Mac Thornberry joins the Texodus, hoist by his own petard

Mac Thornberry, despite being from the reddest of red districts, is the latest GOP Congresscritter to join the #Texodus. I suspect two factors are at play. One is that many Republicans expect, despite their whistling in the dark, that Dems will keep control of the House. The other is that GOP term limits for both committee chairs AND ranking minority members mean that a GOP Congresscritter has a short and steep bell curve on real power. That's as the House GOP said last week it was reconsidering the limits. Thornberry is mentioned by name as ranking member of the major Armed Services Committee who would have been term-limited after his current term.

I'm sure this is driving others out, too, and is leading others to think about it. The Politico piece mentions bald headed goon Kevin Brady. (No, not THAT bald headed goon, Gohmert Pyle.)

Thornberry is the sixth Texas GOPer to leave. He was part of Newt Gingrich's wave in 1994. That wave included and was built on Newt's Contract with on America, which included the term limits issue. So, this is a kind of "hoist by one's own petard" issue.

With Rep. Mac Thornberry’s retirement announcement, that’s it for the continuously serving House Republicans from the Class of 1994. #TX13

— Kyle Trygstad (@KyleTrygstad) September 30, 2019

That is funny.

Given that Armed Services was his only current committee assignment, he would have been low man on a totem pole in 2021. His situation is somewhat similar to Mike Conaway just to his south. Conaway was going to be term-limited out of Ag, a powerful committee in rural parts of Texas. That said, Conaway was on other committees, including ... Armed Services.

Three of the other four Texodusters were likely to lose. Will Hurd, Kenny Marchant and Pete Olson all faced tough battles. As for other longer-serving Rethugs, Louie Gohmert will never be given a committee chairmanship because even the House GOP ain't that stupid (I think) and therefore has a free pass for life.

Meanwhile, the Trib needs Patrick Svitek, at the second link, to talk to some of his staff:

I have no idea what is going thru Thornberry’s head. But this is an incredibly safe R district (I have family members who live there.) It would strike me that to portray this particular retirement as evidence of some sort of Texas GOP panic is wrong-headed or disingenuous. 4/ end

— Abby Livingston (@TexasTribAbby) September 30, 2019

Weirdly, in an earlier tweet, she said she was expecting he'd retire. Well, that IS what was in his mind. What else would it be? Peter Principle at the Trib, hard at work?

As for Mac's future? Let's see ... 25-plus years in DC, ranking member on Armed Services? Defense contractor lobbying position should be opening in about 18 months!

In the longer term, a district like Mac's, where the small cities of West Texas are almost as winger as the surrounding farm-and-ranch, or farm-ranch-oil, counties will remain fairly safe. BUT ... the number of Congresscritters is more than the number of state senators; at some point, more of Texas' rural Congresscritters are going to face some of the same redistricting issues as rural state Legiscritters like Drew Springer, discussed here.

==

Speaking of, the race has its first potential candidates. Cooke County Judge Jason Brinkley has formed an exploratory committee. Amarillo City Councilwoman Elaine Hays has done likewise. Springer is going to stay running for HD 68, as I expected.

Still no word on whether or not Pat Fallon, who has now said he will NOT primary Cornyn for the Senate, might jump in. (I've asked.)

Another Earth Day, a few thoughts

It's not a special anniversary Earth Day, but with things like the continued  delay in a Keystone XL decision by Team Obama, even as Dear Leader continues to push the Trans Pacific Partnership, I'll put a few thoughts on blogging paper.

First, though, a look back at my life at a few of those special anniversaries.

For me, 1995 was the first Earth Day special anniversary I really remember. At 25, it was a big one. Sure, Newt Gingrich and gang had just taken over the House. However, the CFC accord to protect the ozone layer was good news and global warming was not yet even a small cloud on most of our horizons. So, things were looking good then.

Next, on to 2000. Global warming was at least a small cloud on more horizons by then. Bill Clinton had negotiated the Kyoto Accords to address this. Unfortunately, he had not submitted them to the Senate. Doubly unfortunately, it was clear they would fail if he did, and that probably no more than half of Democrats, even those not up for re-election in 2000, would support them.

