Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:00 AM

CNN Florida Debate

I didn't watch the debate last night, having long ago committed to an event honoring the 200th anniversary of newspapers in Connecticut Western Reserve. By the time I got back from the event, the debate was over, and so I consulted my Twitter feed of dozens of opinion mavens and discovered that Rick Santorum had a very good night, Romney a strong one, and that Gingrich had endured by far his worst debate performance.  The chattering class issued a collective assessment that Newt had been thrashed. 

Given that both the new Sunshine State and Qunnipiac polls put Romney ahead by 9 points prior to the debate, and given as well that Romney is widely acknowledged to have a lead in the absentees and early voting, Florida is shaping up as a win for Romney though not perhaps by more than a few points given the volatility of the contest.

I said on Monday that the winner of Florida would be the GOP nominee, and that was when Gingrich was 9 points ahead.  It seems as though Florida understands its crucial position and perhaps decisive influence, and voters are paying attention and are energized.  Given the state's enormous importance in the fall, this is a great place to have such a showdown, and while the race won't be over on Wednesday morning, it will almost certainly have been decided by then, barring a meltdown by or a revelation about the winner.

In Ohio the local GOP is very excited about having the Buckeye State finally matter to a GOP nomination via its vote on Super Tuesday.  The chairman of the Cuyahoga County Republican Party, Rob Frost, came by my Cleveland affiliate's studios during Wednesday's program  to talk about the energy in the grassroots, and the great campaign shaping up to put Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel into the SenateThe party's annual Lincoln Dinner is February 16.  The guest of honor?  Mitt Romney.  Today, judging solely from the reflected assessments of the media elites both right and left, that was a very good call by the Committee when it was made months ago.

Back to California so traveling and off the air today.  Breitbart.tv's Larry O'Connor fills in for me today, and despite his Michigan roots, he appears able to handle the dials and use complete sentences.  Thanks to Larry and to all those twittering pundits who watched the debate so I wouldn't have to.


 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:47 AM


 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 1:11 AM

Mitt Romney

My Townhall.com column this morning looks at the DNCs Big Labor's attempt to take Mitt Romney off the board in Florida.  We used to call such things "dirty tricks," but these days the attempt to manipulate the other side's nominee is acceptable to MSM.  What would Ed Muskie say.

I asked Mitt Romney about the unions campaign against him (and thus for Newt Gingrich) in the course of an interview on Wednesday's program:

HH: We begin now with Governor Romney. Welcome back, good to talk to you. 

MR: Thanks, Hugh, good to be with you this evening.

HH: You know, Governor, a lot of my callers raise the passion question. They want to know if Mitt Romney will passionately take it to President Obama. I want to frame it this way. Yesterday, SEAL Team 2 brought off this amazing rescue, but it’s only because they’ve got this amazing Department of Defense behind them. And the President wants to cut that dramatically. Will you passionately fight for the military if you’re the nominee?

MR: I will not only passionately fight, but I will succeed in protecting our military. I do not want to cut our military base budget for the current, about 4% of the GDP that it is. Look, our Navy is smaller than at any time since 1917, our Air Force is older and smaller than any time since it was founded. We’ve got too few active duty personnel. We’re not doing the right job for our veterans. We really can’t afford, and we should not shrink our military commitment. And unlike this president, I will not cut our military budget. I will preserve it, and maintain our military might.

HH: Second question in this regard, right now, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees are spending a million bucks against you. SEIU, the most radical of the unions, almost as much against you. It’s astonishing. The Democrats are trying to take you off the board. In ’72, they called this dirty tricks when Nixon did it against Muskie. But will you, Governor Romney, be battling these public employee unions in the way that people want to see fire and passion?

MR: Well, there’s no question but that these unions do not want to see me as the next president. They don’t want to see me as the nominee, because they know I can beat President Obama. So here in Florida, which is the next contest state, you’re right. They’re spending about a million dollars in negative ads against me. And they’re not doing that against Speaker Gingrich. They’re doing it against me. And the reason they’re doing that, of course, is as I just described, and also the fact that I have a record of taking on these unions. In my state, I said look, you guys, we’re not going to grow your compensation in the unions at a level that’s above what the state can afford. And we held, as I recall, we held the compensations at 2% per year. I’ll go after these guys. We have, in my view, a real problem with unions having put in place these massive pensions and health benefits that we cannot possibly sustain. I salute Governor Walker of Wisconsin, Governor Kasich of Ohio, I’m trying to think of all the names, of course, Chris Christie in New Jersey. These guys have been heroic. Governor Rick Snyder in Michigan, these guys are out there battling. We’re going to have to rein in the excesses of these unions, or they will completely drown our states in red ink.

