Gov. Romney Only Canidate Is Right On The Two Most Important Issues

Ann Coulter -  In the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.
Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.
But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.
Similarly, if Obamacare isn't repealed in the next few years, it never will be.
America will begin its ineluctable descent into becoming a worthless Western European country, with rotten health care, no money for defense and ever-increasing federal taxes to support the nanny state.
So let's consider which of the Republican candidates are most likely to succeed at these objectives.
In order to allow Democrats to indignantly denounce Republicans who said Obamacare would add to the deficit, the bill was structured so that no goodies get paid out immediately. That way, when the Congressional Budget Office was asked to determine if Obamacare was "revenue neutral" over its first 10 years, government accountants were looking at a bill that collected taxes for 10 years, but only distributed treats in the later years.
Starting at year 11, those accountants will be in for a big surprise when the government starts paying out Obamacare benefits without interruption.
Because of this accounting fraud, Obamacare can still be repealed. But as soon as all Americans have been thrown off their employer-provided insurance plans and are forced to start depending on the government for health care, Republicans will never be able to repeal it.
The vast complex of unionized government workers managing our health care from Washington will fight to keep their jobs (for more on this topic, see the Department of Education), voters will want their "free" government treats (for more on this topic, see Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) -- and even if they don't, there won't be a private insurance market for them to go back to (for more on this topic, see IRS rules favoring employer-provided health care).
The only way to stop Obamacare is to beat Obama in 2012, and repeal it before the health care Leviathan is born.
Otherwise, starting in 2016, Republicans will run for office promising only to improve Obamacare. Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to reform it "right-wing social engineering."
All current Republican presidential candidates say they will overturn Obamacare. The question for Republican primary voters should be: Who is most likely to win?
2012 is not a year for a wild card. It's not a year for any candidate who will end up being the issue, instead of making Obama the issue. It's not a year for one wing of the Republican Party to be making a point with another wing. (And there are no Rockefeller Republicans left, anyway.) It's not a year to be gambling that America will vote for its first woman president, or that the country is ready for a nut-bar libertarian.
Running against an incumbent president in a make-or-break election, Republicans need a candidate with a track record of winning elections with voters similar to the entire American electorate.
Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts.
Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have won statewide elections, but Huntsman and Perry ran in extremely red states that don't resemble the American electorate. Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election.
But if Santorum wins, we lose on the second most important issue -- illegal immigration -- and he'll be the last Republican ever to win a general election in America.
Just as Americans ought to be able to learn the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, we ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.
Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this was a state that produced great Republican governors and senators like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, S.I. Hayakawa and Pete Wilson.
If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives -- one pro-life and one pro-choice -- can't win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it's buenas noches, muchachos.
And yet, almost all Republican presidential candidates support some form of amnesty for illegals in order to appeal to the business lobby.
Among the most effective measures against illegal immigration is E-Verify, the Homeland Security program that gives employers the ability to instantly confirm that their employees' Social Security numbers are legitimate. It is more than 99 percent accurate, and no employee is denied a job without an opportunity to challenge the records.
Although wildly popular with Americans -- including Hispanic Americans -- the business lobby hates E-Verify. Employers like hiring non-Americans because they can pay illegal aliens less and ignore state and federal employment laws.
Any candidate who opposes E-Verify is not serious about illegal immigration. If anything, E-Verify ought to be made mandatory to get a job, to get welfare and to vote.
Kowtowing to business (while pretending to kowtow to Hispanics), Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.
Jon Huntsman claims to support E-Verify, but also wants to give illegals amnesty as soon as the border is sealed -- as determined by someone other than us. Also, he gave driver's identification cards to illegal aliens in Utah. (You'd think a guy no one has ever heard of would be more careful about ID cards.)
Following his latest guru, Helen Krieble, Newt Gingrich is for amnesty, combined with second-class status for illegals. Instead of giving illegal aliens green cards, Newt proposes giving them "red cards" so they can stay, take American jobs, have children, receive welfare benefits, attend public schools -- and eventually be granted amnesty. The Republican primaries will be over before most voters realize what Newt's "red card" scheme entails.
Only Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney aren't trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens. Both support E-Verify.
Numbers USA, one of the leading groups opposed to our current insane immigration policies, gives Republican presidential candidates the following grades on immigration: Paul, F; Gingrich, D-minus; Huntsman, D-minus; Santorum, D-minus; Perry, D; Romney, C-minus; and Bachmann, B-minus.
And that was before Romney said last week that Obama's drunk-driving, illegal alien uncle should be deported!
That leaves us with Romney and Bachmann as the candidates with the strongest, most conservative positions on illegal immigration. As wonderful as Michele Bachmann is, 2012 isn't the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.
Two Little Indians sitting in the sun; one was just a congresswoman and then there was one.

Rassmussen Poll: Romey 45% Obama 39%

Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date.
The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president. Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 
A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%.  The week before that, he held a slight 43% to 42% edge over the president. The two candidates have been essentially tied in regular surveys since January, but Romney remains the only GOP hopeful to lead Obama in more than one survey. Despite Romney’s current six-point lead, his latest level of support is in line with the 38% to 45% he has earned in matchups with the president this year. However, Obama’s 39% is a new low: Prior to this survey, his support has ranged from 40% to 46% in matchups with Romney.
A generic Republican candidate holds a narrow lead over the president again this week as has been the case all but three times in weekly tracking since late May.  Obama leads all the other named GOP candidates by as little as seven and as much as 15 percentage points.  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain have all surged ahead of the president at one point but did not maintain those leads.Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are running one-two in Rasmussen Reports’ most recent survey of the Republican race in Iowa as next Tuesday’s caucus approaches. 
Romney also has more second-choice support than any of the other candidates among likely caucus-goers. Rasmussen Reports will release new numbers from Iowa at noon Eastern today.

Gingrich Says Paul Worse Than Obama

Jill Lawerence - Newt Gingrich has finally found a politician he considers even worse than the president he calls socialist, anti-colonialist and radical. That would be his fellow Republican Ron Paul.

"I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Could he vote for Paul? "No." If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? "You'd have a very hard choice at that point."

From National Journal:

YEAR IN REVIEW
Most Inspiring Stories of 2011

YEAR IN REVIEWTop Political Quotes of 2011

YEAR IN REVIEW
Best Fake Campaign Ads

Gingrich's fencing with Mitt Romney seems like an afternoon at a gentleman's club compared with his slams on Paul. "As people get to know more about Ron Paul, who disowns 10 years of his own newsletter, says he didn't really realize what was in it, had no idea what he was making money off of, had no idea that it was racist, anti-Semitic, called for the destruction of Israel, talked about a race war - all of this is a sudden shock to Ron Paul?" he asked. "There will come a morning people won't take him as a serious person."

Right now in Iowa, the week before the state's Jan. 3 caucuses, Paul is a very serious person - in the top tier along with Gingrich and Romney and playing aggressively to win. "If Dr. Paul will have to soldier on without Newt's vote, then so be it," Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton said in a statement. He called Gingrich "a divisive, big-government liberal who is unelectable" and his attack on Paul a "childish outburst."

(RELATED: Romney: Gingrich Like 'Lucille Ball at Chocolate Factory')

Paul's supporters have complained for months that Paul wasn't getting the attention he deserved. Now that he's within reach of an early-state victory, the media scrutiny and attacks from rivals are escalating rapidly.

