America Loses If Obama Wins

By Chad Stafko

President Barack Obama, speaking of the 2012 election and hoping to rekindle the vigor of his political fundraisers, said recently, "We are going to win this thing, and America is going to win as a consequence." In order for American voters to believe Obama's claim that America will win if he wins, they must overlook the fact that the quality of life for a number of major demographic groups has worsened during Obama's term in office.

Take America's children as an example -- a favorite group used by liberals for voter sympathy. According to a report published by the National Center On Family Homelessness, the homelessness of children rose 33% from 2007 through 2010. Were 2011 data available, the increase would have no doubt been significantly higher still, given the plethora of foreclosures during the Obama term.

We now have about 1 in 45 children in America who are homeless-a staggering figure indeed. Essentially, we have about one child in every two school classroooms who is homeless.

While liberals often claim to be pushing legislation "for the children", the most liberal president in decades has been a disaster for America's children. The historically high unemployment and underemployment rates have pushed millions of families into foreclosure and eventually out of their homes.

Then there are the minority groups that overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008 with their votes and their wallets. The unemployment rate for African-Americans, 96% of who voted for Obama, stands at 15.5% as of last month, while Hispanics, who pulled the lever for Obama at a clip of 67%, have an unemployment rate of 11.4%. When Obama took office, those rates stood at 12.7% and 9.9%, respectively.

The massive government spending and bailouts have done nothing to improve the living conditions of these minority groups as a whole. In fact, under Obama, not only have blacks and hispanics been less employed, but the wealth gap between minorities and whites has reached an all-time high. In 2009, white U.S. households had median wealth of $113,149 compared to $5,677 for blacks and $6,325 for hispanics, according to a report from the Pew Research Center.

That gap has most certainly risen since 2009 with the further increase in the spread of unemployment rates between whites, blacks, and hispanics during Obama's presidency. Essentially then, under the first black President of the United States, whites have become increasingly wealthier than blacks and hispanics, and to an unprecedented degree.

Liberals often tout the wealth gap between ethnic groups as an ill of society that needs to be fixed such that all groups have similar wealth. So the question begs then as to why, from a financial and economic perspective, would anywhere near the same percentage of these minority groups vote to relect a man whose presidency has been nothing short of an economic disaster for them? Furthermore, we might ask why would opinion leaders from these groups seek to reelect Obama if they are indeed fighting for the prosperity of the people within these groups?

Then consider those between the ages of 18-29 who voted for Obama back in 2008 by about a 2-1 margin, many of which were in college or just beginning their respective careers. Getting that first job out of college which relates to their degree has been extremely difficult for a large number of college graduates during Obama's time in the White House.

Business owners have been reluctant to hire new employees due to broad economic and tax policy uncertanties, along with the affects ObamaCare might have upon their costs of doing business.

Obama knows that these recent college graduates are an important voting bloc for him and so he recently threw them a bone by suggesting a reform in the student program that would save them a whopping $8-$12 month. For these voters, some of whom may be carrying a student loan debt of tens of thousands of dollars or more, that should be seen as a slap in the face. Like the minority groups, from an economic sense, it would be illogical at best for them to support Obama again in 2012.

What about the low-income voters? Better than 70% of those earning $15,000 or less and nearly 60% of those earning between $15,000-$30,000 cast their ballots for Barack Obama in 2008. Of course, these workers have been hurt disproportionately more than those in the middle and upper-level wage earners during the weak economic growth that has characterized Obama's presidency.

The Obama presidency has simply been a disaster for our nation. From an economic sense, there seem few if any groups that can say they are better off now than they were when Obama took office. If the economy is the number one issue in the minds of these voters, they cannot and should not re-elect President Obama to another four years in the Oval Office, as sending President Obama back into the White House will not result in a win for America.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/america_loses_if_obama_wins.html#ixzz1i9pucJ8N

GOP loses again. Shocker...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45768642

The Gingrich-Churchill Comparison

By Bruce Walker

Newt Gingrich is not our "Next Reagan," the leader for whom we have pined since 1989, but could he be our next Churchill? Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator has made the comparison, and it deserves more attention.

Consider all the baggage that Winston Churchill carried with him when he first became prime minister in 1940. His personal life was far from normal. Clementine Churchill had a brief affair with Terence Phillip, and she offered her fourth child with Churchill to a friend. Sarah, the Churchills' eldest child, committed suicide with an overdose of sleeping pills.

Is this a perfect parallel with Gingrich, who was divorced twice, preceded by affairs with the women he would marry, before his current twelve-year marriage to Callista? No, but when we look at great leaders, perhaps we ought not to look for great home lives. Reagan divorced when divorce was rare. His daughter Patti not only took her mother's maiden name, but would pose for Playboy. Lincoln's wife Mary was crazy, and Lincoln himself suffered profound depression. It is possible that the very qualities which produce greatness in political leaders may not produce great husbands and fathers.

Great home lives do not make great leaders. The president Reagan replaced, the hapless Jimmy Carter, has proven a wonderful husband and father, and the president we want to leave after 2012, the closet Marxist Barack Obama, seems to be a good family man. Or, considered another way, Clinton had a dysfunctional family life but will be judged by history as a better president than Carter or Obama.

What about the distrust that many conservatives feel for Gingrich? It may be hard for us to understand, but Winston Churchill was thoroughly disliked and mistrusted by the leadership of his Conservative Party. Why? He was a loose canon. He took risks, like at Gallipoli, which cost him the job of First Lord of the Admiralty in the First World War. He championed causes that all other Conservative politicians thought nuts: he warned that premature independence would lead to bloodshed (it did), and he defended the abdicating monarch, the soon-to-be Duke of Windsor.

No one questioned Churchill's magnificent command of history and language or the breathtaking scope of his intellect, and few could stomach his confidence, which bordered sometimes on insufferable arrogance. The problem with Churchill, and with Gingrich, is that these men really are brilliant -- and, crucially, both have a very deep knowledge of history. That may make great leaders, but it hardly makes figures popular with political rivals.

Then there is the question of income. Churchill, while he was a military officer, was also a highly paid journalist. While in India, he earned the then-princely sum of ₤600 for his "Story of the Malakand Field Force," and he continued to write, to speak, and to earn money from his position as a military officer and as a politician (he charged, for example, for interviews during the 1930s, and his fee was high). Churchill had lifelong problems with Inland Revenue (Britain's IRS), and he borrowed money from friends, who did not really expect repayment.

There is a parallel between how Churchill and how Gingrich made their living. Gingrich, when he became speaker, was driving an old used car. His much-declaimed book deals in 1995 yielded advance royalties typical among famous writers, and those who never read his books cannot grasp that they were neither ghostwritten nor fluff. Indeed, Gingrich's books are very high-quality products, like the writings of Churchill.

Like Gingrich, Winston Churchill in 1940 had a lot of baggage. He might not have been a good prime minister without an historical and global crisis. Indeed, during his years as prime minister after 1945, Churchill was a very forgettable figure. It was his baggage in 1940 which almost kept him from becoming prime minister, but from the hindsight of history, we can see that Churchill was the only hope for humanity ending Nazism.