HH: And Governor, last question, John Hood and others, John Hood at National Review, said when your taxes came out, there was an opportunity to point out to people this nonsense about effective rates, that all that money that you’re paying taxes on at the investment rate had been taxed before. Did you miss an opportunity to teach people about how we tax and tax and tax again?

MR: Well actually, each interview I’ve had, I have said that exact point. I was on last night with Brian Williams on NBC, and he said gee, your tax rate’s only 15%. And I said no, actually, you realize that there are two levels of taxation on capital. One is at the corporate level, where it’s taxed at 35%, and the other’s at the individual level in dividends, where it’s taxed at 15%. So the combined rate is 45-50%. And I’ve said the same thing with Sean Hannity a little earlier on Fox. So every occasion I get, I remind people of that fact. It’s going to be a constant battle, of course, because the Democrats, and interestingly, my own Republican opponents, Speaker Gingrich, they go after me for paying a low tax rate. It’s like guys, don’t you understand it’s being taxed once at the corporate level first? So I’ll keep on handling that and battling that, Hugh.

HH: Governor Romney, thanks for joining us. We’ll talk to you after the debate next week, and good luck, we’ll talk to you then.

End of interview.





.

 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:21 AM


This reporting by Scott Powers in the Orlando Sentinel scoops the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico by pulling together in one place and charting the obvious implications of Team Obama's assault on Mitt Romney in Florida.

Obama is trying to prevent Romney's nomination:
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has an unlikely ally this week in his Florida primary battle against Mitt Romney: the Democratic National Committee.

The Democrats are targeting Mitt Romney as if he were already the Republican nominee running against President Barack Obama, with campaign ads, Internet videos, daily news conferences and dozens of news releases attacking the former Massachusetts governor.

Traditional Democratic partners are jumping in, too. Both the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees' and Service Employees International Union's political-action committees are running their own TV commercials in Florida this week — attacking Romney.

Gingrich and the other two Republican candidates, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas U.S.Rep. Ron Paul, are being all but ignored by the DNC and its allies.
Read the whole thing.

The Chicago Rules at work.  Obama fears Romney so he is trying to eliminate him early.  In the old days it would be called a "dirty trick," but MSM loves the president and won't criticize his operation. 

And it is his operation.  The president has had to approve of this attempt by the Yankees to get the Red Sox eliminated by sending players and cash to Tampa Bay in the last week of the season. 

Newt supporters will say that the president had better watch what he wishes for, and that is fine.  Republican voters, though, are owed notice from the press --transparency is the word, isn't it-- that President Obama is trying to cheat already by meddling in the other party's nomination process.

It is cheating.  We have grown used to it, like trillion dollar deficits and 8% unemployment, and the Manhattan-Beltway media elites just shrug and get back to pushing contraception and English-only question agendas. 

But even ten years ago it would never have flown.  Can you imagine if George Bush had told Karl Rove to get Howard Dean nominated and to spend millions to do so?

Rush had fun with Operation Chaos four years ago, and it was fun, and terrific radio.  But it was also one man's open and above-board appeal to his own audience to try and annoy the Democrats.  This isn't that.  This is sinister, and a glimpse of the fall campaign ahead.

I'll cover it in full on tonight's program from Cleveland.

Powerline's John Hinderaker has already written about the irony of President Obama calling for economic fairness against a backdrop of three years of the wildest reaches of crony capitalism, but the president who is directing the 2012 equivalent of CREEP from 1972 perhaps should avoid moralizing on all subjects.

.

.

.

 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:00 AM

From Clark Judge:

SOTU: Did I hear that right?
By Clark S. Judge: managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc.; chairman, Pacific Research Institute.

