Newt vs Mitt: How We Got Here and What Lies Ahead

Wherever I go, whoever I talk to, I’m getting asked the same question over and over again:

How did we end up with having to choose between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee for president?

Well, the ever-so-exciting Tim Pawlenty dropped out.  So did the toast (according to his Democrat buddies) of last year’s annual Gridiron Dinner, Mitch Daniels.

Then, former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin headed for more sane and lucrative pastures as she withdrew to simply be a pundit for the next 5 years.

That left us with a cranky old isolationist (Ron Paul), a Conservative woman labelled Crazy Eyes by the Main Street Media (Michele Bachmann), a Pennsylvania Conservative who is about as exciting as dry white toast (Rick Santorum) and a wealthy Mormon heir who worked for – and still speaks highly of – President Barack Hussein Obama (Jon Huntsman).

Now, what do Romney and Gingrich have to look forward to in their quest to secure their party’s nomination?

Well, after they get through eviscerating each other down to their skivvies, the pack of piranhas known as the Main Street Media are going to give them both a thorough and quite public examination that their proctologists will be envious of.

We have no clue as to a lot of the details of the life of the present Leader of the Free World, but you can be darn sure that the American public will know how many zits Newt popped as a teenager and  the first time Mitt used Brylcreem on that luxurious hair of his.

And that’s just the above-board research.

Obama’s hatchet man, David Axlerod, is sure to get the nod to finish the job.  I would bet you (not $10,000, because I’m as broke as the rest of hard-working Americans in the Heartland, thanks to Obamanomics) that he’s been a busy little henchman already.

Sherman, start up the Wayback Machine:

In 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama decided to run for The United States Senate.

In order to have a successful Senatorial campaign, Scooter had to secure tremendous financial backing and be the recipient of astute political mentoring. No problem.

It is now very well-known that George Soros, evil genius, major Democratic Party donor and anti-Israel crusader, has been a generous contributor to Barack Obama. However, not too many people know that a loophole in McCain-Feingold allowed Soros and his family members to be extremely generous in their support of Obama’s 2004 Senatorial campaign.

Obama had to run against Blair Hull in the primary and then Jack Ryan in the general (both multi-millionaires). Obama received huge donations from individuals, to so-called “millionaires exception.” Usually, individuals are limited to giving $2300 to candidates in federal elections, but if the candidates are running against millionaires, these limits do not apply and candidates are allowed to receive up to $12,000 from a single individual. Soros and his family gave Barack Obama $60,000. This does not count the money that Soros was funneled to so-called 527 groups (Moveon.org, for example) that have also been politically active; nor does it include money that Soros raised from tapping a network of friends, business associates, and employees.

Besides garnering unlimited campaign funds, as the campaigns entered their closing rounds, the news ”happened to be” leaked to media outlets that both Hull and Ryan had “personal scandals” in their past. The timely release of this news wiped out both of their campaigns, leading to an easy victory for Obama in the primary and then in the general election.

The New York Times Magazine revealed that David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political and media adviser, may well have been behind the leak of the story that doomed the Hull candidacy as the primary reached its home stretch.

I’m shocked…shocked, I tell you.

As he has shown over the years, Axelrod was right at home operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. One can not bring up Axelrod’s name in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. Approaching the 2004 Senate primary, it was clear that it was a two-man race: the millionaire liberal, Hull, leading in the polls, and Obama, who was the figurehead of an impressive grass-roots campaign. One month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune “just happened” to reveal, at the end of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. This revelation proceeded to erupt into a full-fledged scandal. This scandal destroyed Hull’s campaign and handed Obama an easy primary victory.

The Tribune reporter who wrote the story later admitted in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. However, a lot of folks in Chicago believe that Axelrod leaked the initial story. They will tell you that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign just happened to start at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was in the works for a long time.

Axlerod’s explanation?

An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you.

Translation:  Maybe I did it, maybe I didn’t.  [Wink, wink.  Nod, nod.  Knowing glance.]

Keep your eyes peeled, Americans.  We may be living a sequel.