Is Gingrich the last best hope in our fight against imperialist leftism and its myriad clients? He just might be. In any event, this much is sure: if Republicans reject Gingrich because of his family problems, the way he makes his living, his presumed "failures" in policy in the past, or because he is so darned cocky, then we are making the same sort of mistake that the British made up until the spring of 1940, when, at last, and at the last moment, Churchill became prime minister. In short, we will be making a fatal mistake.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_gingrich-churchill_comparison_1.html#ixzz1hHSxl4Kx

A Vandalized Valley

Victor Davis Hanson

A Vandalized Valley
While the elites make excuses, citizens cope with theft and destruction.

I am starting to feel as if I am living in a Vandal state, perhaps on the frontier near Carthage around a.d. 530, or in a beleaguered Rome in 455. Here are some updates from the rural area surrounding my farm, taken from about a 30-mile radius. In this take, I am not so much interested in chronicling the flotsam and jetsam as in fathoming whether there is some ideology that drives it.

Last week an ancestral rural school near the Kings River had its large bronze bell stolen. I think it dated from 1911. I have driven by it about 100 times in the 42 years since I got my first license. The bell had endured all those years. Where it is now I don’t know. Does someone just cut up a beautifully crafted bell in some chop yard in rural Fresno County, without a worry about who forged it or why — or why others for a century until now enjoyed its presence?

The city of Fresno is now under siege. Hundreds of street lights are out, their copper wire stripped away. In desperation, workers are now cementing the bases of all the poles — as if the original steel access doors were not necessary to service the wiring. How sad the synergy! Since darkness begets crime, the thieves achieve a twofer: The more copper they steal, the easier under cover of spreading night it is to steal more. Yet do thieves themselves at home with their wives and children not sometimes appreciate light in the darkness? Do they vandalize the street lights in front of their own homes?

In a small town two miles away, the thefts now sound like something out of Edward Gibbon’s bleaker chapters — or maybe George Miller’s Road Warrior, or the Hughes brothers’ more recent The Book of Eli. Hundreds of bronze commemorative plaques were ripped off my town’s public buildings (and with them all record of our ancestors’ public-spiritedness). I guess that is our version of Trotskyization.

The Catholic church was just looted (again) of its bronze and silver icons. Manhole covers are missing (some of the town’s own maintenance staff were arrested for this theft, no less!). The Little League clubhouse was ransacked of its equipment.

In short, all the stuff of civilization — municipal buildings, education, religion, transportation, recreation — seems under assault in the last year by the contemporary forces of barbarism. After several thefts of mail, I ordered a fortified, armored mailbox. I was ecstatic when I saw the fabricator’s Internet ad: On the video, someone with an AK-47 emptied a clip into it; the mail inside was untouched. I gleefully said to myself: “That’s the one for me.” And it has been so far. But I wonder: Do the thieves not like to get their own mail? Do their children not play Little League? Do they not want a priest at their funeral? Would they not like to drive their cars without worrying about holes in the street? Or is their thinking that a rich society can cover for their crimes without their crimes’ ever much affecting them — given that most others still do not act as they do?

I know it is popular to suggest that as we reach our sixties, everything seems “worse,” and, like Horace’s laudatores temporis acti, we damn the present in comparison to the past. Sorry, it just isn’t so. In 1961, 1971, and 1981, city street lights were not systematically de-wired. And the fact that plaques and bells of a century’s pedigree were just now looted attests that they all survived the Great Depression, the punks of the 1950s, and the crime-ridden 1970s.

A couple now in their early 90s lives about three miles away from me on their small farm. I have known them for 50 years; he went to high school with my mother, and she was my Cub Scout leader. They now live alone and have recently been robbed nine, yes, nine, times. He told me he is thinking of putting a sign out at the entrance to his driveway: “Go away! Nothing left! You’ve already taken everything we have.” Would their robbers appreciate someone else doing that to their own grandparents? Do the vandals have locks on their own doors against other vandals?

There is indeed something of the Dark Ages about all this. In the vast rural expanse between the Sierras and the Coast Ranges, and from Sacramento to Bakersfield, our rural homes are like stray sheep outside the herd, without whatever protection is offered by the density of a town. When we leave for a trip or just go into town, the predators swarm.

Last summer several cars drove into my driveway, the surprised occupants ready with all sorts of innocent-sounding inquiries: “We just are looking for a rental.” “Do you have scrap for sale?” “We’re having car trouble.” And so on.

All this serves as a sort of red/green traffic light: If someone comes out from the house, the driver poses the question and then abruptly leaves; but if no one appears, he strikes quickly. I remember three or four intruders I confronted this year who had trucks as nice as or nicer than my 2006 Toyota. Two had sports apparel more expensive than my jeans and sweatshirt. All were heavier than I. In other words, malnourishment, the desire for basic transportation, the need for clothing on their backs — all the classically cited catalysts for stealing — are not what is driving these modern vandals.

At a local gathering last week, lots of farmers — of a variety of races and religions — were swapping just such stories. In our new Vandal state, one successful theft begets another — at least once deterrence is lost. In my case, one night an old boat in the barn was stripped. Soon, the storage house was hit. Ten days later, all the antique bolts and square nails were taken from the shop. Usually — as is true with the street lights — the damage to the buildings is greater than the value of the missing items. I would have given the thieves all the lost items rather than have had to fix broken locks and doors.

I just spoke with another group of farmers at a rural fairground. Every single person I talked to has had the copper wire ripped out of his agricultural pumps within the last two years. The conduits taken from my own 15-horsepower and 10-horsepower pumps were worth about $200 at most. The repair bill was $1,500.

Most farmers have lost any steel or iron lying around their barnyards, whether their grandparents’ iron wagon hardware or valuable replacement furrowers and discs. Stories of refuse piled in their vineyards and wrecked cars fished out of their orchards are monotonous. Did the thieves never eat raisins, a peach, an almond? And did they not appreciate that if we did what they did we would all starve?

As I write, I am looking out the window toward my barn at a strange new trash pile that, presto, appeared overnight while I slept: all the accouterments of an old car — seats, dashboard, outside moldings, etc. — are heaped together, along with household garbage. What am I to do with it? I can’t burn it. (Believe me, an environmental officer would appear out of nowhere at the rising of the toxic smoke to fine me, as surely as he is absent when the garbage and refuse are tossed on the roadsides outside of town.) There is too much of it to pile into my $100-a-month Waste Management bin, where I put the plastic garbage sacks tossed by the mailbox each week. It would take two trips in my pickup to haul it to the distant county dump. So for now, the problem is mine, and not that of the miscreant who tossed it. Was he thinking, “Mr. Hanson has more time, more money, more concern over trash, or more neuroticism of some sort, and therefore is more likely to deal with my trash than I am”? — as if to say, “I can live in a neighborhood where wrecked car parts litter the road; he obviously cannot.” So are these tossers simply comfortable with refuse on our streets, or are they not, but, like irked toddlers with soiled diapers, expect someone else to clean up after them?

And is not that the point, after all? Behind the easy criminality of stealing metal or driving outside of town to toss your garbage is an implicit mentality, as frightening as it is never expressed. Someone will indeed take the garbage away. And someone indeed will have copper wire for others to harvest for their needs. And someone will pay the taxes and costs associated with the commission of the crime, efforts at prevention, and rare apprehension of the criminal. And lastly, someone most certainly should. In our crude radical egalitarianism, the fact that one has more, and another less, is de facto wrong, and invites popular remedies. Now, for every crime committed, a new sociology will arise to explain away its commission. We are back to the bankrupt French philosophers who asserted: “Property is theft!”