Michele Bachmann piled on Paul  in an interview Tuesday with Rodney Hawkins of National Journal and CBS News. She cited "racist statements" in Paul's newsletters and said he is indifferent about the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon. "Ron Paul would be dangerous for the United States on foreign policy," she said.

Gingrich unloaded on Paul after Blitzer showed a tough Paul attack ad accusing Gingrich of "serial hypocrisy." Gingrich said Paul's "total record of systemic avoidance of reality" makes him unthinkable as a president. He is, Gingrich said, "a person who thinks the United States was responsible for 9/11, a person who ... wrote in his newsletter that the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 might have been a CIA plot, a person who believes it doesn't matter if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon."

(RELATED: Perry Campaign Sues to Get on Virginia Ballot)

Gingrich declared twice during the interview that Paul won't get the GOP nomination. Benton countered with the rhetorical equivalent of "neither will you."

Conservatives and tea party activists are fleeing Gingrich due to his support for TARP and an individual insurance mandate (which he has since renounced), Benton said, while independent voters "are horrified by Newt's history of ethics violations, insider pay-to-play politics and influence peddling."

It isn't New Year's Eve yet, but it's safe to say the holiday season is over.

Gov. Mitt Romney's Electability Fraud on Republican Party?

John Hawkins of Right Wing News thinks so, but most of his arguments are unpersuasive.  He asks:

Doesn’t it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?

It does.  On the other hand, doesn’t this say something?

Newt Gingrich (62%) and Mitt Romney (54%) are the only two candidates Republicans say would be acceptable presidential nominees from their party, emphasizing the degree to which the GOP race has narrowed down to these two men at this juncture. A majority of Republicans say each of the other six candidates measured would not be acceptable nominees.

Indeed, with Newt coming under increased scrutiny, those numbers might favor Romney today.  Doesn’t it say something that a plurality sees Romney as the candidate most likely to beat Obama, or that head-to-head polls consistently show Romney faring better against Obama than his rivals?
Hawkins then discusses Romney’s moderate image:

To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don’t like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it’s true the swayable moderates don’t want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don’t just automatically gravitate towards the most “moderate” candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate’s base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.

I do not know where Hawkins got any of this.  In the first instance, Romney appeals less to moderates than you may think.  Hawkins likely exaggerates the impact of ideology on voter choices, ignoring the fundamentals.  Reagan won in 1980 in large part because the economy was terrible.  Had the GOP nominated George H. W. Bush instead, Anderson likely would not have run as an independent and Bush would likely have garnered more votes than Reagan.  That doesn’t mean the GOP should have nominated Poppy Bush; far from it.  But Reagan could run against a lousy economy, while Goldwater was running against Johnson in a booming economy.  Pure independents are the most likely to vote on the state of the economy; the argument that enthusiasm affects election outcomes is not supported much by the data.
Hawkins notes Romney is a proven political loser.  He doesn’t add “in Massachusetts.”  Not too many Republicans win in Massachusetts.  Romney did and ended unpopular, suggesting he was too conservative for the land of Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank.  But being Mitt means getting to be a double-loser to Hawkins: insufficiently conservative and not good at winning statewide in a liberal state.  Hawkins makes a related argument that Romney will be hammered for his tenure at Bain Capital.  I have no doubt Democrats will make those attacks, but they likely play stronger in places like Massachusetts than elsewhere (how they play in states like PA and OH is a valid point).  Presumably, if Romney is the nominee, he will point out that some Bain acquisitions grew (e.g., Domino’s Pizza), while others were downsized, and then launch into a spiel about rightsizing bloated government bureaucracies, something Obama has manifestly failed to do.
Hawkins claims Romney will run poorly in Southern states, but then delves into GOP primary numbers, which is not the same as electability in the general.  Currently, Romney runs as well as or better than Gingrich against Obama in swing states, including those mentioned by Hawkins.
Hawkins maintains Romney will lose his advantages in fundraising, organization and establishment support in a general election.  That’s largely true, but not an argument that a NotRomney who has been unable to match Romney in these areas is thus a better choice in terms of electability.  Hawkins also claims Romney has been avoiding serious scrutiny, which is inaccurate.
Hawkins notes “the Mormon factor” and cites a poll suggesting it’s a problem.  He does not cite the Pew poll suggesting it’s a bigger problem for Romney in the primaries and not so much in a general election.  Indeed, the poll Hawkins cites makes clear that Mormonism is a problem for Democrats.
Finally, Hawkins notes Romney is a flip-flopper, asking “Is it just me or didn’t George Bush beat John Kerry’s brains in with the “flip flopper” charge back in 2004?”  It’s not just Hawkins who thinks that, but again, the data doesn’t really support that theory.  As Jay Cost notes, Kerry did a better job at peeling away voters from the “other” side than Bush did.
In sum, there is not a “plethora of evidence” that Romney’s electability is a myth.  That does not mean that Romney must be the nominee.  Indeed, as noted earlier, the challenger’s ideology matters maybe a percent or two — important in a close election, but most things are important in a close election.  Romney is not my ideal candidate, but none of the candidates is my ideal candidate.  At the moment, to paraphrase Philip Klein (on Twitter), Romney is the only candidate showing up to the job interview wearing a suit.  With Gingrich sliding, conservatives have to hope some NotRomney can up his or her game soon.

Can Ron Paul Win Iowa In A Landslide?

Ever since Newt Gingrich started slumping in the polls, a number of pundits and bloggers have been wondering if Ron Paul might end up winning the Iowa cauci. He has a dedicated base of supporters. And currently leads in the RealClear Politics average:

Dedicated supporters are more likely to show up on a cold winter night to vote for their guy.
Commenting on Ron Paul’s surge, Byron York wonders if Paul’s supporters are, “in fact, Republicans“.
Let us hope, however, that Republicans don’t discount the essence of the libertarian Republican’s appeal:  the Texas Congressman has long been unequivocal in his opposition to big government.  He may have some rather isolationist views on foreign policy and may have showed a lack of good judgment in publishing his newsletter, but on domestic issues at least, the candidate is in tune with the times.
If he is to be successful in November, the eventual Republican nominee bears that in mind.  Should the nation be so fortunate as to see that nominee replace the incumbent come January 20, 2013, he must needs act in the spirit of Ron Paul’s domestic agenda, that is, on fiscal issues.  And perhaps even monetary ones.

Rasmussen Poll Iowa : Romeny 25%, Paul 20%, Gingrich 17%

Could the race in Iowa really go to a man who has spent the least amount of time in the state among all of the candidates vying for caucus-goers?  Rasmussen’s latest poll of 750 likely caucus-goers show Romney with a small but statistically significant lead, 25% to 20% for new second-place candidate Ron Paul.  But the big move may be from the second tier:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are leading the pack in Iowa with just two weeks to go until Caucus Day. But large numbers of voters remain uncommitted and lots could change between now and January 3.
The new Rasmussen Reports survey of Iowa caucus participants shows Romney on top with 25% of the vote followed by Paul at 20% and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 17%. Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, both at 10%, are the only other candidates in double-digits.  Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann earns six percent (6%), former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman four percent (4%), while one percent (1%) prefer some other candidate and eight percent (8%) are not sure.  …
This poll reflects the highest level of support yet measured for Romney and Paul. It’s also by far the best result yet for Santorum who on Tuesday received an endorsement from Bob Vander Plaats, a major social conservative leader in Iowa. While the Evangelical Christian vote is very divided at this time, Santorum now picks up 19% of it, more than any other candidate. Romney is close behind at 18%.
Among those who say they are certain to participate in the caucus, Romney and Paul are essentially even. As always in a caucus, the organizational effort to get identified supporters to show up on January 3 is likely to determine the outcome.

