Tipsheet – Breaking Political News & Conservative Analysis

PPP Poll: Romney Ahead in Florida With Comfortable Lead

Daniel Doherty

Posted at 11:25 PM ET, 1/28/2012

The results from the latest Florida poll dropped late Saturday night, and Mitt Romney is leading the pack by 8 percentage points:

PPP finds the same thing in its newest Florida poll that all surveys of the state have found in the last few days: strong movement away from Newt Gingrich and toward Mitt Romney. Romney now leads with 40% to 32% for Gingrich, 15% for Rick Santorum, and 9% for Ron Paul. Romney has gained 7 points and Gingrich has dropped by 6 since our last poll, which was conducted Sunday and Monday.

It's clear that the negative attacks on Gingrich have been the major difference maker over the last week. His net favorability has declined 13 points from +23 (57/34) to only +10 (50/40) in just five days. Romney has pretty much stayed in place. At the beginning of the week he was at +31 (61/30) and now he's at +33 (64/31).

Santorum is actually the most well liked candidate among Florida voters with 65% seeing him favorably to 24% with a negative opinion. In Iowa Santorum's persistently high favorability ratings were a precursor to his late surge. But as popular as he is, he's only gone from 13% to 15% support in the last week. It seems unlikely that he'll be able to break into the top two.

The backbone of Romney's support in Florida is senior citizens. He's getting 50% of their voters with Gingrich at only 28%. Romney also appears to have a pretty good sized lead in the bank. Among those who have already voted he's at 45% to 35% for Gingrich.

Perhaps one of the greatest differences between Florida and other early primary states is that 68 percent of Republicans have a favorable opinion of rich people. Hence, as the pollsters explain, Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital is in some ways an asset. At times, his wealth has been a liability for him on the campaign trail, especially in early primary states with high unemployment rates. In Florida, though, public opinion suggests this won’t be an issue.

As expected, more than half of likely primary voters in Florida watched the GOP debate Thursday night. Among those who tuned in, a plurality favor Romney over Gingrich by a 41 to 35 margin. Last week, not unexpectedly, debate watchers preferred Gingrich by overwhelming majorities. Unfortunately, Newt’s lackluster performance Thursday night seems to have significantly hurt him. At the same time, the first PPP survey conducted in Florida after the South Carolina primary showed Romney and Gingrich equally electable. Today, three days before the primary, 50 percent of likely voters say Romney is the candidate best suited to defeat President Obama in the general election.

To be sure, Newt Gingrich is losing ground and running out of time. But with a few days left until Floridians cast their ballots (and given the capricious nature of the GOP primaries thus far), it seems anything can happen.

Newt's Creepy New Ad: Which Mitt Is It?

Greg Hengler

Posted at 6:59 PM ET, 1/28/2012

Romney Ad Skewers Newt Over False Ethics Charges

Daniel Doherty

Posted at 3:56 PM ET, 1/28/2012

The race for the 2012 Republican nomination has reached an unprecedented new level today. The latest spot from the Romney camp, which suggests that Newt Gingrich was guilty of betraying the public trust in the 1990s, is escalating tensions between both presidential candidates. As Greg pointed out a few days ago, the former House Speaker was exonerated by the IRS of all ethics violations after he left public office. Romney, however, is unleashing everything in his arsenal to lock up the Florida primary on Tuesday. Nevertheless, while this ad will certainly elicit howls of indignation from Team Gingrich – and could be taken down – the damage might already be done.

Take a look:

(H/T The Right Scoop)

Our Adversary is the Same

Carol Platt Liebau

Posted at 1:40 PM ET, 1/28/2012

On her Facebook page, Governor Sarah Palin weighs in on the race for the Republican presidential nomination, decrying the treatment of Newt Gingrich, as is her right. More alarmingly, she includes the following language:

"[T]his whole thing isn't really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots . . . ."

With all due respect, her choice of words is unfortunate. What the Republican party needs right now is respected voices who can help us bridge the various gaps among our membership and sort through our issues and choices soberly and responsibly -- not voices drawing intra-party battle lines that create division now and bitterness later.

What's more, the battle lines the Governor draws don't strike me as particularly accurate.