Then things got worse.

In 2005, for the 35th anniversary, we had President Bush having officially rejected Kyoto. After talking about carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the 2000 campaign trail, he had totally ditched that. He had also ditched EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman for actually taking him at his 2000 campaign word. Meanwhile, evidence for global warming and broader climate change, and its potential severity, continue to mount.

Then, 2010. Things seemed better with a Democrat in the White House, even though the economy was distracting from too many environmental concerns.

And now, today.

First, Keystone XL. President Obama is clearly, in my book, going to delay a decision until after the midterm elections, then approve it. If you deeply believe otherwise, I've got a sub-95 day in July in Phoenix to sell you.

Second, the Trans Pacific Partnership. How does this relate to climate change?

Simple. "Free" trade treaties that encourage additional international trade without the carbon tariffs to have the globe pay the environmental cost of all the shipping involved are inherently anti-environmental, as well as the labor issues they cause, and the environmental issues in countries such as China with low environmental regulatory standards. And, like the original NAFTA and WTO deals, transnational companies would have a shot at overriding US environmental regulations. Much more here.

Things have changed since 2005, or even 2010, in other ways. We're continuing to improve our degree of certainty on how much human activity is going to affect mean temperature increases across our planet. We're starting to figure out more of how climate change is related to large but sub-global seasonal weather issues, such as the "clipper" that gave the US Northeast a snow-heavy winter while exacerbating drought in California.

There's a third issue which I've briefly blogged about before.

The National Park Service's centennial is in 2016, and so far, I've heard very little "noise" from the White House about the run-up to this, celebratory plans, etc.

I'm afraid that what eventually gets wheeled out will be corporate heavy, too.

I'm not a James Kunstler, but I do sometimes have my degree of despair over the future of our planet. Climate change, as we mark another Earth Day, is one of the main drivers of such, though not the only one.

Add in the deniers, minimizers and skeptics. Add in the fact that Obama seems to have the least amount of focus on environmental issues of any Democratic president since Harry Truman. None of this helps.

Add in that minimizers and skeptics, to the degree they accept anthropogenic climate change, then switch gears to what I have previously called "salvific technologism." That's the belief in technology's saving (salvific) power, so much so that said belief in technology becomes an "-ism."

Well, the human ability to adapt is constrained by something that didn't exist in the Younger Dryas, or even, for the most part, in the Little Ice Age, or its predecessor, the Medieval Warm Period (which is still a bit cooler than we are today), and that's the modern big city, let alone the megacity. It's hard to "pack up and move" 20 million people in greater New York City, London, Los Angeles, Shanghai or other spots. And, all but L.A. of those four cities face definite worries over rising sea levels.

Meanwhile, "Earth Day" isn't even on Google News' list of top "trending" items, as of 1:30 p.m. Central Time.

Add to it the "gang green" environmental groups deciding at the start of the Clinton Administration that cozying up to Democrats for political "access" was more important than being firmer on stances. Then, we have the topper, several years ago, of Sierra Club selling the rights to its name, for branding and marketing, to Clorox. There were certainly a few questions about Clorox's environmental commitment, and a boatload of unquestionable facts on its low standards on labor issues. I blogged more here and here about how this exposed authoritarian tactics of Sierra's national board and then-CEO Carl Pope.

But, when a big, rich (yes, relatively) environmental group pays just $33K a year for copy editors for its magazine, with a job based in downtown San Francisco, we know which "green" is speaking. That's even more true with the made-in-China tchotchkes combined with the wasteful amount of mail, snail mail, not email, sent for solicitation efforts.

I'll stop now before I get into the territory of a new blog post, which I will soon enough anyway.

Perry has a few related thoughts.

As for those other issues of despair? It seems like racial issues in America have slowed to about the  same glacial rate of progress.

Color me skeptical on Romney win in Nevada

Everybody is talking about how big the win was for Romney, but getting only 42 percent of the vote in a state that trails only Utah and Idaho in percentage of Mormon population, especially given his years in neighboring Utah, and this was NOT a "big" victory. That said, a few other things show up:

1. The non-Mormon part of the Nevada GOP is pretty libertarian; the fact that Paul couldn't crack 20 percent shows (yes, Paul-tards) that he has a ceiling that's not all that high.