The organizational edge might go to Paul — but it might not, either.  Even if Romney has not spent much time in Iowa, he has built a significant organization in the state, and he launched a massive ad buy of over $3 million last week.  Furthermore, Romney isn’t having to compete against expectations, so a big finish here might be enough to generate enough momentum to run the table in the early states — especially if Paul ends up being the second-place finisher.  A Gingrich third-place finish would put a serious dent  in his credibility as a candidate.
And it might get worse than that.  Both Perry and Santorum have moved up to 10% in this poll, but Santorum’s support is almost double that of a week ago.  Bachmann has not gotten the same kind of boost, remaining at 6%.  Santorum edges ahead of Perry among Republicans (13% to 11%) and just behind Paul’s 14%, but both trail Romney (27%) and Gingrich (21%).  Paul gets 32% of independents, which is no great shock, and Romney comes in second at 19%, which is also no great shock.  Among those who consider themselves “very conservative,” Santorum comes in third at 19%, almost tying Gingrich and Romney, who get 21% each. Santorum now also comes in third among Tea Party adherents at 17%, just behind Romney at 18% and Gingrich at 23%, and ahead of Paul (14%) and Perry (12%).
As for Paul, this poll shows that his bounce is real, if sometimes overestimated, but he has significant issues in this support.  When asked to pick the weakest candidate to put against Obama, Paul wins with 26% of the respondents, followed by Michele Bachmann at 21% and Gingrich at 16% — a danger sign for Gingrich as well.  (Santorum only gets 4%, but then again, he only gets 4% in the question on which candidate would be strongest, too.)  Gingrich does well in the strongest-candidate question with a second place 25%, but that’s ten points below Romney’s 35%.  Paul only gets 15% on this question, making him the only one of the top three to underperform his support on this question.  If caucus-goers break late on the question of electability — and it’s certainly a trend we’ve seen in the past — then Romney stands the most to gain.
A third-place finish would be a boost to Santorum, who hasn’t ever broken out of the pack, and a big disappointment to Gingrich, who had a big lead in Iowa just a couple of weeks ago.  If Paul falters, Romney will probably get the most benefit, but Santorum could be riding a wave that could crest with perhaps even a second-place finish, if social conservatives in Iowa begin to flock to his banner — and that could have South Carolina Republicans, known for their evangelical social conservatism, taking a new look at Santorum.  We’ll see.

Tim Tebow Critics Put Their Own Hate On Display

Linda Chavez - Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow has been a controversial sports figure ever since he agreed to do an ad for the conservative organization Focus on the Family; the spot aired during the 2010 Super Bowl. Feminists and other groups, who feared the ad would be overtly pro-life and anti-abortion, tried to keep it from running. In the end, the message turned out to be pretty innocuous, and those who tried to censor it looked downright silly.
Now Tebow is once again a target for illiberals who find his evangelical Christianity somehow threatening and offensive. The latest episode involves a recent column for The Jewish Week that bashed Tebow for symbolizing intolerance. But it was the writer, Connecticut Rabbi Joshua Hammerman, who put his own astonishing bigotry on display. Hammerman titled his piece "My Tebow Problem," and indeed it is Hammerman's problem -- not Tebow's.
While claiming to want to root for Tebow, who has pulled off an unprecedented string of amazing consecutive fourth-quarter comebacks for his underdog team this season, Hammerman made the following prediction: "If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell's first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably."
Really?
And Hammerman's bigotry doesn't stop there. On his own blog, he responds to criticism from those who took offense to his original article, noting that Tebow's "entire life's work is also predicated on saving my soul for Jesus. He's not alone in this. Tebow has been affiliated with the Southern Baptists, who spend millions to convert Jews, often deceptively. I personally don't consider that exemplary behavior. Is it better than raping little boys? Absolutely. But is it admirable? I have issues with anyone determined to save my soul, be that person Christian or Jewish."
So, Southern Baptists want to trick Jews into becoming Christians? And Catholics (or is it priests only?) all want to sexually abuse children?
Apparently even Hammerman finally realized how outrageous these comments were, as he has now removed them from his own website, and The Jewish Week has taken his piece down as well. But erasing the words don't constitute an apology. And I'm not sure Hammerman is capable of understanding what he did wrong, which is the precondition for actual contrition.
Tim Tebow harms no one when he bends a knee to thank Jesus for giving him the athletic gifts that have served him so well. And he's never said anything publicly about saving anyone's soul. So how is it offensive that his piety inspires others -- even his opponents on the field -- to join him in prayer? In an era when other famous athletes are better known for sexting, criminal assault or even murder, it's a mystery why humility and faith would be viewed negatively.
True tolerance means allowing others to believe what they choose and to express those beliefs, so long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Tebow does not insist that his teammates join him in prayer, nor does he interfere with those who choose a different religious -- or non-religious -- expression of joy and gratitude.
But illiberals want religion out of the public square altogether. They want to reinterpret the First Amendment to deny religious freedom, not to protect it. They want to force religious people of all faiths to keep their religion in the closet, while at the same time enforcing the open acceptance -- indeed, encouragement -- of behaviors that conflict with traditional religious tenets. The illiberal religious bigots believe putting a creche on public property is unconstitutional; but displaying a crucifix in a in a tax-supported museum is just fine, just so long as it's stuck in a jar of urine.
Tim Tebow is not the problem. The real problem is our willingness to be bullied into thinking that prejudice masked as tolerance is acceptable.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley Endores Mitt Romey

(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney picked up the endorsement of South Carolina's Republican governor, Nikki Haley, on Friday in a move that could boost his fortunes in the early voting state.
Romney has been lagging in South Carolina and his backers in the state have been urging him to campaign more frequently there. South Carolina holds the first primary in the South on January 21 and former U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, who hails from neighboring Georgia, has a lead there.
South Carolina holds the third nominating contest after Iowa on January 3 and New Hampshire on January 10.
"The election next November will have ramifications for generations," Haley said in a statement released by the Romney campaign. "Neither South Carolina nor the nation can afford four more years of President (Barack) Obama, and Mitt Romney is the right person to take him on and get America back on track."
The announcement came a day after a smooth debate performance by Romney in Sioux City, the last debate of the Republican candidates before Iowa launches the 2012 election contest.
Haley was elected in 2010 with the strong backing of Tea Party champion Sarah Palin. Though her popularity has sagged a bit in recent months, her endorsement was still coveted by Republican presidential candidates.
Romney plans to spend Friday and Saturday campaigning in South Carolina.
Haley, the first woman governor of South Carolina, had been backed in her campaign for the office by Romney.
Romney has built up an impressive list of endorsements from establishment Republicans. At a campaign event at a Sioux City steel factory, Romney was introduced by former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who dropped out of the presidential race last summer and later endorsed him.
In his remarks to the plant's employees, Romney injected a personal tone in a sign he is trying to connect better with everyday voters. He played up the entrepreneurial skills of his father, George Romney, who built up the old American Motors car company before he was elected governor of Michigan.
Romney singled out China for what he called unfair trade practices that have to be stopped. He said one of his first acts of business upon taking power in January 2013 would be to designate China as a currency manipulator.
"There are some cheaters out there and one of them is China. They've been stealing designs, patents, technology," he said. "You can't allow that to happen year after year after year

Can Ron Paul Win The Republican Nomination?