Share
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Newt vs Mitt: How We Got Here and What Lies Ahead

  1. Barb says:

    Reading this, all I could think of is that song by Talking Heads: If Bulldog doesn’t mind, I would like to post the link….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-io-kZKl_BI

    • Nadia says:

      Excellent choice Barb, the song choice is more than appropriate. Actually could almost be our theme song, or at least maybe mine.

  2. owleyepundit says:

    Why is it reduced to Newt and Mitt? Because the Leftwing Smear and Slander Machine has hobbled or driven off everyone else. Newt and Mitt have been around too long for anything new to turn up, Mitt is clean as a whistle (as far as the Left is concerned) and Newt can stand toe-to-toe with them and dance rings around them.

    If Newt is backed by a solid and mostly conservative GOP House and a senate with a functional GOP majority, he will be a strong and effective conservative President … assuming that he is elected. Put him in a position where he has to cut deals and he will. And the Left has him beat at cutting deals on their home slippery slope.

    But right now he’s the best that we’ve got. Let’s work hard to get rid of the Richard Menendezes, the Rush Holts, and the Frank Pallones and give Newt the Congress he needs.

    • Dana Pearson says:

      owleye,

      I voted for Reagan twice. That was when the Republican Party was still sane. Reagan’s 1981 economic recovery tax act (ERTA) reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 50%. Gingrich would reduce the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 0%.

      Under that plan billionaires will conceivalbly pay less taxes than I do and less than other people who rely on earned income instead of capital gains and dividends.

      The problem with tax rates in America are Corporate tax rates. We have among the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. This high corporate tax rate is driving corporations to do business over seas. I’m all in favor of reducing the Corporate rate from 35% down to 25%. But individual income and estate taxes can’t be reduced without causing catastropic increases in the national debt.

      Under Reagan’s ERTA interest on consumer and life insurance loans was deductible. Today corporations can deduct interest but individuals can’t (except for mortgage interest).

      Today’s top marginal tax rates are low enough. The estate tax also has a very large exemption and a low enough rate. The problem is defecits and the national debt. The Bush and Obama stimulus plans are going to hobble this country with out of control debt for generations. The money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have also contributed to our debt. The veterans benefits alone from Afghanistan and Iraq will cost future generations many billions. Reagan was for a strong defense but compared to his successors he really was careful about military adventurism. Also, Reagan tackled entitlement spending via his Social Security reform.

      Gingrich would spend too much (on space, on defense and on domestic programs) and tax too little — which would drive this country over the abyss.

  3. Gene Hoyas says:

    Gingrich would reduce the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 0%.

    If elected President, Gingrich would be powerless to reduce any tax rates: that’s the job of Congress.

    • Dana Pearson says:

      Oops.

      I should have written, “The Gingrich tax plan would reduce” instead of “Gingrich would reduce”.

      In my view, and I think nearly everyone agrees with me, Corporations should pay taxes on net investment income as on any other income. Corporations need to deduct interest expense from gross investment income to get net investment income.

      Individuals should be taxed the same way, which means individuals should be able to deduct interest on consumer loans — that is how things were back under Reagan’s ERTA.

      The Gingrich tax plan would tax corporations and individuals in completely different manners — not taxing individuals on capital gains, interest income or dividends. This “flat tax” idea would lead to a further hit to the American middle class. In my view some progressivity in the tax code is warranted.

      Eisenhower had a 90% top marginal rate, Kennedy lowered it to 70% and Reagan to 50%. $250,000 is not what it used to be. $500,000 is now a better definition of wealthy. I would not cry if Clinton era 39% top marginal rates returned for individuals making over $500,000 per year. I could even live with a 25% top marginal rate on unearned income (capital gains and dividends). But the Gingrich plan goes way too far — 0% is a bit low.

      I’m waiting for the next nut case Republican to advocate for a negative income tax rate on capital gains. Since the wealthy generate so many jobs for us — maybe the middle class should augment capital gains for the wealthy. Maybe the middle class should subsidize 10% of all capital gains for the wealthy. It seem like a crazy idea now — but so did a 0% tax on dividends not too long ago.