2. The fact that Gingrich got more than 25 percent in a four-person race with a dysfunctional state organization shows that Romney and the GOP establishment count him out at their peril.

Florida: Romney tries for half a tax loaf

Mitt Romney, perhaps under a general note-taking from his South Carolina loss, perhaps under the prodding of former Florida governor Jeb Bush, is releasing some of his tax returns.

But the "some" is small, only covering 2010 and 2011.

So, will this help or backfire? There's the precedent of his own dad, who released several years of returns, as well as other candidates in general doing that on a regular basis for 30 years now.

I think it backfires. It keeps the "what's Romney hiding" issue front and center. Per the idea that Gingrich can do quite well in northern Florida, but not so well in the southern urban areas, it could be worth 3-5 percentage points in what's already looking to be a nasty battle.

That said, how well can Gingrich land blows if Romney ducks most debates? Or will that hurt Romney further?

And, if Gingrich wins Florida, even as more of his own laundry gets further airing, will we have the establishment pushing harder for Romney? For "anybody but Gingrich"? Can Santorum win by being quiet?

Stay tuned; Florida's going to remain fluid, even volatile.

Juan Williams knows who he was sleeping with

It looks like the birds have finally come home to roost for Juan Williams of Faux News, fired by NPR for violating company policy and directives for getting too close to Faux.

In South Carolina's debate last night, Williams asked Newt Gingrich if he didn't think his comments about having students work as janitors at school and other things might seem especially sensitive to minorities. When Newt said no, and Williams asked a follow-up, he got booed like hell.

Too bad, Juan. You could see this ugliness in the GOP, especially its Tea Party wing, when you got cozy with Faux in the first place.

Bachmann-Perry Overblown

OK, it actually is a surprise that Michele Bachmann dropped out of the GOP race. I didn't think she had that much brains, or humility. Weirder yet is the Palinistas telling her to drop out, so as to unite social conservatives.

More on how others, from James Dobson on, are looking for the anti-Romney, here.

Semi-surprised she'd endorse Ron Paul instead of Rick Santorum. See, while Paul is a small-government type, AND, he's pro-life, and he's not as pro-legalization on drugs as Paul-tards make him out to be, his social conservativism ends entirely at water's edge. To riff on Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul is NOT in "the Amen corner" of American Protestant millennialists writing blank checks to Israel.

Santorum and Rick Perry both are. After New Hampshire, the GOP heads south, so Perry still has a limping chance. Both have better chances than Paul, long-term. That said, it would be fun to see him bolt the party again, and this time square off against Gary Johnson for the Libertarian nod. Both are libertarian nutbars, but with nuanced differences, including that Johnson's not so anti-Fed nor such a goldbug, nor a fellator of Austrian school economics in general.

Back to the GOP, though. Will Paul struggle in New Hampshire? Will he then fall flat in South Carolina? And, can Santorum "do Southern"? Can Newt win in S.C. himself? Or will he rather, as Mother Jones hinted, try to blow up the GOP as a last act of petulance? Stay tuned.

That includes you, Doug Christie, Mitch Daniels, et al.

But Kevin Drum probably has it right By Super Tuesday, it could well be just Romney and Santorum, with the Mittster coming near to locking up the nomination on that primary date or even going over the top.

Kyoto carbon poetry

A comment from a friend on Google+, after he posted a haiku, led me to ask myself if I had a copy of this 1998 Kyoto treaty talks op-ed that I wrote all in haiku. And, I did. And yes, what follows was an actual op-ed column. (Small weekly paper, where I was publisher, and nobody to say 'You can't do that.')

