What a day
Relatively quiet, but what is going on is vomitous:
- Romney campaign is bragging about inevitability, and pointing out what we all know, via NY Mag (h/t HotAir):
“Who would’ve thought that Romney would get to this point without having a crapload of negative ads dropped on his head,” says a veteran Republican consultant. “It’s not like there’s not any material out there to work with, after all. But the other candidates have no money, so they can’t afford even to do the research, let alone pay for the airtime to really hurt him. And then, on top of that, they’re all incompetent, so they’ve wound up splitting the anti-Romney vote and opening up the door for him to win this thing real quick.”…
- Romney’s 59 point plan actually has a 60th point, a VAT.
- CNN dug up Newt’s 30 year old divorce file (h/t jimzinsocal in Tip Line), and what is amazing is how little there is in it. This is no Jack Ryan file. Nonetheless CNN is trying to make it into a big story claiming that it is inconsistent with Newt’s assertion that his wife originally wanted the divorce. Since Newt actually filed the divorce petition, and his wife initially pleaded that there were grounds for divorce but she did not seek one “at this time,” CNN says it contradicts Newt’s claims. Actually, there may have been strategic reasons for pleading this way, since she also asked for a split of assets and other things we normally associate with a divorce. They settled soon after. Before the Romney supporters start gloating, wait until legal files regarding lawsuits involving Bain appear, if he gets the nomination, and legal pleadings are taken out of context, or when the lawn care company owner and employees mysteriously remember that Romney knew illegals were working at his property. (Yeah, I’ll probably jump to his defense, I’m just that way.)
- Chuckie Schumer’s brother in law got an unexpected nomination to the federal court in New Jersey, a blatant political payoff from Frank Lautenberg.
- Is Newt doing okay in Ohio? This reporter seems to think so.
- Romney started donating big time to conservative charities when he decided to run for president the first time around. (h/t MaggotAtBroadAndWall in the Tip Line). Dan Riehl and Matt Lewis have some thoughts on whether this had a corrupting effect.
- Something smells rotten in the Commonwealth of Virginia with regard to primary petition signatures, see Moe Lane and VA Right. At this point it just smells, hopefully we’ll find out soon if it really was rotten.
- More to follow.
- Marquette Professor in trouble for questioning validity of how “rape” is defined by feminists.
- Curt Levey of Committee for Justice disagrees with much of the criticism of Newt’s judicial accountability plans.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I have been out of town and just got back. Just wanted to wish all the folks at Legal Insurrection a belated Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanza, Happy Boxing Day (today, for the Brits and Canadians!) and a Happy New Year to all. I’ve enjoyed your comments throughout the year and look forward to 2012. Here’s to a safe and peaceful holiday for y’all.
David Limbaugh has a good column: “Ironically, many who’ve laid claim to sober, adult political analyses the past few years and have scolded others for their alleged harshness in attacking Obama are the very ones who have thrown caution overboard in their relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery of Newt Gingrich.”
We have to go through this. I think Newt is going to win. Reagan went through this kind of uncertainty. Newt can win, and in fact, if he is the nominee, I think Newt will win.
But we have to go through this. I remember the guys with George Washington and the burlap bags and the cold, and the river and the snowstorm. Victory or Death.
And the guys in WWII and Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Britain and D-Day and those desperate times. My parents explained to me that it was by no means clear to anyone that the Allies would win WWII.
And I think, this is easy compared to that. We have to go through this. Be tough. Be determined.
It’s impossible to know from looking at family law pleadings who does or does not “want” a divorce, or even who caused a marital breakup, since being contrary sometimes can enhance bargaining position under “no-fault” rules. It’s also possible that Gingrich was a jerk in his divorce. As many people are. It’s a divorce. It’s a crappy time that brings out the worst in folks as they muster up a recall of accumulated negatives of many years, retaliate against real and perceived slights, are susceptible to the lobbying of others, and seem to forget the good stuff in order to get through the separation.
