Winning the Present with TR and Civility

This piece was originally published eight months ago, on June 15, 2011 as the Republican presidential primary contest was just starting.  Its message is still relevant.

By Mary Claire Kendall

It might seem like an odd pairing, but what the GOP field needs is TR and civility to win the present — and defeat President Barack Obama in 2012.

TR, of course, refers to larger-than-life Republican Theodore Roosevelt[1], who served as president from 1901-1908, then ran on the Progressive Bull Moose ticket in 1912.

While he was a rock-ribbed Republican, when theory ran afoul of doing what’s right by the little guy, he always chose the latter[2].

His brand of politics is perfect for slaying today’s dragons that have gutted the middle class and precipitated runaway spending.

Take, for example, housing prices. The Case-Shiller index[3 ]recently revealed they’ve declined more steeply than during the Great Depression. The fact that 75% of consumers can’t even get loans to purchase a home, let alone refinance, is a big reason why.

Investment banker Christopher Whalen[4] , whose father served in Ronald Reagan’s “kitchen cabinet,” says the way around this problem is to raise the FHA loan cap and help small and medium size banks increase lending. This would mean giving more power and money to community banks. Obama prefers letting Wall Street call the shots — in spite of its role in precipitating the 2007-08 housing meltdown — while the little guy gets slammed.

But, Republicans, Whalen says, should out-progressive Democrats and do what is right, which is TR writ large. TR basically stared down Wall Street, thus saving it from itself; so should today’s Republicans.

One hundred years after TR’s Bull Moose gambit, many in the GOP field seem well-positioned to take up his mantle.

For instance, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty emphasizes Main Street production over Wall Street consumption. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has that “can do” spirit. And Texas Governor Rick Perry shares TR’s tough-as-nails persona.

Then there’s Mitt Romney, who, like TR, favors universal health care as the key to economic stability, signing it into law as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007).

Many conservatives deride the 2006 Massachusetts law as ObamaCare’s twin and Tea Party poison — a comparison Obama smugly reinforces. But, in fact, ObamaCare and RomneyCare are apples and oranges. Whereas ObamaCare reduces what doctors are paid; RomneyCare ensures that doctors are, in fact, paid when a patient, who could otherwise afford it, lacks insurance.

Also, as Romney underscored in Monday’s CNN debate in Manchester, RomneyCare did not raise taxes, whereas ObamaCare does — to the tune of $500 billion — in addition to shifting $500 billion out of Medicare to fund it.

Sixty-three percent of Massachusetts residents favor the law, according to a recent poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Boston Globe, up 10 percentage points in the past two years, with only 21 percent opposed.

And what of the “individual mandate” that makes people think RomneyCare is ObamaCare? Well, considering there’s already a federal mandate to provide ER care to anyone regardless of ability to pay, it’s pretty important to make sure docs get paid, unless you want to drive them out of business a la ObamaCare.

Where it gets tricky is that an insurance mandate only make sense if, as in the case of automobiles, having coverage doesn’t encourage crashes, whereas standard health insurance increases utilization. Also, RomneyCare does not encourage medical savings accounts and streamlined, just-the-basics insurance.

But, as Romney is at pains to say, the Massachusetts law was a state solution to a state problem. He vows to rescind cost-prohibitive, one-size-fits-all ObamaCare if elected president — granting a waiver to all 50 states on Day One.

Meanwhile, Republicans have come up with a way to obviate a “mandate” — since understandably, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea — by assessing a fee on those who don’t buy insurance to hedge against costs incurred should they fall ill or suffer injury.

But, sensing political opportunity, Romney’s Republican opponents have been pouncing on him, with Sarah Palin tut tutting the Massachusetts law in Boston one hour before Romney announced for the presidency. Gov. Pawlenty called out “ObamneyCare” because, he explained in the debate, Obama claimed RomneyCare was his “blueprint.”

The good news, though, is Monday’s debate[5] signaled a truce of sorts.

Indeed, if Republicans hope to win the present, we must nominate a candidate who understands what ails the economy and how to cure it, of which health care is a big part. This means civility — honestly assessing opponents’ positions and presenting your own — will be critically important, lest we destroy ourselves from within.

So, with eyes on the prize, let the race be guided by the kind of civility our great Republican presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and, yes, even TR, practiced; and inspired by TR’s overflowing common sense in making life better for the little guy, now suffering under the weight of Obamanomics.

