gimse said Anderson was an “activist for clean energy” and he was concerned her views on restricting nuclear energy and electricity generated from fossil fuels wouldn’t provide the “strong base load capacity for electricity” to keep utility rates competitive for consumers and create jobs.

Put differently, Anderson was a big green energy activist who consistently put ideology ahead of reality. Here’s what Mike Nobles, the executive director of Fresh Energy said in his official statement after the Senate rejected Sen. Anderson:

Fresh Energy deplores the decision by the Minnesota Senate majority to deny confirmation to former state senator Ellen Anderson as chair of the Public Utilities Commission. Chair Anderson has managed the commission’s business with professionalism and efficiency, and her long tenure on key legislative committees offers the state an unusually deep understanding of energy and consumer issues.

As a key legislative architect of the laws at the foundation of Minnesota’s forward-looking energy policy platform, Chair Anderson was well-suited to administer those laws in an impartial and statesmanlike way, keeping Minnesota’s business climate competitive and consumer energy bills affordable, while moving our state systematically forward to an energy-efficient, low carbon, clean energy future, as our state laws require.

Then-Sen. Anderson was a major advocate for the Next Generation Energy Act, a bill that won bipartisan support in the legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Pawlenty. Utility rates have climbed as a direct result of that legislation.

As a sidenote, Mike Noble should be remembered for his radicalism, which I wrote about in a post titled Attrition, not Litigation. The op-ed he co-authored with Paul Aasen highlighted the environmental community’s anti-fossil fuel rigidity:

Along with our allies at the Izaak Walton League of America, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Wind on the Wires, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Fresh Energy argued, first in South Dakota, then before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), that the new plant was a bad idea. Our message was simple: The utilities had not proven the need for the energy, and what energy they did need could be acquired less expensively through energy efficiency and wind.

We kept losing, but a funny thing happened. With each passing year, it became clearer that we were right. In 2007, two of the Minnesota utilities dropped out, citing some of the same points we had been making. The remaining utilities had to go through the process again with a scaled-down 580-megawatt plant.

This time around, the administrative law judge ruled in our favor, saying the utilities had proven the need for, at most, 160 megawatts and had failed to prove that coal would be the least expensive way of providing the electricity. The Minnesota PUC approved the transmission lines into Minnesota, and we filed an appeal that is pending with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

In short, Fresh Energy and the MCEA sued Big Stone II investors into the ground. Ellen Anderson steadfastly supported that attrition litigation, starting with this op-ed:

Many of us at the state and federal levels of government are trying to do just that. Working with a broad coalition of environmental groups, we introduced legislation in 2007 to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The bill that finally passed will go a long way toward accomplishing those reductions.

My main focus has been on the way we generate electricity. In Minnesota, we are very heavily reliant on burning coal, which means we contribute more than an average share to the climate change crisis. Others are working on the transportation side, and of course I support those efforts as well.

Based on Sen. Anderson’s own words, does it sound like she’d be impartial? Let’s remember that Sen. Anderson was one of the green energy’s staunchest allies for over a decade. This isn’t just something she believes in; it’s part of who she is.

Was the Senate supposed to look past Sen. Anderson’s history of radical ideology and confirm her? I don’t think so. As for Gov. Dayton’s reaction, it’s a testimony to his childish temperament:

Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton on Monday in blistering language blasted Senate Republicans after the Senate voted to reject the confirmation of his appointee, Ellen Anderson, as chair of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

“A very good person, a very dedicated public servant, and an excellent chair of the Public Utilities Commission was wrongly maligned and cruelly rejected today by Republican Senators, who showed once again that they are unfit to govern this state,” Dayton read from a statement.

“You would think after their leadership scandals, which caused them to replace all of their leaders last month, they would behave themselves for at least a little while. However, they seem incapable of doing so,” he said.

That’s the type of childish rant that Minnesotans have come to expect of Gov. Dayton. He’s ill-equipped, temperament-wise, to lead the state.

Finally, this is another troubling statement from then-Sen. Anderson:

Minnesota law says that if we can meet our need for power more cost effectively through the use of renewable energy, or through energy conservation, or through a combination of both, then a new coal plant cannot be built. In January 2007, the administration filed a brief, clearly stating that the proponents failed to show the plant was needed, and failed to show it was the most cost effective solution.

