Truth is what stands the test of experience.
Albert Einstein
You Read It Here First: Bachmann is OUT...
From my Dec. 29 post (with original emphasized text):
It seems clear that Michele Bachmann, whose campaign director recently defected to the Ron Paul campaign, is putting most (if not all) of her resources into Iowa; it's very difficult to see how her campaign is able to survive without a first-tier finish here: the subsequent primary polls mirror her single-digit status, she has a very difficult time raising money to sustain a campaign on low poll numbers, and she needs a good finish in Iowa to give her momentum and raise her numbers elsewhere. My take: Bachmann will not finish in the money next week and will effectively withdraw from the race shortly thereafter.More Political Potpourri and Critique of Fox News Coverage
FNC analysts (both conservative and liberal) continue to disappoint me. I watched only an hour or two today and didn't hear every analyst they had, but take the Bachmann withdrawal and then Rick Perry's swerve (the reassessment of one's candidate after a fifth place finish in Iowa and looking at reassessing one's campaign which almost everyone took (just like Herman Cain)) to hint that he would go to South Carolina (implying he would skip New Hampshire, where he's not polling well).
I was waiting for analysts to make two obvious points , and it certainly didn't arise during the time I listened to coverage, and there was considerable post-caucus coverage during those time periods. First, both Bachmann and Perry are notable incumbent politicians enjoying Tea Party support; I have no doubt Perry hopes to capitalize off Bachmann's departure from the campaign. Second, Perry kicked off his campaign in South Carolina; when Perry kicked off his campaign, he was in a very strong position in the South. He was already making an argument against Santorum as not being a deficit hawk (Medicare expansion, Bridge to Nowhere). With Gingrich's campaign trying to stabilize his fall in the polls, Perry probably sees both Santorum and Gingrich as vulnerable as career inside-the-Beltway politicians with limited financing. He may think he can carry the non-Romney bracket and seek that conservatives will coalesce behind him by default. (I'm not sure that's realistic; voters just can't see him debating Obama next fall.)
I do NOT like the shallow analysis arguing that Romney's victory was primarily bought and paid for; you would think at least some pundits would have pointed out that Perry's money was several times per voter more than was spent by the Romney forces--and it would be fair to say that the anti-Gingrich ads were probably more to the benefit of Santorum whom won the fickle non-Romney conservative vote by default. It really has nothing to do with Santorum's message suddenly catching fire.
Bill O'Reilly attacked Ron Paul earlier this week, bashing him on only one nonessential piece of legislation (out of 620 sponsored/co-sponsored) into law over his career as a Congressman and labeling him as the Goldwater candidate of the election. Since I endorsed Ron Paul, let me give a brief response: First of all, Mr. O'Reilly--I bet you didn't know this, but we're not electing a super-legislator: we're electing a President. We want a President whom will not be part of business as usual, signing a series of trillion dollar deficits as if there's no day of reckoning. The idea that Ron Paul has found resistance from spendthrifty Congressmen in trying to push reforms, like auditing the Fed (a REAL audit), is no failure. Unlike Obama who preaches a limited military/engagement but basically continues business as usual in being the policeman of the world, Ron Paul actually believes in limited government, consistently, across the board, and that's the REAL message that the Tea Party sent, not the neo-cons whom are agitating for further meddling in the Middle East--how much more American blood and treasure must be sacrificed in the Middle East?
As for the Goldwater remark, I strongly suggest before O'Reilly ventures another ill-considered opinion over the air, he should look a little more closely at the evidence. If you look at the GOP pack against Obama, Paul draws more support than any other Republican in the race except for Romney. In fact, a considerable portion of his appeal is from liberal or moderate Republicans. He has also been running in the money in a number of early state primary polls. And Ron Paul, a medical doctor whom has written extensively on business, economics and foreign policy, has probably forgotten more economics than Barack Obama will ever know. He demonstrates principled policies, intellectual leadership and courage. How refreshing that a public servant really cares about principle above grandstanding and sound bites?
Finally, I wanted to comment a bit here about tonight's Greta Van Susteren and Newt Gingrich conversation. Gingrich is coming across as a sore loser and hypocritical. Calling Romney a "liar"? The topics raised in a recent critical ad are part of the record, and Gingrich's petulant attitude is demonstrating to the rest of the country where few, if any of the Republicans whom served with or under him (including Speaker Boehner) have endorsed him and why he lacks a suitable temperament to be President.
As to Gingrich's terming Romney a "Massachusetts moderate" whom did nothing to change Massachusetts for the better, an unprincipled manager: Gingrich has never been a public sector executive (and wants to start at the top). Romney has a public record of turnarounds of failing efforts, including Bain and Company and the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Gingrich is hoping that uninformed people will buy into unrealistic expectations of what a conservative can do in a state that elects politicians like Mike Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry to statewide office. Mitt Romney
The two-faced Romney ad from McCain's 2008 campaign? I have always said that Romney needs to communicate some of his points better. Take, for example, abortion. First of all, Romney vetoed a progressive stem cell research bill, which was consistent with a pro-life position. Second, what Romney has said is that his position was effectively pro-abortion choice in the sense he always personally opposed abortion, but was unwilling to impose that position on public policy. (You could just as easily say you opposed marital infidelities, but you weren't going to prosecute cheaters.) What Romney is saying is a perfectly consistent with a libertarian perspective. You don't necessarily approve of immoral actions, but you respect people's liberties.
John Allison/CATO, "The Fed's Destruction of Wealth": Thumbs UP!
Political Humor
"The new ruler of North Korea is Kim Jong Il's son. That's an amazing coincidence. The elections must have gone very quickly." - Craig Ferguson
[The way the world knew was when the bombs hitting South Korea gave off white smoke instead of black.] (Just in case you don't get it, this is an inside Catholic joke. Of course, when you have to explain a joke...)
"President Obama’s campaign has released a highlight reel of his top moments from 2011. The video’s a little weird. Halfway through, it’s taped over by Joe Biden’s recording of 'Yo Gabba Gabba.'" - Jimmy Fallon
[No doubt the White House is angling for the Oscar for Live (Missing in) Action (Very) Short Film to add to the President's Nobel Peace Prize (Cough, cough! Iraq! Afghanistan! Libya! Yemen! Pakistan!) Personally, I don't believe Barack Obama is believable in the lead role of President of the United States. Two thumbs DOWN!]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Styx,"Renegade". I love the a cappella intro, and the percussion-driven chorus and harmony after the bridge at about 2:55 is simply glorious. Simply one of the greatest rock songs and performances ever.