To me, Romney supporters Ann Coulter and Chris Christie don't really seem like"establishment" Republicans. Nor do Bill McCollum or J.C. Watts (both supporting Gingrich) strike me as particularly representative of the Tea Party. It is hard to understand how Newt Gingrich -- a guy beloved by the MSM media, who has lived off the Washington-style influence-peddling and "crony capitalism" rightly condemned by the Tea Party (and who engineered the widespread use of earmarks in a well-intentioned but flawed effort to entrench Republican House majorities), a man who has spent the campaign bashing capitalism and characterizing a fellow Republican with a more conservative immigration plan than he as "anti-immigrant" -- is automatically the Tea Party choice. Surely there are Tea Partiers who are turned off by his personal life and his routine use of needlessly inflammatory language (even in making perfectly reasonable points) -- and who think that being "Tea Party" is about more than attitude and heated rhetoric.

Likewise, to be fair, there are "establishment" Republicans (whatever, exactly, that term means) who are discomforted by RomneyCare and various position shifts Governor Romney has taken over the years (and perhaps, like me, they are worried when watching less conservative Republicans like John McCain and Bob Dole leap to Romney's defense).

My fellow GOP voters have every right to make those judgments -- I respect their convictions, and understand their position. Their conclusions may be different than mine, but that doesn't make us adversaries or enemies or on "different sides" -- just as their differences in history and demeanor can't disguise the fact that on substance, Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich actually agree for the most part.

I am a Mitt Romney supporter because I believe he is the most conservative candidate who has a realistic shot at beating President Obama. I have spoken strongly against Speaker Gingrich, and if he were to win the nomination, I would daily fear the kind of spectacular self-immolation from him we have seen before -- to the detriment of our hopes of defeating Barack Obama; our chances of holding the House and taking the Senate; and above all, to the cause of conservatism itself. Were he somehow to win, I have strong doubts that he would be able to run an effective administration that would succeed in implementing some of the reforms that our country truly needs in order to survive as a first-rate power.

All that being said, if Gingrich wins the nomination (as I hope he won't), I will support him and put my fears and misgivings aside and vote for him, notwithstanding that doing so would make me a hypocrite, given my strong disapproval of Bill Clinton and his personal conduct. That is because I believe that, in the end, our primary objective must be to defeat Barack Obama and the cadres of leftists he has brought to power in order to restore our country's greatness and secure our children's futures.

I may not agree with the choices some of my fellow Republicans make, but I find nothing nefarious in their speaking out and acting on their convictions, even when I oppose their views. I don't see distinct collective action among well-defined groups of "Tea Partiers" and "establishment" people (and any Republican who denounces or mischaracterizes the Tea Party -- a much-needed infusion of good ideas and backbone into the GOP bloodstream -- should be ashamed, and should KNOCK IT OFF). With a few unfortunate exceptions, for the most part, I see good people, of all stripes, trying to figure out whom they will support this fall, and who has the best chance of advancing the principles we all cherish.

We are all in this together -- conservative, Tea Party, GOP -- and our real adversary is the same. It is unfortunate, and wrong -- and hardly a sign of leadership -- that a Republican as influential as Sarah Palin is using her power to exacerbate divisions among us, particularly by trying to frame our intra-party differences in a highly inflammatory way that could inflict long-lasting damage that will hurt our ultimate nominee (whoever it is). By doing so, she is acting as Barack Obama's ally -- a thought she, above all, would no doubt find repugnant.

Palin: "Cannibals in GOP Establishment" Are Using Leftist Playbook

Daniel Doherty

Posted at 1:23 PM ET, 1/28/2012

On Sarah Palin’s Facebook page Friday afternoon, the former Alaska governor published a lengthy article excoriating the GOP establishment for employing leftist tactics to discredit the Tea Party movement and undermine former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s presidential aspirations. Here’s a quick excerpt:

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

Read the full article here.

VIDEO: Is Santorum Finished?

Daniel Doherty

Posted at 11:36 AM ET, 1/28/2012

On Friday night, Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum appeared on Fox News and told Sean Hannity unequivocally that he will not be dropping out of the 2012 presidential race. The rumors, he contends, are emanating from the White House because President Obama is worried about his “Taylor Made” message resonating with voters in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Notably, he addressed why -- despite his strong conservative credentials – his poll numbers are not higher, as well as his terrific performance in the debate Thursday night.

In short, this is a great interview and is worth watching in its entirety.

