Most Read: Opinions

direct signup
Right Turn
Posted at 07:45 AM ET, 01/30/2012

Morning Bits

Yup. “So the only logical explanation for [Sarah] Palin’s bizarre ‘endorsement’ of Gingrich is that she knows that he can’t win and that she is using him to create this false narrative of an evil ‘establishment’ keeping the noble Tea Party down (explain to me again how Newt is remotely ‘Tea Party’?), like they somehow did in those Palin-induced Senate losses in Delaware and Nevada in 2010. I don’t know if she really thinks Newt can win the nomination (which would obviously help her in both the short and long runs), but she clearly sees no downside to creating as much damage to Romney as possible. This whole effort is nothing more than a branding/career move for Sarah Palin.”

Yup. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.): “We basically got this: the president can’t run on his record. It’s a miserable record. . .So, he has no choice but to divide.”

Yup. “Behind all the rhetoric coming from the administration about the country having a smarter, more agile and more technologically-advanced military, the reality is that America’s armed forces will be smaller, less capable and, as a result, will face greater risk in carrying out the country’s security commitments and keeping our adversaries at bay.”

Yup. “In fact, while the strategy of having surrogates follow Gingrich certainly demonstrates that Newt is the one rival that Team Romney most worries about, it’s the Gingrich campaign that is beginning to radiate desperation, and it’s easy to see why: His argument that he’d be a strong general election candidate, which is central to the current iteration of his stump speech, is no longer resonating the way it did in South Carolina. . . . Perhaps confronting Romney’s surrogates is [Gingrich spokesman R.C.] Hammond’s way of trying to challenge the narrative, but it isn’t working. While this confrontation wasn’t quite as counterproductive as Hammond’s sneering at Rep. Jason Chaffetz [Friday], it’s hard to see how it helps.”

Yup. One of the few to debunk the fussy complaint by Tom Brokaw and NBC’s over the anti-Gingrich ad. “I would have thought that footage of the type that Romney is deploying was part of the historical record. If, of course, Tom Brokaw and NBC believe that the way it is now being used distorts what Brokaw was saying back then, they should explain why.”

Nope. “Newt Gingrich suggested Sunday that he could take a clear and decisive lead if another major candidate were to drop out of the Republican presidential race.” Actually, he should leave and give the far more serious and electable Rick Santorum a shot.

Nope. Does it keep Gingrich from taking Sheldon Adelson’s money? “At the risk of offending some of my friends who’ve been very helpful, I worry, not just about casino gambling, but about the degree to which the poor are the most likely to end up spending a large part of their income gambling.” If you take Freddie Mac’s money, you’ll take anyone’s, I guess.

Nope. Did the anti-Bain offensive work? “In Florida, about three-quarters of Republican voters said they had a positive view of Romney’s business background at Bain Capital. Only 13 percent had a negative impression.But when asked about Gingrich’s consulting work for Freddie Mac, a majority — 52 percent — had a negative view, compared to 28 percent who saw it positively.” Oops.

Nope. Romney can’t get tough? Think again: “The first debate, of course the audience was quiet and Speaker Gingrich said that threw him off, he cant debate before a quiet audience. Then the next audience was very loud, very loud, and he said that threw him off, he can’t debate before a real loud audience. It’s like Goldilocks you know, it has to be just so. . . . So Mr. Speaker, your trouble in Florida is not because the audience is too quiet or too loud. Or because you have opponents that are tough. Your problem in Florida is that you worked for Freddie Mac at a time that Freddie Mac was not doing the right thing for the American people. And that you were selling influence in Washington at a time when we needed people to stand up for the truth in Washington.” Yowser.

Nope. Does soaking the rich lessen income inequality? “Making the poor more economically mobile has nothing to do with taxing the rich and everything to do with finding and implementing ways to encourage parental marriage, teach the poor marketable skills and induce them to join the legitimate workforce. It is easy to suppose that raising taxes on the rich would provide more money to help the poor. But the problem facing the poor is not too little money, but too few skills and opportunities to advance themselves.”

By  |  07:45 AM ET, 01/30/2012

Categories:  Morning Bits

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company