Gingrich businesses going bankrupt

Much like George Bush, Newt Gingrich has the reverse Midas touch. Not only did his campaign finish millions in debt, but his previously profitable private businesses are falling apart as well.

Quite the fiscal conservative, isn't he?

When he entered the race for the Republican presidential nomination in May 2011, Newt Gingrich was the prosperous head of a small empire commonly known as Newt Inc, which included both for-profit consultancies and nonprofit foundations.

Altogether, these entwined ventures pulled in more than $110 million over the past decade. Now the vestiges of this empire are mired in debt, as is Gingrich's campaign fund.

A bankruptcy proceeding under way in Atlanta will determine whether the one company still owned by Callista Gingrich, Gingrich Productions, will lose an expected payout that now constitutes the bulk of the Gingriches' net worth.

Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich campaign $4 million in debt due to bad management

Oh those fiscal conservatives. It's impressive how they know so much about balancing budgets while lecturing others about their crazy spending habits.

Newt Gingrich ends his White House dream today with his political committee facing a mountain of debts -- owing about $4 million to scores of businesses and campaign workers around the country who fear they will never get paid.

Campaign watchdogs said the size of Gingrich's debt is extraordinary -- and could have been avoided if the candidate and his team had been more disciplined.

"He was reckless in running up these bills, especially in the last month or so of the campaign when it was quite clear that Mitt Romney would be the nominee," said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the watchdog group Citizen Union.

This reminds me of an annoying 20-something American traveler that I overheard last week telling someone that she's "um, like a fiscal conservative." Can someone please tell me what that means and who might have ever fit such a description. I always hear that type boast about it but have yet to see it in the real world. After all, the guy who spent the US into recession with his reckless tax cuts and wars was supposed to be a fiscal conservative. Read the rest of this post...

If the GOP candidates were teens on Twitter

From College Humor (an excerpt):

Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich wants worldwide treaty declaring gun ownership a universal human right

As Digby notes, stupidity is a human right too.

The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not our government,” Gingrich said. The NRA “has been too timid” in promoting its agenda beyond American borders. The Bill of Rights was not written only for Americans, he said. “It is a universal document.”

“A Gingrich presidency will submit to the UN a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet.” Every world citizen, he said, “deserves the right to defend themselves from those who exploit, imprison, or kill them.” For his latest big idea, Gingrich earned a standing ovation from the crowd of roughly 5,000.

“We don’t need to go across the planet trying to impose American values, but we do need to go across the planet spreading human values,” Gingrich said. “The Second Amendment is a right for all mankind.” [emphasis added]

Gingrich has a point. Where do Americans get off being so arrogant as to think we own the patent on the God-given right to enable the massacre of our children in schools? Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich complains about Fox News bias

Priceless.

"I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through," Gingrich said during a meeting with Tea Party leaders in Delaware on Wednesday, according RealClearPolitics.com, which said it was granted access to the private event. "In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we're more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That's just a fact."

The former House Speaker blasted the Roger Ailes-led network, blaming Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of Fox News owner News Corp., for the bias.

"I assume it's because Murdoch at some point [who] said, 'I want Romney,' and so 'fair and balanced' became 'Romney,' " Gingrich said. "And there's no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches Fox."

Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich says nothing as man calls Obama a Muslim at campaign event

RT @SarahH_CBSNJ: Man just called Obama a Muslim at Newt's Lake Charles event...Newt does not address or correct claim.

Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich: Left doesn't believe the Wright Brothers invented flying

Newt Gingrich via the Huffington Post:

"The Left has believed for at least forty years now in a concept called Peak Oil that says 'gee, we're about to run out.' Well, it turns out that our reserves in the U.S., because of new technology, which is something that the Left rejects - they don't believe the Wright Brothers invented flying, they don't believe Edison invented electric light, and they don't believe we're about to invent the next generation of interesting things.

I don't think I have met anyone on 'the Left' who seriously disputes the notion that the Wright brothers were the first to succeed at powered flight but as everyone knows, the Montgolfier brothers beat them to 'flight' by more than a century.