Originally published in Pajamas Media on June 15, 2010 http://pjmedia.com/blog/winning-the-present-with-tr-and-civility/

________________________________________

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/winning-the-present-with-tr-and-civility/

URLs in this post: 

[1] Theodore Roosevelt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt

[2] chose the latter: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/175141/teddy-right/jonah-goldberg

[3] The Case-Shiller index: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-09/shiller-says-u-s-home-price-declines-of-10-to-25-wouldn-t-surprise-me-.html

[4] Christopher Whalen: http://blogs.reuters.com/christopher-whalen/

[5] Monday’s debate: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/14/who-was-the-nights-biggest-winner/

Copyright © 2011 Pajamas Media. All rights reserved.

It’s 2012 - and no time for the rebel yell.

By Mary Claire Kendall

As James L. Petigru famously quipped after his state seceded, “South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.”

South Carolina Republicans’ choice of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich over former Governor Mitt Romney in their presidential primary is understandable given their desire to deliver a knockout punch to President Barack Obama in the fall debates. But, the notion the Republican Party is actually prepared, as Charles Krauthammer writes, to commit political suicide, is unthinkable.  

Still, the signs are there, which former Senator Rick Santorum’s triple win in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, reinforces.

A particularly unhealthy trend is the conservative penchant to try and relive the past based on an unrealistic dream of conservative purity.

One key conservative, passionately supportive of former Governor Sarah Palin, told me with great certitude months ago, the 2012 primary will be a replay of the 1976 primary, when former California Governor Ronald Reagan took the fight with President Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Gingrich vows the same. 

The theory goes, if Republicans choose the Ford candidate, they will lose in the fall, paving the way to the next Reagan in 2016.  Many consider Palin (or perhaps Gingrich, though he would be 72/73) the 2016 Reagan. Funny thing, like clockwork, Palin suddenly began criticizing Romney when he all but had the nomination wrapped up, insisting that he prove he created some 100,000 jobs while at Bain. One week after husband Todd endorsed Gingrich, she said she would vote “for Newt” in South Carolina “in order to keep this thing going.” All the way to 2016!

Gingrich, alternatively, tag-teaming with Santorum, is clearly plotting a yellow brick road to conservative nirvana more reminiscent of 1980 when President Ronald Reagan was elected. That year, a true blue conservative finally triumphed over the Republican Party’s establishment wing—16 years after Senator Barry M. Goldwater’s (R-AZ) loss to LBJ.

Gingrich insists nothing but a Reagan conservative will do and fancies his foot fitting that Cinderella slipper. (Santorum is bursting that bubble.)  Romney, born to privilege, is the George H.W. Bush of 1980, and, ipse facto, must be defeated. President Barack Obama is, of course, Carter—on steroids! Fifty-six percent of Americans said a year out he did not even deserve re-election. 

Of course, 1964 looms large as well.  That year conservatives chose Goldwater, for whom “Extremism in the defense of liberty (was) no vice”—except at the polls.  (Bet on Gingrich hinting at Santorum’s extremism.)

The Republican primary leading up to the 1964 election was a brutally contentious fight between the establishment wing of the Republican Party, who supported New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, grandson of John D., Standard Oil founder, and the insurgent conservative wing backing Goldwater.  The political rancor that race injected into the Party lives to this day.   

In 1964, just like today, the polls were all over the place. And, while choosing the most conservative candidate seemed a no-lose proposition, given the sympathy vote favoring Johnson in the aftermath JFK’s assassination; this year, it’s thought no Republican can lose to Obama—no matter how out of tune with general election voters that candidate is. 

But, not only did Republicans lose in 1964—they lost by a landslide. 

Doesn’t matter, conservatives say. After the Goldwater debacle, Reagan spearheaded the conservative movement to restore America’s greatness—the kind of outcome, many conservatives say, would be just fine with them because it would set the stage for real conservative governance, after Obama is finished with America.  Indeed, many argue if Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton, instead of Goldwater, had won the Republican nomination in 1964, edging out Rockefeller, we would never have had Reagan. 

But, wait a minute.  It’s not 1980, 1976, 1964… It’s 2012 and the stakes could not be higher.  Far better to wake up to reality now than endure a course of electroshock therapy were Obama re-elected.

So, what’s the reality?  Can Newt Gingrich win?  No.  Is Rick Santorum the best choice for Republicans?  Probably not, but he’d make a fantastic Veep. Can Mitt Romney restore Reagan’s “shining city on the hill” and lead the nation in its “rendezvous with destiny”?  Absolutely. His vision of transforming this into a new American Century—rejecting Obama’s vision of managing American decline—is Reaganesque, or, coining a new term, Romneyesque. That is to say, it is expressed with grace, skill and a sense of urgency and full recognition of this time of peril—in Winston Churchill’s words, “measureless peril.”

