A.J. DiCintio
The fix for the Republican front-runners
By A.J. DiCintio
. . . Ex-candidate Rick Perry shoots his campaign in both feet with a stunning gaffe regarding the critically important issue of cutting fat, waste, and power from a frighteningly ravenous federal government.
. . . Sixty days later, he doesn't just unleash attacks on leading Republican candidate Mitt Romney's work at Bain Capital, he does so by slinging the slur "vulture capitalist," an act that defines him as a brother to the scurrilous quacks (think Michael Moore and Valerie Jarrett) who tend to politically wounded liberals (think Barack Obama).
. . . Newt Gingrich, Romney's major challenger, adds fuel to charges he suffers from a case of Recurring Lapse of Reason Disorder when, ignoring George Washington's advice about the wisdom of political checks and balances, he proposes a policy that would permit leftist politicians to call Chief Justice John Roberts on the carpet to explain a ruling they (along with Bill Ayers, et al.) find grossly lacking in "empathy."
. . . Three weeks later, he explains his support of Perry's unconscionable attack on Romney not with facts about the actual number of jobs the venture capitalist helped create, thoughts about whether the fees he charged were excessive, and ideas for reforming how the capital gains he earned are taxed but merely by reminding voters (with an air of adolescent seriousness) that a candidate's claims deserve scrutiny.
. . . In responding to the attacks, accomplished businessman Mitt Romney fails to summon up Plain English to explain how venture capital works. Instead, he speaks as if he were lecturing students at the Harvard Business School, a mistake made all the more astounding by the fact that Main Street's voters are desperate to hear truths regarding how to reverse the decline in the number and quality of American private sector jobs.
. . . He also fails to mention that as the nation's most powerful venture capitalist at Federal Government Incorporated, Barack Obama continued to pump taxpayer money into the tanks of GM and Chrysler (until the meter reached "$50 billion") but only on the condition that thousands of auto workers be laid off, a number of entire auto lines shut down, and hundreds of dealerships closed, resulting in thousands more job losses across the nation.
. . . He further fails to point out that having avoided the independence as well as the expertise of bankruptcy courts, Obama used the power of the Oval Office to force workers to renegotiate contracts at lower wages and benefits, bondholders to accept losses he deemed reasonable, and GM to install a CEO acceptable to him, Democratic politicians, and liberal bureaucrats overseeing the "reorganization."
. . . Finally, and incredibly, Romney fails to inform voters that when Obama recently proposed combing a few federal agencies to save a pittance against a ruinous annual deficit of $1.5 trillion, he treated government workers far differently, insisting that every job cut be accomplished through attrition over the beloved ten year period he insultingly announces for every one of his phony reforms.
The failings recounted above expose the reality that the quest for power alone exerts corrupting effects upon the human psyche and therefore serve as an excellent reminder of how blessed Americans have been to be recipients of a legacy teaching that in the best of all possible political worlds, power is held close to the Constitution's We the People.
But to return to the two current Republican front-runners, it is possible to say their problems are not irreversible . . .
If they will learn from fellow hopefuls who have done what political dark horses often do, which is to reject the ostensibly safe, insipid language as well as the attack-at-any-cost strategies that are the stock-in-trade of political advisers to speak courageously, passionately, seriously, and rationally about crucially important issues.
During the South Carolina debate, Rick Santorum exhibited just those qualities when he pointed out that mathematical realities alone make it impossible for Gingrich to spend hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, to implement an alternative to the existing Social Security regime without first bringing the federal budget under control.
Moreover, Santorum didn't stop there. Having brought up the problem of Social Security, he added that given the enormity of the federal debt and deficit, it is time at least to consider means testing Social Security payments to the nation's very richest citizens.
What if Gingrich would imitate Santorum by exercising humility and limiting himself to speaking hard truths about real, substantive cuts he is devoted to achieving regarding a bloated Washington, explicitly telling the American people he intends to earn their trust before he begins the mission of addressing the problems of Social Security and Medicare?
What if Gingrich devoted himself to conservative principles instead of the expedient libertarianism beloved by Big Money Republicans by committing himself to putting an end to the problem of the nation's largest banks, those FDIC insured, multi-trillion dollar, truly-too-big-to-fail behemoths that have made casinos not just of themselves but the stock and commodities markets?
What if Romney learned from the former Senator and began speaking with passion, courage, and specific kitchen table examples about what must be done to reverse the income decline of America's middle class?
What if Romney displayed real conservative courage by committing himself to a brave, honest reform of the tax code, as part of the effort explaining to the American people why it doesn't serve the national interest to tax the capital gains made by hedge fund managers and others who earn billions merely gambling on markets at the same low rate offered to citizens, regardless of their wealth, whose capital gains come from investments that are infinitely more important to their country's well-being?
The answer to those questions is this:
Either candidate would blast huge holes in the false and lying campaign of class warfare Barack Obama plans to make the centerpiece of his campaign, the devastation giving Newt an excellent chance of defeating him, Mitt a high probability of winning in a rout.