It sounded like such a soft, even conservative speech.
 
But let me get this straight: 1) banks will be punished (do I understand this right, by a committee headed by Eric Holder?) if their lending is too risky, 2) and they will be required (by the same committee) to give more home loans (meaning, it must be, to people who would otherwise not qualify for the loans, or else the government would not have to be involved) at lower rates (which means rates that do not compensate them as much as the market says they need to be compensated for the risks they are taking, all of which sounds like a new edition of the policies that brought on the financial collapse), 3) which must mean that they will have to pull back on risky lending someplace other than homes, 4) the only place that most banks would be able to pull back on riskier customers would be loans to small and new businesses, 5) but these are the businesses that have created just about all the jobs over the last 20 years and he said early in the speech he wants to encourage them, 6) so maybe their growth capital will come from selling stock to the kinds of people who invest in new and small businesses, 7) but through the Buffet Rule he’s going to double the tax rate on investment income for those people, meaning that, like the banks, they can’t be fully compensated for the risk of backing small and new businesses, 8) so they will not invest more in small and new companies but in big established firms, 9) so more of those small and new firms will have to turn to the government for capital, 10) which luckily he said would up its investing in early stage businesses with “the best” ideas, 11) “the best” ideas meaning, I guess, as with Solyndra, ideas that advance his agenda through companies whose owners support his candidacy), 11) or maybe it would be companies that agree to invite unionization (since the unions have failed to organize the new and dynamic sectors of the economy, which is why they have been shrinking), 12) but then with the big businesses, he wants to punish American companies if they invest overseas, 13) and he wants to increase exports, 14) but being competitive in the global markets often means having part of your production near your markets, which is why many companies have opened production facilities abroad and many foreign companies (BMW and Honda, for example) have opened their facilities here, 15) so he’ll make these companies less competitive, meaning less able to export anything that might be paired with some other product the company makes abroad in order to attract buyers, 16) and it also means he’ll have the U.S. ignoring many of the international trading rules of which we have been the principal sponsor since the end of WWII, rules that have led to an incredible growth in widely shared wealth all over the planet, 17) which means that, if he follows through, he’ll blow up the post-WWII global economic system, 18) which in the very short run may help the uncompetitive American labor unions but in the not-so-long run would devastate every economy on earth, 19) but it would also mean he would be in a position to decide where big companies could invest, and when, just as he’ll be in control of all new and small businesses, too, 20) meanwhile he is going to tell states and localities what their budget priorities should be, 21) and make them adopt his policies for running their schools, leaving me to wonder, when he’s through, what won’t he control?
 
I believe that’s what I heard the president advocate last night.  But one term I didn’t hear, maybe I missed it: “The Constitution.”  Then again, wasn’t he suggesting that, in brave times like these, we need to put aside those old rules.  Do I have this straight?


.

 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 3:47 PM

I will be spared having to listen to the president's attack on investment tonight, and his promoting the inane "Buffett rule," which serious economists agree would raise a negligible amount of revenue relative to our deficit and debt while punishing investment which is necessary to grow the economy to fix those massive fiscal holes.  Capital will simply leave the U.S. if we tax the return on investment income at greater rates than other countries do, but the president is in full campaign mode so we will get lots of populist nonsense tonight. 

What the president ought to be doing is encouraging entrepreneurs, so I have scheduled an "new entrepreneurs' hour" for today's third hour, featuring the co-founder of LocalVox.com. the owner of SensativeSweets.com and the man who started UpAndRunningAgain.com --three stars who are creating jobs, income and opportunity for themselves and others without any government assistance whatsoever.

.
 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:24 AM

The Orlando Sentinel used the LA Times filing to give its readers a recap of last night's debate.  As predicted, the story from the debate is Newt's lobbying for Freddie Mac, the sort of focus that the former Speaker cannot welcome:

As part of his newly aggressive posture, Romney brought up an old issue: the work Gingrich did for Freddie Mac, the federally backed mortgage guarantor, which many Republicans blame for the housing meltdown. The attack could have particular resonance in Florida, where the real estate and construction industries, two mainstays of the economy, were flattened by the foreclosure crisis and housing tracts lay abandoned.

