the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
The problem with Mitt Romney is the inconsistencies in his record. The problem with Newt Gingrich is the consistency of his record.
I will support either of these men against Barack Obama. Either would be better. (Quick: My new favorite website)
I support Gingrich over Romney because Gingrich fights and I don’t ever have to doubt where he stands on an issue. I trust Gingrich even if I don’t agree with him.
But I don’t know that I can support Gingrich. I really don’t. That is my confession. In Romney v. Newt, I support Newt. But in Newt vs. the rest?My problem is very basic.
In all honesty and candor and recognizing we all fall short of the glory of God, I do not know that I can support a man who is on his third wife having cheated on his two prior wives. It is very much more the adultery than the marriages. Many of my friends have marriages that do not work out.
But, if a man cannot be faithful to his vows made before God related to his marriage, how can he be faithful to the constitution he swears to God to uphold?
Were it Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, all we’d hear about for the next week is that they went to Kansas and said it was “Good to be back in Texas.” Except it wasn’t Perry or Bachmann. It was Barack Obama not using the teleprompter.
Like the 57 states.
Except Barack Obama is a genius.
A few weeks ago, you were provided with a PowerPoint overview overview of the battle ahead in 2012 and what must be done to become a Force Multiplier.
With the Obama re-election campaign in full swing since January when ex-SEIU political director Patrick Gaspard left the White House to help run the campaign through OFA, union bosses have expectedly begun lining up their endorsements.
Ramesh Ponnuru, one of the more respected pundits of the establishment right, recently penned a widely-circulated article that took issue with the notion that Republicans lost their way during the Bush years to their political detriment. He argued that conservatives have created a false narrative, based on a bad reading of history, that “ideological purity, especially on spending, had caused those [electoral] losses,” in 2006 and 2008. As a result, the party continues to lose more than it should and is failing to focus on the “real problems” facing the country.
This is an odd bit of revisionist history coming from someone known to be on the right, especially since the implicit lesson for Republicans is to be less ideologically pure and move to the center. Yet, it is interesting that Ramesh claims that “this consensus still moves the party.” It doesn’t.
After decades of monstrous lies about Social Security, Democrats have finally blown the cover off their stratagem. They have always proclaimed that our payroll taxes were held securely in a trust fund in order to purvey retirement checks for each pay roll tax contributor. Moreover, they emphatically promised that as much as $2.6 trillion in unspent tax revenue had accrued in the trust fund. Now, with their push for a defacto permanent payroll tax cut, they are shedding all effort to conceal their Social Security mendacity.
I’ve said before that when the Democrats propose a tax credit it’s called a “business incentive” and when a Republican proposes a tax credit it’s called a “loophole.” This game of semantics only works because of a complicit media which is more than willing to apply the Democrat designated classifications to ensure the correct narrative.
In reality, all sides are using fancy words to avoid the one word that best describes what is happening: subsidization.
Subsidies aren’t necessarily inherently bad. There can be subsidies that work in favor of economic growth or better opportunities for the disadvantaged. But more often than not, subsidies are used as a way to prop up industries that serve other agendas. Like elections for instance.