Ed Morrissey - With Ron Paul rising in the polls, the media has begun to cast its attention towards the libertarian GOP Congressman.  With Paul rising in the polls, people have begun to ask whether he can win in Iowa and perhaps even New Hampshire.  The Washington Post published a mainly positive profile of Paul in today’s paper, calling him “a force to be reckoned with in this presidential cycle,” which is certainly and objectively true.  However, it concludes with “There is no Ron Paul 2.0,” which is certainly not true, and until now has hardly been mentioned in this primary campaign — perhaps because until now, no one thought that Paul could win anything.
In the last campaign, a number of publications went through Paul’s newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s, an enterprise that provided Paul with a steady income and a base of support that extended beyond his Congressional district.  In May 2007, the Houston Chronicle published some explosive excerpts of these newsletters, which both Curt at Flopping Aces and I linked.  The Chronicle’s link is dead, but my post at CapQ are still accessible.  From May 22, 2007:
======
Eleven years ago, the Houston Chronicle reported that Ron Paul’s newsletter highlighted what he saw as a criminal community (emphases mine):

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.”Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,”Paul wrote.
Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.” Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:
“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.
Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Not enough yet? How about Paul’s suggestion that the age of adulthood for criminal prosecution be lowered — for blacks?

He added, “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

But, hey, Paul’s paranoia isn’t limited to African-Americans. He fears the Joooooooos, too:

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

This still may not convince liberals that Paul is nuttier than Aunt Mabel’s pecan pie, but this next part will be guaranteed to end the Paul boomlet on the Left:

Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation “would explain certain mysteries” about the president’s scratchy voice and insomnia.

How did Ron Paul explain these writings? He claims that he didn’t write them himself, but his staffers did — and it was “too confusing” to explain afterwards:

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’”

Um, yeah. A politician sends out a newsletter filled with these kinds of paranoid rants, and then claims it would be “too confusing” to fire the people who supposedly wrote it in his name and explain that he didn’t really believe in any of it. There’s some real truth-telling for you!
======
A few months later, in January 2008 after the Iowa caucuses, Reason Magazine — a publication that has hardly been unfriendly to Paul — took a close look at the issue, and didn’t like what they found.  Matt Welch wrote at that time that Paul never really expressed much regret over the content of his newsletters:

Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and “taken moral responsibility” for, these “Ron Paul” newsletters “for over a decade”? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.
The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article — less than eight years ago. …
So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken “out of context” and proof of his opponent’s “race-baiting,” Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.

Welch then provided a raft of examples supporting this conclusion, which I would recommend reading.  At the time of my post, Paul had just denied writing his own newsletters, but that contradicted a quote found by the Dallas Morning News in the campaign against Lefty Morris, printed May 22, 1996, found by Welch and included in his post:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

Let’s put aside for the moment Paul’s continued association with conspiracy nut Alex Jones and the 9/11 Truthers, and his fringe views on foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and Iran.  What do Republicans who are considering Paul as the nominee think will happen if he wins a spot on the Republican ticket?  The Obama campaign will have a field day running these in advertisements and painting their opposition as entirely consisting of old racists, even if Paul starts issuing vague regrets for his newsletters and instructs people to read them in full context. The last two weeks have seen Republicans debate what Mitt Romney was thinking when he said he had “progressive views” in 2002 or when Gingrich was lauding FDR as one of the greatest presidents of all time even longer ago than that.  Aren’t these statements a few orders of magnitude more disturbing?
I have no idea why the Washington Post or other media aren’t reporting on this aspect of Paul’s past.  The Post article never even mentions the word “newsletter.”  Perhaps they see it as such old news that it couldn’t possibly come up in the context of an election.  Perhaps the media figures they’ll just get to it in the general election.  Regardless, it’s time we start pointing out Paul’s record and embarrassing newsletters before enough Republicans take him seriously as a mainstream candidate to do real damage to our ability to win in November.
Update: Just when I thought everyone else had amnesia about Paul and the newsletters, Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast also chose today to remind readers about it:

I wonder what these young and gender-transcendent and differently melanined people would make, for example, of the racism charges. There is debate on this point, but back during the 2008 campaign, The New Republic’s James Kirchick tracked down old copies (late 1980s and early 1990s) of a newsletter that went out to subscribers under Paul’s name. The sentences that appear in these documents are so astonishing that they’d have stood out in Alabama in 1960. Martin Luther King was a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” (who were, interestingly, of both sexes). The name of New York City should be changed to “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” or “Lazyopolis.” David Duke’s near-win in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary was celebrated. Mountains of material about welfare cheats and animals and arming oneself for the coming race riot and so on.

Well, Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul today, so we don’t need to worry about this, I guess.

Rasmussen Poll Iowa: Romney leads 23%, Gingrich 20%, Paul 18

2012 Iowa Republican Caucus
	12/13/2011	11/15/2011	10/19/2011	8/31/2011	8/4/2011
Mitt Romney	23%	19%	21%	17%	21%
Newt Gingrich	20%	32%	9%	2%	5%
Ron Paul	18%	10%	10%	14%	16%
Jon Huntsman	5%	2%	2%	3%	2%
Herman Cain	Withdrew	13%	28%	4%	4%
Rick Perry	10%	6%	7%	29%	12%
Michele Bachmann	9%	6%	8%	18%	22%
Rick Santorum	6%	5%	4%	4%	Not Polled
Some other candidate	2%	1%	4%	0%	7%
Not sure	8%	6%	8%	10%	0%

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls).   Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 750 Likely Iowa Republican Caucus Participants was conducted on December 13, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.  

PPP: Ron Paul Is Closing In On Lead In Iowa

Alexander Burns - For all the evidence of a national Newt Gingrich surge, there's a strong argument to be made that much -- if not all -- of that momentum depends on the former House speaker winning Iowa. And PPP serves up a set of numbers there today that shows Gingrich is in a close contest with several opponents, Ron Paul chief among them:

There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.
Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he's also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he's now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.

MSNBC Host Rev. AL Sharpton: Is Deep In The Red

By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN - The Rev. Al Sharpton’s nonprofit paid him nearly $242,000 — even as it carried $1.6 million in debt, according to documents obtained by The Post.
In all, the controversial activist and his empire, including the National Action Network and two for-profit companies, were $5.3 million in the red, public records show.
Most of NAN’s money woes stemmed from more than $880,000 in unpaid federal payroll taxes, interest and penalties. It also paid more than $100,000 to settle two lawsuits, byproducts of the unpaid bills.
And it still owed $206,252 in loans to Sharpton’s for-profit Bo-Spanky Consulting Inc. and Sharpton Media LLC, the records show.

REV. AL SHARPTON High salary, higher debt.

Sharpton drew a $241,732 salary and perks that included first-class or charter air travel, tax filings show. He owes the IRS $2.6 million in income tax, and nearly $900,000 in state tax.
The defunct Rev-Al Communications Inc. owes the state almost $176,000, and Bo-Spanky is $3,500 behind on state-tax liens.
Sharpton has said he is on a repayment plan with state and federal-tax authorities.
NAN last year took in more than $3 million in donations, which allowed it to chip away at its tax burden. This year, its board of directors voted to resolve the tax issues and paid all back state taxes, said Executive Director Tamika Mallory.
The civil-rights group is also addressing the $883,503 it owes in federal payroll taxes, she added.
And it is close to finished repaying the Peabody Hotel in Memphis $106,981 owed since 2008, when NAN skipped out on its bill after its annual convention, according to its 2010 audited financial statements.
Plus, it paid $5,500 to a Phoenix developer to settle a legal dispute over the rental of chapter offices.