Gingrich's consulting firm was paid more than $1.6 million by the mortgage giant — not to lobby, he adamantly insists, but to lend his perspective as "a historian." Romney scoffed at that assertion.





 Read More...

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:39 AM

Mitt Romney had $21.7 million in income in 2010.  He paid $3 million in taxes.  He made $2.98 million in charitable contributions.

Mitt Romney had $20.9 million in income in 2011.  His tax bill in April will total about $3,23 million (most of which has already been paid via estimated payments no doubt.)  He made about $4 million in charitable deductions in 2011.

That's the summary of the summary in the Wall Street Journal.  The summary in the Washington Post is much the same

Ann and Mitt Romney are wealthy, and Ann and Mitt Romney are generous.  Very generous.  And this is to be admired.

Much of their giving goes to their church, and Mormon culture is very generous not just to those struggling in the congregation, but to the community, the nation and the world.  A minute or so of googling finds this story from the days after Katrina, representative of how the Mormons respond to disasters, which noted that "[a]s of Sept. 13, 140 truckloads of commodities and supplies, about 5.6 million pounds or 2,800 tons had been shipped into affected areas; with thousands of LDS volunteers giving 9,204 manpower days helping 1,606 Church members and 3,226 people not of the LDS faith, according to Garry Flake, director of Church Emergency Response. In addition, some 3,500 volunteers served Sept. 10-11."

All denominations of any size have their charitable arms, like Catholic Relief Services and Presbyterian Relief and Development Agency, but the culture of giving is deeply embedded in the LDS community and reflected in the Romney tax returns.  In addition to direct giving to their church, the Romneys have supported cystic fibrosis research and the United Way, but the bulk of their giving is to their church.

Recall the stories on, say Joe Biden's charitable giving?:

The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year — about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade. The low was $120 in 1999, about 0.1% of yearly income.

Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income.

The Bidens of course made far less money that the Romneys, with total income of $319,000 in 2008, so they have a lot less than the Romneys to give from.  I note the Bidens' total to simply contrast it with the fairly extraordinary level of giving from the Romneys.

They are very generous people, which in turn suggests they are good people, and while good people don't necessarily make good leaders, it is far less likely they will be indifferent to suffering or intentionally malicious in their politics.

This is quaint stuff, certain to fall on deaf ears among the bare knuckled blogging community and the self-righteous among the media elite.  But it ought to matter to some voters, especially values voters, even those of different denominations.

I got an email from a Romney supporter that noted Romney took no salary during his three years as leader of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and no salary during his four years as governor of Massachusetts.  Those sorts of contributions don't show up in tax returns, nor do the hundreds and hundreds of hours that Mormons contribute to their church work every year --the church has very few paid staff, and Romney was never among them. 

But they do tell us about character, and even if we disagree at a fundamental level about theological matters, a man with his time, talent and treasure is a generous man, period.

Watch and see how how the Manhattan-Beltway media elites deal with this aspect of the story.  Generosity is a core virtue.  But MSM won't know how to write about or comment upon it, and the comparisons it generates will be awkward for many, so they will leave it alone.

.


 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:52 PM

The exchange on Iran and the Straights of Hormuz was good though too short. 

It is the sort of serious, Commander-in-Chief question that needs to get asked. 

But the lefty bias, especially from the local talent, was deadening.

The only impact of the debate will be from the opening of the "influence peddler" front against Newt.  Romney's pressing of this case sets up the ads that are already airing and which will increase in tempo and specificity.  MSM as well will be forced to ask for whom did Newt lobby, for how much money, and to what effect?  Newt's "historian" answer just isn't going to cut it, and with Rick Santorum blasting away from the other side on Newt's 20 year support for a federal individual mandate, the Speaker is welcomed to the front-runner circle.

Haven't seen any but The Fix's grades yet, but I suspect most will call this a very good night for Romney when he needed one.

UPDATE
: Politico headline "Mitt Mauls Newt In Debate" pretty much sums it up.






 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 6:02 PM

Anti-Newt Jen Rubin v. pro-Newt Lee Habeeb in the four segments before the debate begins.

I will be tweeting throughout the debate as well.  You can follow via @hughhewitt.


 
« Previous1234567891010831084Next »