© A.J. DiCintio
January 22, 2012
. . . Ex-candidate Rick Perry shoots his campaign in both feet with a stunning gaffe regarding the critically important issue of cutting fat, waste, and power from a frighteningly ravenous federal government.
. . . Sixty days later, he doesn't just unleash attacks on leading Republican candidate Mitt Romney's work at Bain Capital, he does so by slinging the slur "vulture capitalist," an act that defines him as a brother to the scurrilous quacks (think Michael Moore and Valerie Jarrett) who tend to politically wounded liberals (think Barack Obama).
. . . Newt Gingrich, Romney's major challenger, adds fuel to charges he suffers from a case of Recurring Lapse of Reason Disorder when, ignoring George Washington's advice about the wisdom of political checks and balances, he proposes a policy that would permit leftist politicians to call Chief Justice John Roberts on the carpet to explain a ruling they (along with Bill Ayers, et al.) find grossly lacking in "empathy."
. . . Three weeks later, he explains his support of Perry's unconscionable attack on Romney not with facts about the actual number of jobs the venture capitalist helped create, thoughts about whether the fees he charged were excessive, and ideas for reforming how the capital gains he earned are taxed but merely by reminding voters (with an air of adolescent seriousness) that a candidate's claims deserve scrutiny.
. . . In responding to the attacks, accomplished businessman Mitt Romney fails to summon up Plain English to explain how venture capital works. Instead, he speaks as if he were lecturing students at the Harvard Business School, a mistake made all the more astounding by the fact that Main Street's voters are desperate to hear truths regarding how to reverse the decline in the number and quality of American private sector jobs.
. . . He also fails to mention that as the nation's most powerful venture capitalist at Federal Government Incorporated, Barack Obama continued to pump taxpayer money into the tanks of GM and Chrysler (until the meter reached "$50 billion") but only on the condition that thousands of auto workers be laid off, a number of entire auto lines shut down, and hundreds of dealerships closed, resulting in thousands more job losses across the nation.
. . . He further fails to point out that having avoided the independence as well as the expertise of bankruptcy courts, Obama used the power of the Oval Office to force workers to renegotiate contracts at lower wages and benefits, bondholders to accept losses he deemed reasonable, and GM to install a CEO acceptable to him, Democratic politicians, and liberal bureaucrats overseeing the "reorganization."
. . . Finally, and incredibly, Romney fails to inform voters that when Obama recently proposed combing a few federal agencies to save a pittance against a ruinous annual deficit of $1.5 trillion, he treated government workers far differently, insisting that every job cut be accomplished through attrition over the beloved ten year period he insultingly announces for every one of his phony reforms.
The failings recounted above expose the reality that the quest for power alone exerts corrupting effects upon the human psyche and therefore serve as an excellent reminder of how blessed Americans have been to be recipients of a legacy teaching that in the best of all possible political worlds, power is held close to the Constitution's We the People.
But to return to the two current Republican front-runners, it is possible to say their problems are not irreversible . . .
If they will learn from fellow hopefuls who have done what political dark horses often do, which is to reject the ostensibly safe, insipid language as well as the attack-at-any-cost strategies that are the stock-in-trade of political advisers to speak courageously, passionately, seriously, and rationally about crucially important issues.
During the South Carolina debate, Rick Santorum exhibited just those qualities when he pointed out that mathematical realities alone make it impossible for Gingrich to spend hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, to implement an alternative to the existing Social Security regime without first bringing the federal budget under control.
Moreover, Santorum didn't stop there. Having brought up the problem of Social Security, he added that given the enormity of the federal debt and deficit, it is time at least to consider means testing Social Security payments to the nation's very richest citizens.
What if Gingrich would imitate Santorum by exercising humility and limiting himself to speaking hard truths about real, substantive cuts he is devoted to achieving regarding a bloated Washington, explicitly telling the American people he intends to earn their trust before he begins the mission of addressing the problems of Social Security and Medicare?
What if Gingrich devoted himself to conservative principles instead of the expedient libertarianism beloved by Big Money Republicans by committing himself to putting an end to the problem of the nation's largest banks, those FDIC insured, multi-trillion dollar, truly-too-big-to-fail behemoths that have made casinos not just of themselves but the stock and commodities markets?
What if Romney learned from the former Senator and began speaking with passion, courage, and specific kitchen table examples about what must be done to reverse the income decline of America's middle class?
What if Romney displayed real conservative courage by committing himself to a brave, honest reform of the tax code, as part of the effort explaining to the American people why it doesn't serve the national interest to tax the capital gains made by hedge fund managers and others who earn billions merely gambling on markets at the same low rate offered to citizens, regardless of their wealth, whose capital gains come from investments that are infinitely more important to their country's well-being?
The answer to those questions is this:
Either candidate would blast huge holes in the false and lying campaign of class warfare Barack Obama plans to make the centerpiece of his campaign, the devastation giving Newt an excellent chance of defeating him, Mitt a high probability of winning in a rout.
© A.J. DiCintio
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