In the last 20 years, several vehicles have zoomed off the road and plowed into my rather short stretch of roadside vineyard. The symptomology has always been the same: The driver fled; no proof of registration or insurance was left behind. The cost of replanting the vines and replacing the stakes remained all mine. Even the car was towed away and impounded by the state for its fees. As I drive these days across the valley, I play a game of looking at vineyards abutting the road to spot newly replanted vines and fresh stakes; these car-induced blights are quite common. Occasionally, I see the Catholic version of the Orthodox iconostases so common on Greek roadsides — commemorative crosses and shrines erected to mark the spot where one driver did not survive the zoom into the vineyard or orchard.

I just asked a neighbor how many times he has been rammed at a rural intersection, with the other driver fleeing the scene and leaving the car behind (my tally: twice). He laughed and said, “None, but I can top you anyway. Last month a hit-and-run driver swerved off the road, hit the power pole next to my farm, and fled as the high-voltage cables fell onto my grape arbors — and smoked ten acres of overhead vineyard wire.”

I agreed that I could not top that. Who could imagine electrified grapes? I wonder how much in taxes the hit-and-run driver has paid this year to make up for the cost of a utility pole, and the repair of downed wires and a vineyard’s trellising system? Even more frightening are the thousands in our society — journalists, politicians, academics, activists — who get up each morning more concerned about the fleeing driver who destroys power and vines than the victims who pay for the carnage.

The immediate reaction of the victimized in rural central California is predictable and yet quite strange. As in 5th-century North Africa, farmers feel that civilization is vanishing and they are on their own. The “authorities” of an insolvent state, like petty Roman bureaucrats, are too busy releasing criminals from overcrowded jails to want any more. The stories of cyclical releases are horrific: Criminals are not arrested and let go just twice a year, but five and six and ten times. Sometimes we read of the surreal, like this week’s story in my local Selma Enterprise of one criminal’s 36 arrests and releases — and these are only for the crimes we know he committed and was caught for:

TOP STORY

Chief says: Jail revolving door hurting Selma

Crime is Topic No. 1 in Selma, which makes the story of Adam Joshua Perez worth telling. Selma Police have arrested Perez 24 times since he turned 18 in October 2004. Charges against the Selma man have included burglary, theft, possession of narcotics, and weapons-related offenses, according to interim Police Chief Myron Dyck. In that time period, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department also arrested Perez eight times, and the Kingsburg Police took him into custody four times, Dyck said. Fresno Police also were looking at him for some car thefts, Dyck added.

He calls Perez (born Oct. 23, 1986) a career criminal who’s getting the benefit of a broken criminal justice system. And there are other people like Perez on Selma’s streets, Dyck said.

Yes, there are.

There is also an unspoken acknowledgment of how state and local law enforcement now works, and it is predicated on a cost-to-benefit calculus. Reporting to the local police or sheriff a huge pile of refuse in your yard — even when the address of the tosser can be found from power bills or letters — or the theft of a tool from the barn is simply not worth the effort. It is not even worth the cost and trouble of activating a high-deductible farm-insurance policy. I guess the reasoning is that you in fact will replace the stolen item, and even if the criminal were apprehended, the costs of arrest, trial, and incarceration — even without the entrance of immigration authorities into the matrix — are too steep for a bankrupt state.

Indeed, farmers out here are beginning to feel targeted, not protected, by law enforcement. In the new pay-as-you-go state, shrouded in politically correct bureaucratese, Californians have developed a keen sense of cynicism. The scores of Highway Patrol cars that now dot our freeways are looking for the middle class — the minor, income-producing infractions of the generally law-abiding — inasmuch as in comparison the felonies of the underclass are lose–lose propositions.

If I were to use a cellphone while driving and get caught, the state might make an easy $170 for five minutes’ work. If the same officer were to arrest the dumper who threw a dishwasher or refrigerator into the local pond among the fish and ducks, the arrest and detention would be costly and ultimately fruitless, providing neither revenue from a non-paying suspect nor deterrence against future environmental sacrilege. We need middle-class misdemeanors to pay for the felonies of the underclass.

The state’s reaction to all this is a contorted exercise in blaming the victim, in both the immediate and the abstract senses. Governor Brown wants to raise income taxes on the top two brackets by 1 to 2 percentage points, making them over 11 and 12 percent respectively. That our schools are near dead last in test scores, that many of our main freeways are potholed relics from the 1960s, that we just passed the DREAM Act to extend state financial support for college-age illegal aliens, and that the overtaxed are fleeing the state do not register. Again, those who in theory can pay, should — and should keep quiet about why they must suddenly pay a 12 percent income tax that was not needed, say, in 1991, 1971, or 1961, when test scores were higher, roads better, and communities far safer.

There is, of course, a vague code of silence about who is doing the stealing, although occasionally the most flagrant offenders are caught either by sheriffs or on tape; or, in my typical case, run off only to return successfully at night. In the vast majority of cases, rural central California is being vandalized by gangs of young Mexican nationals or Mexican-Americans — in the latter case, a criminal subset of an otherwise largely successful and increasingly integrated and assimilated near majority of the state’s population. Everyone knows it; everyone keeps quiet about it — even though increasingly the victims are the established local Mexican-American middle class that now runs the city councils of most rural towns and must deal with the costs.

Out here in the Dark Ages we depend instead on truth from the oral tradition, in the manner of Homeric bards. Rural folk offer their stories of woe to help others deter crime, cognizant that official accounts in the media are either incomplete or censored to reflect a sort of Ministry of Truth groupthink.

Poverty, racism, class oppression, an uncaring society, government neglect, exploitation, greed — cite them all endlessly, as our coastal lawmakers, academics, and bureaucrats largely do. But most of these elite groups also seek to live as far away as possible from rural central California, the testing ground where their utopian imaginations become reified for distant others.

The influx of over 11 million illegal aliens has had a sort of ripple effect that is rarely calibrated. Sixty percent of Hispanic males in California are not graduating from high school. Unemployment in rural California runs about 20 percent. There is less fear now of arrest and incarceration, given the bankruptcy of the state, which, of course, is rarely officially connected even in small part to illegal immigration. Perhaps because illegal immigration poses so many mind-boggling challenges (e.g., probably over $20 billion lost to the state in remittances, the undermining of federal law, the prejudice shown against legal immigration applicants, ethnic favoritism as the engine of amnesty, subterfuge on the part of Mexico, vast costs in entitlements and subsidies), talking about it is futile. So most don’t, in fear of accusations of “racism.”

For those who do not leave the area, silence for now remains the norm. We pick up the litter from our farms on the implicit logic that the vandal — and, indeed, the state as well — expects us to, given our greater worry that his garbage would be likely to attract rats, flies, and other historical purveyors of illness. Dead cats, dirty diapers, used needles, baby carriages, shattered TVs, chairs, sofas, rotting lumber, broken windows, concrete blocks, tree limbs, used paint cans, household poisons, bags of used toilet paper and tampons, broken toys, fast-food boxes, toddler’s pools, tires, rotting chickens and dogs — anything that does not have easily detachable clean steel or copper — I’ve picked them all up from my vineyard and driveways.