Nor have I met anyone who disputes the fact that Thomas Edison made enormous contributions to the development of electric light. But the fact remains that he did not invent electric light. The British inventor Joseph Swan began working on the problem in 1850 and developed a recognizable lightbulb back in 1860. Swan was the first person to live in a house lit by electricity (1880). And even though Edison and Swan both made substantial contributions to making the first practical systems for electric light, there were 22 other people working on incandescent electric lamps before them.

This might seem pedantic, but Gingrich is a professor of history. If he can't make an argument about historical facts with accuracy and precision, then just what is he good for?

It is almost as if Gingrich told someone that the Wright brothers invented 'flight', someone attempted to correct his error, and rather than check the facts for himself Gingrich deduced they were a leftist hater of America. Later on someone must have tried to correct Gingrich on the history of electric light, a second observation that proved the existence of a vast left wing conspiracy. Read the rest of this post...

About last night... the GOP primaries in AL and MS

Santorum won both states last night.

Nate Silver in the NYT on Gingrich's losses

Newt Gingrich's spokesman R.C. Hammond called both Alabama and Mississippi "must wins" for his candidate. Mr. Gingrich lost both states to Rick Santorum, instead.

Was Romney punished by southern voters for being a Mormon? More from Nate, noting that Romney underperformed versus earlier polls:

We mentioned earlier that polls are having a rough night in Mississippi. They projected Mitt Romney to win 34 percent of the vote there and several gave him the lead. But with most of the vote counted, he has 30 percent so far instead and is running in third place. Meanwhile, Rick Santorum is running significantly ahead of his polls.

As Political Wire notes, it wasn't a great night for Romney, who finished third in both states: rospars:

RT @politicalwire: Romney adviser: "I don't think anybody expected Mitt to win AL or MS." Romney yesterday: "We are going to win tomorrow."

Kombiz adds:

RT @kombiz: If an executive came to me and said lemme spend $100M to be 3rd in GOP primaries, I'd say You're Fired. #BusinessMitt

Kombiz adds:

kombiz: Honestly, Kudos to McCain.. In 2008 he actually had to beat serious contenders for the presidency. Romney can't beat fringe candidates

ABC News' exit polls show that voters were skeptical of Romney's conservative credentials, half branded him "not conservative enough." Duh, he's a northeast liberal. Or at least he was. Now it's not clear if he was even honest about being a liberal.

More concern about Romney's double 3rd place finish from Politico:

Rick Santorum delivered another sharp shock to Mitt Romney’s campaign Tuesday night, claiming victory in the Alabama and Mississippi presidential primaries and reinforcing — yet again — conservative hesitations about the GOP front-runner.

Gingrich says Romney is "not much of a frontrunner."

But before everyone gets giddy over how well Rick Santorum is doing, keep in mind that Americans are more than capable of electing the man president. (Would you really put it past them? These are the people who re-elected George Bush.) So be careful what, or who, you wish for. Read the rest of this post...

The .01 Percent Primary—How 196 people will buy the 2012 election, and where that money will go

There's an excellent, longish article at Alternet by Ari Berman, highly readable, well researched, about the major money going into the 2012 election. The revelation isn't that it's being bought — it's the extent to which it's being bought. Berman delivers the names and numbers.

He starts with the bottom line (my emphasis and some reparagraphing throughout):

At a time when it’s become a cliché to say that Occupy Wall Street has changed the nation’s political conversation -- drawing long overdue attention to the struggles of the 99% -- electoral politics and the 2012 presidential election have become almost exclusively defined by the 1%. Or, to be more precise, the .0000063%. Those are the 196 individual donors who have provided nearly 80% of the money raised by super PACs in 2011 by giving $100,000 or more each.

And where is that money going? TV ads, which are not at all cheap, plus other media and direct mail buys. This is not something you should gloss over lightly; it's a critical part of the problem, as I'll explain in a minute:

The Wesleyan Media Project recently reported a 1600% increase in interest-group-sponsored TV ads in this cycle as compared to the 2008 primaries.

Florida has proven the battle royal of the super PACs thus far. There, the pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, outspent the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, five to one. In the last week of the campaign alone, Romney and his allies ran 13,000 TV ads in Florida, compared to only 200 for Gingrich. Ninety-two percent of the ads were negative in nature[.]

Berman calls this the ".01 Percent Primary" — agreeing with all those who believe that while "The 1%" makes a great slogan, it's really the 1% of the 1% who call all the shots.

