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.


 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:36 AM



Rasmussen puts Newt up 9 points over Romney in Florida

Release the Christie, er, Cracken!

Larry Sabato reminds people
why Romney is at a 67% probability of being the nominee at InTrade while Gingrich is at 27%.

The weekend polling numbers represent a high water mark for the former Speaker after his thumping of Romney in South Carolina.  But as my column in today's Washington Examiner points out, the storyline changed every 48 hours during the ten day run-up to Saturday's vote.  The next eight days will be just as  explosive.

Beginning with this story which should give every Tea Party supporter something to chew on.

The Washington Examiner's Conn Carroll notes that the "American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, an arm of the AFL-CIO, has bought $800,000 worth of television time to run the above ad attacking Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain. The ad will run throughout the state of Florida through the primary on January 31st."

What that ad buy telegraphs is that Big Labor wants to try and defeat Romney in Florida so their in-the-pocket president won't have to run against his strongest opponent in the fall.

Expect Romney to point out tonight that Big Labor is supporting Newt in Florida even as they attack Scott Walker in Wisconsin.  Expect Newt as well as Big Labor and all the other pro-Obama SuperPacs to grab the Romney tax returns and exploit every line of them to the full extent possible.

Expect Romney surrogates to demand to see the contract that Newt had with Freddie and Fannie and for the housing collapse be the center-piece of the next week. Expect Newt to find the failed Bain investment in Florida as a backdrop.

All to the good.  If Romney cannot battle against this combination of factors right now, he will be hard pressed to do so in the fall.  Gingrich is testing him and his staff and message of the need to make a U-Turn on entitlements, spending, defense cuts. 

Rick Santorum has to make his case tonight, and he must make it against Newt as the alternative to Romney.  Newt won by manufacturing confrontations with Juan Williams and John King.  Look for Santorum to do the same tonight.

UPDATE
: An email from an old friend:

Hugh,

I’ve enjoyed the analysis you’ve posted on your website and NRO.  Unfortunately, I can’t help but think the GOP is heading for Niagara Falls if the Newt juggernaut picks up steam.  I envision a Reagan-Mondale outcome if Newt is the nominee, only with the GOP on the losing side.  And he would bring down the rest of the downstream ticket, big time. 

I talked to [one of my relatives] over the weekend who, as you may know, now lives in South Carolina.  He voted for Newt over the weekend.  I asked him (very politely) why, and he said the country is going down the tubes, we need a big change, and “Newt would clean Obama’s clock in a debate.”  Sadly, it seems like thinking people (and he is a very bright guy) have adopted this WWE mindset of the elections, and envision some kind of cage match grudge fight to the death between Obama and the Republican candidate in a debate with the whole country watching.  I told him I doubt that Obama would agree to a series of debates the way that Romney and the other Republicans have, and besides he may be underestimating Obama’s ability on the debate podium to finesse his way out of Newt’s verbal bomb-throwing and make Gingrich look like the unreasonable one on the stage.  He told me one of his sons-in-law told him almost exactly the same thing. 

That said, I can’t help but feel that Romney and his campaign staff are like the four and five star generals who are fighting the last war.  They hire all the right people, get all the right endorsements, have all the glitzy 59-point plans on their websites, but their candidate just doesn’t seem to have the ability to inspire voters.  Newt has more personal and political baggage than Federal Express, runs a campaign on a shoestring, is more full of himself than a Macy’s Thanksgiving Day float, yet he can get the crowds whooping and hollering to beat the band.  He’s like the con-man in The Music Man.  In fact, I’ve concluded for years now Newt is  the Republican version of Bill Clinton, only without the charm.  And what happened to the ‘value voters’ who were outraged about Clinton’s behavior in the 90’s?  I guess it just doesn’t matter when he’s your [guy]. 

Ugh; I don’t have a good feeling. 

 



.






 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:23 AM

The weekly column from Clark Judge:

Gingrich’s Secret Weapon: Incredibly Innovative Campaign
By Clark S. Judge: managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc.; chairman, Pacific Research Institute
 
As they stumble dazed into Florida, the Romney forces had better think hard about what happened in South Carolina.  They will want to dismiss Saturday’s results as a fluke.  But in the Palmetto State, Newt Gingrich put into harness a totally new strategy of presidential campaigning – some of it visible, some below the surface.
 
The old strategy started with Richard Nixon’s 1968 run.  It emphasized early momentum gained in New Hampshire, highly professional television advertising, limited availability of the candidate to the media, well polled positions articulated in carefully crafted speeches.  Later a strong and expensively assembled grassroots organization became part of the mix, as did staging events around single themes, with soundbites and visuals to define the TV and newspaper story.








 Read More...

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 11:19 PM