I do not (yet) move wrecked Winnebagos and trailers onto my single-family-zoned rural parcel to garner rental cash, as do many of my neighbors. After all, some must not, if the careful zoning work of a century is to survive. When one dog in four is not licensed and vaccinated out here, we have a problem; when four out of four will not be, we should expect a 19th-century crisis. When there are three outdoor privies used daily behind a neighbor’s house, the local environment can still handle the flies, the odor, and the increase in the chance of disease; but if there were to be 100 in a half-mile stretch, civilization itself would break down.

Cynicism is the result. We pay no attention to news accounts of new state measures to check the source of metals presented at recycling centers, because we know these efforts are futile — as futile as the “seminars” in which we are told to fence everything in, to buy huge guard dogs, to install video cameras in trees, and to acquire electric gates — as if we were not so much being protected but being held prisoner.

I stay here, however, because I now ask: Why should we change our way of life rather than demanding that those who are changing it should look inward and themselves change?

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of the just-released The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.

Gingrich and the Fear Factor

By Arnold Cusmariu

Gingrich's alleged "baggage" and doubts about his electability don't fully explain why, despite his high standing in the polls, the GOP establishment has been shunning the former Speaker of the House, when not showing outright hostility toward him.

The current Speaker of the House, John Boehner, must be considered a prominent opponent, behind the scenes so far. Boehner, it will be recalled, led the rebellion to remove Gingrich from his post as Speaker back in 1998, joined in this eventually successful effort by Bill Paxon, Dick Armey, and Tom DeLay (all now out of office). The day after being re-elected to an 11th term by his Georgia constituents, Gingrich announced that he would stand down as Speaker and resign his seat. As reported in the November 8, 1998 New York Times, he minced no words during a phone conference with colleagues Joe Barton of Texas, Rob Portman of Ohio, Fred Upton of Michigan and RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson, stating "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals." Ouch!

As a historian capable of taking the long view in politics and elsewhere, Gingrich knows full well what it means to be deposed. Luckily, in a democracy such things result only in loss of power. Charles I, Louis XVI, and Tsar Nicholas II, to cite some famous historical examples, lost a lot more than that. A deposed leader left alive can still be targeted if seen as a threat, as Trotsky found out. Napoleon was luckier; after Waterloo he only got relocated to St. Helena. An ousted leader who returns to power is likely to be unkind to those who kicked him out, possibly looking to return the favor, even in a democracy.

Boehner is hardly alone in fearing a Gingrich presidency. A true insider, Gingrich knows who among his fellow politicians (from his day and since) stands for what -- the real deal not the sort of palaver politicians offer up when they are on their best behavior on TV for the sake of keeping up appearances knowing that it's on the record and that constituents are watching. I mean argument (often heated) and behavior (not always polite) behind closed doors where no one can see or hear what transpired except those in the room. In short, Gingrich knows who the jerks are. And they know that he knows. This makes him dangerous. Anybody who knows where the bodies are buried is a threat to whoever was involved in the burials, no matter how long ago or by whose fault.

If Gingrich gets the nod at the GOP convention next summer, it's a good question how hard he will work to get Republicans elected in the fall. His former nemesis John Boehner certainly wants to come back as Speaker and preside over an even larger majority in the House. Will Gingrich want Boehner to stay on as Speaker? It will depend on how loyal to him as President Gingrich believes Boehner and the GOP House contingent will be. So, the lot of them will have to come over and convince him that they deserve support. Gingrich and Boehner will have to mend fences somehow, not a simple thing in light of past bad blood. Otherwise, Gingrich will do the numbers, figure out how many seats he needs to keep the House and win the Senate, and the rest ... good luck. The "cannibals," if any, will certainly be on the endangered list. It is not a comfortable position to be in if you're a Republican running for office next year with Gingrich as GOP standard bearer, knowing you will have to deal with somebody who is nobody's fool, is not just another party hack, goes for the jugular, and can make deals with the opposition if necessary to get the job done.

There's also the fact that Gingrich is smarter and better educated than just about everyone in Congress, now or for a long time. Gingrich knows it and has been known to rub it in. Paul Ryan right now is the only member of Congress who can come close to him in IQ, but not in level of education or responsibility. I've seen Newt speak on several occasions, including televised debates, and he gets to the point and sees the heart of the matter more quickly than any politician I know. He defends his views with cogent arguments like a logic professor -- I ought to know having been one myself. It can be intimidating to get into a debate with someone that smart who is quick on his feet and pulls no punches. Gingrich won't "need no stinking teleprompter" in future speeches as president. He also has a wicked sense of humor, knows how to use it effectively and isn't reluctant in the least to cut someone to pieces with a joke or sarcastic remark. He's done it many times and no doubt will continue to do it. Who wants to look silly on national television?

Gingrich ran the House as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and was Minority Whip from 1989 to 1995. These are credentials that his competitors do not come even close to matching. The only GOP seniors who outrank him right now are President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. Neither has made a formal endorsement, probably waiting until the primaries are over. Bill Clinton said good things about Gingrich as a "kiss of death" bit of reverse psychology, designed to give an already scared GOP establishment one more reason to look elsewhere. Has the former president forgotten who led impeachment proceedings against him in the House? I doubt it. Clinton "endorsed" Gingrich knowing what a formidable opponent he would be against Obama.

Bottom line: The GOP establishment is scared of Gingrich because there's significant doubt he can be relied upon to toe the party line. Yes, he's unpredictable, which the press has portrayed negatively in an effort to discredit him, even the conservative press - "loose cannon," "own worst enemy," and all that. The truth is that he's shown time and again that he is a man of principle and puts national interest above partisan politics. That's what this country needs right now, and badly too.

How well Gingrich handles the "fear factor" problems I've described will determine whether he gets the nod next summer, assuming he makes it through the primaries with enough delegates. Showing graciousness toward fellow debaters was a good start.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/gingrich_and_the_fear_factor.html#ixzz1hDGf9Pgs

Am I No Longer Fit to Be a Conservative?

By Steve McCann

I have often thought of myself as a staunch conservative. However, over the past five weeks I have come to realize, thanks to a solid majority of the conservative chattering class and their vitriol against Newt Gingrich, that I am, per Glenn Beck, a "closet Progressive"; per Ann Coulter, "not a real conservative"; per George Will, "a Marxist"; and per National Review, and numerous other so-called conservative publications, "unfit to represent the conservative movement."

With so many people obviously smarter than I sitting in judgment, I must confess that, based on their criteria, they are right. But who is the epitome of the movement?

In the 1980s, I was an owner of a consulting company that numbered among its clients an evil pharmaceutical company, SmithKline. But that wasn't the worst of it. We also had a contract with the Resolution Trust Corporation. The RTC was a government entity set up to consolidate and liquidate the assets of nearly a thousand failed Savings and Loans. We had as one of our principals a recently retired assistant IRS commissioner who not only had a wealth of knowledge, but knew the contracting officers at the RTC. Yes, I admit that we used his expertise and connections to obtain the contract.

It has now been made clear to me by those sitting atop the Mount Olympus of conservatism that regardless of a person's area of expertise or whether one is in the private sector or if someone has connections based on prior work, it is an egregious sin to actually make money, regardless of how well the job is done, working for an entity such as the RTC or Freddie Mac. Further, I am certain that these same arbiters of conservatism have never used their status or connections to obtain lucrative advertising endorsements, book deals, or appearances on Fox News or other media outlets.