It’s just not as important as other considerations. For petessake, Reagan was divorced, and we don’t know, and never will know the details. But he was accused of “mental cruelty” by Wyman, and then went on to make a whopper of a mistake he later regretted, signing no-fault divorce into law.
Very recently it fleeted across my mind that there had been no discussion of a VAT in this campaign season. Not a hint. Not a whisper. I’m glad the issue is coming out.
The fact that Bush 41 was lying through his teeth during the Thousand Point of Light speech has obscured the excellence of the speech as written. It contains a line to the effect that every a time a politician claims new taxes would be a last resort, it’s a resort that he plans on soon checking into.
I’ve been resigned to giving Romney my grudging support if he is nominated. However, consider that a Republican President’s chances of getting a VAT through Congress would be better than a Democrat’s. I’m not intrinsically opposed to a VAT, but I firmly believe that the lying political class would impose it without offsetting tax cuts and would continue to spend us into calamity.
(But consider two words: Supreme Court. Ouch. Then again, consider another two words: David Souter.)
In the linked article for “VAT” there is significant error:
“It’s assessed on the profits generated at every stage of production”
A VAT is a tax on “value added” which has nothing to do with “profits.” Fact is, as generally applied, a VAT taxes REVENUE at all levels of production, less purely material costs. Cost of labor is not “deductible” … it is the preferred tax of overblown socialist governments. In it’s simplest form, a VAT applies to business in loss years as well as profitable ones … e.g., the *perfect tax*, you pay it whether or not you have any income (profit). Prey tell me how the logic is derived on that one … you pay a tax/fee from nothing? Oh, right, you take it from equity or savings … for the business owner (or investor) that means it comes out of your money, and not from any proceeds for the business in the taxable period.
There is nothing fair about a VAT tax … essentially a tax on labor by default. John Locke should be spinning in his grave.
Honestly, the last month of whip sawing back and forth has made me very tired. I just want it to be over now. Who ever is nominated I will support. We just need to come together and circle the wagons around a candidate. The goal is the defeat of Barack Obama. All this infighting has been utterly catastrophic toward that cause. Lets pick someone, stick with them, and focus all energies on our goal.
If Obama is defeated, only to replace him with someone who is the closest like him, what will we have acheived? Perhaps you should learn who Douglas Foy is and what connection he has to both Obama, and Romney.
One other question: is the Solemere scandal being held back by the Obama campaign to use as an October surprise?
I, too, am very tired of the whipsawing. The problem from my perspective, having had both a career in the private sector as well as the public sector (military & federal), is that the term “Republican” is almost meaningless … e.g., few of them are any different than those who supported Kerry and Obama.
Maybe it is that I am from Michigan where the differences, Dem vs Repub, are so small as to be irrelevant. Republican administrations have piled more taxes on Michigan residents and businesses than any one else. In Michigan it was a Republican who doubled and made permanent a temporary income tax as well as created the Single Business Tax, a closet VAT without any pass-through provisions.
When the only real differences are between loons like Obama or Paul, where in heaven do I find anyone to support?
Please, anyone but Romney!
Update on the VA mess….
This whole Virginia fiasco certainly has the appearance of having been rigged. I seriously hope Newt and/or Perry are paying someone to do some serious digging into what went on there.
I’m starting to feel very ill as we get closer to choosing our nominee and Romney still seems to be the shoe-in. I don’t like Romney, I don’t trust him, and I loathe the idea of walking behind the curtain and checking the box next to his name. Ugh.
Interesting story about Marquette University. I’m surprised the professors haven’t had more complaints considering the topic but I hope they win their case (if it goes that far) and don’t back down.
Curt Levey is clearly being very disingenuous with the statement:
This seems to suggest that Lincoln’s position wasn’t considered extreme at the time, when it absolutely was. That’s just the beginning of the misleading statements in his “disagreement”, all of which I’m certain he knows exist, and chose to write them anyway with a “means justify the end” mentality.