DNC Chair: Denies Unemployment Has Increased Under Pres. Obama

Ed Morrissey - Denial — it ain’t just a river in Egypt. Appearing on Fox News this morning, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz insisted that unemployment didn’t go up in Barack Obama’s term of office, a hilarious argument on several levels. Debbie Downer then lectures Gretchen Carlson that “your narrative doesn’t work any longer,” to which a bemused Carlson responds that she’s just relating the facts:
Here are a few facts that seem to have gotten past Wasserman Shultz as the head of a major political party, and as a member of Congress:

• Jobless rate in January 2009: 7.8%.  Jobless rate in November 2011: 8.6%.
• Number of employed in January 2009, in thousands: 133,563.  In November 2011: 131,708
• Civilian participation rate in January 2009: 65.7%.  In November 2011: 64.0%
• Unemployment level in January 2009, in thousands: 11,984.  In November 2011: 13,303
• Number of people not in labor force, January 2009, in thousands: 80,554.  In November 2011: 86,558

The number of jobs has declined almost 2 million during Obama’s term even without accounting for the 3 million-plus working-age adults who joined the population while Obama has been President, while the number of people not in the labor force has risen by six million.  To give some perspective to that number, it took this measure six years to add six million people (Feb 2003 to Jan 2009), while it took Obama less than three years to achieve it.  It’s also worth noting that this growth in disconnected potential workers and the associated drop in the civilian-participation rate is almost entirely responsible for the published jobless rate being as low as it is, and the exodus of 315,000 workers from the workforce last month is certainly responsible for the drop that Debbie Downer heralds in this interview.
Maybe the DNC should consider having a chair who has some connection to reality.  But what fun would that be for the rest of us?