One day during this same period of time, I happened to be having lunch with an old friend at the Palm in Washington, D.C. In walked Ted Kennedy with one of his senior aides. My friend, who had known Ted Kennedy for many years going back to their days at the University of Virginia Law School, took me over to meet him. Ever ebullient, Ted Kennedy asked us to join him, and we did. Yes -- I confess to the world that I sat at the same table and broke bread with the contemptible (to many conservatives) Ted Kennedy. Worse still, I found him to be quite affable and likable, even when we discussed the political landscape.

There it is: my work for the RTC and sitting at the same table with Ted Kennedy are, I now understand, more than enough to drum me out of the legion of committed conservatives as defined by the establishment. But in the spirit of true confession, there is more.

As many readers of American Thinker site are aware, I am a survivor of World War II and a displaced war orphan. Therefore, I consider Franklin Roosevelt to be one of the greatest presidents of the past one hundred years. Not for the statist policies he pursued which resulted in prolonging the Great Depression, but for his leadership during World War II, the defining event of the 20^th century. There were 16 presidents during that century, and I had considered the top to be (in no particular order) Coolidge, Reagan, F. Roosevelt, and Truman.

I now know that giving any recognition to Franklin Roosevelt is tantamount to an admission of being a closet "progressive," as Glenn Beck, the Lord High Executioner of the Court of Ideological Purity, would brand me.

But my sordid past does not end there. I did not have the opportunity to experience a childhood. Once adopted, I learned English with the dedicated help of a 4-foot-10-inch dynamo by the name of Sister Mary Clare and by reading from cover to cover every volume of the Funk and Wagnall's encyclopedia my adoptive parents picked up at the grocery store every few weeks. Unable to relate to others within my age group, I spent many hours in the library and read voraciously books on science, history, medicine, and biographies of prominent people of the past. In later years, I would openly discuss new ideas or theories, either fanciful or based on science and fact. I would gush forth with any thought that came into my fertile and sometimes overactive brain, as I was the epitome of a jack of all trades and master of none.

Now I am told that that very trait indicates that I am unreliable, prone to hyperbole, a buffoon, and most of all, incapable of leadership. I never knew.

I have always lived under the assumption that people would be judged by their accomplishments as well as their ongoing determination to overcome the human frailties to which all of us are subject. In my own case, I have had a lifelong war with the demons of my youth, having lost more battles than I won. However, I now understand that these transgressions are never forgiven and become the fodder for ridicule depending on one's standing with the current self-appointed caretakers of conservatism. Needless to say, those now sitting in judgment have never had any moral or ethical lapses.

Lastly, since October of 2008, I have written and published over 140 columns and essays -- mostly on the American Thinker website, but also on Investor's Business Daily and the American Spectator sites, among others. This output amounts to perhaps 170,000 words. I am certain that contained within that volume of verbiage are positions or phrasing that would be considered unacceptable by the arbiters of conservative thought. Therefore, I am no doubt guilty of some or perhaps numerous statements that would render me an undesirable in the conservative movement.

There is an old adage that confession is good for the soul, perhaps, but I must also confess to some confusion.

Mitt Romney is described by Ann Coulter as "the one true conservative left in the race," and much of the conservative chattering class has overtly or tacitly endorsed him for president. Yet he stubbornly defends RomneyCare (the precursor to ObamaCare), he has, in the past, described himself as a moderate and progressive, he was for abortion before he was against it, he claims to believe in man-made global warming, he raised taxes every year and increased annual spending much higher than the inflation rate during his tenure as Massachusetts governor, he has a well-earned reputation for "changing his mind" on many issues, and he has been very muted in his criticism of Barack Obama.

Is this now the pundit class and establishment version of conservatism? Is Mitt Romney the epitome of an acceptable "conservative"? Apparently so. That being the case, I cheerfully accept the verdict of the conservative cognoscenti that I am not a "true" conservative.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/am_i_no_longer_fit_to_be_a_conservative.html#ixzz1h7BALF00

Neuter Obama

By William L. Gensert

Newt Gingrich will fight Barack Obama. He will challenge him on every fact, and point out every failure. The man likes to hear himself talk, which, in this case, is a good thing. Some credit his recent surge in the polls to his debating skills. Having been told for years of Barack Obama's brilliance, many have a visceral longing to see him destroyed in debate. Admittedly, an opportunity to show the world the true brilliance of Obama is hard to resist.

They say Gingrich is an idea man, but has Barack Obama ever come up with a new idea, or a new approach? No, it's always the same thing, spend, spend, spend, with him deciding where, which is why 80% of the many billions we threw at green energy went to Obama supporters. His stimulus legislation, written by others, and including every liberal lunacy of the last half century, also rewarded backers of Barack.

Newt Gingrich is Newt Gingrich. Barack Obama has never been his own man. First he was Lincoln, even choosing to follow Lincoln's 1861 inaugural route for his own coronation. Then, they told us he was FDR; he was going to change everything, the very definition of America, maybe get his face on some currency. Then, he was JFK, a transcendent figure, larger than life, destined for glory and immortalization in the annals of history. Then, he was Reagan; Obama would transform the nation, just as the "Gipper" had. Then, he was Truman, bravely running against a do-nothing Congress. His most recent incarnation is as Teddy Roosevelt, railing against an unfair system, designed so "the rich get richer and the poor get children." Obama has been so many people; it's hard to keep count. The only person he has never been is Barack Obama. For that, he needs a second term.

Maybe that's why his wife refuses to even share a plane with him, always choosing to travel solo on Air Force 2, while he takes Air Force 1 to the same destination, only hours later, as they did on their summer sojourn to Martha's Vineyard. With respect to their annual winter vacation to Hawaii, Michelle's already there. He stayed behind to lecture America on the need to give him more money. No matter, each has their own plane, and no expense is ever spared to ensure they are never inconvenienced by the needs of the nation.

Will Mitt Romney be credible complaining about this? A rich man, perfectly coifed and mannered, he probably owns his own jet, maybe two. Whereas, Newt always looks like he is wearing the same shirt he had on the day before. If you don't know who Newt Gingrich is, he will surely tell you. Who is Mitt Romney? He became flustered when Bret Baier, a friendly face, tried to find out.

Clinton called the 80s the "decade of greed." Obama rails against the greedy 1%. He claims America has been in decline for decades. Despite his brilliance, he hasn't had enough time to cure this calamity. This is why he needs another term; those who created the problems, along with Republicans, have stymied his brilliant solutions, choosing to damage the nation instead, just to score political points.

Newt Gingrich will call this argument the lie it is; he will tell the President, that the problem is him. Would Romney do the same?

The man has inspiration, he has ideas -- often too many ideas, some almost progressive. Yet, today, he is unabashedly conservative. Is Romney a conservative, is he inspiring?

They say he has baggage. Everyone knows his history, the divorces, the lobbying, his giant ego. Alice Roosevelt Longworth said of her father, Teddy. "He wants to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and the baby at every christening." This certainly applies to Obama, but I'm not so sure it doesn't also apply to Gingrich as well. However, no man can claim a bigger ego than our President, the "one," the man "we've been waiting for," who was going to "slow the rise of the oceans," and heal the planet, the man who famously said "I'm LeBron, baby."