The .01 Percent Primary

More than 300 super PACs are now registered with the Federal Election Commission. ... [With the exception of the Stephen Colbert super PAC] the super PACs on both sides of the aisle are financed by the 1% of the 1%.

Romney’s Restore Our Future Super PAC, founded by the general counsel of his 2008 campaign, has led the herd, raising $30 million, 98% from donors who gave $25,000 or more. Ten million dollars came from just 10 donors who gave $1 million each. These included three hedge-fund managers and Houston Republican Bob Perry, the main funder behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, whose scurrilous ads did such an effective job of destroying John Kerry’s electoral prospects. ...

[Rick Santorum's] super PAC -- Red, White & Blue -- has raised and spent more than the candidate himself. Forty percent of the $2 million that has so far gone into Red, White & Blue came from just one man, Foster Friess, a conservative hedge-fund billionaire and Christian evangelical from Wyoming. ...

For now, Gingrich’s sugar daddy Adelson has pledged to stay with his flagging campaign, but he’s also signaled that if the former Speaker of the House goes down, he’ll be ready to donate even more super PAC money to a Romney presidential bid.

And keep in mind that there’s nothing in the post-Citizens United law to stop a donor like Adelson, hell-bent on preventing the Obama administration from standing in the way of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, from giving $100 million, or for that matter, however much he likes.

Stunningly large amounts of money; but I shop at Safemart. I don't have Adelson's $21,000,000,000, or Foster Friess' $530,000,000, or the money of any of these Romney billionaire donors, as listed by Forbes:

        Ken Griffin [$2.3 billion]
        Paul Tudor Jones [$3.2 billion]
        William Koch [$4 billion]
        Julian Robertson [$2.4 billion]
        Stephen Ross [$3.1 billion]
        Steven Roth [$1.05 billion]
        Marc Rowan [$1.45 billion]
        Alice Walton [$20.9 billion]
        Jim Walton [$21.1 billion]
        Sam Zell [$4.7 billion]

If I did have those dollars, I drop a few dimes (in $10 million increments) on the presidential race as well. There's more than $60 billion dollars of net worth in just that Romney list, and that's not his whole list; there's more.

(By the way, the two Waltons on the list are the really-bigs; that $40 billion between them is inherited Walmart money. And yes, that's yet another Koch brother, the poor one. The Waltons and the Kochs are two of the 18 families behind the repeal of the Inheritance Tax. You read it right — just 18 families.)

Shadow super PAC—the 501c4 groups

The article then mentions the Daddy of all Super PACs, the "501c4" organizations, and says, "any donor can give an unlimited contribution to a 501c4 -- outfits defined by the IRS as 'civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,' and to make matters worse, that contribution will remain eternally secret." He calls these "shadow super PACs" and he's right.

Obama isn't spared. In a section called "The Myth of Small Donors" Berman notes: "Obama’s top contributors included employees of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup" despite the little-guy giving the campaign chose to emphasize.

Obama's 2012 super PAC is called Priorities USA. He needs $1 billion to run his campaign. Do the math; then do the after-election math.

There's more to this piece than I can quote or even reference. Berman's writing is clear and specific. You won't be sorry you read it (you may be sorry you live here, but not because the article is badly done; it's not.)

About those TV stations

Remember how I said above that the media — the networks and TV stations — were a huge part of the problem? Most people only look at the front end of the election system. They see how Big Money buys candidates who pay them back with favorable laws, low taxes, and lack of prosecutions.

But think of the candidate as just a pass-through for the cash. The money starts somewhere (Our Betters); they give it to campaigns and campaign surrogates; tons of people take a very generous cut; and it ends up somewhere. The candidate isn't bought with the money; the candidate is bought with electoral office.

What does most of that money actually buy? TV time. Very expensive TV time.

Think for a minute from the standpoint of the network or TV station owner:

■ I have a broadcast license that, in practice, I can never lose. (I pray daily to the Great God Clinton, blessings on his name, for that one.)

■ I have a political system that allows me to charge big bucks for what used to be free — access to TV for candidates.

■ I have a campaign financing system that dumps unlimited money into the pockets of politicians and their supporters — and that money needs to be spent.