Via Fox News:

Romney Would Rank as One of the Richest Presidents in U.S. History

Daniel Doherty

Posted at 9:54 AM ET, 1/28/2012

If former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney clinches the Republican nomination and defeats President Obama in the general election next November, he will be one of the richest Americans ever to take the oath of office.

Just how rich is Mitt Romney?

Add up the wealth of the last eight presidents, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Then double that number.

Now you're in Romney territory.

He would be among the richest presidents in American history if elected _ probably in the top four. He couldn't top George Washington who, with nearly 60,000 acres and more than 300 slaves, is considered the big daddy of presidential wealth.

After that, it gets complicated, depending how you rate Thomas Jefferson's plantation, Herbert Hoover's millions from mining or John F. Kennedy's share of the vast family fortune, as well as the finer points of factors like inflation adjustment.

But it's safe to say the Roosevelts had nothing on Romney, and the Bushes are nowhere close.

Certainly, Romney’s wealth is not a bad thing. Just ask Rick Santorum. But, of course, the problem he faces is relating to middle and working class Americans. As Guy noted on Thursday, his penchant for using phrases such as “my trustee” during the Republican debates isn’t exactly going to galvanize struggling or out-of-work voters. Nevertheless, if he can effectively argue that his time spent in the private economy makes him the strongest candidate to rebuild America and create jobs, his wealth could actually be an asset that distinguishes him from the rest of the field.

On the Lighter Side

Carol Platt Liebau

Posted at 9:32 AM ET, 1/28/2012

One of the most entertaining remarks of the campaign season comes as Newt Gngrich complains that his rather flat debate performance resulted from his astonishment at Mitt Romney's purported dishonesty.

Well thank Heaven that, if Gingrich were able to win the nomination and get the series of Lincoln-Douglas debates he's been promising, there's no chance President Obama would ever say anything dishonest!

More Hypocrisy: Elizabeth Warren Says She’s Not a One-Percenter

Daniel Doherty

Posted at 8:30 AM ET, 1/28/2012

What planet does Massachusetts Senate Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren live on when owning a $5 million home doesn’t constitute being wealthy?

The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren -- the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism -- made the case to MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn't own stock.

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.

Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

For some inexplicable reason, Elizabeth Warren seems to think it’s politically expedient to lie to voters on national television. Granted, in order for the former Harvard professor to oust incumbent Senator Scott Brown in November, she must craft a compelling narrative that will resonate with her constituents. Over the last several months, for example, she has positioned herself as a crusader for the middle class by castigating Wall Street bankers, financiers, and wealthy business executives. Until now, perhaps, she has garnered unprecedented support and even convinced thousands of Bay State voters to donate money to her campaign.

What’s astounding, though, is that prior to her interview with Lawrence O’Donnell, her personal finances had already been released to the American public. In other words, what could she possibly have hoped to gain by asserting she was not really a wealthy individual? Indeed, her six figure salary from Harvard University alone last year puts her in the top income bracket, and that doesn’t even include the millions of dollars she’s accumulated over the course of her career. Thus, the so-called intellectual founder of the Occupy Wall Street movement is, in fact, a one-percenter.

Nonetheless, Elizabeth Warren’s duplicitous remarks are indefensible. And, frankly, she deserves all the negative publicity coming her way.

Via The Atlantic:

(H/T BuzzFeed)

Fitch Downgrades Five Eurozone Nations

Erika Johnsen

Posted at 6:13 PM ET, 1/27/2012

Not exactly the most outrageous breaking news, but yet another symptom of Europe's deteroriating financial condition. All is still far from well in the eurozone, which sure as heck doesn't benefit us, either:

FRANKFURT, Germany — Fitch Ratings downgraded the debt of Italy, Spain and three other countries that use the euro on Friday, a possible setback as European leaders work to contain the continent’s debt crisis.

The lower government-debt ratings for Italy, Spain, Belgium, Cyprus and Slovenia could make it more expensive for these countries to borrow.

Fitch said its decision was based on the deteriorating economic outlook in Europe, a concern that Europe’s bailout fund is not large enough and a belief that European leaders are not acting quickly or boldly enough to prevent the debt crisis from worsening. ...

Government debt ratings can play a significant role in determining countries’ borrowing costs. The higher the costs the greater the likelihood of default for a heavily indebted country.