Yet, Gingrich never made a habit of voting "present." Obama, as an Illinois State Senator, did. Voting "yes" or "no" is evidence of conviction. Voting "present" hides belief for political purposes. All three men have been running for President their entire lives. At least Gingrich left a trail of policy proclamations and votes. Obama had no record, until after he was President-and since then, it's been all failure. Romney gave the country Romneycare.

They say Gingrich was out negotiated by Bill Clinton. This is revisionist history. He cleaned Clinton's clock, getting the liberal President to accept the entire conservative agenda, to the betterment of the nation. Deregulating telecommunications, welfare reform and balancing the budget with tax cuts, not increases, were Newt's greatest triumphs, even if Clinton took all the credit. Gingrich put the nation's interest above his own. Has Barack Obama, with his eternal campaign, ever put America's interests first? He has scheduled every major decision or program for after the election; the taxes to pay for ObamaCare start in 2013. He claims the Keystone XL pipeline needs more study, until at least 2013. Recently, he forced the EPA to shelve stringent new ozone regulations, but promised to revisit the issue...wait for it...in 2013. "13" must be his lucky number; let's hope "12" is not.

America needs a candidate who will fight, and Newt Gingrich is a fighter. He is also one of 2 candidates Barack Obama does not want to run against. The other is Herman Cain. Sharon Bialek, one of Cain's accusers, lives in David Axelrod's building. Most smut is usually saved for the general election, but Obama was not willing to run against a black man. He can't afford to lose the race card.

Mitt Romney is clearly the Obama-approved candidate. He almost never gets bad press. They're waiting until the general election to release the hounds. First up, he will be called a racist, because he is a Mormon, and his church did not allow blacks as full members until 1978, when Mitt was 31 years-old. He was voluntarily a member of a racist organization for the first 10 years of his adult life -- at least that's what they will say. Romney will spend the entire campaign apologizing.

Obama will destroy him; by the time he and the media are done, his own wife probably won't vote for him. Add in Romneycare as the father of ObamaCare, and the President's most unpopular legislative abomination is lost as a campaign issue. If voters accept one, then they accept the other. Why vote for Obama light, when you can have Obama classic?

Newt is a conservative always trying to move to the center, whereas Mitt is a progressive pretending to move to the right.

To Barack Obama, America's best days are behind her. He wants to divvy up during the decline, the spoils of our previous success, in a fair and balanced way. In other words, his supporters get everything and the rest of us pay for it. Newt Gingrich believes America's best days are still ahead. He wants equal opportunity, not equal results. I'm not sure what Mitt Romney believes, we would have to take a poll first.

Barack Obama is a desperate man, he will fight dirty. Mitt has never been dirty. Newt is already dirty.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/neuter_obama.html#ixzz1gzxb4Yam

Did Pelosi Commit Blackmail?

By Bruce Walker

House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi recently said that if Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee, she will disclose what Americans do not now know about him out of confidential House Ethics Committee investigations. Newt noted that this was an ethical violation itself, which caused Pelosi to back off her earlier threat, but there is more at issue than just House Ethics Committee rules.

The House Democrat Leader may well have committed blackmail. Consider the common-law definition: "Blackmail is gaining or attempting to gain anything of value or compelling another to act against such person's will, by threatening to communicate accusations or statements about any person that would subject such person or any other person to public ridicule, contempt or degradation." Is not that precisely what Pelosi did?

We are accustomed to think of the related crimes of blackmail and extortion producing a monetary payoff, but that is not always the case. Not only is obtaining sex by means of threats to reveal hurtful or embarrassing information considered blackmail, but the consummation of that sexual payoff may also be rape. What must be demanded is "anything of value" or "compelling another to act against such person's will." Those phrases encompass much more than cash.

Surely, compelling someone to drop out of a political race falls under that definition of blackmail. Can House Democrat Leader Pelosi blackmail people with impunity because of her high federal office? No. Blackmail is a federal offense under 18 U.S. Code §873, and it is considered a more serious crime if committed by a federal official. What if a House Ethics Committee staff member called Pelosi up and threatened to reveal information about her unless she decided not to run for re-election? Is that blackmail or extortion? Sure.

Does it matter that Gingrich himself is willing to let the matter slide? No: blackmail, especially of a candidate for the presidency, is a crime against our entire electoral system and against the people. If what House Democrat Leader Pelosi did was a crime, then it was a crime whether or not the person blackmailed wishes to pursue it or not.

Why did House Democrat Leader Pelosi engage in such underhanded behavior so publicly? The answer is simple: blackmail and extortion on a grand scale make up the heart and soul of modern leftism. In the late 1980s, House Democrat Whip Tony Coelho informed the business world that it would be wise to support Democrats because "[w]e are going to be the majority party around here a long time."

Blackmail and extortion are even easier than bribery because they do not require appropriations of tax dollars, but rather nebulous regulations, taxes, and other crippling burdens on behalf of the environment, racial minorities, labor unions, women's rights, and the punishment of whatever putative "crime" the the left can invent.

Why are so many conservatives afraid to say what they think? Ask Herman Cain, or ask Clarence Thomas about his ordeal 20 years ago, or ask Rush Limbaugh, who knows that anything the left can get on him, they will threaten to use against him. Cain, Thomas, and Limbaugh, to their inestimable credit, could not be stared down by the mafia dons of leftism. But many decent Americans are not that strong.

Illegal threats -- blackmail or extortion -- make for some of the baser tools left to the dreary, heartless grandees of leftism. They cannot persuade -- indeed, men like Obama do not even dare call themselves "liberal" to America -- so they use the same sort of "persuasion" that organized crime uses. Sometimes, like with House Democrat Leader Pelosi's recent comments about Gingrich, the familiar threat of exposure or of future injury, which Pelosi has doubtless rolled out many times behind closed doors, is simply stated to the world, as if this revolting behavior were perfectly proper.

So what will happen to Pelosi now? She has completed the felony -- backtracking does not undo the crime. You know what will happen as well as I do: nothing at all. The ugly blackmail and extortion racket that would make us rage against private citizens makes us yawn when leftist politicians do it. As Hannah Arendt, the famous student of totalitarianism, might have described it, what Pelosi did to Gingrich has become to us the banality of evil.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/did_pelosi_commit_blackmail.html#ixzz1gzqlAJE8