■ Who do they spend it on? Me.

As a general rule, 75% of campaign money goes to media and communications, and while I don't have the TV numbers (national and local), I'd bet that TV accounts for the bulk of it.

In 2008, TV commercials accounted for $2.8 billion, alone, in expenditures; 2012 is on target to go off that reservation and onto another planet.

If I'm a network owner — and I look at that setup — I'm looking at "my Precious." I love my Precious more than life, and I will murder with my hands the first person who tries to change a hair on its little head.



Virtually murder, of course, by single-mindedly and repeatedly destroying his reputation. Something I can easily do, because my product is — media.

Even if every politician in the world wanted that system to change, the media owners would block them every time. That system is worth gold. It's ... Precious. For that reason alone, I fear it will never change.

GP Read the rest of this post...

PPP: Santorum surges 15 points ahead of Romney among Republicans nationally

One thing PPP doesn't mention is where Santorum was at, nationally, in the poll before this one - i.e., how much of a surge?  I've scoured their Web site and can't find it. Not nearly as user-friendly as the old Pollster.com.  If anyone can find it, I'll link.  PPP:

Riding a wave of momentum from his trio of victories on Tuesday Rick Santorum has opened up a wide lead in PPP's newest national poll. He's at 38% to 23% for Mitt Romney, 17% for Newt Gingrich, and 13% for Ron Paul.

Part of the reason for Santorum's surge is his own high level of popularity. 64% of voters see him favorably to only 22% with a negative one. But the other, and maybe more important, reason is that Republicans are significantly souring on both Romney and Gingrich. Romney's favorability is barely above water at 44/43, representing a 23 point net decline from our December national poll when he was +24 (55/31). Gingrich has fallen even further. A 44% plurality of GOP voters now hold a negative opinion of him to only 42% with a positive one. That's a 34 point drop from 2 months ago when he was at +32 (60/28).

Santorum is now completely dominating with several key segments of the electorate, especially the most right leaning parts of the party. With those describing themselves as 'very conservative,' he's now winning a majority of voters at 53% to 20% for Gingrich and 15% for Romney. Santorum gets a majority with Tea Party voters as well at 51% to 24% for Gingrich and 12% for Romney. And with Evangelicals he falls just short of a majority with 45% to 21% for Gingrich and 18% for Romney.

It used to be that Gingrich was leading with all these groups and Romney was staying competitive enough with them to hold the overall lead. No more- a consensus conservative candidate finally seems to be emerging and it's Santorum.
The best thing Romney might have going for him right now is Gingrich's continued presence in the race. If Gingrich dropped out 58% of his supporters say they would move to Santorum, while 22% would go to Romney and 17% to Paul. Santorum gets to 50% in the Newt free field to 28% for Romney and 15% for Paul.

Read the rest of this post...

Santorum wins Missouri, Minnesota; once again Romney has trouble with the base

Washington Post:

Rick Santorum had a breakthrough night on Tuesday, winning presidential contests in Missouri and Minnesota and making a strong showing in Colorado, all of which is expected to breathe life into his struggling campaign and slow Mitt Romney’s march to the Republican presidential nomination.

PoliticalWire has more:

With at least two wins tonight, the best news for Santorum is that he's got three weeks to raise money for Arizona and Michigan. The next best news is that it was a horrible night for Newt Gingrich.

Ari Berman adds (via twitter):

With 99 % reporting, GOP turnout in Missouri half of what it was in '08; 249,000 tonight vs 588,000 in '08 (Dem turnout 827,000 in '08)

From Zeke Miller at Buzzfeed:

Romney's lackluster performance once again proves he has trouble with the base — and Santorum's candidacy is just the manifestation of that trouble.

The people who turn out for these low-profile, non-binding affairs are the same activists who knock on doors and drive Republicans to the polls in November. And while Santorum isn't going to be the Republican nominee, he can go a long way toward souring that Republican base toward its likely nominee.

The question being asked tonight by Romney supporters and GOP officials is why can't Romney seal the deal. His campaign will have a long February if they can't come up to an answer to that question — and fast.

AP reports that, in an effort to win over the religious right, Romney switched in recent days to talk about social issues.  Didn't work.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney shifted his focus from the economy to abortion, religious freedom and gay marriage in recent days, part of an intensified effort to win over social conservatives in states voting Tuesday.