Wonkbook: Real Unemployment Rate 11% In America

Ezra Klein - Remember that the unemployment rate is not "how many people don't have jobs?", but "how many people don't have jobs and are actively looking for them?" Let's say you've been looking fruitlessly for five months and realize you've exhausted every job listing in your area. Discouraged, you stop looking, at least for the moment. According to the government, you're no longer unemployed. Congratulations?
Since 2007, the percent of the population that either has a job or is actively looking for one has fallen from 62.7 percent to 58.5 percent. That's millions of workers leaving the workforce, and it's not because they've become sick or old or infirm. It's because they can't find a job, and so they've stopped trying. That's where Luce's calculation comes from. If 62.7 percent of the country was still counted as in the workforce, unemployment would be 11 percent. In that sense, the real unemployment rate -- the apples-to-apples unemployment rate -- is probably 11 percent. And the real un- and underemployed rate -- the so-called "U6" -- is near 20 percent.
There were some celebrations when the unemployment rate dropped last month. But much of that drop was people leaving the labor force. The surprising truth is that when the labor market really recovers, the unemployment rate will actually rise, albeit only temporarily, as discouraged workers start searching for jobs again.
Top stories
1) Congress is close to a spending deal, reports Rosalind Helderman: "Put this in the 'small accomplishments' category for an especially gridlocked Congress: It appears increasingly likely that, with little fuss, lawmakers will approve a bipartisan compromise in coming days that will keep government running past Friday, when a short-term funding measure that has kept the lights on expires. Partisan clashes have brought the government to the brink of a shutdown three times in the past year. But this time, appropriators from the House and Senate have been quietly working toward the unveiling, expected late Monday, of a compromise spending measure that would outline how government agencies should spend nearly $1 trillion through Sept. 30, 2012...It’s also helped that Congress agreed to an overall spending level for the year -- often the most contentious issue -- as part of the August debt deal."
2) The payroll tax cut may be financed through Fannie and Freddie, report Nick Timiraos and Alan Zibel: "Congress and the Obama administration are turning to an unlikely source to pay for the proposed extension of the payroll-tax cut: mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The revenue source proposed by both Senate Democrats and House Republicans would boost fees that Fannie and Freddie collect from lenders. But that is raising hackles in the real-estate industry. Builders, Realtors and lenders say it would amount to a tax that would be passed on to mortgage borrowers. Fannie and Freddie don't issue mortgages, but instead buy them from lenders. They bundle those loans into securities that are sold to investors, and promise to make investors whole if the loans default. To cover any defaults, Fannie and Freddie charge 'guarantee' fees to lenders when they buy the loans."
3) Experts doubt Europe's deal is a real cure, write Steven Erlanger and Liz Alderman: "The deal on Friday in Brussels to reformulate the rules of the euro zone has probably saved the shared currency for now -- but there may be less to it than meets the eye. At least four major issues still need to be resolved: how much money is needed to protect Italy now from speculative attack; whether banks will stumble because of the crisis; the isolation of Britain, which does not belong to the euro zone; and not least, whether the Brussels cure, prescribed by Germany, fits the disease. With mounds of European debt due to be refinanced early next year, the crisis is far from over. 'More tests will obviously come, and soon,' perhaps as early as the opening of financial markets on Monday, said Joschka Fischer, the former German foreign minister."
4) The Durban climate conference ended in a deal, reports Juliet Eilperin: "Even as representatives from nearly 200 countries celebrated the last-minute compromise they fashioned at U.N. climate talks Sunday in Durban, South Africa, it became clear that its real-world outcome will be largely determined in Asia, rather than in Africa or the West. Broad in scope but short on details, the Durban Platform aims to break down the firewall that has divided the historic big emitters of greenhouse gases -- industrialized nations -- from the major developing countries whose emissions, scientists say, are now driving future climate change. The existing climate treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, did not require developing nations to reduce emissions. The Durban Platform starts a new process whose goal is to complete, by 2015, a global climate pact with legal force, applying to all nations. This will mean major developing nations will be required to make cuts."
Top op-eds
1) The US labor market may never fully recover, writes Edward Luce: "If there is an explanation as to why middle-class incomes have stagnated in the past generation, this is it: whatever jobs the US is able to create are in the least efficient sectors – the types that neither computers nor China have yet found a way of eliminating. That trend is starting to lap at the feet of more highly educated American workers. And, as the shift continues, higher-paying jobs are also increasingly at risk, argue Prof Spence and Ms Hlatshwayo. What, then, can be done to revitalise the increasingly sclerotic jobs market? If the answer were simple, it would have been on everyone’s lips a long time ago. Unfortunately, there is no precedent for the challenges America faces, and thus little consensus among economists or policymakers on the best remedies. However, almost everyone agrees on how to ensure the situation does not deteriorate."
2) We can learn from how doctors die, writes Ken Murray: "Doctors die, too. And they don’t die like the rest of us. What’s unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little. For all the time they spend fending off the deaths of others, they tend to be fairly serene when faced with death themselves. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care they could want. But they go gently.Of course, doctors don’t want to die; they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. And they know enough about death to know what all people fear most: dying in pain, and dying alone. They’ve talked about this with their families. They want to be sure, when the time comes, that no heroic measures will happen--that they will never experience, during their last moments on earth, someone breaking their ribs in an attempt to resuscitate them with CPR (that’s what happens if CPR is done right)."
Wonkbook asks: Is this true? Do we have any good data on end-of-life spending for doctors? Or their medical directives?
3) The Euro crisis is a direct threat to democracy, writes Paul Krugman: "In at least one nation, Hungary, democratic institutions are being undermined as we speak. One of Hungary’s major parties, Jobbik, is a nightmare out of the 1930s: it’s anti-Roma (Gypsy), it’s anti-Semitic, and it even had a paramilitary arm. But the immediate threat comes from Fidesz, the governing center-right party. Fidesz won an overwhelming Parliamentary majority last year, at least partly for economic reasons; Hungary isn’t on the euro, but it suffered severely because of large-scale borrowing in foreign currencies and also, to be frank, thanks to mismanagement and corruption on the part of the then-governing left-liberal parties. Now Fidesz, which rammed through a new Constitution last spring on a party-line vote, seems bent on establishing a permanent hold on power."
4) 2012 will be a year of muddling through, writes Barry Eichengreen: "Nowadays there is no shortage of pundits, economic or otherwise, warning of impending disaster. If right, they are hailed as seers; if wrong, chances are that no one will remember. So here’s a forecast: there will be no shortage of predictions that 2012 is shaping up as a disastrous year. My view is different: 2012 will not be a year of crisis, but nor will it bring an end to our current economic troubles. Rather, it will be a year of muddling through."
Choir interlude: They Might Be Giants and The AV Club play "Tubthumping" by Chumbawumba live.
Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail me.
Still to come: The Fed may start forecasting its decisions as a matter of course; a Medicare doc fix may not pass in time; the defense spending bill is rife with earmarks; Durban negotiators reached a climate deal; and Ice Cube talks about architecture.
Economy
The Fed may start forecasting its decisions as a regular practice, reports Binyamin Appelbaum: "The Federal Reserve’s decision three years ago to reduce short-term interest rates to nearly zero made a splash, both because the Fed had never pushed rates so low and because it said that it planned to keep rates near zero 'for some time.' Predicting its own future actions was a new step, an experiment in a time of crisis that the Fed has since repeated several times, most recently in August, when it said that it planned to keep interest rates near zero until at least the summer of 2013. Now the technique looks increasingly likely to become a permanent method for influencing economic growth. When the Fed’s policy-making committee convenes on Tuesday, it will consider the idea of publishing a regular forecast of its future decisions on interest rates. Any such plan would most likely be announced no sooner than its next meeting, in January, when it is already scheduled to publish economic projections."
Fannie and Freddie's inspector general is getting aggressive, reports Nick Timiraos: "When Steve Linick first met senior managers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac early this year, he told them he would be no ordinary Washington regulator. His office has the power to make arrests, issue subpoenas and conduct searches, and some of his employees carry badges and guns. He hasn't hesitated to deploy those resources as the inspector general of the mortgage-finance companies' regulator, the Federal Housing Financing Agency. Mr. Linick, who is set to brief Congress on his oversight on Tuesday, has 48 investigations under way and dispatched federal agents to the homes of several Fannie employees in October as part of an investigation related to defaulted commercial mortgages. Fannie and Freddie were taken over by the government three years ago and have cost taxpayers nearly $151 billion since then."
<The era of "anything goes" mergers is finally over, writes Steven Pearlstein: "Maybe you’ve noticed that companies that are already at the top of their industries have become rather brazen about trying to increase their profits and share prices by buying up their nearest competitors. Who can blame them? For years now, the courts and regulators have turned a blind eye as industry after industry consolidates into two or three dominant firms...That 'anything goes' mentality took a hit recently when the Justice Department dared to challenge the purchase of T-Mobile by AT&T. Now its stepsister, the Federal Trade Commission, has the opportunity to definitively usher in a new era in antitrust by blocking the $29 billion merger between Express Scripts and Medco, two of the biggest pharmacy benefit managers -- the companies that handle the prescription drug portion of your health insurance."
Architecture interlude: Ice Cube examines the Eames House.
Health Care
A Medicare doc fix may not get passed in time, reports Lester Feder: "If Congress can’t finish its homework before it goes on recess, it might be able to get an extension -- but only if it’s willing to trim its winter break. At least, that’s the case with the “doc fix” -- a temporary change to Medicare’s troubled provider payment formula that Congress must pass to prevent a deep cut to physicians. They face a 27 percent payment cut that starts Jan. 1 unless Congress acts. But Jan. 1 isn’t a do-or-die deadline. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services can buy Congress a little breathing room -- as it has done before -- by holding physician payments for a brief period in the new year if it looks as though Congress will move quickly to update the fee schedule. Just don’t expect it to be easy -- for either CMS or the doctors."
The Obama administration broke its promise on Plan B, writes Susan Wood: "It was a proud moment, in the East Room of the White House, on a beautiful spring day in March 2009. In the room were leading scientists, Nobel laureates, the president’s science adviser and heads of organizations that had fought in support of scientific integrity in research and in government. I was excited to have been invited to watch President Obama sign a memorandum on scientific integrity. The directive signaled that decisions about public health would no longer be blocked for reasons beyond scientific and medical evidence...That promise was betrayed this past week when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the FDA commissioner -- and all of the physicians and scientists at the FDA -- in blocking the agency’s decision to allow an emergency contraceptive to be available over the counter for all who need it."
Domestic Policy
The defense spending bill has almost $1 billion in earmarks, reports Kimberly Kindy: "A six-month study of this year’s defense authorization bill has identified 115 spending proposals as earmarks worth $834 million, including 20 by Republican freshmen who campaigned against the pet projects, according to a copy of the report provided to The Washington Post. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), whose staff produced the study, called the behavior a “bold flaunting” of the GOP-led moratorium on earmarks. She chastised Republican House members for removing documents about earmarks from their Web sites that would have made it easier to identify the practice...In the analysis, McCaskill’s staff said it found 40 earmark requests from House Republicans and 75 from House Democrats, the report shows."
Federal spending cuts are endangering affordable housing projects, reports Debbie Cenziper: "Charlotte is a case study of a city facing the fallout of delayed affordable-housing projects promised to neighborhoods badly in need of new homes. Dozens of cities are in similar straits, trying to right troubled construction deals that failed to produce housing despite millions in HUD funding. Local housing officials will have to do it with less to spend: Congress last month cut the HOME program’s budget by $600 million -- nearly 38 percent -- citing mismanagement. Housing advocates criticized the move, estimating that the program will produce 31,000 fewer homes this fiscal year than in 2010...HUD officials declined to comment for this report. In the past, the agency has repeatedly defended the HOME program, saying that it has produced more than 1 million units of housing over two decades."
Lobbying has led to for-profit college rules being watered down, reports Eric Lichtblau: "Last year, the Obama administration vowed to stop for-profit colleges from luring students with false promises. In an opening volley that shook the $30 billion industry, officials proposed new restrictions to cut off the huge flow of federal aid to unfit programs. But after a ferocious response that administration officials called one of the most intense they had seen, the Education Department produced a much-weakened final plan that almost certainly will have far less impact as it goes into effect next year...'The haranguing had zero effect,' said Cass R. Sunstein, the White House official who oversees rule making. Rather, he and other administration officials said they listened to what they viewed as reasonable arguments and decided to narrow the scope of the original plan."
Everyone should be in favor of pushing government to work better, writes Robert Frank: "If government is inevitable, why not try to create the most effective one possible? Success requires focus and hard work, which in turn require dedicated and competent public servants. But experience shows that it’s possible. Annual surveys by Transparency International, a nonprofit group based in Berlin, consistently place the same nations -- New Zealand, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada and the Scandinavian countries among them -- atop the list of those whose own citizens think most highly of their governments. The United States does not rank in the top 20. Antigovernment rhetoric is surely not the only reason for our low ranking. But incessant government bashing isn’t making it any easier to recruit the kind of people who make good government, and short lines at the D.M.V., possible for the rest of us."
Gingrich gets it on immigration, writes Bill Keller: "The most scrupulous study I’ve seen of the economic impact of illegal immigration -- by Gordon Hanson, an economist at the University of California, San Diego -- weighed the costs to society (schools, health care, etc.) against the benefits (tax revenues, labor productivity, etc.) and concluded that the difference was 'close enough to zero to be essentially a wash.' The idea that illegal immigrants are dragging down the economy is just wrong...On major points Gingrich is consistent with the best proposals compiled by serious students of this subject, who aim to build a reform based not on what makes you feel good but on what’s best for the country...There are plenty of reasons the thought of President Newt Gingrich makes me shudder. But on this hard, defining American issue, he’s shown a combination of brains, heart and guts that puts the rest of his party to shame."
Adorable animals enjoying cinema interlude: The cat-only premiere of "Puss in Boots".
Energy
Animal welfare rules are hurting wind power, reports Ryan Tracy: "New federal rules on how wind-power operators must manage threats to wildlife could create another challenge for the fast-growing industry as it seeks more footholds in the U.S. energy landscape. The death of an endangered bat in September at a wind farm in Pennsylvania was the latest in a series of incidents that have caught the attention of regulators and conservation-minded scientists, who worry that large numbers of bats, bald eagles and other birds are being killed by wind turbines' spinning blades. In January, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is set to publish new guidelines telling wind-farm operators how to measure the danger to wildlife at new sites and how to monitor existing sites. The guidelines are voluntary, but those who don't follow them are more likely to face fines or penalties if their turbines kill an animal protected by federal law."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal conflict has gone public, reports Matthew Wald: "Another chapter is out in the continuing and very public story of conflict within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has now taken the form of a battle of snail mail. A letter addressed to the White House chief of staff and signed by four of the five commission members was circulated Friday criticizing the fifth member, Gregory B. Jaczko, its chairman, and expressing 'grave concerns' that his deficiencies as a leader could compromise nuclear safety. It was dated Oct. 13. A similar letter was sent directly to Dr. Jaczko. And this week, a rebuttal letter from Dr. Jaczko, also addressed to William M. Daley, President Obama’s chief of staff, said the other four members were improperly trying to involve themselves in management affairs, which in a reorganization of the commission in 1980 became the chairman’s sole responsibility."

