Gingrich, Romney, and South Carolina
So, tomorrow’s South Carolina’s big day.
As a Romney supporter, I wish he’d take a much more aggressive tack in either releasing his tax returns—or, perhaps more importantly, explaining why he pays 15% and why that’s not only perfectly legal but perfectly fine. The fact that he’s not doing this effectively enough conjures up some speculation that there’s something to hide in those returns, or that he’s just not got enough fight in him.
The latter criticism is particularly important now that Gingrich has emerged as Romney’s main rival. You can say many negative things about Newt (and I have!), but one of them will never be “he’s just not got enough fight in him.”
Polls show Gingrich is rising right now in South Carolina vs. Romney. I wrote last week about one annoying (to me, anyway) aspect of the reportage about this: the MSM and many blogs have mostly framed the trend as though Romney had South Carolina sewn up previously, and that now Gingrich’s standing there is something new and different.
But that’s an incorrect representation of the history of South Carolina voters’ attitudes towards the two candidates. The truth is that Gingrich was long the frontrunner in that state, and Romney’s bump was recent and of short duration (post-Iowa, from about 1/5 to 1/17), and his lead never as large as Newt’s had previously been there. Gingrich’s resurgence is more in the nature of a restoration than a coup (see that previous post of mine for the details that show this).
Does it matter? Not really; if Newt’s ahead at the right time (tomorrow) then he wins.
It’s a horse race now. All of the candidates are getting better.
Don Surber knocks it well out of the park when he remarks:
” At the beginning of the week, Romney had a 23-percentage-point lead over Gingrich and Santorum.
Too bad Mitt doesn’t have an ex-wife somewhere to raise his numbers. Maybe ABC News can interview his roof dog.”
The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney is not a very good politician. He’s bright, good looking and well spoken. He’s also a good manager and has no scandals in his past. He’s been running forever and can’t draw more than 30% in a primary.
I still think he would be a good president in the current situation, much like president Eisenhower who was seen as uninspiring.
Although lately Gov. Romney’s stump speeches are sounding more like Steve Forbes’, I’m going with your latter theory, Ms. Neoneocon: “he’s just not got enough fight in him.”
For a long time Romney has seemed to me like he’s a bit ashamed to be wealthy. This is a weakness in someone who is going up against Obama and his OWS-ie envy mongering storm troopers.
The Ike years were far from the vicious seas we’re trying to float in now.
Tax returns are none of our bidness.
Romney needs to stop being smiley faced Mr. Nice Guy. He needs to take off the gloves and get his knuckles bloody. He needs to get in front of the microphones and ask the MSM why John Kerry was not excoriated for being wealthy. He needs to tell the MSM and the American people that he will happily release his tax records 60 seconds after BHO releases his Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard transcripts and provides a birth certificate with a valid seal that proves he was born in Hawaii.
Most of all Romney needs to take his own advice about the heat in the kitchen. Otherwise, he’ll prove to be just another McCain.
Sheesh, I wish Palin & Cain were going to be the ticket.
I think Romney should reverse course and state he is not going to release his returns. He should say, “I’m doing one of my flips flops on this. Up yours” – or words to that effect.
The only people who want them are his enemies. Period. The rest of America is “clamoring” for his returns like not one iota.
If he fights that battle, he’ll win.
Good point, Mike Mc. I could care less about Romney’s tax returns.
As gcotharn said in a previous thread, the Republican nominee needs to attack the MSM directly. They are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, and have gotten away with too much for too long. It’s high time they were called on it.
Romney had a strong response to Gingrich today — only people at that event heard it thus far — but he asked of Gingrich that he release the file on his ethics hearing when he was Speaker of the House and was fined and ultimately thrown out of Congress. He echoed Newt last night: “Don’t the voters have a right to know if there is a bomb in your past that will blow up before the nomination?”
Works for me. Gingrich is a duplicitous, power grabber, and if anyone is despicable, it is he.
Was just watching Fox and he came on Hannity and I had to change the channel because I could not listen to his hypocritical bull_ _ _t (excuse the language) for another minute! I doubt I will watch any more debates. Everyday he appears more and How do you like that?! If he is the ultimate nominee, we’re screwed if we win, and we’re screwed if we lose.
G-d help us!
(Example of his despicable hypocrisy: He was so indignant about ABC running the story about his divorce because “it was 14 years ago.” But he has no compunction about lying about Romney and Bain — even as Romney LEFT Bain 28 years ago! And his solution to the prospect of the ABC story? He told his daughters to write a letter to the head of ABC and demand — DEMAND — that they pull it! If he were to become President, is he going to send his daughters or Callista in when anyone in the public or the press dares to bring up inconvenient truths about his past. There are an awful lot of them. At least it would keep the girls busy. But thinking about it again, I’m quite sure he would set in motion much more devious plans for anyone who dare cross him.