Clinton seeks freer trade
With Chilean producers
Free wine, grapes, and fruit

Gephardt says "Never"
Dreaming Presidential dreams
Gore stands idly by

Newt and his minions
Will swap taxes for tariffs
Clinton: "See me next year"

He's to Kyoto
To cut back greenhouse gas growth
Subtle irony

Speaking, not doing
More global warming threatens
With his ev'ry word

Business USA
Claims the climate data is
Still insufficient

They preach doom and gloom
For our proud, strong economy
From mandated change

Clinton will stand and speak
To please Japan, Europe, home
And yet fall far short

Back in Washington
Ere his Orient Express
Reno had good news

Investigation
Of campaign violations
Is terminated

Clinton breathes easy
As does loyal Gore besides
But is it over

On the back benches
Hot Republican firebreathers
Demand impeachment

The outside person
Knows all hands are money-green
Has cynic disgust

#SEC sues Fannie, Freddie bigwigs; where's #Newt?

Fig Newton Gingrich

This could be good news, or it could be hot air. The Securities and Exchange Commission is suing six former top officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

On the surface, it's good news. But, we've seen just how air-pillow light the SEC's punishment hammer has been in the past couple of years.

Anyway, here's the gist:

The SEC's complaint against the former Fannie Mae executives alleges that, when Fannie Mae began reporting its exposure to subprime loans in 2007, it broadly described the loans as those "made to borrowers with weaker credit histories," and then reported — with the knowledge, support, and approval of Mudd, Dallavecchia, and Lund — less than one-tenth of its loans that met that description. Fannie Mae reported that its 2006 year-end Single Family exposure to subprime loans was just 0.2 percent, or approximately $4.8 billion, of its Single Family loan portfolio. Investors were not told that in calculating the Company's reported exposure to subprime loans, Fannie Mae did not include loan products specifically targeted by Fannie Mae towards borrowers with weaker credit histories, including more than $43 billion of Expanded Approval, or "EA" loans. ...

In the complaint against the former Freddie Mac executives, the SEC alleged that they and Freddie Mac led investors to believe that the firm used a broad definition of subprime loans and was disclosing all of its Single-Family subprime loan exposure. Syron and Cook reinforced the misleading perception when they each publicly proclaimed that the Single Family business had "basically no subprime exposure." Unbeknown to investors, as of December 31, 2006, Freddie Mac's Single Family business was exposed to approximately $141 billion of loans internally referred to as "subprime" or "subprime like," accounting for 10 percent of the portfolio, and grew to approximately $244 billion, or 14 percent of the portfolio, as of June 30, 2008.

There's another way this could be good news, for the general public and for Barack Obama, and GOP presidential contestants along with Obama.

Two words: Newt Gingrich. His allegedly non-lobbying lobbying efforts for Freddie Mac are going to draw even more fire now. He got hammered for it in last night's debate:

Fox News debate moderator Brett Baier pointed out that in a previous debate, Gingrich said that Rep. Barney Frank, former Sen. Chris Dodd and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should be imprisoned for their roles in the financial meltdown. He pointed out that such statements could look hypocritical given that Gingrich supports government policy to encourage home ownership.

Gingrich defended his earlier remarks by saying that "Barney Frank was in public office with direct power over Freddie Mac [and] he exploited that power... I was a private citizen, engaged in a business like any other business." 

As I blogged yesterday: Newt, it's your turn to slip. And, it's going to happen pretty quickly, perhaps. If it's a slow news cycle otherwise, this is going to draw plenty of chatter on Sunday morning political talk TV.

===

Beyond Newt, though, this says Fannie and Freddie should be reformed, and frankly, made back into straight government entities. The filing involves some major fraud allegations.

Do you know why they're "hybrid" quasi-public, quasi-private government service enterprises? LBJ, as part of his guns-and-butter financial strategy for the budget and the Vietnam War, pushed the two out of government. Yet another way he got way too fixated on Vietnam, to his own detriment and the country's as well.

#Newt, it's your turn to slip

Fig Newton Gingrich

Ron "Who Am I?" Paul

In what could be called regression to the mean within the GOP, or just regression to the mean GOP, Newt Gingrich is doing the same thing Rick Perry, Herman Cain and others did: sliding backward in Iowa after a quick peek.

How bad? Bad enough the caucuses could be a three-way tie, with every establishment GOPer's nightmare of Ron Paul being one of those three.