Ireland, Greece and Portugal have been cut off from bond market borrowing because of investors’ fears that they might default. They have had to take bailout loans from other eurozone governments and the International Monetary Fund.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Friday Fun: 'Jeopardy' Contestants Stumped...

Guy Benson

Posted at 4:45 PM ET, 1/27/2012

A fun dose of late week levity, via Breitbart:

Crickets.

Tags: Rachel Maddow , Friday Fun , Jeopardy

Growing Global Warming 'Heresy' in the Scientific Community

Erika Johnsen

Posted at 4:43 PM ET, 1/27/2012

I've lately noticed that the the terms "climate change" and "global warming" have played a largely diminished in the rhetoric of the Obama administration when they justify their various taxpayer-funded renewable energy projects. The man used to be a champion of the environmental lobby's crusade against global warming, but he's been decreasingly vocal about the ostensible threat -- he only mentioned it in passing in his State of the Union on Tuesday night: "The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change." After the 'permatorium' the Obama administration had in place for so long, they are now adopting an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy that ostensibly includes the development of oil and natural gas resources -- although, frankly, I'll believe it when I see a little less talk and a lot more action.

Why the slackening of warming-hysteria enthusiasm? First off, we're in a recession. When people are struggling financially, they care a lot less about intangible, highly mootable contentions like climate change -- and the political practicalities and profits to be gained from a vociferous climate-change offensive are no longer a given. Secondly, the science behind climate-change mania, and the unbiased truthfulness of the scientific community in general, are increasingly dubious, and it's getting harder to hide -- I very much recommend reading this entire article from the WSJ, signed by 16 scientists. Cui bono, indeed:

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. ...

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. ...

Tags: Global Warming , Climate Change , Obama Administration

Sarah Palin: Ron Paul is the "Only One" Willing to Rein in Spending

Daniel Doherty

Posted at 4:31 PM ET, 1/27/2012

Appearing on Fox News this morning, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin surprised her acolytes by singing the praises of the most libertarian-leaning GOP presidential candidate…Ron Paul.

I still sense his desire to be more of an isolated-type country and not be as aware and active on the international scene when it comes to protecting our allies like Israel and doing all that we can.

That is my hesitancy there still with Ron Paul's candidacy. However, on the domestic front, he is the only one who has been so adamantly passionate about doing something about the suffocating debt, about doing something about reining in government growth and actually slashing budgets - $1 trillion a year, he's been specific about until we get our hands around this - I respect that.

I appreciate it. His austerity measures that he wants to see Congress adopt in order to rein in government and let the private sector actually grow and thrive and hire more people.

Fresh off his strongest debate performance to date, Sarah Palin’s kind words could not have come at a better time. The Texas Congressman, who has abandoned all hopes of winning Tuesday’s presidential primary in Florida, is seeking delegates elsewhere by campaigning in Maine for the next two days. Paul, of course, is a long shot to win the Republican nomination, but a surprising victory in the Pine Tree State on February 4th could revive his faltering candidacy.

On the other hand, there is at least some reason to believe that Sarah Palin’s remarks may strike a chord with conservatives. After all, the former governor’s assertion that Ron Paul is the only Republican contender serious about cutting the size and scope of government is in some respects true. Indeed, his proposals to cut $1 trillion from the national debt and eliminate five federal departments are bold ideas that Tea Partiers and fiscal conservatives everywhere can embrace. While his isolationism is a deal breaker for some, reining in government spending has been a staple of his campaign since announcing his candidacy last summer.

In any event, if Ron Paul hopes to ride his newfound momentum to victory in 2012, he faces an uphill battle. Nevertheless, I suppose a little love from Sarah Palin can’t hurt.

Via Fox News:

Video: Palestinian Supporters Perform Nazi Salute

Guy Benson

Posted at 1:19 PM ET, 1/27/2012

This footage from a pro-Palestinian rally in Lebanon is revolting (it apparently aired on Palestinian television, as well):

Disgusting displays such as these help bring Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's important commentaries on the Israel/Palestinian conflict into even sharper focus:

Tags: Israel , Newt Gingrich , Mitt Romney , Palestinians

The True State of the Union

Michele Bachmann

Posted at 11:00 AM ET, 1/27/2012

When the American people bestowed the highest office in the land onto President Barack Obama three years ago, they did so trusting him to follow through on his promise of “hope and change.” He has not kept that promise. The supposed accomplishments the President presented in Tuesday night’s State of the Union only serve to divert America’s attention from the true state of the union. Under three years of an Obama administration, our country is suffering; millions linger without a job, gas prices have nearly doubled, and our national debt is greater than the value of the entire U.S. economy.