She’s talking about the Next Generation Energy Act. Clearly, NGEA was a mistake because it’s imposing a plethora of unreasonable regulations on power generators. That then-Sen. Anderson was a steadfast supporter of such counterproductive regulations is an indictment against her judgment.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Something that doesn’t make sense is the support Mitt Romney is getting from Hugh Hewitt and Jennifer Rubin. What’s worse is that their support has intensified since Mitt’s Alinskyite nastiness has been revealed.

Is this Hewitt’s and Rubin’s way of signalling that they’re ok with Alinsky’s politics of personal destruction as long as they aren’t used against St. Mitt? Would they tolerate Mitt’s thug tactics if it came from another GOP candidate?

God help us if they would.

Something tragically wrong is going on here. When a syndicated talk show host who allegedly votes for the conservative who’s most electable goes into the tank for a nasty, perhaps evil, progressive, something’s wrong. It raises the question of whether Hewitt gives a damn about the TEA Party activists. It raises the question of whether Hweitt is a principled man or if he’s just another ‘let’s sacrifice our principles in the name of winning.’

Don’t even get me started with Jennifer Rubin or Ann Coulter. As disgusting as Hewitt is, and that’s plenty disgusting, Jennifer Rubin and Ann Coulter are intellectually vacant and without principles. Ann Coulter went from saying at CPAC that if nominated Romney, we’d lose decisively. Now she’s singing his praises.

Did Ms. Coulter suddenly see the light that Mitt’s a conservative like he says? Or is it that she’s willing to lie about Mitt to maintain a high media profile? I suspect it’s the latter.

The TEA Party doesn’t take kindly to people that don’t put principles ahead of popularity. She’s a gutless weasel who won’t fight the fight for conservatism when it matters.

Isn’t that the complaint about most RINOs? That they sound good delivering speeches but they’re MIA when the battles come?

Ms. Rubin is worse than Ms. Coulter in the sense that she’s never pretended to care about conservatism’s principles. She couldn’t care less about conservatism’s principles if it’s a battle between Mitt and conservatism’s principles.

Demagogues like Hewitt, Rubin and Coulter are a plague against conservatism because they aren’t conservatives. They just play conservatives when they need ratings or readership.

TEA Party patriots, it’s time to hit traitors to conservatism where it hurts. It’s time TEA Party patriots to punish traitors like Hewitt, Coulter and Rubin in the wallet.

In fact, a significant amount of people have already tuned out Hewitt’s radio program because, in their words, they can’t stand his Mitt-can-walk-on-water schtick. Hewitt hasn’t been in touch with the American people on Mitt in 5 years.

Mitt’s Alinskyite tactics and lies have fractured the GOP. If Mitt wins the nomination, he’ll lose because too many people hate his guts for how he won the nomination.

It’s time for principled men and women to stand up to Mitt, Hewitt, Rubin, Coulter and the corrupt DC GOP Establishment. There’s too much riding on this election to entrust our future to an Alinsky progressive and his merry band of parasites.

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

If anything has become clear this week, it’s that Mitt’s surrogates don’t have the intellectual heft or integrity that Newt’s supporter have. This article offers a few examples of those weaknesses. This is a prime example:

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi called Romney a “champion for pro-life values” as she introduced him at the rally. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen offered a similar defense during an earlier rally with the Cuban American community in Hialeah.

Bondi and Ros-Lehtinen can say whatever they want but their words ring hollow. The reality is that O’Romneycare allows for taxpayer funding of abortions. Mitt signed that into law 2 years after he allegedly had his pro-life epiphany.

Romney’s team has tried explaining that away by saying that that’s the court’s decision, that Mitt’s hands were tied. That’s BS. The reality is that Mitt could’ve vetoed the bill and forced the legislature to override his veto. Mitt didn’t do that.