People — conservatives — have become so angry that they are spoiling for a fight — with the media, with Obama, with anyone on the Left. And so they cheer at Gingrich’s in your face attitude and encourage his bare knuckles attitude as if watching a prize fight.
That is not the mission. The mission is to retake the White House and restore the America we have always loved which has offered all opportunity. Instead of keeping cool heads, and considering what the best path is to achieving that goal, it seems too many prefer Gingrich which will get us a conservative (but not too much if it is not in his self-interest and threatens his power) Obama. I know that’s the last thing I want. Doing what the liberals have done in the last 3 + years in reverse is not going to lay a path to a bright future. It is going to maintain, if not increase, the divisiveness and vindictive attitudes between Right and Left and we will just ping pong back and forth ad infinitum.
It’s ironic that Newt continually tries to convince us that he is a Reaganite — a Reagan Conservative. I don’t know if there could be anyone more UNLIKE Reagan.
P.S. What Gingrich is doing is tossing red meat to a very, very hungry audie He is avoiding spending his campaign time with telling us exactly why we should elect him with the clever trick of diverting everyone’s attention from the main issue.
I really hope most people will return to not just keeping their eye on the prize, and how we will get it, but then, accomplishing positive goals that will make progress and hopefully do so bringing more accord than discord.
Oops! re: my 9:54 post. the 3rd paragraph should have said,
“Everyday he appears more and more like Obama!”
Ricki and Mike Mc – – I agree with you re: the tax returns. But Romney came back today with asking Newt why he doesn’t make public the complete file on his ethics hearing while Speaker and the reason for which he was fined. Doesn’t the voting public have the right to know what that was about….before Saturday. (That was Newt’s challenge to RomneY re: tax returns).
Speaking of which, heard Newt talking a bit ago regarding why he released his tax return (as in one — for 2010 only). He wanted people to see the money they give to their foundation they started (translation: tax deduction) so they could see the good things that they do for other people. That reminds me of the Obamas, who in the year preceding the election, gave to charity for the very first time: they gave $10,000 to Rev. Wright and his Black Liberation church.
Who thinks Gingrich will release 10 yrs. of tax returns. Maybe the folks want to see how much he really did make advising Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I doubt we’ll find that out.
goldby621@9:54 above,
If Obama has taught us anything it’s to never pre-judge an administration based upon the rhetoric or tactics of the campaign.
goldby621,
The counter argument to Romney is that such was tried with Dole and McCain. Cool calm collected. Like Mitt, they were not Gingrich-type warriors. I’m not saying Romney can’t win; I’m noting that cooler heads keeping an eye on the finish line is not the same as crossing it before Obama.
goldby621,
I’ll take issue with your comment on Gingrich’s foundation –translation: tax deduction comment.
Even in the higest marginal tax bracket (35%) one still must give away 65% out of pocket (Donate $10,000, see $3,500 saved in taxes and you’ve still given away $6,500). Tax deductions grease the wheels of charitable giving, but they are very very rarely the justification for donating in the first place. A political motive in making this known? Of this I have no doubt, but one doesn’t normally give away money expressly for the tax deduction.
GINGRICH RETOOK THE LEAD IN SC THANKS TO SARAH PALIN AND CONSERVATIVES LIKE HER WHO NO LONGER SEEM TO HAVE ANY PROBLEMS ENDORSING A SERIAL ADULTERER – ONE WHO GAVE THE FINGER TO THE TEA PARTY WHEN HE ENDORSED SCOZZAFAVA.
AND THANKS TO A CONSERVATIVE BASE THAT SOUNDS MORE LIKE THE ANTI-CAPITALIST BOLSHEVIKS OF THE OWS THAN FREE-MARKETEERS.
IT’S INSANE.
THE SC CROWD APPLAUDED THE SERIAL ADULTERER WHO HAD TO PAY THE HOUSE $300,000 IN FINES DUE TO ETHICAL VIOLATIONS, BUT THEY BOOED A SELF-MADE MILLIONAIRE WHO HAS PAID ALL HIS TAXES.
BIZARRE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS MASS HYSTERIA?
reliapundit: the explanation, I believe, is anger and a feeling of desperation about the alternative candidates.
Gingrich is the perfect candidate for a conservative electorate angry at (1) perceived RINOs like Romney and 2008’s McCain, who is perceived as having led to Obama’s victory; (2) the MSM; and (3) Obama and the Democrats, of course.
That is the crowd Gingrich plays to when he gives it back to the media when they ask him gotcha questions during the debate. Gingrich is also perceived as being the best person to beat Obama in debate, and he is considered a true conservative in terms of policy (not his private life).
It’s been my observation that many people (on both sides) will jettison principles like the idea of fidelity if they think a candidate can do other things they like. Plus, the rationalization is that Gingrich has gotten religion and repented. Personally, I don’t buy it (I also find his current wife puzzlingly strange).