It didn't work.

Republican Rick Santorum, a fierce and vocal opponent of abortion and gay rights, trounced the GOP front-runner in Minnesota's caucuses on Tuesday and won bragging rights for placing first in Missouri's non-binding primary. The victories exposed Romney's longtime struggles to convince cultural conservatives that he's now in line with their beliefs despite his previous support of abortion rights.

Yeah, imagine that. People who don't even think Catholics are Christians actually have a problem with a liberal Mormon who once claimed to be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy.  And this is surprising because?  If Romney could flip to suddenly being a conservative, he could flip back to being the Mormon Kennedy if he's sworn in in 11 months.  Kind of like a guy who cheats on his wife and marries his mistress and then cheats on her and marries the next mistress.  At some point, if you still believe the guy can be trusted, then you deserve what you get.

More from Roger Simon at Politico:

@politicoroger: I realize it's a tough night for him, but Romney seemed WAY down in his speech. Never let them see how much it hurts, Mitt.

And the most unfortunate line of the evening goes to David Gergen:

@GregMitch: Best line of night remains Gergen: "Santorum is ripening."

He's referrring of course to this Santorum. Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich aide edits Wikipedia to hide mention of 3 wives, ethics charges

Typical. Read the rest of this post...

Trump to endorse Gingrich tomorrow

Fun fun fun fun fun.  Of course Trump is a buffoon.  But he's still a publicity machine, and this just keeps anyone-but-Romney alive to fight another day, and that's good for all of us. Read the rest of this post...

Republicans starting to worry about Romney’s and Gingrich’s mutual mud-slinging

I'm not sure there's any way to avoid it. Romney's money is his weakness. And pretty much everything about Gingrich is his weakness. You can try to keep your campaign focused on ideas, but at some point, it's hard not to pander to the lowest common denominator, aka why the other guy stinks. From Jonathan Martin at Politico:

Ed Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman and leading GOP strategist, said: “I do think there is concern amongst a lot of Republicans that the nature of this debate has become counterproductive. I don’t think it’s something that won’t be overcome, but I’d say there’s frustration that [the campaign] is not more focused on the issues.”

Even Sarah Palin, who has been a vocal advocate for a long race, decried the tone Tuesday night.

“It diminishes the energy headed into the general,” Palin said on Fox, describing a “process that hasn’t been attractive to the electorate.”

Yeah, cuz Ms. Death Panels is really an authority on civility. Read the rest of this post...

Poor one-quarter billionaire Mitt Romney plays the victim card

Zeke Miller at Buzzfeed:

Mitt Romney says he was "outgunned" in South Carolina, blaming attacks from Newt Gingrich for his defeat there earlier this month.

But the truth is that Romney outspent Gingrich about 2-1 in South Carolina, and over 4-1 in here the Sunshine State. Romney has also deployed an army of surrogates to bombard Gingrich with negative soundbites and statements. And Gingrich unilaterally withheld from running negative ads in Iowa, and saw his poll numbers collapse in the state amid millions of dollars in attacks from a pro-Romney Super PAC.

Yeah, it must be tough to be worth a quarter of a billion dollars and be so rich that you honestly have no idea exactly how much money you have.  And don't forget that Romney also trucked tons of Mormon youth in to South Carolina to provide fake astroturf grassroots support at his campaign stops, and he still lost. More on the millions Romney is spending in Florida, far outweighing Gingrich. Read the rest of this post...

Romney pulling ahead in Florida

Sad. It would have been fun to watch Gingrich really muck things up. Via Slate:

Mitt Romney widened his lead in Florida over the weekend as the last fumes from Newt Gingrich's South Carolina momentum dissipated in the Sunshine State.

According to Reuters, Romney's lead had grown to 12 percentage points as of Sunday. Even more striking is Newt's decline in the three-day Reuters poll's hypothetical head-to-head between the two front-runners: On Friday, Gingrich and Romney were two percentage points apart, with Romney barely leading. On Saturday, the gap was eight percentage points. On Sunday, 11.

Other polls released over the weekend confirm Romney's widening lead.

Read the rest of this post...

Who is Sheldon Adelson and why is he buying Newt Gingrich?