Mitt didn’t put up a fight when Planned Parenthood was given a permanent position on the MassHealth payment policy advisory board. Here’s the truth about Mitt’s life after ‘the epiphany’:

Romney claims, “The Commonwealth Care benefit services package was developed by the Connector Authority, an independent authority separate from the Governor’s Office. Their decisions were made separate of the Romney administration.” The truth is that the “Connector” was created by Romney’s authority with the Act of 2006 that he signed, it was placed under Romney’s executive branch administration, and was run by a ten-member board with four members directly seated by Romney’s authority: the Planned Parenthood seat which he created, and three others appointed by Romney himself, and three appointed by Romney’s attorney general who was also part of the executive branch and Romney administration.”

Here’s the section of the legislation that created the MassHealth payment policy advisory board:

Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members: 1 member appointed by the speaker of the house; 1 member appointed by the president of the senate; 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Hospital Association;? 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Medical Society; 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Extended Care Federation; 1 member appointed by Mass Aging Services Association, 1 member appointed by the Home Care Alliance of Massachusetts; 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers; 1 member appointed by Mental Health and Substance Abuse Corporations of Massachusetts; 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Medicaid Policy Institute; 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems; 1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts; and 2 members appointed by the governor, 1 member representing managed care organizations contracting with MassHealth and 1 member being an expert in medical payment methodologies from a foundation or academic institution.

If Mitt’s this great pro-life guy who was deeply moved to changing his mind in 2004, why didn’t Mitt veto this bill and fight to keep Planned Parenthood off this panel? Might it be that he isn’t the great pro-life candidate he claims to be? Considering all the lies he’s told the last 2 weeks, why should I trust Mitt on anything?

It’s time the conservative media started pointing out that Mitt’s severely deficient in terms of intellectual heft and personal integrity. The reality is that Mitt’s every bit the Alinskyite as Obama. The problem is that he isn’t the charismatic figure that President Obama is.

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

Mitt Romney’s Alinskyite tactics getting exposed on national TV
InsiderAdvantage Poll: Gingrich Surging, Race ‘Tighter Than Expected’
PPP shows race tightening
Newt Reaches for Reaganite Mantle, Reaganites flip out
Newt Gingrich: I am ‘legitimate heir to the Reagan movement’

Bruce Hentges is in hot water. In Hentges’ St. Cloud Times op-ed, he made this statement:

According to Sahlberg, education in Finland, a country with virtually no private schools and a very low poverty rate, has been seen first and foremost; not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.

Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling and individualized student guidance. In other words, by focusing on equity of opportunity for all students, Finland has produced academic excellence.

Hentges references Pasi Sahlberg, director of the Finnish Ministry of Education’s Center for International Mobility in the first paragraph. In that first paragraph, Hentges attributes to Sahlberg that education in Finland…has been seen…as an instrument to even out social inequality.

Hentges’ second paragraph looks like a personal observation but it isn’t. Here’s what was written in the Atlantic:

In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.

Here’s the last sentence in the Atlantic’s paragraph:

Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.

Here’s the first sentence in Hentges’ second paragraph:

Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling and individualized student guidance.

After that, Hentges says this:

In other words, by focusing on equity of opportunity for all students, Finland has produced academic excellence.

Here’s the next paragraph from the article in the Atlantic:

In fact, since academic excellence wasn’t a particular priority on the Finnish to-do list, when Finland’s students scored so high on the first PISA survey in 2001, many Finns thought the results must be a mistake. But subsequent PISA tests confirmed that Finland, unlike, say, very similar countries such as Norway, was producing academic excellence through its particular policy focus on equity.

It’s clear that Hentges’ op-ed didn’t give attribution to the Atlantic’s article. It’s clear that Hentges ‘borrowed’ one sentenced from the Atlantic’s article, then mixing it with his own personal opinion.

In the dictionary, that’s known as plagiarism:

the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work, as by not crediting the author

This isn’t a criticism of the St. Cloud Times. It’s difficult for them to know the wording of every article on every subject. Instead, it’s an indictment against Mr. Hentges, especially considering the fact that AJ Kern used that same sentence, with attribution, during her presentation on improving teacher quality during the Restoring Excellence in Education Forum.

Considering the fact that Mr. Hentges is an academic who sits on the St. Cloud School Board, he knows better than to claim personal credit for things written in an article. It’s plagiarism, pure and simple. It’s proof that Mr. Hentges’ professionalism and ability to serve should be questioned.