Another thing: until the race boils down to two candidates, any single candidate can win with about 30% of the vote. That can represent a small and extreme faction of the party. I always get worried when there are more than two candidates in a race (and especially more than three), because of that phenomenon.
I think the public has a right to examine everything about someone who seeks to be commander in chief. Tax records, health records, college transcripts, and yes Virginia, birth records should be made public and verified. Candidates for the presidency have no right to privacy. Everything about their lives must be an open book.
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXDWLDvxth8&feature=related
thanks for the thoughtful answer neo.
the rinos didn’t lose us the 08 election.
conservatives who stayed home did.
they are projecting their own failure on to mitt.
they are not just angry; they are immature.
another reason why they resemble the ows crud.
Neoneocon,
True McCain was a flawed candidate, but I think Obama, or someone like him was absolutely essential at this point in time. With McCain at the helm many of our current problems would have been blamed on the Republicans and conservatives. They would have taken a hit that would have taken a generation to recover from and James Carvilles prediction of another 40 years of liberal Democrat rule would have become a reality.
Even if things would not have been quite as bad under McCain as they are under Obama (McCain’s best case scenario) we still would have lumbered along our way as we have for the past 40-50 years spending too much, wating money by the barrel with an EPA and a govt getting more and more intrusive. I give Obama credit for bringing this all to a head in record time and for allowing the progressive/liberal charade to slip. They no longer own the moral high ground and some conservatives, like Newt, have ceased to apologize for conservatism as their point of departure. Even Romney has picked up the “I’m not apologizing for being successful” theme.
I think that this actually bodes well for the future of this country and it’s something that simply would not have occured under McCain.
Once again, Neo nailed it with her analysis.
This last few days have been, quite frankly, rather troubling. Gingrich is rising in the polls just as his disturbing past is resurfacing. Far too many social conservatives seem far to willing to rationalize a pattern of very questionable (to put it mildly) behavior.
Even if you reject everything Marianne Gingrich claims, certain facts are not in dispute:
1. Gingrich cheated on his first wife with Marianne and then at least discussed the divorce with her while she was being treated for cancer (albeit non-terminal).
2. Gingrich carried on an extended affair with Callista (while attacking Bill Clinton for his infidelities), then asked for a divorce from Marianne shortly after she was diagnosed with MS.
3. Gingrich has never publicly apologized (specifically stated he was wrong and is sorry) for any of his behavior. Rather, he gives vague replies about how he made mistakes and then hides behind his Catholic conversion.
All of this alone calls Gingrich’s character into question, the additional rumors and accusations not withstanding. And yet, the conservative/tea party base (or at least a large chunk of them) seem willing to look the other way, all too flippantly, in their obsession to support a man who can be a vocal and bombastic outlet for all of their frustrations and anger at Obama and the MSM. This is a Presidential election and actually trying to win should be a major goal, right? Nah! Let’s just rant and rave against our opponents for the rest of the year. If we lose, even catastrophically, at least we’ll feel satisfied in doing so.
Well, I won’t. A loss is still a loss.
Gingrich’s response at yesterday’s debate and the response of the audience really moved me…and not in a positive way. There are so many things he could have said; something along the lines of the following would have impressed and inspired me:
“I have made major mistakes in my moral judgment in the past and for that, I do apologize. It was immoral and sinful and I was to blame. I’ve asked for God’s forgiveness already, but I ask further for the forgiveness of everyone I’ve hurt and everyone here”.
What a stunning and unexpected response that would have been! And I have no doubt the applause would have been deafening! As sceptical as I am about Gingrich, I myself would have been moved and forced to reconsider my opinion of him.
But that’s not what happened.
Instead, Newt was Newt. Belligerent, abrasive, overly defensive, and blaming everyone but himself. And the conservative audience loved it! Goodness gracious!.
I see no “new Newt”. I cannot speak for his soul, but it’s hard to believe he has genuinely changed in any way. He remains the clever, manipulative, Machiavellian sophist he’s always been. He’s gaining traction because too many conservatives don’t care about anything but blasting out their frustrations at Obama in the form of a rhetorical cannon. Newt certainly is that cannon.
I expected more of the Tea Party. But perhaps I was naive.
God help us all.
“the Republican nominee needs to attack the MSM directly”
Gingrich is seriously, perhaps fatally, flawed. But he is the one who will do that.
I think Newt was wonderful when he responded to John King.
I am thrilled to think that Newt may be the nominee.
Newt will defeat Obama, and then the real project will begin.
The awakening of the genius,energy and focus of the American People to restore our government to within its Constitutional boundaries, the return of power to states and local home town s and the individual through enforcement of the 10th Amendment, to name just two of the many initiatives that we are going to undertake — if the American people decide to do it.
I watched Newt’s speeches last year. That is how I was convinced to support Newt. Speech from 2007 in Michigan; from 2009 at The Breakers “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH”; from 2010, “MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE.”