Congress overturns incandescent light bulb ban

By Stephen Dinan

Congressional negotiators struck a deal Thursday that overturns the new rules that were to have banned sales of traditional incandescent light bulbs beginning next year.
That agreement is tucked inside the massive 1,200-page spending bill that funds the government through the rest of this fiscal year, and which both houses of Congress will vote on Friday. Mr. Obama is expected to sign the bill, which heads off a looming government shutdown.
Congressional Republicans dropped almost all of the policy restrictions they tried to attach to the bill, but won inclusion of the light bulb provision, which prevents the Obama administration from carrying through a 2007 law that would have set energy efficiency standards that effectively made the traditional light bulb obsolete.
Stopping the bulb ban was a chief GOP priority coming into this year, with all of the candidates seeking to become chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee saying they would push through a repeal. That bill cleared the House but Democrats blocked its consideration in the Senate.
House Republicans then insisted on adding a provision into the year-end spending bill, and it was one of the last major sticking-points in the negotiations.
The spending bill doesn’t actually amend the 2007 law, but does prohibit the administration from spending any money to carry out the light bulb standards — which amounts to at least a temporary reprieve.
The spending bill is full of similar provisions that are included year after year to restrict what administrations can do.
At $915 billion in discretionary spending, the bill amounts to $750.6 million per page, and funds the vast majority of government operations, from defense to homeland security to federal parks. Since it is a must-pass bill, it also becomes a major battleground for policy fights such as the light bulbs.
Among the other policy riders attached to the bill is a requirement that all new federal employees be run through E-Verify, the voluntary government system for checking to see if employees are authorized to work in the U.S.; restrictions on the administration transferring suspected terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the U.S.; and a ban on the District of Columbia using government money to pay for abortions.
The GOP tried but failed to attach restrictions on the Obama administration’s nuclear waste policy, its international family planning policy and major restrictions on the president’s environmental agenda. Mr. Obama and Democrats also forced Republicans to remove provisions that would have prevented him from requiring government contractors to disclose their political contributions — though they cannot be required to disclose them as part of an application for a loan or grant.
“These contentious policy riders had no place in our annual appropriations bills, and it was encouraging that we were able to remove nearly all of them from the final version of this bill,” said Rep. Norm Dicks, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

Moonbat Alert

"The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals. It has a macroeconomic impact. As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said at a briefing on Capitol Hill.

Moonbat Alert

Voter ID Is Not Jim Crow

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE

Voter ID Is Not Jim Crow

In a speech at the LBJ Library at the University of Texas–Austin, Attorney General Eric Holder attacked efforts by state legislators to ensure the integrity of the ballot box. In a setting obviously designed to evoke Lyndon Johnson’s historic signing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, Holder railed against voter-ID laws and other election-reform measures. While minimizing the danger of fraud, Holder seemed oblivious to the irony of doing so at the LBJ Library: It was, after all, the infamous Ballot Box 13 and the stolen 1948 election that launched LBJ’s political career.

As the government’s chief lawyer, Holder is tasked with enforcing federal election laws in an objective, nonpartisan, race-neutral manner. Instead, Holder parroted the talking points of the Democratic National Committee and racial-grievance organizations, falsely comparing voter-ID requirements and other election reforms with the violent efforts of state officials to keep black citizens from the polls a half-century ago. Holder claimed that such practices “remain all too common.”

This comparison insults the heroic work of so many who helped end the injustices of Jim Crow. It is also quite ironic to hear Holder refer to the fire hoses, bullets, bombs, and billy clubs that voters had to confront in the 1960s, given that his Justice Department dismissed the voter-intimidation lawsuit it had won by default against the New Black Panther Party and its billy-club-wielding thugs, who menaced voters in Philadelphia in 2008. His Justice Department has made it clear that it does not believe in the race-neutral enforcement of our voting-rights laws.

Holder also incorporated into his speech Rep. John Lewis’s absurd claim that election-reform efforts are “a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions” of minority and other voters from going to the polls. This shows how the paranoid fantasies of the Left infect the attorney general and his entire department. Voter-ID laws have been in place in Georgia and Indiana for more than five years, and none of the hysterical claims made by opponents have materialized. As NRO has documented, turnout of minority voters did not decrease in those states — it increased significantly. Voters certainly disagree with Holder: Polls show overwhelming support for voter-ID laws across racial, ethnic, and party lines.

Holder said that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division would “thoroughly” review these state policies and “apply the law.” But if that were an accurate description of how Holder’s Civil Rights Division evaluates voting laws, the voter-ID laws submitted by Texas and South Carolina for review under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would have already been approved.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Indiana’s voter-ID law was constitutional, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals approved Georgia’s voter-ID law as nondiscriminatory. In fact, the Justice Department itself cleared Georgia’s law under the Voting Rights Act. Both of these laws are similar to the Texas and South Carolina policies that are now under review. Holder’s disregard of precedent is an improper and rank politicization of the process.

Holder’s foolish imaginings about voter-ID requirements should come as no surprise. After all, the government-transparency group Judicial Watch has discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request that the White House and the Justice Department have been consulting with — and getting recommendations on new hires from — current and former officials of ACORN, dozens of whose employees have been convicted of voter fraud.

Holder’s attitude should concern all Americans who want next year’s elections to be fair, secure, and overseen by an impartial and professional Department of Justice.

Jawing for the Presidency

Impromptus by Jay Nordlinger

I have some scribbles for you on the latest GOP presidential debate, held in Sioux City, Iowa. Nothing major, nothing all-encompassing — just a few scribbles.

When Rick Perry is introduced, he gives the crowd a thumbs-up. Cheesy. But kind of likable.

Ron Paul’s supporters give him a huge cheer of welcome. Virtually a roar. He makes an unlikely gladiator, doesn’t he?

Newt Gingrich says “Merry Christmas.” And he says “Christmas” again! He is a radical, just as people say.

Is “Merry Christmas” legal in Sioux City? Must be.

His comparison of himself to Reagan in 1980 — too risky, not electable — is very canny. Brilliant, actually.

Um, President Obama will not agree to seven three-hour debates. He is not a moron.

When Gingrich ticks off his record as a conservative, you think, “Yup — that’s a pretty impressive conservative record.” Newt always says he “created” the Republican majority that emerged in 1994. He did not create it. He helped it along, big-time.

Holy moly, is Megyn Kelly pretty. I guess people don’t watch Fox News for nothing.

Sorry if I seem surprised. I’m a little behind in my TV watching. When I was a TV-watcher, Deborah Norville was the Megyn Kelly. Deborah Norville was — amazing.

Don’t think I’ve ever seen Megyn — Megan, Meghan — spelled that way.

Ron Paul says that “probably anybody up here can beat Obama.” So not true.

Paul describes his foreign policy as “pro-American.” Oh, is that what it is? Then Ronald Reagan’s, which was the antithesis of Paul’s, must have been anti-American.

Santorum says, if I have heard him correctly, that we need a nominee who is “strong in his political life and in his personal life.” Shot at Newt?

Romney is funny when he says he missed his chance at investing in JetBlue. This is the airline founded by David Neeleman, an excellent and, as far as I know, highly admirable Mormon businessman.

Michele Bachmann, as I have said before, is a swell-looking Scandinavian, a belle of the Upper Midwest. But her makeup is unflattering on this night — Tammy Faye-ish.

Remember, I’m an opinion journalist, scribbling on the Internet. I’m not Walter Cronkite, circa 1971. I can talk like this.

Bachmann says she’s “the first Republican woman out of the state of Minnesota.” Well, that’s cutting it awfully fine, isn’t it?

Do you know what I mean? You’re not gonna make me stop and elaborate in Impromptus, are you?

I like that she states, forthrightly, “I’m 55 years old.” Confidence.

Perry makes me smile when he says that he has come to enjoy the debates. He’s all eager about them. And he looks forward to debating Obama in the fall. “I’ll get there early”!

Not unshrewdly, he hitches his star to Tim Tebow’s wagon. He wants to be the Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucus.

Goofy but nice.

He has a certain joy in politics, which not everybody does. (Remember the Hump and the “politics of joy”?)

Huntsman, it seems, is positioning himself as the serious candidate: no BS, no ingratiation, America is in a deep, horrible hole, and we have to climb our way out.

Did he really say “screwed,” as in what Americans are getting?