Per the first link, Newt's relative lack of time in Iowa plus his past support for a Mitt Romney/Barack Obama individual health care mandate are both becoming stumbling blocks. The latter? "Newt Romney" comments are starting to bite. The former? A campaign thin in staff and budget can't change that a lot in the few days left.

Besides that, Newt may be having his Freddie Mac connections about to blow up in his face, with an SEC fraud lawsuit filing against former Fannie and Freddie execs.

I would sooo laugh my head off if this happened, a three-way tie. I'm sure someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would chuckle a bit, at least, two. Odds of the top three candidates all finishing within 4 percentage points, from first down to third? One in ten, right now, I'd say.

And, there's Newt-vs-Newt: National Review still doesn't trust him as a flip-flopper. And I don't think it is alone.

I think, viscerally, Paul probably dislikes Gingrich most of all the GOP candidates. We've not seen any fake cameraderie, like Romney's approach to Perry, between the two. I would suspect that die-hard Paul-tards write off Romney's shellacked slickness as part of his package, but, really reserve their fire for Gingrich as a man trying to have it both ways.

Meanwhile, for those Paul-tards boo-hooing that their candidate doesn't get enough media attention, watch out: You might just get what you wish for, and, per this analysis, he might have his own meltdown. But, he's already been outspoken on war and civil liberties issues at one debate, at least; contra Dean Baker, I doubt more media spotlight on Paul would shake up the GOP much.

More fun: Tricky Ricky Perry, acknowledging he's not gaining new traction in Iowa, says finishing fourth won't push him out. I'm sure he's betting in part on Texas keeping at least its presidential primary on the date now set. More fun yet: Jon Huntsman has passed Paul in New Hampshire.

That could lead to the GOP's worst nightmare yet: Paul winning Iowa and crossover votes pushing Huntsman to No. 2, at least, in the Granite State. Huntsman's still got a ways to go to move to No. 2, but, it's possible.

If that happened, could we have Chris Christie rethink again? A "favorite son" candidate elsewhere? Stay tuned!

Meanwhile, my comments on the last pre-caucuses debate below the fold.

#Whatsinyourwallet Mitt? Maybe more than the #DNC

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Cain's fall, Newt's rise, tea party stupidity

I would agree with National Journal that if Herman Cain bows out of the GOP race, Newt Gingrich benefits most (and Mitt Romney suffers most).

Tea partier stupidity? The article says Newt is their favorite among those in the race. Not Cain, though he runs a close second. And not Bachmann, either.

Even before Newt's brazen lies about how much Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid him, and why, it was clear that the man's a brazen creature of Washington, an almost perfect caricature of a conservative twin of Tip O'Neill.

And, actually, beyond that, the rise of Newt means the real political winner is ... again, Barack Obama. And, the real political loser is sensible voters like you and I.

Speaking of Dear Leader, another article notes that he could take a page from former Calif. Gov. Gray Davis and try to pick his opponent, though he would have to proceed more carefully at the federal level. Again, from the point of view of political chess games, I agree. Or, Team Obama could try to split the bet by subtly pushing Newt, but also, say, Perry, the only other candidate in the race with a realistic shot at winning.

Why the GOP prez race won't be done soon

First, with Newt Gingrich now replacing Herman Cain, who previously replaced Rick Perry, at the top of the GOP polling list, it's clear that likely primary voters are still in an anybody-but-Romney mood.

And, since no GOP primary before April 1 can be winner-take-all, there's plenty of reason for every wingnut candidate to hang in there. Especially since "Super Tuesday," which was in February in 2008, will be in March this year. I'll come back to this point as the Iowa caucuses get near, then we get past that and approach the New Hampshire primary.

Even with the one-month pushback on Super Tuesday, which includes Texas, Perry has money enough to stay around until then with recent belt-tightening. However, as Paul Burka notes, Perry's problems ultimately, in many cases, trace back to his insularity. And, I seriously doubt he can overcome that, even if he can hang on enough to make it to the Texas primary. And Herman Cain's latest gaffe, not on falsehoods or groping, but blowing off New Hampshire's GOP kingmaker, the Manchester Union-Leader, will push him out of the race soon enough.