THE SPEECHES SHOW YOU THE BIG PICTURE OF WHAT’S BEING PROPOSED. TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING– PUT EVERY XPENDITURE UP ON LINE; TEACH LEAN SIX SIGMA TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, EVERY APPOINTEE A
The speeches reveal the bog picture. Transparency in government spending — put all expenditures up on line; teach Lean Six Sigma quality improvement methods for continuous improvement to federal agencies, new appointees, federal employees, all White House personnel, new positions at all levels; reform the tax code with an OPTIONAL flat tax; reform social security with OPTIONAL personal saving account (which is private property and belongs to the individual and ins inheritable) just as they have in Chile, and which has increased wealth and saving there; change taxes to MAXIMIZE TAX REVENUES and MINIMIZE TAX RATES — there is so much more.
http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/2012-victory-or-death-newt-s-speeches-links-to-17-speeches
Here are link to 17 speeches.
There is no way to understand the magnitude of the restoration unless you watch the speeches or study the new 21st Century Contract With America.
Newt has undergone considerable spiritual growth, in my opinion. He may have been brash and hard to deal with back in the 1990’s , although I have heard his management style was actually to listen to people’s concerns.
But Newt has matured. That is not an easy thing to do. It is my belief that he has suffered and endured the suffering and become a better man for it. He admits he caused pain to others and has said he’s sorry.
Look at the people who are trying to destroy his career. A lot of them have terrible grudges against him for not supporting Bush when H. W. wanted to raise taxes (after “read my lips.) Apparently Sununu wants revenge because Newt was the only one who said it was a Democrat trap and refused to go along with it.
Newt is also amazingly critical of G,=.W. Bush’s presidency in some of these speeches, for example, “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH.” I imagine that any Bush ally Karl Rove, for example, would LOVE to bring Newt down.
You can only decide for yourself if you understand what’s being proposed. The idea is to release the genius and power of the American People to return to Constitutional government.
You will understand if you watch the speeches.
It’s fun. You can do the dishes and listen. It’s an education. It’s Americn History, civics, current events, international affairs. You can take the speeches on your smartphone and listen when you walk the dog.
When I see the lawlessness of the current administration and i think of the sacrifices of those who have gone before us, and the beautiful freedom I have had in my life in America, I say that they will not destroy freedom for the coming generations. I will not stand by and let them. Not on my watch.
the speeches reveal the BIG picture
sorry – that needed more editing. duplicate text.
meaning is still clear, I hope.
Last, first: Gary Rosen — Being willing to blast the MSM and doing so the way Gingrich does is not a qualification for President of the United States. Neither is lying, attacking capitalism, acting as if his personal morality and ethicism either doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter. Likewise, being a grandfather is not a qualification for POTUS.
I agree with Neo, reliapundit, and Burkean Badger — which one might easily guess from my previous posts which covered many of the same points. I’m really glad to know I am not some lone loon who is not seeing Newt’s attractiveness, likeability, and qualifications for nominee, let alone President. He may be very bright — even brilliant, have a quick wit, and historic recall. But what happened to Conservatives respect for values & morality? What happened to Conservatives exhaustion with rhetoric and looking for someone who can sail us in the opposite direction from the sinking ship? What happened to wanting big spending to stop, cutting entitlements and smaller government? Newt doesn’t represent any of those things, and, in fact, is much more preoccupied with taking Mitt Romney down than even bringing up Obama, the damage he has done, and how he proposes to fix things.
Nevertheless, he is entertaining with his brash, in-your-face criticisms and provides vicarious thrills for people to vent their anger. Even if, in that process, he exposes his hypocrisy, his arrogance and ego, and the fact that he lives by “Do as I say, not as I do.” What happened to the Right’s disgust of such an attitude from Obama?
Maybe the question isn’t about Newt’s flaws, after all. Maybe the better question is what has happened to Conservatives? (just a rhetorical question).
T- I must say that I disagree with much of what you said (I know you are shocked!) Re: tax deductions. It happens that Americans, in general, are extremely generous. And it happens that most of the wealthy are particularly giving, many of whom feel a responsibility to “give back” in light of their own good fortune. The deductions no doubt do “grease the wheels” of charitable giving, but much of the wealth is in highly complex financial structures for a number of reasons. One reason that you overlooked in your oversimplified tax deduction math is that the creattion of foundations is so that individuals may take their money and remove it from their estate so that they may give away their money to causes which they support. Otherwise, as the law currently exists, 1/2 of all their money will go to the government in the form of estate taxes and the proportion of those funds that will support entitlements or go to waste is undeniably huge. (Which is why I say, get rid of all those entitlements that cost the govt. obscene sums, and let people who are so supportive of their pet entitlements — at least so long as this big nameless, faceless “pot of gold” (read: government coffers) pays the bills — let them put their money where their (mostly Liberal) mouths are. Certainly the money would thus do much more good than just forking it over to politicians in obscene amounts who will, in turn, advocate that the endless lists of entitlements are absolutely vital….therefore, the taxpayers must pay. I don’t know — discounting the political cycle of quid pro quo, it seems direct private support is much more logical, and every dollar goes a helluva lot farther toward whatever cause as opposed to most of it being spent as the money dribbles down thru govt.’s redundant bureacracies, much of it disappearing in the process.