Tags: , , , ,

Thanks to Mitt’s speech in Panama City, we now know that Mitt isn’t interested in repealing Obamacare:

H/T Lady Logician

A little over a minute into this video, Mitt said something extra revealing. Here’s what he said:

MITT: There’s alot of waste in our Department of Defense like there is in the rest of government. I’m gonna go after that waste. And I’m gonna take that waste and go pay for Obamacare.

So much for Mitt repealing Obamacare. I’ve always thought that Mitt wasn’t committed to it. Now we have him in his own words making a specific proposal that he’ll eliminate wasteful spending in the Department of Defense and use it to pay for Obamacare.

That’s a very specific proposal, one that can’t be taken as an accident or a slip of the tongue.

Let’s remember that Mitt’s surrogates have said as much this past week. Norm Coleman said that we couldn’t expect to repeal Obamacare in total. Within minutes of his statement, Romney’s campaign distanced themselves from Sen. Coleman’s statement.

Later, Pam Bondi said that she’d be on Mitt’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president:

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who’s fighting to repeal ObamaCare appeared on Greta, tonight, defending RomneyCare. She says Romney’s health care plan is not the same as ObamaCare and, in fact, Romney’s plan reduces costs. She goes on to say that Romney wants all states to impose similar laws (including mandates) and that she is all for it.

Mitt’s senior advisor admitted that O’Care couldn’t be repealed outright. Mitt’s top health care surrogate told Greta van Susteren that Mitt wants the states to follow the federal government’s lead in creating health insurance laws that include individual mandates.

Mitt could’ve explained those away by saying that they don’t speak for him. He can’t explain away his statements that he’ll cut defense spending to pay for Obamacare. That’s his words. That’s his specific proposal.

Considering the fact that Mitt’s consistently defended Romneycare in debates and interviews, considering the fact that his top health care surrogate said Mitt wants to impose Romneycare on the states, isn’t it painfully obvious that Mitt’s committed to keeping O’Romneycare in place forever?

The ironic part of this is delicious. Mitt exposed himself obliquely during the debates. Sunday in Florida, Mitt outed himself directly. It’s time Mitt was annihilated at the ballot box. We can’t have an Alinsky-loving progressive who wants to cut defense spending to pay for Obamacare as the GOP presidential nominee.

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

Florida State Rep. and Romney hack Will Weatherford has admitted that he’s helping insure TEA Party favorite Alan West out of Congress:

Over the past several weeks, many Republicans have voiced their disappointment towards the Republican legislature after the release of the preliminary redistricting maps. Much of the ire concerns the proposed boundaries of Congressman Allen West’s 22nd Congressional District that would be redrawn to include far more registered Democrats.

West’s congressional district inexplicably sheds the most out support as compared to all other incumbent Republican and Democrat Congressman. A few weeks back we quoted an unnamed legislator saying that, “Allen West was screwed”, a statement which was originally made about made five months before the purposed maps were made public, leading insiders to believe that the fix was in against Allen West. But in light of Weatherford’s comment, it is increasingly clear that this is a fait accompli.

According to Weatherford, those preliminary maps will not change- at the most, any additional changes would be minimal, and those changes would not make any appreciable difference from the preliminary maps. In addition, Weatherford stated that a deal was struck between him, Senate President Mike Haridopolos, and Senator Don Gaetz to finalize these maps and push them through as soon as possible. Weatherford also said that the proposed maps are in legal compliance with both the Voting Rights Act and Amendment 6.

Romney’s disdain for the TEA Party is evident. He hasn’t lifted a finger to court TEA Party voters, which is one of the dumbest decisions a political strategist could possibly make.

It’s almost to the point that a third party needs to be created. It’s painfully obvious that the GOP Establishment opposes the fundamental changes that need to be made as much as the corrupt Left. If there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them, then it’s time to extricate ourselves from their halfhearted semi-conservatism and build a new party based on what’s best for America, not what’s best for Mitt Romney, President Obama and their Wall Street fat cat financiers.

During his time as corporate raider at Bain, the first question Mitt asked was “what’s best for my shareholders”? It wasn’t “what’s best for America”? Bain had a history of leveraging the companies they bought. Legal Insurrection has a prime example of Bain’s capitalism:

Domino’s was not in need of rescue, nor was it a classic turnaround case ey by buying and selling businesses. Bain reaped a 500 percent return on its investment in the nation’s largest pizza delivery chain over 12 years.