Now that we're learning Newt Gingrich got almost $2 million from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac for "strategic advice," how long before he gets hammered on this? Yes, some pundits have noted he has had past "heresies" from orthodox wingnut GOP doctrine, like challenging Paul Ryan's Medicare ideas.

But, he's surged to No. 1 in GOP polling because he's supposed to be the last, best hope of wingnuts who want somebody orthodox and pure to take out the flip-flopping Mitt Romney  Update (via Burka): Another rat is leaving Perry's ship ... and headed to Gingrich's. And, yes, that's what's driving this process.

Given that the tea party line on Fannie/Freddie is that "ebil Democrats made it sell a bunch of houses to poor, unworthy black folks," how can they digest him getting nearly $2M for helping spread that advice? More on the issues facing Newt here.

Newt won't do well in Iowa because the Religious Right doesn't trust him. But, if he can "spin" enough in New Hampshire, he might remain a player. Paul, if he can appear non-nutbar, will appeal to libertarians there, unless Gary Johnson can leapfrog him.

New Hampshire also allows crossover voting. Since Obama is unopposed on the GOP side, this allows for possible mischief making, too. Don't expect the head of New Hampshire's Democrats to say anything official, though!

And a New York Times article on how tea partiers' destructive influence on primaries is undercutting the GOP's chance of regaining control of the Senate applies perfectly to this year's presidential primaries.

Fears of ideologically divisive primaries often keep the best candidates from running, some Republican officials said.

“We are having trouble recruiting,” said Martha Breene, the chairwoman of the Venango County Republican party in Pennsylvania. “You often are not getting what you hope you could be getting, and then there is the Tea Party factor. A lot of them have good intent but it is sort of like they are the police men of all things and they aren’t going to let other Republicans matter.” 

Yep, sounds like the presidential primaries.

Which would give Romney a narrow plurality over a muddle of everybody else. But, that muddle is going to go on for a while.

And this gets more fun yet. With Paul also gaining poll steam, would he consider a replay of 1988, as the Libertarian standard-bearer, and launch a third-party campaign? Would somebody else? (I've long speculated that Jon Huntsman would be "ideal" for the web-only Tom Friedman wet dream "centrist" party, Americans Elect.) Would a Santorum give an eye to the Religious Right's Constitution Party?

And, speaking of all this, Gary Johnson is, overall, less nutbar than Paul. Buddy Roemer is less nutbar than anybody this side of Romney and Huntsman. So, why won't GOP honchos, or media moguls, invite either of them to debates?

Not to a brokered GOP convention. Sit down, Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels. But ... the muddle will go on a while.

Newt's meltdown could be here

Now that we're learning Newt Gingrich got almost $2 million from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac for "strategic advice," how long before he gets hammered on this? Yes, some pundits have noted he has had past "heresies" from orthodox wingnut GOP doctrine, like challenging Paul Ryan's Medicare ideas.

But, he's surged to No. 1 in GOP polling because he's supposed to be the last, best hope of wingnuts who want somebody orthodox and pure to take out the flip-flopping Mitt Romney. And, yes, that's what's driving this process.

Given that the tea party line on Fannie/Freddie is that "ebil Democrats made it sell a bunch of houses to poor, unworthy black folks," how can they digest him getting nearly $2M for helping spread that advice?

Fannie/Freddie insiders are already challenging his version of what that advice was. And, as for the claim he didn't do lobbying? The DC line between lobbying and "public policy advice" is often so thin as to depend on whether the "advice" was passed out at Capitol Hill or at the agency or think tank's HQ.

Since this isn't quite gay sex with Rush Limbaugh, and the next Mittster alternative for wingnuts is either Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, or a fuller embrace of Michele Bachmann, he may not totally tank.

More on the issues facing Newt here.

While Paul starts to rise. Nobody has ever accused him of sexual or financial lapses; he's just a nutbar. If any sort of Paul surge holds up, this could really be "fun."

And a New York Times article on how tea partiers' destructive influence on primaries is undercutting the GOP's chance of regaining control of the Senate applies perfectly to this year's presidential primaries.