For example, Obama’s buddy Warren Buffett didn’t just leave his estate intact so that upon his death, half of it goes to Uncle Sam. Oh no. He wanted to be sure that money will go to causes he supports and that it is administered by an entity he trusts. Most of it is therefore going to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. And, hey, he could be spending it down while he’s alive by adding a voluntary chunk of it each April into his tax check to the IRS. But again, despite his pronouncements supporting Obama’s plans to raise money by dunning the rich, he’s clearly not eager to turn any more money over to the govt. then he is required to. (By the way, there is a quid pro quo for that Obama support, in case you don’t know. Mr. Buffett has a special little deal going with the SEC. Whereas when an entity is buying up stock in a particular company and when said ownership exceeds a certain percentage, the fact must be made public by law. But when Mr. Buffet buys that legal requirement is suspended for a certain amount of time and up to a higher ownership percentage to that the public does not jump on the stock he is acquiring. Special deals fof special people. Or big donors?
T- I don’t see how you think that Dole, McCain, and Romney are at all similar. Their personal lives, their professional lives, their degree of conservatism, and their public servicecould hardly be more dissimilar other than the fact that each has aspired to the Presidency. Or perhaps you see them as similar because none of them is a far Right, Evangelical Conservative?
Neo,
I agree about Callista. I suspect she serves her husband a constant diet of concentrated ego food, except when she’s shopping at Tiffany’s. She is Newt’s Valerie Jarrett.
WE NEED A MONSTER TO BEAT ANOTHER MONSTER:
VOTE NEWT !!!
gellieba,
And once the monster Obama is beaten, who will monster Newt turn on next. Maybe Callista will convert him to vegetarianism so we don’t have to worry about him eating us.
This guy wanted to be made president of a college before he had even completed his PhD dissertation. As I mentioned in another thread, his study of Catholicism seemed to have skipped the part about the deadly sin of pride.
goldby621,
You are not incorrect in your tax analysis. I, myself, have faulted Buffet on this site for his inconsistency of calling for higher taxes while avoiding them through the mega-donation to Bill Gates fdn. The flaw in your logic here, however, is that only a very very small percentage of total giving takes place at the level of mega-donations like that. You, yourself, cite that Americans are very generous. You are correct. Generous Americans for the most part donate our of good will in the the hopes of accomplishing a good thing, not primarily because a tax deduction is involved; the tax deduction greases the wheels. Newt is nowhere near the level of a Buffet or Gates mega-donation, so your argument against his fdn fails. I stand by my earlier comments.
As for Dole, McCain and Romney, my point is not that they are alike in character or even policy. They are in the same group of temperate reasonable conservatives that pay obeisance tothe supposed good intentions of the political left and essentially apologize, if you will, for beiong conservatives. This is tha patternt hat has developed with much of the right for over 50 years and, IMO, it is a mindset that condemns conservative and traditional policy and thought to an eternal minority view status.
The question is not that one likes or dosen’t like Newt, ther are only two important q
(Sorry—hit a wrong key did not have opportunity to edit or complete above)
. . . there are only two important questions in my mind. 1) can hNewtplay an important role in stopping the slide away from our founding principles (which Obama has accelerated); and 2) can he win the election in November?
At this point, I believe that the answers to those two questions are “yes” but, of course, anything can happen in the upcoming months.
Romney has done absolutely nothing for the conservative cause. Gingrich on the other hand has been at the very center of the conservative revolution of the last few decades, and at the federal level has done real and big things for conservatives.
Gingrich is the only candidate with the passion and ability to fight and powerfully articulate the conservative vision of America. He is the only candidate with the intellect to do battle with the billion dollar Obama attack machine. He’s done it before, no other candidate has.
Jerry Ford, Bob Dole, John McCain are republican ruling class candidates of the Romney model. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush are the same model who managed to get through. What did either one of them do for conservatives, nothing.
The categorical assertion that Romney is more electable is based on absolutely nothing. National polls now are completely meaningless. Elections aren’t won or lost based on national polls, they are won or lost state by hard fought state.
It’s time that conservatives have a real candidate to support in the general election. Someone who is articulate, inspiring, can express the conservative view of the world.
Conservatives of America throw off your chains, vote Newt !!!
This just in,
yet another perspective on Newt’s electability in the upcoming
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/why_im_giving_newt_a_pass_on_the_scarlet-a_factor.html
Harold,
“Elections aren’t won or lost based on national polls . . . .”