Domino’s grew its revenues and earnings under Bain, but its debt also surged to $1.5 billion, leaving the chain with a higher debt ratio than most of its rivals, and interest payments that eat up half its profit each year….

To buy Domino’s, Bain put up a third of the money in cash and borrowed the rest. It took money out in several chunks including: a 2003 refinancing of the company’s debt, a 2004 initial public stock offering, and an $897 million “monster dividend” paid to Bain and other investors in 2007. In each instance, the company borrowed money or refinanced old debt to make the payouts.

That’s what ‘me-first capitalism’ looks like. It’s a disgusting sight. If being disgusted with that type of corporate raidership earns me the moniker of being anti-capitalist, I’m fine with that moniker. Intentionally ruining companies isn’t my idea of capitalism. I’d best I’m far from alone in thinking that.

To those that’ll accuse me of being anti-capitalist, isn’t the goal of capitalism to strengthen companies for the longterm while making profits for the shareholders? If that’s a key criteria for capitalism, then how does Bain’s activities fit within the definition of capitalism?

Loading a company up with debt just to make sure Bain made a huge profit when it sold the company seems to be a habit. In fact, that’s the common thread through the “When Mitt Romney came to town” was precisely that. Isn’t it time we started criticizing corporate banditry when it’s touted as capitalism?

Without question, it’s time for Floridians to jettison Rep. Weatherford and his pro-Romney hacks. It’s time to ensure that Alan West will return to Congress. Since Rep. West is a black man, the Voting Rights Act applies. Perhaps it’s time to file a lawsuit.

Most importantly, if Mitt’s the nominee, it’s time for the TEA Party to torpedo Mitt’s general election campaign. If Mitt Romney’s machine won’t hesitate in torpedoing a talented legislator who is the embodiment of integrity, then turnaround is fair play.

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

Does anyone think that Jennifer Rubin is a serious journalist? Do you think she’s as big a Romney shill this cycle as Hugh Hewitt was in 2008? Do people think that she isn’t Mitt Romney’s shill at the Washington Post? If you answered yes to either question, you’d better read Jennifer Rubin’s latest propaganda:

Romney has raised several substantial objections to Obamacare. In Michigan last May (page 11 of his presentation) and since then, he has vigorously argued against the tax burden that would be imposed on businesses and individuals to pay for a plan most Americans don’t want. In op-eds and debates, he has made clear he wants to get rid of the Obamacare taxes and instead work on equalizing the tax treatment of employer-provided and individually purchased health care insurance.

Romneycare is fatally flawed. Mitt’s admitted that it doesn’t control costs. Mitt brags that he didn’t raise taxes with Romneycare. What he actually means is that he didn’t immediately raise taxes. They weren’t included in the initial legislation.

It wasn’t until costs skyrocketed, and huge deficits appeared as a direct result, that Gov. Patrick and the Massachusetts legislature were forced to raise taxes. Those tax increases belong to Gov. Patrick, the Massachusetts legislature and Mitt Romney. Don’t think that President Obama isn’t planning on using that in next fall’s debates.

Romney has also argued that Obamacare adds to the deficit and doesn’t “bend the cost curve.” Unlike the worshipers at the altar of the CBO, he has argued that it will increase health care costs. His other arguments against Obamacare include the anti-jobs impact on business, the excessive federal bureaucracy and regulations needed to run the scheme and the cuts on Medicare. As to the latter, he has accused Obama of cutting $500 billion from Medicare. He, by contrast, has offered his endorsement of the market-based Medicare reform plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

First, if Mitt wants to argue that Obamacare has an anti-jobs impact, he’ll have to argue that the tax increases in Massachusetts that area direct result of the spiraling costs of Romneycare aren’t killing jobs in Massachusetts. Good luck fighting that argument.

Secondly, all the other verbiage is meaningless because Mitt’s goal, like the legislature’s goal, was to provide coverage, not to lower costs. He made the same fairness argument then that President Obama made in 2009-10. It isn’t likely that voters will be able to tell the difference between Mitt’s tax increases and President Obama’s tax increases.