Fears of ideologically divisive primaries often keep the best candidates from running, some Republican officials said.

“We are having trouble recruiting,” said Martha Breene, the chairwoman of the Venango County Republican party in Pennsylvania. “You often are not getting what you hope you could be getting, and then there is the Tea Party factor. A lot of them have good intent but it is sort of like they are the police men of all things and they aren’t going to let other Republicans matter.” 

Yep, sounds like the presidential primaries.

Which would give Romney a narrow plurality over a muddle of everybody else.

It's Newt's turn to implode

First, Rick Perry was surging past Mitt Romney, then he crashed and burned. Herman Cain then passed the Mittster only to start self-destructing (an ongoing process).

And now, a known serial adulterer has passed an alleged serial groper as the GOP's preferred candidate.

So, how long before Fig Newton implodes? And, over what?

Another Tiffany's charge account, this one covered by the People's Republic of China?

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac sweetheart mortgages for his "historic perspective" advice?

A mistress we don't yet know about?

Please, Newt, give us something new and original.

In other news from that poll, it's nice to see that the one real libertarian in the GOP race, Gary Johnson, is now actually drawing polling numbers, and at least equal to Santorum. Will we see him in the next debate?

And, Huntsman rising? This is all too rational. We can't have that.

Gay sex with Rush Limbaugh would be fantastic.

Newt hearts oldsters, not poor — especially not sick ones

That's the bottom line behind Newt Gingrich slamming Paul Ryan's Medicare revamp.

Senor citizens vote, and often vote Republican.

But, Ryan's plan to revamp Medicaid?

Newt's totally down with that.

The poor don't vote as often (and nursing-home bound seniors pretty much don't vote at all), and when the poor DO vote, they don't vote GOP as often.

So, to call Ryan's Medicare plan "right-wing social engineering" is just another right-wing lie inside the small tent.

Matt Dowd likes Obama's 2012 chances

He says three things have to happen for the GOP to topple him, and only one — a charismatic candidate — is in GOP control.

The other two are the economy and foreign policy.

And, in the Libya case, they're kind of linked.

If Obama can get lucky enough to get that resolved quickly (oh, by the way, B.O., to where will Gadhafi go in exile??), then oil should stay below $110/barrel through next year. But, he's going to have to do more than Kumbaya on energy policy issues.

If oil stays below that benchmark, I think unemployment will be below 8.5 percent at the end of this year and around 8.0 percent by Election Day. Not as good as Reagan had in 1984, but it could be good enough.

As for the charismatic? The most charismatic GOP candidates, actual or hinted, are also its most nutbar. That's Bachmann, semi-charistmatic Gingrich, and the in-the-wings Palin. Of course, on religious beliefs, you have the non-charismatic nutbar Mike Huckabee.

George Will basts 4-5 on 2012 GOP field

George Will is spot-on when he says Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich probably can't gain enough public trust to run a lemonade stand, let alone the White House.

As for five five relatively sensible GOP candidates? I agree on Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. But, after numerous gaffes already by the Mouth of Mississippi, if Will thinks Haley Barbour is a viable candidate, his picker's still a bit broken.

Norm Ornstein said it

"Cable news is a joke."

Ornstein was talking about Faux News' decision to "suspend" Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, now that they've formed presidential exploratory committees. (On a side note, what keeps Ornstein at AEI, anyway?)

In the same "Room for Debate," I was surprised Fred Wertheimer didn't call for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Newt Gingrich's laugh of the day

The old salamander, along with Bill Frist and others, tells us how to fix health care.

Maybe, doing just the opposite of what he says might work.

When "markets" is in the first graf, and after that, time after time, you know it's the same old tired dreck.

Newt Gingrich running for Prez in four years?

The comic part of my political sense says “Bring it On.” Let’s see you as a serial philanderer pander to the Religious Right, and see it pander back.

The serious part of me says, doorknob, no, AND, does he really think the GOP will nominate him?

Anyway, supposedly he is serious enough about it to backstab House Minority Leader John Boehner over the House GOP vote on the bailout.