I agree but polls are predictive. They aren’t, however, perdictive too far out. Rasmussen was very accurate in his predictive polls of the 2008 election, but they only became very accurate the closer we got to the actual election.
At his point, anything (good or bad) can still happen.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/lawrence-b.-lindsey
Check out this article by Lawrence Lindsey. He uses a stock market beta factor concept to evaluate Romney and Gingrich.
Basically Romney is low beta, like a safe stock, one whose price is stable, one on which you aren’t going to make any money.
Gingrich is high beta, like a risky stock, won on which you could make a lot of money.
So in electoral terms that means Romney will lose like McCain and Newt has a high chance of winning big.
And conservatives should be choosing their nominees on whether they represent their ideology not on what left wing polls, left wing journalists, left wing pundits think. The left never gives a damn what we think. Last cycle two Marxists (Hillary and Barack) were running in the Democratic primaries, no concern about what we thought.
goldby621,
Back to our tax-deduction disussion. Let me add as a second thought an issue I omitted from my earlier post (so as not to dilute my point).
Your claim of tax deductions motivating charitable giving also fails at the mega-donation level of a Warren Buffet. First, even at an onerous estate tax level of 55%, if one pays that tax one still gets to keep 45%. The only way to avoid paying that tax is to give it ALL away. And unlike income tax, all one does with the estate tax is avoid paying it, it doesn’t generate the income tax refund that a deductible charitable donation does.
So, yes, one avoids the tax, but to do so one gives it ALL away.
Now the mega wealthy have devised ways of legally controlling that wealth after the donation, but this does not address what you claim is a motivating tax DEDUCTION issue. This has to do with the fact that such donations indicate that the DONOR would rather control what happens to the money than give the govt that power thru taxation. This is what renders Buffet a hypocrite. He agitates for higher taxation but would rather NOT have the govt determine how HIS money is being used; it’s okay for the govt to determine the use of YOUR money, however.
Again I stand by my original comments. Tax deductions grease the wheels of charitable donations, but to believe that they are the root motiviation (which you, yourself refute admitting that Americans are a most generous people) is the logical equivalent of claiming that one chooses to be homeless just to avoid paying property tax.
ugh.
Newt is fun. Newt has big ideas.
But he isn’t electable as a President.
The hard cold reality is that this is part “popularity contest” ala high school elections.
This is why each of the Republican candidates had their surges.
But Newt’s surge is the most painful to me because I know that you can’t look at Gingrich with the SOUND OFF on the TV and think – yeah I’m going to vote for him.
We need somebody to ignite passion and have the good looks.
I want Romney or Santorum to ignite that passion.
They are the only good looking ones left. Cain, Bachmann are out. They were 1st and 2nd in my mind.
Don’t attack me for writing the truth!
I believe if Chris Christie lost a little weight and ran he would win by a landslide.
Why? Because he ignites passion.
Chris Christie may not be right on all the issues and that pissess off a lot of conservatives but we need some honesty about the fact that 80% of Americans really don’t study the issues like WE DO.
Harold,
one clarification. To say that one does not make money on a low beta stock in incorrect. One does not have the potential to make AS MUCH money on a low beta stock (v. a high beta stock). But keep in mind that beta measures volatility. Hi beta means high profit POTENTIAL— this also means high LOSS potential, too.
Baklava,
I too have been a Christie fan even though he’s not a pure conservative. I agree his appeal likes in part int he fact that he ignites passion. Still, we must play the hand we’re dealt.
When a voter is looking for a candidate with the fewest weaknesses, then the voter is apologetic about his own governing philosophies and principles, and is acting in a way which will lose an election.
The Newt surge is not about Newt weaknesses. The Newt surge is about Newt strengths.
IMO, past weaknesses can become current strengths. Wizened gravitas.
If, you know, wizened actually meant wise. Which it should. Even if it doesn’t. 🙂
Look. I am in the land of CA. I know how the populace does thinks here.
1) with head in sand
2) what’s the latest sports news
3) drinking and boozin’
4) talk about celebrity this and that
5) barbeque’s
6) American idol, etc.
There are a few people like me who I can have conversations with. The people who aren’t lazy, do more research, like looking at issues and solutions and seeing the results of solutions, etc.
No candidate really feels like they need to come to CA anymore because they either a) feel like they’ll lose the state (Republican) b) feel like they have it sewn up (Democrat).
The politics here seem to be unlike anywhere else.
Only a personality like Ahrnold was able to push through that mess. But then after years of being attacked on the right and left Arnold had very little support left.
The left will always attempt to make a Republican candidate “weird”, “dumb”, “extreme”, and out of step with America yet try to sell us the Harry Reid’s, and John Kerry’s…
It wasn’t so much McCain that was flawed, but the nomination process, his supporters, and McCain’s decision to buddy up with the Left thinking it would go anywhere.
gcotharn,
What I really need to make clear – because you are right – is that Newt’s surge is based on strengths (that’s why each candidate surged) but Newt’s surge has a definate ceiling.