Rand Paul: Newt Gingrich "Tea Party Sellout"

The son of Texas Congressman and GOP hopeful Ron Paul – Kentucky Senator Rand Paul – appeared on CNN yesterday to discuss a recent op-ed he published in The Des Moines Register. The piece, which excoriated Newt Gingrich as a Tea Party “sell out” for his global warming commercials, support for cap-and-trade, and tenure as a Washington lobbyist, seems to be a desperate attempt to undermine the Republican frontrunner only three and a half weeks before the Iowa Caucuses. After writing critically about Newt’s incessant flip-flopping and willingness to abandon Tea Party principles, Paul left an indelible mark with this hard-hitting gem:
"The Tea Party was about people unhappy with Republicans voting for bank bailouts,” he said. “We thought they sold out our limited government views when they voted to send taxpayer money to the big banks. Unfortunately, Newt Gingrich was right there with them being paid by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It goes against everything that the Tea Party stands for."

Ron Paul Gains Momentum, "Huge Crowds In Iowa"

Jason M. Volack - In the latest ABC News / Washington post poll, Paul is tied with Mitt Romney for second place in the state.
Paul has visited the Hawkeye State more than 50 times since he declared his candidacy – and this week he kept up a grueling schedule of town hall meetings, media interviews and college rallies.
Paul explained his non-interventionist foreign policy to a packed rally of more than 1,000 mostly young people at Iowa State University on Thursday night.
The 12-term congressman has long done well with college students and drew another 700 mostly college students the following night at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls.
“He likes to do what he says – he says what he means – he doesn’t beat around the bush – he’s kind of entertaining to watch,” said Iowa State University student Mario Winburn.
Winburn said that he appreciates Paul’s consistency on issues ranging from abortion to the debt ceiling.
He also likes that Paul “doesn’t play politics,” said Winburn.
Although he has a favorable impression of the candidate, he’s not sold just yet. He’s giving all the presidential contenders a shot. Winburn voted for Obama during the last election, but is now taking a look at Ron Paul this time around.
“Ron Paul has something that just different about him could possible make him the next president,” said Winburn.
Indeed one of those differences has been to state his views, no matter how against the grain they appear.
During a presidential debate in September, fellow GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum challenged Paul to explain an article that the U.S. Congressman wrote, which he said blames America for 9/11.
However when Paul began to cite U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and America’s policy on Palestine as being the causes of the attacks, the audience booed him.
Undaunted, Paul continued to explain his view of why the attacks occurred.
At the end, Paul said “Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem.”
Curiosity about Paul also attracted Ray Mitchem, his wife, and two of their friends this morning to a Ron Paul town hall event in Marshalltown, Iowa.
Mitchem is just also not sold yet on a presidential pick. He has concerns about Paul’s foreign policy views, especially on his views concerning 9/11.
“We feel lucky that we are in Iowa and we can do things like this, a town hall meeting is as grass roots as you can get, said Mitchem. So we want to take advantage of that. ”
Paul’s foreign policy views are apparently one of his greatest weaknesses. Almost half of all respondents to a recent ABC News / Washington Post poll said Paul’s foreign policy views were a major reason to reject him.
And an uneasy embrace was evident at a town hall event Friday in Webster City, Iowa when Paul took a question from a member of the audience who urged him to “tell everyone that you love Israel.”
Paul reiterated his view that by taking away Israel’s foreign aid he’s actually protecting the nation’s sovereignty and that Israel doesn’t need U.S. foreign aid.
Paul Gains Momentum
The Paul campaign has been picking up steam.
The latest ABC News-Washington Post poll of potential voters in Iowa and New Hampshire show him in second or third place in the early-primary states.
To continue building momentum, the campaign set its sights on new national front-runner Newt Gingrich.
Paul is running an ad against the man he once served under when Gingrich was House speaker, accusing him of “serial hypocrisy.”
Paul plans an even more extensive get-out-the-vote effort in coming weeks by sending 500 young supporters to Iowa and New Hampshire to travel around the key early-voting states to drum up support and convince those who are still on the fence to vote for Ron Paul.