Psst, Have You Heard? Santorum Is Beating Obama.

By Mary Claire Kendall

While the national media is focusing in typical pack-like fashion on the Washington Post-ABC News poll giving President Barack Obama higher marks for the moment, it has totally overlooked the fact that Rick Santorum, for the first time, is leading Obama nationally, per below.

Poll	Date	Sample	Obama (D)	Santorum (R)		Spread
RCP Average
Rasmussen Reports   2/2-3		1000 LV	44	45		Santorum +1

I don’t know what this uncommented-upon Santorum lead, which splashed all over a Real Clear Politics page on Saturday, February 4, means; but it’s significant. “LV” (“Likely Voter”) polls are the best barometer, making it even more significant. Washington Post/ABC News polled a “random national sample” of 1000 adults.

Additionally, Santorum is leading in Minnesota, holding its caucuses tomorrow, Tuesday, February 7, over all the other Republicans—in spite of former Governor Tim Pawlenty’s endorsement of former Governor Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination.

These polls could just turn out to be a momentary spot of good news for both Obama and Santorum—as has often been the case in this politically volatile year; or they may signal a trend.  Time will tell.

But, I suspect as long as Newt Gingrich and his conservative allies (or those trying to keep 2016 open for themselves) keep throwing stink bombs at Romney—calling him a liar and worse, thereby finishing the job Democrats began last year with their incessant anti-Romney ads—Romney’s numbers will continue to languish and erode.  

And, as these polls suggest, the beneficiary is not going to be Gingrich but Santorum.

Democrats may live to regret their strategy to take out Romney, if, indeed, it works—a big if.  But, following the logic, if Romney is hobbled, Santorum may well prove a more formidable contender than Democrats and Republicans with mix-motives had bargained for.

Then, again, Santorum’s vulnerabilities could prove catastrophic.  For those Republicans not willing to wait and find out, they better hope and pray Sheldon Adelson considers pulling the plug on Gingrich sooner rather than later, lest Republican chances of winning back the White House totally implode. 

The media's "very poor" reporting

“Migrant Mother,” 1936 (Dorothea Lange, photographer).
Library of Congress FSA/OWI Collection.  The media conveniently  
fails to report the real poverty in America today that rivals the Great Depression.

By Mary Claire Kendall

Here we go again.  Former Governor Mitt Romney says something that can be misinterpreted but, within the context of what he’s been saying for months, most assuredly cannot.  

No matter. The press keeps bird-dogging him—like a little girl in a school yard who catches her friend in a flub and mercilessly taunts her.

Of course, this is actually a good sign. If he wasn’t on his way to winning the Republican presidential nomination, they would not care what he says!  

But, ho hum, this time the hullaballoo is “concerned” with Romney’s statement in an early morning CNN interview the day after his landslide win in the Sunshine State that he’s “not concerned about” the “very poor.”  They have a safety net to provide them with food, health care, and income support. Rather it’s the “middle class” he’s “concerned about” given their dismal condition in the Obama economy, with nowhere to turn.

Perfectly reasonable. Except for the fact that “concerned about” can be conflated with “care about.”  Many in the media have even taken to claiming falsely that Romney, in fact, said he did not “care about” the “very poor.” Even Newt Gingrich chimed in, falsely claiming that what Romney actually said was “I don’t really care about the very poor.”  (I seem to remember Newt saying he’d “tell the truth.”) 

The irony, of course, is that Gov. Romney began the interview by stating clearly, “I’m in this race because I care about Americans.” That would encompass all 300 million plus—very poor, very rich and everyone in between.

Can you believe that in a country where 1 out of 3 working adults are on food stamps, the median income keeps going down, down, down, college kids can’t find summer work in numbers not seen since records were kept, we’re actually worried that Mitt Romney’s shorthand business-speak could be misconstrued?

Nonetheless, Governor Romney clarified what he meant in an interview with John Ralston, political columnist for the Las Vegas Sun. He “misspoke,” he said. What he intended to say, as he’s said countless times, is that he’s focused on the middle class so that not only will they stay there but more will join their ranks—some even moving further up the wealth scale.  

And, if anyone’s focused, it’s Mitt Romney. And, good that he is—because if the middle class expands, it will redound to everyone’s benefit, including the poor. The greatly diminished middle class purchasing power is wreaking havoc across-the-board, whereas an increase in this power would have a salutary effect on the economy—to say nothing of all the other positive outcomes a booming middle class would have on our nation, where, in many communities, there’s suffering reminiscent of the Great Depression.  Yet the media conveniently overlooks this real story—accepting on blind faith that unemployment is going down—irrespective of the far-harsher underlying reality, as Joseph Curl writes in “Obama’s made-up jobless numbers.” 

Where are the photos, such as Dorothea Lange’s famous Depression-era “Migrant Mother,” that capture just how bad it is out there in Obama’s America?  If the media would just cover the real hardship faced by American families in Obama’s economy, we’d figure out in a nanosecond just how fake those job numbers are. 

But no, the media prefers covering Mitt Romney’s alleged callous words, while staying mum on the actual impact of Obama’s misguided policies—his deeds.

Class dismissed. Though something tells me the media will keep flunking this one.

Updated: February 7, 2012.

Newt Tells the Truth

Newt Gingrich likes to compare himself to Winston Churchill,
shown here in 1939, London, England, UK, when 
he was First Lord of the Admiralty.  
Credit: Bettmann/CORBIS  

By Mary Claire Kendall

It’s been quite a month.

After Newt’s distant fourth-place finish in Iowa, the former House Speaker vowed to “tell the truth” about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  

“We are not going to go out and run nasty ads, but I do reserve the right to tell the truth,” he told less than 100 supporters just before jetting out of Des Moines.  “If the truth seems negative, that may be more a comment on his [Romney’s] record than the nature of politics.”

Oh, but it’s been nasty. 

To win South Carolina, Newt’s “independent”—wink, wink, nod, nod—super PAC carpet-bombed the state with a 27-minute video accusing Mitt of “predatory” business practices. So says former Newt confidant, now independent Newt super PAC head, Rick Tyler. 

After Newt won South Carolina, he couldn’t be bothered with that insignificant former Governor sharing the debate stage with him.

Whatever happened to Reagan’s 11^th commandment?  In the heat of battle, you lob attacks, based on a candidate’s record, and defend yourself when you think you’ve been unfairly attacked. But, once the battle’s been waged, you observe all the niceties.

Not Newt.   He routinely calls Mitt a “liar,” brandishing his political knife aimed squarely at “the Gov,” acting just like a Shark in a scene straight out of West Side Story.

But, cross over into Brooklyn to a far different 50s reality—the set of “I Love Lucy”—and you’ll find imaginatively fertile higher ground to help Republicans live the 11^th commandment. 

Take a glimpse of “Lucy Tells the Truth,” first airing on November 9, 1953. Ricky and the Mertzes are fed up with Lucy’s constant fibbing.  She had just finished embellishing the truth, saying she played a starring role in Oklahoma.

You know—like when Newt compares himself to historic leaders such as Winston Churchill.

Inspired by this episode, Mitt, being the solutions-oriented businessman he is, decided to accept Newt’s Lincoln-Douglas debate challenge. The only catch is, just like Ricky and the Mertzes, who bet Lucy she couldn’t tell just the truth for 24 hours, Newt had to tell the truth no matter what.  Here are a few snippets from that debate.

FADE IN:

INT. DEBATE AUDITORIUM—NIGHT

The Romney-Gingrich Lincoln-Douglas-style debate is just starting.  All eyes are on the former Speaker as Mitt Romney addresses a question to him.

                                               

MITT ROMNEY

Mr. Speaker, you said Freddie Mac paid you

$1.6 million to provide historical commentary. 

Wasn’t that a bit of a stretch?  Some could

even say, well, you were lying—something

you often accuse me of?

Gingrich nervously fidgets and looks at Mitt Romney, who is trying to suppress a smile.

CLOSE-UP: Beads of sweat popping out on Newt’s brow as, for once, he’s speechless.

                                      MITT ROMNEY

                             Mr. Speaker, was it a lie?

                                      NEWT GINGRICH

                            OK, it was a bit of a stretch. But, this is Washington. 
                            Stretches are our stock in trade.

                                      MITT ROMNEY

                   You mean you didn't tell the the whole truth? 

                                      NEWT GINGRICH

                             Well, if you seem shocked by it… yes... I could 
                             have provided a more precise definition.  But,
                             historical commentary is what I do best.  It fit.

CLOSE-SHOT: Ron Paul’s eyes bugging out.

INT. DEBATE AUDITORIUM—LATER

The debate continues.  Newt is sweating profusely.

                                               

MITT ROMNEY

Mr. Speaker, you said you were a Goldwater

Republican at the first Florida debate, but in

1988 when that wasn’t too cool, you bragged

you were actually a Rockefeller Republican.  

Which one is it?

Gingrich nervously fidgets and looks at Rick Santorum, who is all eyes.

                                      NEWT GINGRICH

                             Neither.  But, it seemed right in the moment.