We seem to have a ceiling with Romney and Gingrich but it takes guts to know it and hear what I’m saying.
I’ve talked to people who are extremely turned off about Newt.
I’ve talked to people who are extremely turned on by Newt.
The negatives take a candidate and gives them a ceiling.
I believe the only electabale candidates left are Romney and Santorum.
I just need Romney to not say, “probably” and “April” concerning his tax returns.
Say “no” and I’ve already filled out all the FEC (federal election commission) financial statement forms and you can direct your attention to those.
or
Say “yes” and provide them at the earliest opportunity.
Commit. Lead. Execute.
oops. I mispelled definite.
BAklava,
A third alternative (to Romney’s tax form issue) is to agree to produce them when Obama’s transcripts from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard are produced. Why he hasn’t pounced on this yet amazes me. My concern here is that it reveals a campaign working from the point of avoiding weakness (don’t give them what can damage you) rather than from strength (demand made to the adversary). What I called above an apologetic approach.
Seek out Lynn Forester de Rothschild’s comments on Neil Cavuto at 8:40 AM on Saturday the 21st of January.
Lady Rothschild was clear that Newt cannot beat Obama.
She described a situation where the Independents (she may be wrong) are at 39%, conseratives are at 37% and she went on to say that we are a center right nation.
Look people – I know her history and her support for Hillary Clinton.
But you have to listen to people and evaluate comments based on merits. Lynn’ comments had merit.
We are a center-right nation.
But she said even in spite of being a center right nation Newt cannot beat Obama and listed the problems (the ceiling)
T you are right.
We need to see this passion.
Pat Cadell made the point that he should point out that Obama gutted GM and closed dealers unemploying many people to make GM stronger when describing what companies must do when making executive decisions such as Bain’s company did.
Pat Caddell made brilliant points and I wonder WHY CAN’T Romney make poignant points?
I have to get to work (yes on a Saturday) it’s been fun 🙂
I’ve been more of a lurker lately than a commenter.
Been here for years as my primary visited blog but it does take a bit more to post not lurk.
I could look at Newt with the sound turned off and still decide to vote for him; I could look at a washcloth with the sound turned off and still vote for it over Obama.
“IMO, past weaknesses can become current strengths. Wizened gravitas.” says gcotharn.
That can be true….in some cases. It is not in Newt Gingrich’s case. His long list of past transgressions are an integral part of both his personal and professional life.
Many people on the Right, temporarily “suspend belief” and they are getting behind Newt now. Today. But what of tomorrow. Newt’s vote-getting inconsistency is due to these factors and when they are publicized by opponents — even in negative ads (which is not saying they are wrong even though Newt would have voters believe they are) he fizzles. When he is able to successfully divert attention from his own history, he rises in the polls. Should he become the candidate, if you imagine the Obama mchine will hit and then drop the matter,, think again. And they will hurt him. And they will be speaking from the bully pulpit. Which will be echoed everywhere over and over by the MSM. Even tho’ both men have deep character flaws, there’s only one that will be pounded into the public’s consciousness day in and day out — and that has results.
Newt Gingrich cannot beat Barad Obama. And he will never come close to a war chest that comes close to Obama’s. The obscene amounts of money spent by political candidates today, from local to state and federal elections is a travesty — but it does matter and it does buy influence over voters.
@ T–
” The only way to avoid paying that tax is to give it ALL away. And unlike income tax, all one does with the estate tax is avoid paying it, it doesn’t generate the income tax refund that a deductible charitable donation does.”
Such people DO give most of it away. They give away much during their lifetimes, and at some point in their later years, many spend more on themselves figuring that what they do spend is almost 1/2 price as that portion which otherwise would go to the govt. And when they die, they still have considerable estates after their deaths most of which goes into their foundation. But they set up these foundations usually much earlier both to give away money for altruistic reasons, tax reasons, and estate planning as well as to apply their money as they see fit as opposed to what the govt. would do with it.
And the fact remains that Gingrich as late as yesterday in an interview explained they published their one tax return enable the public “to see all the good things he and Callista do for others. He does it less as a good faith effort than as a carefully strategized campaign calculation.
You’re free to stand by your comments, as am I to stand by mine. We agree to disagree. In the end, however, what will be most important is the voters’ impressions.
expat,
When monster N beats Monster O = RENAISSANCE of this great NATION. One fight at a time …
WE NEED A MONSTER TO BEAT A MONSTER:
VOTE NEWT !!!
Harold: I read the article. I don’t see that your comment has any relevance to Gingrich vs. Romney. “High-beta” does NOT mean Newt has a “high” chance of winning big. It means that the high-beta candidate could win (and even win big), whereas the writer thinks a low-beta candidate cannot. He makes it clear that neither a high beta nor a low-beta candidate has a high chance of winning against an incumbent at all, and when the high-beta candidate loses, they lose big.