Holder, Blago, Richardson: Corruption At The Highest Level

Michelle Malkin -It was a rough week for the corruptocracy. White House officials better ho-ho-hold on tight because the sleigh ride isn't going to get any smoother.
On Wednesday, disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, D-Ill., received a 14-year prison sentence for scheming to sell President Barack Obama's Senate office, along with several other pay-for-play schemes. Blago played the distressed daddy for the federal judge, invoking his young daughters and wife (who held her notoriously foul tongue in check) to bemoan how his "life is in ruins."
How far Blago's fallen from the glory days of 2008, when he was gloating at the prospect of naming a candidate to fill then-President-elect Obama's seat. "I've got this thing, and it's f**king golden," he crowed. All that glitters now, though, are the paparazzi flash bulbs that Blago faces on his perp walks.
Earlier this week, Bill Richardson, former Democratic governor of New Mexico, disgraced former presidential candidate and failed Obama Commerce Secretary nominee, faced new reports of a federal grand jury into his possible violations of campaign finance laws. The funny-money business is tied to an alleged mistress payoff a la disgraced former presidential candidate and Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reports, investigators are probing how "Richardson's close allies steered more than $2 billion of public money into investment funds run by money managers who in turn agreed to pay millions of dollars in consulting fees to high-profile Democratic fundraisers and other supporters of Richardson."
The star that joined together this little constellation of sleaze? Disgraced U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
Holder and Blago go way back. Holder himself suffered selective amnesia about the relationship during his confirmation hearing. He somehow "forgot" to mention that Blagojevich had appointed him to probe corruption in Illinois casino licensing decisions. State officials had objected to Blago's crony appointment of fundraiser Christopher Kelly to the state Gaming Board. Kelly's business partner was now-convicted felon and shakedown artist Tony Rezko, Obama's former bagman and real-estate fixer.
Holder pocketed $300,000 from Blago to "investigate" and -- surprise, surprise -- concluded that no corruption existed. They stood shoulder to shoulder at a 2004 news conference to make the announcement. But Holder failed to disclose it on his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which he signed five days after Blagojevich's arrest in December 2008 for putting Obama's U.S. Senate seat up for sale.

Michael Moore: Wall Street Already Has Their Man And His Name Is Barack Obama

MICHAEL MOORE, ON CNN: Well, “The Washington post” three weeks ago had this investigation and they said that President Obama has now raised more money from Wall Street and the banks for this election cycle than all — than all eight Republicans combined. I don’t want to say that, because if that’s the truth, that Wall Street already has their man and his name is Barack Obama, then we’ve got a much bigger problem.
But I think President Obama, if he were here in the room, the question I would ask him is why are they your number one contributors? Why are you taking this money?
MORGAN: It’s fascinating to find out why they’re doing it. I’ll ask him.
MOORE: What are they expecting in return in the second term from you? Right now, here’s what we do know. Goldman Sachs was your number one contributor the 2008 election. And we have not seen anyone from Goldman Sachs go to jail. We have not seen the regulations, Glass/Steagall, put back on to Wall Street now three years after the crash.
Why hasn’t that happened? President Obama, we the people need you to take them by the throat and say, damn it, this is the United States of America; you don’t steal from the working people of this country. And this is the way it’s going to be.

Newt Gingrich New Virtual Face

Ann Coulter - Before you newly active Republicans commit to Newt Gingrich as your presidential nominee on the basis of the recent debates, here's a bit of Newt history you ought to know. I promise you, it's going to come up if he's the candidate.

The day after the Republicans' historic takeover of the House of Representatives in the 1994 election, Newt was off and running, giving a series of Fidel Castro-style speeches about "the Third Wave information revolution." It had the unmistakable ring of lingo from his new-age gurus, Alvin and Heidi Toffler.

(Newt, who was married at the time, also began dating again.)

A few weeks later, when Newt was elected House speaker by the incoming Republican conference, there was a small elderly couple standing by his side as he gave a one-hour acceptance speech. It soon became clear who they were, when he issued a reading list to the Republican legislators. At the top of the list was a book by the Tofflers.

Hadn't Republicans just won on a platform of smaller government? Instead of a Republican victory, the '94 election seemed to be a victory for the Tofflers' cyber-babble about "social wavefront analysis," "anticipatory democracy," "de-massification," "materialismo," "the Third Wave" and "decision loads."

Then, in his first week as speaker, Gingrich was again promoting the Tofflers around town, introducing them at a technology conference and giving a speech titled "From Virtuality to Reality."

How about a speech on Republican plans to reform entitlement programs?

Gingrich soon announced that all legislation passed by the new Congress would have to pass a test: Will it help move America into the Tofflers' vision of a "Third Wave"?

If this guy ever became president, he could end up foisting EST on the nation.

It was also a Toffler-inspired idea that led Gingrich to propose giving poor families a tax credit to buy computers -- an idea he called "dumb" just one week later.

(Newt's denouncing Paul Ryan's Social Security reform as "right-wing social engineering" and then apologizing a week later -- and then retracting his apology -- was not uncharacteristic.)

The Tofflers were a couple of old folks who couldn't figure out how to program their VCRs, so they began writing about the "shock" of technology and how we needed government planning to deal with technological overload.

Their big idea was that the world was about to change faster than it ever had before, creating a technological explosion that would frighten and baffle the masses -- much like the bewildering VCR clock. The government would have to have advisers and committees in order to ease the transition.

The facts are nearly the exact opposite. In the first half of the 20th century, we got widespread use of the automobile, the airplane, the telephone, electricity, radio and television, indoor plumbing, air conditioning and refrigeration, the computer, nuclear power and rockets.

All we got in the second half of the 20th century were some improvements on one of those inventions -- the computer -- with the personal computer, the Internet and the iPhone. (Boomers were more focused on acid trips than space trips and dropped the ball on the hard work of pushing scientific progress forward.)

Far from needing government agencies to help us "cope" with these advances -- "Scientific Futurists," a "Technology Ombudsman" and a "Council of Social Advisers," as proposed by the Tofflers -- the masses have taken to these improvements like fish to water.

The Tofflers' recommendation that children be eased into the coming technological revolution with adult mentors sounds like the proposal of Clinton's surgeon general, Joycelyn Elders, that schools teach teenagers to masturbate. In both subject areas, the children can teach their elders a few tricks.

Not only was it completely crazy, but Newt's grand schemes didn't quite fit the Republican model of a small, unintrusive federal government.

But Gingrich became a Toffler acolyte when he was an assistant history professor at West Georgia College and attended a Toffler seminar in Chicago. Alvin didn't notice Gingrich at the time, but later remarked: "He kept reminding me of himself in letters."

(Note that the maharishi of the information age and his No. 1 groupie kept in touch by writing each other letters.)

Soon, Gingrich was writing a foreword to a Toffler book -- the same one on the Republicans' reading list –- and spending Christmas with the pro-choice, anti-school prayer, Christian Coalition-hating Tofflers. Yes, there's nothing like having an old-fashioned Christmas with a doddering couple who hate prayer and Christians, love abortion and are afraid of their microwave.

(Incidentally, this was around the same time the purportedly pro-abortion Mitt Romney, as a Mormon elder, was pressuring a woman who wanted to abort her child to continue the pregnancy and give up the baby for adoption -- something he was attacked for in Teddy Kennedy campaign ads a few years later.)

At the end of Gingrich's first year as House speaker, his endless, nutty pronunciamentos -- in addition to his plan to entrust Republicans' legislative agenda to an old couple whose living room VCR continuously flashed "12:00" -- had driven his public approval numbers into the dirt.

In a CNN-Time poll, 66 percent of respondents said Gingrich was "too extreme," 52 percent said he was "out of touch" and 49 percent said he was "scary."

It's true that the liberal media attack Republicans unfairly. But that's a fact to be dealt with, not ignored by nominating a candidate who keeps giving the media so much to work with.

Gingrich has spent his years since then having an affair, divorcing his second wife and making money by being the consummate Washington insider -- trading on access, taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and palling around with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton.

Even Chuck Schumer wouldn't be seen doing a joint event with Al Sharpton! But Newt seeks approval from strange places.

Newt Gingrich is the "anti-Establishment" candidate only if "the Establishment" is defined as "anyone who remembers what happened the day before yesterday."