In a recent article in that wonderful publication, New York Review of Books, Elizabeth Drew examines our election system and asks: "Can We Have a Democratic Election?"

It's a longish piece and worth your time. She covers many aspects of the answer, including the Republican war on voting rights.

Here I'd like to single out just one observation, involving a certain Sheldon Adelson, one of the mega-rich — the top .01% — and someone you've likely never heard of. But if you think "Koch Bros" you're there.

Sheldon Adelson is the 8th richest man in the U.S. and the 16th wealthiest person in the world. In other words, he's a player in the big leagues, a billionaire among billionaires. (Mostly, these guys go unobserved, like billionaire sports franchise owners. Quick, who owns the New York Giants? Now, who plays quarterback for them? See? Adelson flies under that radar too.)

Back to Elizabeth Drew. The context of the discussion is the dueling Super PACs, Romney's and Gingrich's, each flooding their respective primary campaigns with bought resources, like media ads and "documentary" films. Drew writes (my emphasis below):

When Gingrich’s Super PAC was running low on funds after Iowa it was rescued by Gingrich’s longtime backer, Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson. Adelson and his wife have spent at least $10 million to put Gingrich on the course to the presidency, and Gingrich has vowed to issue an executive order on his first day as president to move the American embassy in Israel from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv [sic]—a cause long supported by Adelson and other strong supporters of Israel. Were Gingrich to win, Sheldon Adelson would be one of the most influential people in the country.

That took my breath away. Pause to consider.

Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson, a man worth $23 billion, drops a mere $10,000,000 (that's 10 very big ones) into Gingrich's pocket — for the primary.

So I start asking myself:

1. What are we on course for? Rhetorical question, of course. Answer — Baronial rule via paid retainers (here, Gingrich).

After all, why allow the rich to become that rich if they can't buy stuff with it? In this analogy, Gingrich — and the presidency — count as "stuff."

I'm serious about this. We allow people to acquire mega-wealth, then we let our politicians sell out to them, then we complain about the result while pretending we have a democracy. It's nuts, I know. That's why I don't think about it; hey, there's a game on somewhere (Vegas?) and I think I need a drink.

2. What does that make Gingrich? Another rhetorical question, but this being a family paper, I'll just say "paid lackey" — an eager one. Or if you insist on the polite term — "retainer," a kind of highly placed personal servant (and very responsive, given the pay).

3. What does that make people like Adelson? The old term would be "kingmaker," but kingmakers didn't rule after the election. There's no question that a Koch Bros President would take his orders "directly from Chief Powatan" (in Stan Freberg's delightful formulation). Doubt me? Listen again to Gov. Scott ("Reporting for duty,sir") Walker. Check out the tone.

In fact, Sheldon Adelson — and all who invest alongside of him — are angling to own the President. As are Romney's major investors. (As are...well...)

If you care, there's a lot more on Sheldon Adelson here.

3. In which election do we discover that this kind of bought-ness applies to every important state and federal election? This means, all governors, majorities of state legislators, all elected state Supreme Court judges (as already practiced in Wisconsin); plus enough congressmen and senators to create a permanent ruling majority in Washington.

Don't be stunned by the list of offices; that's the side show, the given. Go back to the question — in what year will this discovery be manifest?

I'll give you only two choices — In this federal election (2012)? Or the next one (2014)? Frankly, if you think this won't play out publicly until 2016, you seriously underestimate our billionaires.

Sheldon Adelson, Newt Gingrich's new owner, and yours, if Gingrich gains the crown. Watch for much more of this stuff; it's the new normal. Ten million dollars is nothing to the Adelsons ($23 billion strong), and there are many more Adelsons in this world than we realize. (Note, I said "in this world." Do you think this is just a national sport?)

Soros may well be right (another of his sins).

GP Read the rest of this post...

Diana Krall: "Fly Me To The Moon"

Shamelessly "borrowed" from Paul Krugman (but I promised to return it when you folks are done). In honor, of course, of Newt "the Moonbase" Gingrich.

This is a very good song and an excellent version. Modern, but true to its jazz-lounge roots. Perfect for singers who, like Ms. Krall, have an ear for which off-beats to come in on.

