Bachmann Out, Perry Limps Forward… What Next?

Matt Margolis136 Comments

First, let me state an obvious point: Ron Paul won’t be the GOP nominee.

Next, let me say that I suspect Rick Santorum will have a similar fate as Mike Huckabee, and will be peter out soon enough. With Rick Perry limping along, I see this still being a race between Mitt and Newt. If Rick Perry manages to revitalize his campaign in South Carolina, it may be a three-man race, but with speculation last night being that Perry would drop out, right or wrong, his campaign took a blow last night. I don’t think the Iowa Caucuses should mean so much–and in many ways they don’t–but the impact on the race already is clear.

Rick Santorum, in my opinion, has never been a viable candidate for the nomination. I like him. I’ve met him. But, he’s not the one to go head to head with Obama. Not by a long shot. Ron Paul is just insane, only outdone by his hardcore followers who argue like Occupy Wall Street protesters.

With debates resuming, I think Newt Gingrich will reemerge strong as the anti-Romney candidate, and siphon support away from Perry as his campaign sputters. Santorum, if the pattern continues, may get some increased scrutiny, and that probably means that Newt will benefit the most.

What do you think?

Restarting the engine of capitalism

Retired Spook170 Comments

As we head into what is clearly the most important election in most of our lifetimes, possibly as some have said, the most important election since 1860, the biggest question in my mind is, how do we restart the engine of capitalism?  I believe the presidential candidate that best articulates the answer to that question will win hands down.

My personal feeling is that three of the most critical things that have to happen are (1) a national energy plan that promotes both energy independence and abundant, economical energy; (2) revamping our tax structure to make it simpler, broader based, more equitable and, most important, predictable over a reasonably lengthy period of time; and (3) revamp government regulations from top to bottom.  In a sentence, we need to get away from a system that penalizes success and rewards failure to one that does the exactly the opposite.

All comments are welcome, but please folks, try to engage in at least a modicum of critical thinking.  This is an opportunity for our resident Liberals to tell us what you would do to get our economy moving in the right direction again.  Any posts that simply advocate making the wealthy pay more will be deleted.  Surely at least some of our more intellectual Progressives can come up with Liberal ideas that have worked in the past or maybe even some new ideas that have never been tried before.  Everything is on the table except wealth redistribution — oh, heck, even that’s on the table if you can make a convincing case for where it has worked in the past.

 

 

Open Thread: Iowa

Matt Margolis158 Comments

Okay, the Iowa caucuses are coming soon… What do you think is going to happen? Do you really believe, as polls are suggesting, that Ron Paul is the frontrunner? I don’t. In fact, I’m inclined not to believe any poll that shows him even in the top three.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see… So what are your thoughts?

UPDATE: Sister Toldjah is not worried about the Paul/Santorum surges in Iowa… find out why.

Newt Did NOT Agree With Mitt on Health Care

Matt Margolis37 Comments

As far as misleading headlines go in this primary campaign season, this one from ABC News certainly ranks up there as one the most egregious:

Gingrich ’06 Memo: “Agree Entirely With Gov. Romney” on Health Care

Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard links to the actual memo, which reveals, quite clearly, that Newt did not “agree entirely” with Mitt on health care, and certainly did not “love” the Massachusetts health care plan, as was suggested in the story.

It’s unfortunate that the Drudge Report linked to the ABC News story, as if the headline and the claim were legitimate. The only question I have is this, who in the GOP field is ABC News trying to help? Ron Paul?

Liberal Group Tries To Sell NewtGingrich.com for $1 Mil

Matt Margolis39 Comments

Yesterday, the Daily Caller reported that a liberal group which owns NewtGingrich.com is trying to sell the domain for $1 million or to the highest bidder.

If anyone aside from Newt Gingrich’s campaign is interested, they’d be wise not spend any money on that domain, as virtually the same thing happened to Hillary Clinton back in 2005.

[…] Mrs. Clinton’s staff wrested hillaryclinton.com from an Italian woman who had registered it in October 2001. An arbitrator at the United Nations agency ruled that Mrs. Clinton had a common law right to the trademark of her own name because of her public activities, even though she had never filed for a trademark. The arbitrator also found that the woman had registered the domain in bad faith with the intent to use Mrs. Clinton’s fame to direct traffic to unrelated matters.

With this precedent, Newt Gingrich’s campaign clearly has the right to the domain, and any group that attempts to buy it will likely find that they’ve wasted a lot of money.

UPDATE: The Lanham (Tradmark) Act.

Newt Tells Gay Iowa Voter to Vote for Obama

Matt Margolis61 Comments

And, believe it or not, he’s right.

Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa here today that he should vote for President Obama.

“I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an adjunct professor of writing at William Penn University.”

Arnold, a Democrat, said he came to the event at Smokey Row coffee house with an open mind. But he wanted to ask Gingrich about how he would represent him as president after reading past comments the former U.S. House Speaker has made about gay and lesbians.

If the most important issue(s) to this man are gay issues, then quite frankly, any candidate concerned with getting the country’s economy back on track, or restoring our country’s respect around the world, has bigger fish to fry than “engaging gay Americans.”  The issues that affect all Americans are the issues that should matter to a president or a presidential candidate. Questions about taxes, jobs, health care, national security, etc. are far more important to the 2012 campaign than how one will “engage gay Americans” as if it’s the job of a president.

The President of the United States is the president of all Americans, and no president should strive to pander to a particular group, but rather to represent the whole population. If this man wanted to use his opportunity to ask a presidential candidate one question, and that’s the one he chose to ask, than clearly Newt was never going to get his vote anyway, which Newt was clearly well aware of.

Anyone who thinks a president should pander to specific groups and ignore the majority of the population should vote for Obama, they’ll be far less disappointed.

UPDATE: GayPatriot has a lot more on this story, including important context not provided in the original story I quoted. Here is Newt’s full quote:

I think for those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support and I accept that that’s the reality. On the other hand for those for whom it’s not the central issue in their lives, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support. [emphasis GayPatriot’s]

The chief strategist of GOPProud even commended Newt’s handling of the question.