Could and will Romney expand on each of these points if he becomes the nominee? Certainly. (Understandably it’s not a topic he wants to emphasize in the primary.) But the notion that he hasn’t already outlined differences with Obama on health care or that he will lack arguments against it is a product of wishful thinking of Romney-haters.

Jennifer Rubin just admitted that people hate Mitt’s plan. That’s why he won’t bring it up. He’ll only defend it. Last Thursday, his defense was shot to smithereens by Rick Santorum. Mitt left that skirmish as the emporor with ‘new clothes’.

Mitt won’t bring up Romneycare just like President Obama wouldn’t say more than a few words on Obamacare in his SOTU Address. Sound familiar? If their plans are so good, shouldn’t Mitt and President Obama be touting their plans’ virtues every possible minute?

Perhaps they aren’t because ‘the peasants’ aren’t smart enough to appreciate their brilliance. Most likely, it’s because they’re aware that their plans stink and they want to avoid talking about it at all costs.

Finally, there’s this question about whether Mitt is committed to repealing Obamacare. Norm Coleman said that it’s unlikely to totally repeal it. Friday night, Pam Bondi essentially said that Mitt wants Romneycare to be implemented in all 50 states.

We can’t take the chance that Mitt isn’t committed to repealing Obamacare. It’s time to reject Mitt. It’s time to reject Jennifer Rubin’s propaganda.

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

Newt wows religious conservatives in Orlando
Sarah Palin Urges Newt Vote in Florida, Says Gingrich Will ‘Clobber’ Obama
Mitt’s surrogates run into pit bull
Gingrich rattles GOP elites

Tonight, Herman Cain, a TEA Party favorite, endorsed Newt Gingrich:

During his brief speech, Cain said that “Newt is going through the sausage grinder”, something he knew a thing or two about. Cain then said that Newt’s subjecting himself to these attacks “because he cares about the future of the United States.”

While Mitt’s in the process of tearing down each of his opponents with the fiercest, most dishonest attacks in GOP primary history, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry are standing up and fighting against Mitt’s corrupt Establishmentarians.

Legal Insurrection calls Mitt’s dishonest, vile attacks Scorched Earth II. The Lady Logician wrote about a NY Times article outlining Mitt’s intentional attempt to destroy Newt Gingrich:

A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.

The size and enthusiasm of Mr. Gingrich’s events scared supporters of Mr. Romney, who had struggled to build similar audiences. Local activists backing Mr. Romney complained that his Boston team was too regimented and slow to meet the challenge.

Here’s the Lady Logician’s timely observations on Mitt:

Mitt Romney saw Florida slipping away from him so he lashed out. These are not the actions of a confident candidate; these are the actions of a desperate, despicable campaign. The GOP deserves better than this.

Notice that Mitt’s first instinct was to outclass Newt or present a more inspiring vision for America. Mitt’s first instinct was to tear his opponent down to Mitt’s size.

That’s despicable and it’s telling. Mitt’s implicitly admitted that he’s an inferior candidate, that he can’t defeat Newt on the battlefield of ideas. Do the GOP’s party faithful think we should attempt to defeat President Obama with a man who thinks he isn’t the superior candidate?

I’m asking that question of the TEA Party activists, the get-things-done people, not the GOP Establishment. The GOP Establishment, aka the corrupt, DC-bound wing of the GOP, has already made their opinion known. They’ve endorsed Mitt’s go-along-to-get-along agenda.

When the TEA Party was started, it was an act of defiance against the corrupt Obama administration. This year, the TEA Parties across the country need to rally against Mitt’s corrupt practices. It’d be nice if they’re for Newt but it’s important that they’re steadfastly against Mitt’s hateful Alinskyite tactics.

Intellectually, America deserves better than Mitt’s small ball agenda. Integritywise, America deserves far better than Mitt’s despicable actions. TEA Party conservatives won’t support a lying, Alinsky-following Massachusetts liberal as their nominee.

Mitt’s burned his bridges in his I’ll-say-anything-to-be-the-nominee quest. Independents won’t vote for a backstabber like Mitt. That’s because he’s got sore loser written all over him.

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