What’s more, I read his definition of high beta and low beta, and it seems that in this case neither candidate would be low beta, despite the fact that he characterizes Romney that way. Neither Romney nor Gingrich are obvious leaders of the party. Neither of them was the nominee last time (that would be McCain), the most low beta choice of all. It is Gingrich who is the Washington DC insider and career politician, not Romney. If anyone’s the high beta choice it would be Romney, the on most of the criteria the author is using to describe high beta.
I actually think the article is a poor one. The author’s definition or high beta vs. low is very strange and difficult to apply, unless you have the obvious situation of a repeat nominee (Romney certainly isn’t; he did rather poorly in the 2008 primaries). The author ignores things such as the fact that Eisenhower was an extremely popular president that virtually no one could have defeated, high or low beta. By the way, even though Stevenson had been nominated before, he was a highly unconventional candidate both in ’52 and ’56, and “remained popular with a core of liberal Democrats but held no office and had no real base.” Not sure what’s so low-beta and unrisky about that—he represented an extreme wing of the party. Also, Clinton, according to the author, was the high-beta candidate. But he ran as a political moderate—very moderate, in fact. That was his whole shtick, policy-wise.
The article makes very little sense to me.
Harold: when you say that polls mean nothing at this point, I think you’re ignoring the fact that the leading candidates here (Gingrich, Romney, and Obama) are all quite well known. None are newcomers. That makes the polls, not necessarily reliable or correct, but somewhat more meaningful.
Also, another type of poll that means something, I believe, even at this early point in time, is if a candidate who is already well-known already has very high unfavorables. Gingrich’s unfavorables are way higher than those of either Obama or Romney. If you don’t think that has some meaning for an election, I think you’re living in a dream.
“WE NEED A MONSTER TO BEAT A MONSTER”
That’s what you think American is in need of now? ANOTHER monster?
We’re really in trouble with people who think like this. I fully understand the pent up anger and resentment, but I would hope people would be thinking with their brains after people so clearly did not do that in 2008.
When people vote for someone because of an entertaining debate and overblown rehetoric and not considering who the candidates really are (as Newt would tell you: history is the best predictor!) and what they have accomplished and what their real strengths and weaknesses are (not just from what THEY tell you, or how the MSM defines them, but through self-edification of some kind), they are dancing down exactly the same path as all those dupes in ’08.
I found it curious that almost weekly, people are either disgusted by Gingrich, or in love with him and his ups and downs evidence that. But 2 debates in one week with outrageous rhetoric and complete denial of his own history, seems folks in SC and elsewhere can’t get enough. Hopefully that will wear off.
I actually was seriously considering Newt despite his very checkered history. I was willing to give the man benefit of the doubt and believe he had changed, he was a positive person who was going to run a positive campaign, etc. Until Iowa. When a few negative ads exposing Gingrich’s “mistakes” from the past — all well known and documented, and he turned into the ugly, vindictive and vengeful man he had always been — despite a decade of carefully laying groundwork for a comeback as a changed man. As the weeks have gone by, I’ve been more and more repulsed. As anti-Obama as I am — I loathe the man and what he has done and don’t want to even think about what he’d like to do if he has another 4 years — if Newt became the candidate, I’d have a really serious problem. I was sure I was an Anybody-But-Obama person. But what is the point if we’re just exchanging one morally-challenged calculating power-hungry monster for another? Many are willing to let their anger and unhappiness guide them. That’s their choice. And we’ll all have to live with the result. There is no ideal candidate because we all have different notions of what would be ideal.
Well, long primary season ahead (tho’ time does fly). I’ll try to cork the panic which welled up in me as I watched what happened in 5 days. 5 short days. And I’ll pray that voters will have a thorough understanding of who each candidate is. (And maybe that the “Newt” pendulum will swing back to where it was last Sunday!)
And then democracy will take over.
goldby621: I’m in pretty close agreement with you.
However, I take a long view, as you do towards the end of your comment. There are so many ups and downs ahead of us that are unpredictable. Gingrich was always very strong in SC (as I’ve been pointing out for quite some time), with the exception of just a couple of post-Iowa weeks. The SC electorate is tailor-made for him. The primaries are a marathon, not a sprint.
I expect people to be very emotional this year when they vote, however. This favors Gingrich and not Romney. That’s just the way it is.
For me, I was open-minded about Gingrich till the Bain thing. There are turning points for me in trusting someone, and after that it’s very hard to earn my trust back. I had a turning point with Obama during the 2008 season, and that was when he went back on his word about public campaign financing, and made excuses and said, “Ooo, the mean old Republicans made me do it.” It was then that I realized who and what he was, and I’ve never looked back with him.
Not that I was ever planning to vote for him anyway. But I realized the depth of his opportunistic hypocrisy, and the fact that not many people were going to call him on it.