Santorum, I believe, talked about “free markets and free people.” Makes me think of the original Republican slogan, in 1856: “Free labor, free land, free men.”

Newt describes Obama as a “Saul Alinsky radical.” You don’t have to convince me, but what about the country at large? And do they know it’s a bad thing?

Paul talks about the welfare party and the warfare party, i.e., the Democrats and the Republicans. Neat little demagogue, Ron Paul.

Romney says that Obama hasn’t lived in the “real world” of the private sector. True, pretty much. And Romney is very good when he talks about job-creation and entrepreneurship.

But it might serve him, politically, to say something about a safety net (which was Reagan’s term). Capitalism scares the bejesus out of people. It really does, whether they admit it or not.

There’s a reason these socialists get elected over and over, you know.

Gingrich, when he talks about his record on housing, reminds me of Jack Kemp. Kemp talked incessantly about “realizing the dream of home ownership.”

Of course, when people buy houses they can’t afford . . .

Bachmann is crisp, very crisp.

When Michele or someone else says something bad about Newt, Newt gives the moderator a look and a grin that says, “Okay, my turn in a minute . . .”

What Newt says about forming a consensus, when going about a big change in American life? Makes perfect sense. That’s one reason many people resent ObamaCare: It was rammed through when the country was split.

Paul says that, if we’re going to have the big federal government we have, he’s going to look out for his district. Makes sense, to me. That was one of Bill Buckley’s responses when he was asked about Firing Line and PBS: If we’re going to have PBS, there might as well be one conservative voice on it, not a liberal monopoly.

When Paul talks about “policing their lifestyle,” not sure what he means. Sodomy laws? Abortion? Rules against baggy pants?

Neil Cavuto asks Perry a gotcha question about Texas — something to do with Perry’s record as ag commissioner.

You know, in my observation, you can’t really “get” Perry on Texas. He knows the subject better than the questioners, the would-be getters.

So, Perry thinks the U.S. Congress should meet as infrequently as the Texas legislature? Every other year? Come on, Rick.

I don’t believe he really thinks that. I think it just came out of his mouth.

Huntsman says that he invited dissidents to meet him at the American embassy in Beijing. That’s good. Unfortunately, a lot of dissidents aren’t available to come to the embassy.

Where’s Gao Zhisheng, for instance? He’s been “disappeared” for a long time. Dead? Does he wish he were?

One of the greatest men alive. Or dead.

Huntsman keeps saying that the U.S.-China relationship will be the most important of the 21st century. How the hell does he know that?

Did people in 1911 really know about the 20th century? Come on, Huntsman!

Romney is at his best when he’s asked what sectors the jobs will come in. He says he is not a central planner. People operating in a free market will determine these things.

What was he supposed to say, “Plastics,” like the guy in The Graduate?

Megyn Kelly looks like she wants to school Newt Gingrich in the Constitution — balance of powers and all that. I’m thinking, “Big mistake. Newt is not really schoolable in the Constitution.”

In what he says about the courts and their proper place in American society? Right as rain (to borrow a British expression). For years, ignoramuses have said, “The courts have spoken,” as though that were the end of the story. Sometimes you hear, “Well, the courts haven’t ruled on that yet.” So how could a person know what to think?

Often, candidates or officeholders, when asked about an issue, will say, “According to the courts . . .” Okay, but what do you think?

Lots of people swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Not just judges.

Tell ’em, Newtsky!

People try to school Romney on his record in Massachusetts. They never really get it done. He knows better than they.

I have known many people in sports, politics, the arts, and other fields. Not sure I’ve ever come across a worse bragger than Rick Santorum. I have a feeling he’s unaware of what he does.

Gingrich refers to Scalia as “the most intellectual” justice. That’s a compliment, right?

This is Paul on Iran, basically: Just relax. Don’t worry. Don’t get your knickers in a twist. Nukes, schmukes. America’s a bunch of warmongers. None of our business.

I recall a story about a survivor of Auschwitz. After the war, he was asked what he had learned over the past several years. He said, “When someone says he intends to kill you, believe him.”

Paul on al-Qaeda: Quit provoking them! If we leave ’em alone, they’ll leave us alone.

It is irksome enough when Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky talks this way. A candidate for the Republican nomination for president?

He says that we have “declared war on 1.2 billion Muslims.” Who has?

Again, Paul says what the hard and crazy Left says. That’s fine for the hard and crazy Left. Do we need this talk in the Republican primaries?

When Romney talks about defense and security, I think of a phrase from Reagan days: “Weakness is provocative.” I also think of a slogan: “Peace Through Strength.” Romney doesn’t use any of these words. But he gets his points across.

On the subject of Iraq, Bachmann makes perfect sense. I didn’t quite realize she was that kind of politician. I knew she knew the tax code. But her Iraq spiel was impressive.

When she says “fools and knaves” — a common phrase — I think she means “fools and naïfs.”

I should say, chillen, that I’m working without a transcript.

Newt is a big talker, and a grandiose talker, sure. A little gassy, like Obama. Maybe a lot gassy. But, you know? He’s also a straight talker.

Recently, he gave us some straight talk — very rare straight talk — on the Arab-Israeli conflict. And at tonight’s debate, he gives us some straight talk on the U.N. Some gloriously straight talk. He’s not hyper-critical; he’s just — accurate.

Tell it, Newt!

Governor Perry’s pronunciation of Israel is priceless. Comes off “Izrul.”

Unless I’m mistaken, every candidate is asked a question about foreign policy except Romney.

Cavuto goes back to Perry with another gotcha thing about Texas. But Perry can’t really be got.

Remember where Palin was at her most assured, in ’08? You couldn’t mess with her on Alaska. At all.

Stands to reason . . .

Perry mentions getting Washington out of governors’ hair. I’m thinking, “He has a tremendous amount of hair to be gotten out of.” The guy makes Romney look like Yul Brynner (not quite).

Romney has gone for, what, an hour without a question?

Tonight, Santorum seems chummy with Perry on the question of border security. Not so long ago, he was accusing the governor of Texas of being “weak on national sovereignty.”

Uh-huh.

Romney is mentioning Rudy Giuliani, and favorably! Funny — ’cause Giuliani is all over the media bashing Mitt and boosting Newt.

Chris Wallace really grills Romney on his social-issue flip-flops, or emphases, or evolutions, or whatever we wish to say. Romney parries okay. Just okay.

Bachmann breaks in to say, “I’m a serious candidate. My facts are accurate.” That sounds a little pathetic — the “I’m a serious candidate.” If you have to say it, are you?

But her anger is kind of interesting. Kind of effective. Almost arresting. She doesn’t want to be dissed. She’s ticked at Newt, for giving her the back of his hand.

A little righteous indignation in a candidate — again, not at all bad.

There they go again — someone brings up Ronald Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment,” to wit, “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.”

I wish someone would say, “Oh, you mean the guy who challenged a sitting Republican president for the nomination? Brought it down to the wire? That guy?”

Gingrich says that any member of the current Republican field would make a better president than Obama. Whether he means that about Paul, I doubt. Whether he would place the nation’s security in the hands of Ron Paul, I doubt.

When Gingrich is good, he’s very good. Thrilling. A thrilling politician. But there’s the erraticism, the “baggage,” etc., etc. Romney will probably never be thrilling. But is he trustworthy, solid, capable? Seems so.

Talk soon.