Note those big ten-finger chords at the start of her solo. Reminds me of Brubeck in his prime (Dave's solo starts at 2:42).

Enjoy!



In other words, please be true. One can only hope.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Newt's Contract "scam"—How Contract with America co-opted Perot voters into advancing the MoveCon project

Rick Perlstein has started writing columns again, this time for Rolling Stone, and the results have been excellent. His most recent piece is on Newt Gingrich and the Contract for America "scam." It makes fascinating reading.

He starts (my emphasis & paragraphing; we have narrower columns here at the casa):

Newton Leroy Gingrich is one wily mothertrucker. He's calling his presidential platform this year a "21st Century Contract With America."

It's a wingnutpalooza, naturally, endorsing such “timeless American values” as seeking to "establish English as the official language of government," and reducing the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent and the capital gains rate to zero; and featuring such "Day One Executive Orders" as the cancellation of all "immigration-related lawsuits against states" and a renewal of "President Ronald Reagan's policy ... to stop taxpayer dollars from being used to fund or promote abortions in foreign country." . . .

The title, of course, refers to the Contract With America, which 367 Republican congressional candidates signed on the Capitol steps in September of 1994. When, two months later, the GOP took over Congress for the first time since 1952, making its architect, Newt Gingtrich, the Speaker of the House, all the world proclaimed that the electorate had just delivered a historic mandate for conservatism.

Well, not really. The Contract With America was a hustle from start to finish. It never really was about conservatism at all – practically the opposite.

Perlstein walks through the process that Gingrich used to focus-group, co-opt, and strip clean all the Perot-voter-issues he could use, in order to repackage himself and his posse as their next-gen faux-non-partisan saviors.

And it worked. Remember, Perot got 16% of the popular vote in 1992. That's a huge pile of voters; rube-ify them and they're yours. The article shows, in laser-like fashion, how he did just that.

The piece is a well-told tale, a nice cohesive story, so I'll add just one more morsel, the part where the rug got pulled (again, my reparagraphing):

An extraordinary but obscure political science monograph by Ronald Rapoport and Walter Stone, Three's a Crowd: The Dynamics of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence, reconstructed through interviews, surveys, and documents how Gingrich devised a document micro-tailored to turn at least 70 percent of Perot voters, however fleetingly, into Republicans in time for November of 1994.

"Republicans knew," Stone and Rapoport write, "that the traditional Republican congressional campaign" – which is to say, conservatism – "would be insufficient to get this support." This realization was the genesis of the Contract for America. ... The final product comprised 44 percent "reform" issues, almost identical to the 41 percent in Perot United We Stand checklist (they had made up only 14 percent of the 1992 Republican platform).

Then, Contract in hand, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee got to work identifying Perot voters in districts where he had done well in 1992, blitzing them with direct mail, phone calls, and door-knocking.

Once Newt gained office, the carefully worded outsider "reformist" document was rebranded the Republican Contract With America ...

... as a straight-up electoral endorsement of conservatism – "the third leg of the conservative revolution in post-World War II America" that began with Barry Goldwater and the Heritage Foundation, which had been in on the planning all along.

I guess that makes us all rubes — the nation's been buying the Republican co-option of Perotian dissent ever since. (Most of us, in fact, have forgotten Perot — wasn't he from Argentina or something?)

A personal note — I called this the MoveCon (Movement Conservative) "project" in the headline, but it's really the Movement Conservative coup, isn't it.

It starts, in modern times, with people like journalist Edith Efron, Justice Lewis Powell, and Nixon Treasury secretary William Simon; plus documents like the Lewis Powell memo (same link; search on "Powell's contribution"). You may remember Powell. He was one of the Yes votes on Buckley v Valeo, which Midas-like turned money into speech.

There's a straight line from Nixon's rise and fall, through the mislabeled Reagan "revolution" (actually counter-revolution) to Bush II and his dream of permanent Republican rule.

The "Movement Conservative project" — power they never give up. Wonder if the national Republicans are watching the Republican War in the States ... or that cute little coup in Hungary.

Perlstein now writes regularly for Rolling Stone. Well worth checking out.

As for you, Newt — your place is secure.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Newt’s SuperPAC launches another video going after Romney titled "Blood Money"

Blood money!  Get the popcorn.

Read the rest of this post...