Glenn Beck’s Unintentional Newt Endorsement

Let me tell you the best way to help any Republican candidate in this race.  Tell his TEA Party supporters that they only support him because they are racists.  Haven’t we heard that garbage for four years already?  Don’t look now, this time it’s conservative media man Glenn Beck.

Beck, arguing that Newt is as much of a big government progressive as Obama, said that the only reason TEA Partiers were flocking to Gingrich was racial.  Thank you, Beck.  Now TEA Partiers have a new reason to flock to Gingrich.

Now Newt will also have one more item in his arsenal in the General Election when Obama goes after him for not being moderate enough.  Seriously though, do people really associate Newt Gingrich with leftwing liberalism?  Does Beck really think Newt is a social progressive?  No, of course not.  And when it comes down to Newt and Obama, we will see people like Beck, Coburn, Coulter, and others either get really quiet or come out and eat their words.

Before we take Beck’s claim that Newt supporters are racist bigots too seriously, maybe we should find out whether he supports Huntsman or Romney.  Low blow?  Yeah.  How do you like it, Beck?

 

Positively Entertainment?

Earlier this election season, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain sat down in a one on one debate that displayed Newt’s intellectualism and fast thinking, and Cain’s graciousness.  It’s starting to look like Newt will have a shot at another one on one debate as only he and Rick Santorum have agreed to The Donald’s debate on Ion Television, sponsored by Newsmax. 

Mitt Romney politely declined, Paul said no and Huntsman inferred that the whole thing was about Trump’s ratings.  George Will has also infamously declared that the Trump debate is below Presidential politics.  Perry and Bachmann have not confirmed, although Bachmann said she believes Trump will be biased because he is already leaning towards a candidate.  How that makes this debate different from any MSNBC or CNN debate where the moderators are already in the bag for Obama, I’m not sure.

Who is going to be hurt from backing out of the Trump debate? Trump has already declared his position on many things.  Huntsman and Paul would both find themselves on opposite sides from Trump.  Romney probably won’t be hurt by snubbing Trump.

Will Santorum or Gingrich be hurt by accepting the debate?  For Newt, probably not.  For Santorum, the possibility for damage to his campaign is pretty big.  While he will be getting a great deal of facetime, Santorum will be answering questions from a very strong willed and strongly opinionated Trump while going up against Newt one on one.  It is a very risky move.  The risk will be compounded if Trump then endorses Newt.

Bachmann and Perry’s non-committal stance currently is only making them more irrelevant. It also comes across as indecisive.

Or is it helping to make Trump more irrelevant?  Trump has said that if the candidate he wants doesn’t get in the race, he will run as a third party candidate.  Is it better to cater to the crybaby?  Or ignore him?  And honestly, would Trump get any votes as a third party candidate, when four more years of Obama is on the line?

Careful, Newt

Newt should know that in politics, you must constantly clarify exactly what you mean. Newt is in hot water over comments he made during the weekend about the individual mandate in Obamacare. What Newt said was “Ive said consistently, where theres some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate youre going to be held accountable.

While this seems pretty clear to me, the media has declared this to be some sort of statement proving that Newt supports the individual mandate. So why would Newt then post a video today highlighting his record of consistently opposing the individual mandate? Probably because he didn’t actually say he supports the individual mandate. Newt said that he supports a requirement where you EITHER have health insurance OR… Media outlets seem to have missed the either, or in his statement.

What Newt said is something that constitutionalists who support individual responsibility have supported for a long time. I wrote about it back in 2009 when the Obamacare debates were hot and heavy. Newt said he supports a requirement that people pay for health insurance or indicate through a bond or some other way that they will pay for their medical care. This isn’t an individual mandate to buy health insurance, this is an individual mandate to pay for the medical care you receive, either through insurance or by other means. Why would Newt say that “libertarians would be happy” with his solution if he supported an individual mandate?

The problem Gingrich will face is that if soundbite Americans, especially those in the mainstream media, can’t figure this out then he will have a hard time getting his message across. Newt needs to learn how talk to Americans like they are idiots. Not because they are idiots, but because pundits are determined to misunderstand him and make their version of what he says the next morning’s headlines.

Palin’s “miscues”

If you watch football religiously like I do, you will notice new terms that pop up and become the buzz word of the season. Last year you couldn’t say “interception” anymore, you had to say I.N.T. This year the word is “miscue”. When the receiver blows his route it is a miscue. When the quarterback spends 15 seconds in the pocket and gets sacked, it’s a miscue. When the running back drops the ball and the other team picks it up and runs back for a touchdown, it is a miscue.

So I thought that I would apply that to the talk about Sarah Palin. For example, on with Barbara Walters, Palin made a huge miscue by announcing that she is definitely interested in running for President. Everyone knows you don’t announce that you are interested in running until after your campaign has made it official that you are in fact already running.

I was slightly more surprised to hear the always thoughtful George Will speak about some of Palin’s miscues on Washington This Week today. Will said one of her biggest miscues was quitting her term as governor and saving the state of Alaska billions in legal fees. After all, we all know from Charlie Rangel that even when ethics violations are true, it’s no reason to quit.

But what I thought was the most interesting miscue George Will noted was that Palin showed up in the audience of Dancing with the Stars to support her daughter Bristol, who has made it to the finals obviously only because TEA Partiers across the country are rigging the telephone voting. In fact, one man was so upset at watching Bristol dance that he shot his TV with a shotgun and then turned the gun on his wife.

Ok, so Dancing with the Stars is not my favorite show either. But really, George? Being in the audience supporting your daughter is “not Presidential”? That is her big miscue?

The answer is yes if you are an establishment elitist. The same is true for her show about life in Alaska. The fact is, while even Christian fundamentalists in Washington did not pick Palin in their straw poll, there are still lots of Americans who relate to her rugged individualism and die hard commitment to family. What seems like a miscue to the pundits can sometimes be what most normal Americans outside of DC are looking for. If nothing else, 2010 proved this. In fact, a majority of Palin backed TEA party candidates won.

Palin may not win the primary. But many of the people who go to the polls and vote for the other guy are the same people who watch her on their TV at night and cheer when she talks about smaller government, states rights, and conservative constitutionalist principles. And even if Palin is not the GOP candidate in 2012, the candidate who wins will be the one who most closely espouses what she represents.

%d bloggers like this: