South Carolina and GOP 2012 Nomination Process

Casual Obliteration
Casual Obliteration

I am a politics nerd, I’ll admit. Watching the presidential nomination process is more interesting to me than watching football, what can I say?  A couple of jumbled thoughts about this year’s season:

Too much of the political coverage focuses upon the “beauty contest” aspect, and not on the aspect of collecting delegates, which is akin to ignoring the electoral college during the general election and instead focusing on popular vote counts. It might mean something, but it isn’t the most important count to keep track of.

I have my spreadsheet with delegate counts, called GOP 2012 Clown car, but Iowa is a little difficult to parse – the delegates are not obligated to vote in any particular manner, though tradition says they have to respect the caucus totals. So, for instance, the NYT has Romney with 12 delegates, and Santorum with 13, while CNN has Romney -7, Ron Paul – 7, Gingrich -2. Meanwhile, the Greenpapers has the Iowa delegates proportioned as: Santorum – 6; Romney – 6; Ron Paul – 6, and Gingrich 4. We won’t know exactly where these delegates end up until Saturday, June, 2012. Weird, but that’s how it is. Oh, there are also between 3-6 unpledged as of yet delegates.

New Hampshire is easier:

  • Mitt Romney – 7
  • Ron Paul – 2
  • Jon Huntsman – 2. Huntsman has suspended his campaign, not withdrawn, so he still controls his big two delegates.

South Carolina, by virtue of Gingrich winning all the Congressional Districts, and the overall vote, has given all the delegates to Gingrich. Romney might have won 28% of the vote, but he didn’t win any delegates.

  • Newt Gingrich – 23

The nomination requires 1,143 delegates (out of 2,286 total). There are also 132 Automatic Delegates, a/k/a Super Delegates.

Each state, and American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands all have three superdelegates, except as follows:

Superdelegates from the following states: AZ, DE, FL, GA, KS, MI, MO, NH, NJ, NV, SC, VT. are bound by their state’s results, and therefore are not included in the list. Their names can be found in a separate table after the break.This leaves a total of 132 GOP superdelegates

(click here to continue reading Democratic Convention Watch:: 2012 GOP Superdelegate Endorsement List.)

Currently, these GOP Super Delegates are committed as:

  • Romney – 16
  • Gingrich – 1
  • Santorum – 1

Thus, in my totals, including Iowa’s cockamamie system, and including Super Delegates who have announced support, I have the current race as:

  • Mitt Romney – 28
  • Newt Gingrich – 28
  • Ron Paul – 9
  • Rick Santorum – 7
  • unpledged – 8

The race is far, far from over. 28/1143 = 2.5% of the needed delegates.

Sleep Still in Their Empty Eyes
Sleep Still in Their Empty Eyes

Nate Silver wonders if the prior nominating processes in previous years are relevant anymore:

Perhaps, then, there is profound resistance among Republican voters to nominating Mr. Romney after all. He has significant weaknesses as a candidate, having reversed his position on several major issues at a time when conservative voters distrust the Republican establishment and value authenticity. And he is a Mormon from Massachusetts — not a traditional pedigree for a Republican candidate.

If the resistance is strong enough, perhaps Republicans will nominate Mr. Gingrich. Or perhaps there will be an effort to draft a candidate who is not currently running for president, like former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida or Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin or Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.

Political parties sometimes do go through challenging phases. In the past, they have not happened to coincide with periods in which the other party had an incumbent president with a 45 percent approval rating amid a poor economy. But parties have tended to nominate more ideologically extreme candidates in their first cycle out of the White House rather than being willing to settle for an electable moderate.

Still, the nomination of Mr. Gingrich would very much violate the “More of the Same” paradigm, given that he has proudly and loudly proclaimed that he will not adopt the auspices of a traditional campaign, and that he would be one of the most unpopular candidates ever to be nominated by a major party.

But perhaps “This Time Is Different.” We will learn a lot more in the coming days based on the results in Florida and movement in national polls.

Although there can be a tendency to overreact to developments, there can also be a tendency to stubbornly default to conventional wisdom and previous assumptions about the way the process is supposed to work.

In the case of presidential primaries, previous beliefs ought not be accorded all that much weight: Americans have not been picking presidential nominees in quite this way for all that long, and yet a presidential nomination process is complex. In more abstract terms, both conceptual and statistical models of the presidential nomination process may be “overfit” and draw too many conclusions from idiosyncratic examples.

(click here to continue reading Did Gingrich’s Win Break the Rules? – NYTimes.com.)

In Between Moments
In Between Moments

Steve Kornacki wonders what happens if Romney doesn’t win Florida:

Newt Gingrich wanted to make Mitt Romney’s life miserable, and now he’s succeeded.

After getting blown out in Iowa on Jan. 3, the former House speaker all but announced he was transforming his presidential campaign into a one-man crusade to exact maximum vengeance on Romney, whose super PAC allies had crushed Gingrich’s December surge with a barrage of negative attacks. Gingrich then suffered through a predictably miserable week in New Hampshire before moving to friendlier turf in South Carolina, where he completed one of the more improbable turnarounds in modern presidential campaign history on Saturday night with a startlingly lopsided victory over Romney.

The outcome severely complicates – and potentially imperils – Romney’s march to the Republican nomination. As the week began, he seemed positioned to post his third victory in as many contests in South Carolina, a feat that no previous GOP candidate had achieved and that would have essentially ended the race on the spot. But with his defeat, which came after some of Romney’s most problematic general election baggage was exposed, Romney’s standing in national GOP polls and in the next primary state – Florida, which votes on Jan. 31 – figures to plummet. Questions about his appeal to the Republican base and his vulnerabilities in the fall will invite new and intense scrutiny.

The chaos theory: This is the really fun one, and the least likely. But after Saturday night, it at least warrants a mention. The basics: What if Romney suffers such a bad loss in Florida that his campaign melts down completely and elite Republicans lose confidence in his ability to stop Gingrich? If they really are committed to stopping the former speaker, these elites would then be in need of a Plan B, leading to the “white knight” scenario – a new candidate drafted into the race who could qualify for the late big-state primaries and to prevent Gingrich from racking up the delegates he’d need for a first ballot nomination. There are many reasons to sniff at this possibility, not the least of which is that it’s unclear if the GOP has any candidate on the sidelines who’d be capable of this. But if Mitt can’t get the job done in Florida, expect to hear it mentioned a lot.

(click here to continue reading The GOP’s South Carolina nightmare – War Room – Salon.com.)

Tarzan Poster
Tarzan Poster

Confirming my long held opinion that Chuck Todd is a hack, he complained vehemently about Stephen Colbert’s SuperPAC satire:

Has Todd ever seen the Colbert report? If so, he would recognize that Colbert’s entire schtick is to be a faux-Conservative, so it would make no sense whatsoever for him to run as a Democrat. Additionally, as even Todd recognizes the system is a mess, Colbert’s only sin is to point out how screwed up the whole process is for a much larger audience, because ALLAH KNOWS Todd and his beltway buddies aren’t. They’re too busy in the day to day horse race, too terrified to point out the absurdities of both the system and the GOP candidates, and lately, have spent their time pathetically wondering out loud if they should even report facts.

And Todd won’t ever tell you this, but he and the rest of the bobbleheads and their corporations don’t want the system fixed. They like it as a mess. If we were to hold elections like other civilized nations, we’d have public funding of them and they would last for a finite period. That would mean that billions of fewer dollars spent on advertising on places like NBC, CBS, ABC, and all the other media outlets. That would mean that Todd and others like him, who really add no value to the system, would be looking for legitimate work. Let’s face it, if these guys are terrified of stating the truth out of the fear of being called biased, what purpose do they actually serve at all? None. Not one person in the nation would be less informed than they are right now if you fired the whole lot of political operatives and political analysts. In fact, the opposite is true- they’d probably be more informed.

Additionally, the corporations also like the mess our current system is, because it gives them massive influence they would not otherwise have. Dodd told you all that this morning when he lamented the fact that the SOPA bill took too long and that was its downfall. What he meant was “all the wheels were greased, everyone was bought and paid for with corporate cash, but we screwed up and allowed the little guys time to figure out what we were doing.”

(click here to continue reading Balloon Juice » Chuck Todd’s Knickers in a Twist Over… Colbert.)

Party Like It's 1994
Party Like It’s 1994

A lot of Democrats are giddy about the prospect of Newty-Newt winning the nomination, and a lot of Republicans are worried too:

Henry Barbour, a top Rick Perry fundraiser who endorsed Mitt Romney after the Texas governor dropped out, said Gingrich could not beat President Obama and would cost Republicans many House and Senate seats.

Barbour told The Hill that endorsing Romney and coming to his South Carolina rally was a “very easy decision” because of Gingrich, who he said would turn the presidential race from a referendum on Obama into “the adventures of Newt Gingrich.”

“Newt would be a disaster as the nominee,” he said. “He will put the House at risk. He will put our chances of taking the Senate down the tubes.”

Barbour, who ran his uncle Haley Barbour’s successful reelection campaign as Mississippi governor, warned that Gingrich would cost the GOP chances at some governorships as well, and could not beat Obama.

“He’s too polarizing a figure to win the White House. He can’t win independent voters and we can’t win the White House without independent voters. He would be a disaster for our down-ticket candidates and our gubernatorial candidates.”

(click here to continue reading Romney surrogate says Gingrich could cost GOP control of Congress – The Hill’s Ballot Box.)

Rick Perry is a Loser ben sargent 120120
Rick Perry is a Loser Ben Sargent_120120

Judge rejects GOP hopefuls for VA ballot

Nelson Muntz Furniture
Nelson Muntz Furniture

ha ha /Nelson Muntz laugh

A federal judge today rejected Rick Perry’s lawsuit challenging Virginia’s ballot requirements, meaning Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will be the only major GOP candidates on the ballot.

U.S. District Judge John Gibney said in his ruling that Perry — along with GOP candidates Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum, who all joined in the Texas governor’s lawsuit — waited too long to file the complaint against the state’s ballot requirements.

“They knew the rules in Virginia many months ago. … In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair,” Gibney wrote.

(click here to continue reading Judge rejects Perry, GOP hopefuls for Va. ballot.)

backstory, backstory, and more backstory

Why Gingrich Didn’t Get On the VA Ballot

Sanctified Mind
Sanctified Mind

As we noted, Newt Gingrich isn’t a serious candidate for the GOP nomination: he didn’t bother to follow the rules in Virginia regarding collecting signatures. For a grifter like Newt, with years and years of ethical lapses associated with his name, you’d think he’d go to the effort of following the actual law instead of relying on the wink-and-nod of the old system.

In order to understand it, you need to understand how candidates are chosen for the ballot in Virginia — namely, by collecting thousands of signatures. If a candidate runs for a slot on a party ballot (e.g. as a Republican or a Democrat), party officials are responsible for verifying the validity of the signatures, which have to meet a number of criteria. If a candidate runs as an independent, the State Board of Elections verifies the signatures.

As Winger reports, up until this year the state GOP did not verify the signatures with the diligence that you might expect. “[I]n the only other presidential primaries in which Virginia required 10,000 signatures (2000, 2004, and 2008) the signatures were not checked,” Winger writes. “Any candidate who submitted at least 10,000 raw signatures was put on the ballot.”

Put another way, Winger says Republican officials used to essentially ignore the legal requirement that signatures be verified, accepting raw signatures instead. But this year, things were different. The state GOP gave the list of signatures a close look, Winger says, which is why Gingrich and Perry (who both professed to turn in more than 10,000 signatures) didn’t make it.

(Michael) Osborne ran as an independent after he says the Republicans denied him a shot at the GOP ballot line. Then he filed a lawsuit against his local GOP in October, claiming it was unfair that he had to have his signatures verified by the state while his GOP opponent only had to get the sign off from the Republican Party. The legal action is still underway, but Winger wrote the suit led the state GOP to switch up its verification procedures (or, put a different way, start having some.)

“I blame Gingrich,” he said. “The law’s very clear. If he didn’t get the signatures and other people did…the law’s the law and it should be fairly applied to everybody.”

(click here to continue reading Is This Man The Reason Newt Gingrich Isn’t On The VA Ballot? | TPM2012.)

Talk about voter fraud…

Ron Paul Nuttiness In Plain Sight

Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul will never be president, despite certain of his ideas 1 having resonance, because too many of his thoughts are just looney-tunes. Like this one from the GOP debate back in September.

But there was a key moment when Ron Paul was asked about the fence. He was against it, which is sensible enough. But his reason for being against it wasn’t that sensible or even that sane. As I noted in my live blog, Paul’s objection was that the fence could end up being used to “keep us in” after the financial collapse; specifically its real purpose might be to stop Americans from “leaving with their capital” after the breakdown of law and order in the USA.

Now you don’t have to be that deeply steeped in the arcana of the militia movement and the extreme conspiratorial right to know where this kind of thinking comes from. It’s right there with the FEMA concentration camps, the black helicopters, the post-economic collapse race war and the like.

Think about this. Paul’s worried about the fence because after America’s disastrous 100 year experiment with a central bank (the Fed) collapses in Mad Max style rioting in the streets, the government will be trying to keep good Americans from fleeing to Mexico with their capital. Over the fence. With their capital. To Mexico.

Here were Paul’s actual words

I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital. And there’s capital controls and there’s people control. So, every time you think of fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in.

This wasn’t twenty years ago. It was three months ago. And if you know the kind of mindset this stuff comes from, in some ways I find it more worrisome (though certainly less offensive) than the newsletters.

(click here to continue reading Plain Sight Watch | Talking Points Memo.)

This was one of the few GOP debates I was drunk enough to sit through, and I replayed this soundbite a couple times because it was so odd. Does Ron Paul really think there is a chance that a border fence with Mexico is going to stop rich Americans from leaving? Wack-a-doo!

Footnotes:
  1. like ending the Drug War, or other wars, or reducing the Defense Department’s budget, etc. []

Gingrich, Perry disqualified from VA primary ballot

Adult Signature Not Required
Adult Signature Not Required

These jokers are also not really serious about running for the presidency, though at least they went through the motions, unlike the other grifters we mentioned yesterday.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry failed to submit enough valid signatures to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot, state GOP officials said Friday evening and early Saturday.

The Republican Party of Virginia announced early Saturday that Gingrich and Perry failed to submit 10,000 signatures of registered voters required to get their names on the ballot for the March 6 primary.

“After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary,” the party announced on Twitter.

The rejection is a significant setback for the Gingrich campaign since he is leading the polls in Virginia among likely Republican voters and is seen as a strong contender for the nomination.

Perry’s campaign told state election officials it had submitted 11,911 signatures, and Gingrich’s campaign said it submitted 11,050 signatures. State party officials spent Friday night validating the signatures.

(click here to continue reading Gingrich, Perry disqualified from Va. primary ballot – Virginia Politics – The Washington Post.)

compare and contrast to President Obama:

President Obama was the first presidential candidate to submit his signatures Dec. 2.

The Democratic Party of Virginia certified his signatures Friday. He was the only Democrat to qualify for the ballot so the State Board of Elections will cancel the primary. All Virginia delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be cast for him, said Brian Moran, party chairman.

My quick internet search didn’t yield an answer to this question: has this happened in the past? Has a party’s nomination ever been derailed because a candidate wasn’t organized to fulfill the requirements in a particular state? I’ve followed politics pretty closely my entire adult life, and can’t recall this happening before, but maybe my memory is faulty.

So, unless something changes, only Romney and Ron Paul are actually on the VA ballot. Can we stop pretending the other grifters are serious candidates now?

Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum not on VA primary ballot

Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting

Seems strange not to do what is necessary to get on the ballot in VA, unless these candidates are actually not serious about running for president, and are just going on book tours, supported by other people’s money…

Four Republican presidential candidates – Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Ron Paul — submitted paper work in time to qualify for Virginia’s March 6 primary ballot.

No other GOP contender will be on the Virginia ballot. Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Sen. Rick Santorum and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman did not submit signatures with Virginia’s State Board of Elections by today’s 5 p.m. deadline.

(click here to continue reading Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum not on Va. primary ballot | Richmond Times-Dispatch.)

Thirteen electoral votes is not nothing: New Hampshire only has four, Iowa has seven. Atrios called them grifters, which is more descriptive…

Can we please stop discussing these non-serious candidates now?

Even the GOP Do Not Want Newt To Win

Quietly Laughing
Quietly Laughing

Amusingly, even a large percentage of Republicans don’t want Newt Gingrich to win the GOP nomination, fearing Gingrich will be a drag on down-ticket races.

From the House that Newt Gingrich once ran through the Washington establishment to state capitals across the nation, some Republicans are going public with their concerns that Mr. Gingrich would be a weak general election candidate and a drag on the party’s fortunes if he won the presidential nomination.

“Since we don’t know how he got here, I don’t know how he can be stopped,” said Ed Rogers, a longtime Washington lobbyist and party strategist who worked for the first President George Bush.

Mr. Rogers, who has not endorsed anyone, is like many in the party who esteem Mr. Gingrich for his achievement in leading Republicans to the control of Congress in 1994, after 40 years in the House minority, but who recoil from the prospect of him at the top of the ticket given the controversy, scandal and electoral defeats that defined his four years as speaker.

Some Republicans on Capitol Hill say that Mr. Gingrich would not only lose to Mr. Obama, but that he could take other Republican candidates down, too, in a year when high unemployment has driven hopes within the party of capturing the White House and the Senate while holding control of the House.

Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican who served in the House when Mr. Gingrich was speaker, has been an outspoken critic. “I’ve had any number of members of Congress come over to me and thank me for what I’m saying,” he said. “They say, ‘This guy is going to kill us if he gets the nomination.’ ”

Mr. Gingrich was “a disaster” as speaker and most likely would be as a nominee, Mr. King said, given his “compulsion to exaggerate,” erratically changing ideas, intellectual arrogance and the grandiosity of his self-comparisons to the likes of Winston Churchill and others.

(click here to continue reading As Newt Gingrich’s Star Rises, So Do G.O.P. Concerns – NYTimes.com.)

 

Bad Lip Reading Soundbite from Newt Gingrich

“NEWT GINGRICH” — a Bad Lip Reading Soundbite “Hairy chests destroy our power…”

(click here to continue reading “NEWT GINGRICH” — a Bad Lip Reading Soundbite from BadLipReading.)

 

Running Against Gingrich

Decline and Fall of Empire
Decline and Fall of Empire

Nancy Pelosi doesn’t seem gleeful so much as not fearful of the Newt Gingrich train steamrolling Obama in 2012.

“I like Barney Frank’s quote the best, where he said ‘I never thought I’d live such a good life that I would see Newt Gingrich be the nominee of the Republican party,’” Pelosi said in an exclusive interview Friday. “That quote I think spoke for a lot of us.”

Pelosi didn’t go into detail about Gingrich’s past transgressions, but she tipped her hand. “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi said. “I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

Pressed for more detail she wouldn’t go further.

“Not right here,” Pelosi joked. “When the time’s right.”

Which is to say that if Gingrich somehow clinches the nomination, there’s one hell of an oppo dump coming.

(click here to continue reading Democrats Gleeful At Prospect Of Running Against Gingrich | TPMDC.)

You’d think GOP leaders would be a little nervous themselves: they know of Newt’s ethical lapses as well as anyone, having responded to them for so many years. If the GOP wasn’t in disarray, I’d doubt Romney or Gingrich would have gotten this far.

Newt Gingrich is the definition of hypocritical flip-flopper

Honey Bucket
Honey Bucket

If Newt Gingrich becomes president, I have to flee this country. I couldn’t take it.

Republicans have a far greater talent for hypocrisy than easily cowed Democrats do — and no doubt appreciate that in a leader.

Gingrich led the putsch against Democratic Speaker Jim Wright in 1988, bludgeoning him for an ethically sketchy book deal. The following year, as he moved into the House Republican leadership, he himself got in trouble for an ethically sketchy book deal.

Gingrich was part of the House Republican mob trying to impeach Bill Clinton for hiding his affair with a young government staffer, even as Newt himself was hiding his affair with a young government staffer.

Gingrich has excoriated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for dragging the country into a financial spiral and now demands that Freddie Mac be broken up. But it turns out that he was on contract with Freddie for six years and paid $1.6 million to $1.8 million (yacht trips and Tiffany’s bling for everyone!) to help the company strategize about how to soften up critical conservatives and stay alive.

At a Republican debate in New Hampshire last month before this lucrative deal became public, Gingrich suggested that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be put in jail. “All I’m saying is, everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who were at the heart of the sickness that is weakening this country,” he said.

(click here to continue reading My Man Newt – NYTimes.com.)

MoDo - Get a Clue
MoDo – Get a Clue

-parenthetical note, what does Dowd mean by “easily cowed Democrats?”

-second parenthetical note: Dowd writes,

Mitt Romney is a phony with gobs of hair gel.

But a couple days ago, the New York Times reported otherwise:

Mr. Romney’s is a restrained, classic look: short at the neck, neat on the sides and swept back off the forehead. “It is not something stylish,” Mr. de Magistris noted. “It is clean and conservative.”

The cut is so recognizable that men in this well-heeled suburb of Boston ask for it by name. “The Mitt,” they whisper to Mr. de Magistris from the red vinyl chairs in his upscale salon, Leon & Co., a few blocks from the sprawling home where Mr. Romney raised his family.

Mr. de Magistris, who gave Mr. Romney a $70 trim three weeks ago, agreed to share some of the secrets behind his most famous client’s coiffure in between haircuts the other day.

No, he said, Mr. Romney does not color his hair. Any such artificial enhancement, Mr. de Magistris said, “is not — what do you call it? — in his DNA.”

Despite holding its shape under all but the most extreme conditions, it is gel and mousse-free. “I don’t put any product in there,” he avowed.

(click here to continue reading Romney’s Image Expert, the One for His Hair, Anyway – NYTimes.com.)

Newt Gingrich will never be President

Who Is This Slimy Creature? It's Newt!
Who Is This Slimy Creature? It’s Newt!

I would be insanely surprised if Newt Gingrich even survives the first couple months of the upcoming primary season. He just has too much political baggage.

Talking Points Memo reports:

The real news in Bloomberg’s new reporting on Newt Gingrich’s time as a consultant for Freddie Mac isn’t how much he made — though that’s pretty precious — but that Freddie Mac sources from that time period say Newt was not, as he claimed, warning them about the housing bubble or the dangers of their business model. Nor, it should be added, was Newt advising them, as he most preposterously claimed, as a historian. In fact, his role was, in part, to protect the mortgage giants from more regulation by the Republican-controlled House.

(click here to continue reading Come Off It, Newt | Talking Points Memo.)

Clea Benson and Dawn Kopecki write that Gingrich made much more than the $300,000 he claimed last week. Significantly more, in fact:

Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. The total amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9 sponsored by CNBC, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse.

Gingrich’s business relationship with Freddie Mac spanned a period of eight years. When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, the former speaker said he “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” and warned the company that its lending practices were “insane.” Former Freddie Mac executives who worked with Gingrich dispute that account.

Gingrich’s first contract with the mortgage lender was in 1999, five months after he resigned from Congress and as House speaker, according to a Freddie Mac press release.His primary contact inside the organization was Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist, and he was paid a self- renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000 between May 1999 until 2002, according to three people familiar with aspects of the business agreement.

During that period, Gingrich consulted with Freddie Mac executives on a program to expand home ownership, an idea Delk said he pitched to President George W. Bush’s White House.

(click here to continue reading Gingrich Said to Be Paid $1.6M by Freddie Mac – Bloomberg.)

Wheels grind exceedingly fine
Wheels grind exceedingly fine

and Gingrich lied about what his role was, unsurprisingly:

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said during a Nov. 9 debate that he earned a $300,000 fee to advise Freddie Mac as a “historian” who warned that the mortgage company’s business model was “insane.”

Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with the consulting work Gingrich was hired to perform for the company in 2006 tell a different story. They say the former House speaker was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.

If Gingrich concluded that the company’s business model was at risk and that the housing market was a “bubble,” as he said during the debate, he didn’t share those concerns with Richard Syron, Freddie Mac’s chief executive officer at the time, a person familiar with the company’s internal discussions said.

(click here to continue reading Gingrich Said to Be Paid By Freddie Mac to Court Republicans – Bloomberg.)

Taking Freddie Mac’s money all those years didn’t preclude Gingrich from badmouthing the organization, once his contract ended. Sour grapes of an ex-lobbyist?

Rick Perry and the Low Wage Economy

Saturday Morning Lines

Saturday Morning Lines

Rick Perry’s regularly self-touted Texas Economic Miracle is fake, as regular readers of this blog know.

John Turner of the Guardian U.K. concurs:

The low-wage economy is Texas’s dirty little secret, and it is easy to ignore in swaths of the state. The sad scene at Dove Springs was unfolding only a few miles from the majestic domed state house in downtown Austin, a city which is famed for its vibrant music venues and world-class restaurants.

Austin is also famous for its growing technology sector and is becoming the Silicon Valley of the Texas hill country. It is in many places a city of well-to-do neighbourhoods, with manicured lawns and plush housing. The same is true of other Texas urban centres, such as Dallas and Houston, helped by an energy industry that has been buoyed by rocketing oil prices. The state also avoided the worst of the housing bubble.

Perry touts all this when he boasts of the legion of Fortune 500 companies that have flocked to make their headquarters here and he boasts that, since June 2009, about 40% of all jobs created in America are in Texas, a state whose economy is growing at twice the national rate.

But the devil is in the detail. Unemployment is stubbornly stuck at about 8%, below the national level but still leaving one million Texans out of work. In 2010 half a million people in the state earned no more than the minimum wage of $7.25 (£4.47) an hour. Texas, for all its glittering metropolises, has the joint highest percentage, along with Mississippi, of hourly paid workers earning the minimum wage or less.

Jim Hightower, a longstanding Texas liberal and radio host, has a simple description of Perry’s Texas economic miracle. “It is a hoax. He is telling Perry-tales. You can’t make a living off of these jobs,” he said.

(click here to continue reading The dark underbelly of Rick Perry’s Texas | World news | The Observer.)

 

Rick Perry grabs a third rail

Hold on, cowboy
Hold on, cowboy

I don’t think Rick Perry cares if anyone questions his logic; intellectual robustness is not part of Perry’s brand. Perry does want to privatize Social Security, critics be damned. Wall Street loves such talk after all, and they have money to contribute to Perry’s campaign.

Clarence Page writes, in part, about Perry’s equation of Social Security with a Ponzi scheme:

A real Ponzi scheme, for example, is an elaborate con game named after Charles Ponzi, who served time in the 1920s for operating one. Funds from unwitting new investors are used to pay phony dividends to old ones, which attracts newer investors. The scam collapses when it runs out of new suckers. Think Bernard Madoff.

In fact, memories of the convicted Madoff, a respected Wall Street figure until his fund turned out to be a multibillion-dollar Ponzi, give pause to many at the very notion of trusting even more of the nation’s retirement funds to Wall Street. At least with Social Security everybody is in on what the scheme is really about.

Before we talk about reducing what Social Security does, we need to talk more about why this New Deal-era program is so popular: It lifts 13 million elderly Americans out of poverty, according to the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, either as an income supplement or as sole retirement income. Without Social Security, the Washington-based center found, almost half of the elderly — 48 percent — would fall below the government’s poverty line, instead of the current 8 percent.

And more than 3 million children received benefits as dependents of retired, disabled or deceased workers, the center found, or by living with parents or relatives who received Social Security benefits.

Social Security is currently solvent until 2037, according to the Congressional Research Service. And it would remain solvent for decades after that, the CRS says, with such simple adjustments as lifting the caps that exempt upper-income earnings from the payroll tax.

(click here to continue reading Rick Perry grabs a ‘third rail’ – chicagotribune.com.)

Another reason why Rick Perry is not really a Christian, no? Aren’t Christians supposed to help the poor and elderly? Not kick them to the curb so that bankers can make obscene profits?

Vitriol for Bernanke, Despite the Facts

A Fool Too Long
A Fool Too Long

Rick Perry doesn’t seem like the type to let facts get in the way of constant stream of vitriol.

On Aug. 16, while speaking in Iowa, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a Republican presidential candidate, took the demonization of Mr. Bernanke to a new level. He declared in much-quoted remarks — and to appreciative laughter from the crowd — that “we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas,” and that Mr. Bernanke’s monetary policy was “almost treacherous — or treasonous, in my opinion.” The next day, in New Hampshire, Mr. Perry was less inflammatory but more pointed. “They should open their books up,” he said of the Fed. “They should be transparent so that the people of the United States know what they are doing.”…

It’s also hard to fathom what Mr. Perry means when he calls for the Fed to “open its books up.” It publicly releases its current balance sheet every Thursday at approximately 4:30 p.m., and it’s available on the Fed’s Web site. Mr. Perry’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The charge that the Fed is “printing money” seems to be shorthand for recklessly risking or even seeking inflation. That notion “is complete nonsense,” Robert E. Hall, a senor fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution and professor of economics at Stanford, told me. “But it must be exciting to accuse him of things he hasn’t done.”

(click here to continue reading Vitriol for Bernanke, Despite the Facts – NYTimes.com.)

Hmm, Fed open its books every Thursday, at a specific time, and yet Rick Perry continues to insist that the Fed is hiding something. Hmmm. Maybe Mr. Perry just has a reading comprehension problem?

Republicans Against Science Leading GOP

It's not just rocket science
It’s not just rocket science

I think Paul Krugman is right, Rick Perry is just vile…

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.

In fact, if you follow climate science at all you know that the main development over the past few years has been growing concern that projections of future climate are underestimating the likely amount of warming. Warnings that we may face civilization-threatening temperature change by the end of the century, once considered outlandish, are now coming out of mainstream research groups.

But never mind that, Mr. Perry suggests; those scientists are just in it for the money, “manipulating data” to create a fake threat. In his book “Fed Up,” he dismissed climate science as a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart.”

I could point out that Mr. Perry is buying into a truly crazy conspiracy theory, which asserts that thousands of scientists all around the world are on the take, with not one willing to break the code of silence. I could also point out that multiple investigations into charges of intellectual malpractice on the part of climate scientists have ended up exonerating the accused researchers of all accusations. But never mind: Mr. Perry and those who think like him know what they want to believe, and their response to anyone who contradicts them is to start a witch hunt.

(click here to continue reading Republicans Against Science – NYTimes.com.)

and to Dr. Krugman’s larger point, willfully ignorant, anti-science idiots like Rick Perry (and Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, et al) are the standard bearers of the Republican party. That’s what is really scary – the thought of one of these anti-intellectuals winning the election keeps me up nights, worrying.