MITT ROMNEY

That’s what you accuse me of! Isn’t that

a little hypocritical?

                  

Newt sheepishly nods his head.

CLOSE-SHOT: Rick Santorum’s eyes bugging out.

          FADE OUT.

Now back to reality where Reagan’s 11^th commandment is being ripped to shreds.  (Newt didn’t even congratulate “the Gov” for his landslide win in the Sunshine State.)

But, it doesn’t have to be that way.

The Wealth of Romney

Mitt and Ann Romney
Source: RomneyCentral.com

By Mary Claire Kendall

National Journal’s Amy Walter said on ABC’s This Week that former Governor Mitt Romney will have to “defend his wealth.”  Is she serious?  Presidents with wealth are the norm.  President George Washington (1789-1797) in today’s dollars was worth $525 million. Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy were all immensely wealthy, as well. 

The big push since Sarah Palin and company started squawking about it was for Romney to release his tax returns to reveal just how wealthy he is.  Romney was skewered after he responded “maybe” when John King asked at the CNN debate in Charleston if he would follow his father, Governor George Romney’s example. In 1967, he released all his taxes when he was running for president, thus inaugurating the tradition of presidential candidates releasing their returns.

The press pounced saying Romney’s “maybe” showed his utter lack of preparation and possible cover-up, which is pure poppycock. Rather, it was simply a son saying I’m going to think for myself instead of moving lock-step with my father.  This simple explanation apparently occurred to no one. The allegation this was a major flubbed answer was repeated ad nauseam during the news cycle after the debate. 

But, bowing to reality, on Tuesday, January 24, Mitt Romney released his taxes for 2010 and 2011.  

He didn’t need to do this.  As the Tax History Project notes, “Individual income tax returns—including those of public figures—are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.” 

JFK clung to this right. But, last I checked he was not being denounced in history books as a greedy capitalist. 

Of course, the reason Washington and TR could not release their tax returns is that there were no income taxes. Until the 16^th amendment passed in 1916, enabling this pernicious tax on precious income, two-thirds of federal revenue was derived from the alcohol tax. The income tax was a sop to the prohibition lobby in order to banish alcohol from the land.  The rest of the federal pie was garnered from tariffs, which successfully protected American industry and thereby our economy and work ethic.

But, Romney waved his right.  And, what did his returns show?  He paid more taxes than he owed. Furthermore, when factoring in his charitable contributions, he gave away about 40% of his income.

To suggest his reticence to release his tax returns is proof he’s hiding something is, therefore, also pure poppycock.  Rather, it shows his class and sensitivity to the feelings of others in these tough times when many can’t afford new clothing but only a patch to fix their old clothing.  But then, the essence of wealth is what you hold in your heart not your bank account, which countless souls, who are not so materially blessed as the Romneys, know—in spades.  Still, Romney’s reticence to flaunt his wealth is laudable.

The irony is that Romney’s own true wealth lies in his desire to make life better for his fellow Americans by turning around the disastrous Obama economy—the worst since the Great Depression.  Obama, for his part, disregards Americans’ feelings as he goes about spending lavishly on himself and his re-election campaign with taxpayer money—including unnecessary million-dollar-plus trips on Air Force One to swing states—acting as cool as a cucumber except when excoriating Republicans.

Obama’s crooning  provides more alleviation of pain than his policies. But, President Romney will know the right levers to pull on Day One in January 2013 to start ameliorating the suffering of Americans—by singing the right policy tune when, once again, to quote President Calvin Coolidge, “the business of America (will be) business.”

Yet, Romney still doesn’t cut it for some. For instance, Doris Kearns Goodwin asserted on Meet the Press that all wealthy presidents had some life experience that enabled them to relate to the sufferings of ordinary people.  TR lost his wife and mother the same day—Valentine’s Day 1884.  FDR had polio.  And, JFK was Captain of PT 109 in World War II. Not so Romney.  

What she conveniently overlooks is that when presented with one of the greatest challenges a man can face—his wife Ann’s diagnosis with Multiple Sclerosis in 1998 and later breast cancer—Mitt Romney was precisely in the tradition she points to. Indeed, the compassionate way he handled this crisis in his life shows his greatest wealth lies in his heart.

Update: The hue and cry over Governor Romney's comment regarding the “very poor” in the wake of his Florida landslide, overlooks the obvious.  Of course, he “cares” about the “very poor.”  His 10% annual tithing, much of which benefits the “very poor,” is proof of that.  But, it is by focusing on the shrinking “middle class” strata, that many who are now “very poor,” will leave those ranks. For, if Romney is anything, he’s focused.