Though he tried to do so, President Obama cannot blame the sad reality of our nation’s state on the inaction of Congress or the ineptitude of his Presidential predecessors. After all, it was President Obama, not Congress, who asked for nearly $5 trillion dollars to be added to the national debt. It was President Obama who recently cancelled the Keystone Pipeline project, killing thousands of potential American jobs. Under President Obama the unemployment rate has risen from 6.8% when he was elected to today’s 8.5%, a reality that’s caused many Americans to simply stop looking for work. Unfortunately, the unemployment rate is not the only figure that has seen an upsurge under this Administration – gas prices have nearly doubled from the day the President took office to now. When you compare that to only a 28-cent gas price increase under the last President’s administration, it is truly disheartening.

I agreed with the President when he called for all Americans to reclaim their “American values.” But, contrary to the President’s beliefs, the time-tested values that made America great do not include redistribution of wealth or lack of incentive to prosper. In reality, our country was founded by Americans who believed in values such as hard work and determination. They believed strongly in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” None of them believed in taking away from their neighbors to achieve their dreams, but instead worked hard to provide for their own families and carve out a home in America for the generations to come.

Yet there is still hope for our nation. There is hope because we are the descendants of these hard working Americans. The same values that inspired them to greatness inspire us today. We don’t need handouts or bailouts, we need incentive and inspiration. As a member of Congress, I will continue to fight everyday to preserve and promote these true American values.

Goodbye? Hilary Clinton Says She's Out After Election

Kate Hicks

Posted at 10:47 AM ET, 1/27/2012

Many have speculated that President Obama will swap out current Vice President Joe Biden for current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But Clinton seemed to put the kibosh on any veep talk yesterday -- and suggested that she may be leaving politics altogether following the 2012 election.

“What could we do to persuade you to run for vice president?” a staffer asked at a State Department town hall meeting Thursday, referring to cyclical rumors and the wishful thinking of some supporters. “Oh, my goodness,” Clinton replied.

“I will certainly stay on until the president nominates someone and that transition can occur,” said Clinton, who has insisted repeatedly that she will be a one-term secretary. “But I think, after 20 years ...of being on the high wire of American politics, and all of the challenges that come with that, it would probably be a good idea to just find out how tired I am.”

The famously workaholic secretary said she has “no idea” what she will do in the future, and doesn’t want to think about it because it might divert attention from today’s diplomatic tasks.

Of course, that's not a promise to step down, but it's certainly a step beyond the demurring answers she's given to date, which were more along the lines of, "Joe Biden does a great job" than, "I don't want it." And frankly, I can't say I blame her. I'm no Hillary fan, but the woman has undeniably had a busy life. Were I in her position, I might just want to retire somewhere near my daughter and play with grandchildren.

So how about it: Will President Obama replace his second in command? Will Hillary end her stint in politics? Oh, the drama!

Tags: 2012 Election , Hillary Clinton , Barack Obama , Joe Biden

Sigh: Waxman Likens GOP to Terrorists Over Keystone

Guy Benson

Posted at 10:43 AM ET, 1/27/2012

Oh, Henry Waxman. How truly clueless and out of touch you are. Yesterday the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee was muttering about issuing Keystone-related subpoenas for the Koch Brothers, or something -- and now this. It seems Henry hasn't taken President Obama's "lower the temperature" State of the Union directive to heart. New tone:

A senior Democratic congressman likened Republican lawmakers to terrorists on Thursday for their insistence on tying approval of construction of a new oil pipeline to must-pass legislation. California Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the coauthor of the 2009 cap-and-trade climate change bill, decried efforts by the GOP to force the Obama administration into approving a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline.

"They want to use legislation as a way to act like terrorists. They hold things as hostage," Waxman said. "We almost couldn't fund the government because Republicans wanted to hold that idea hostage, we almost couldn't pay our debts because the Republicans wanted to hold that legislation hostage to their extreme agenda, and I wouldn't be surprised if they scuttled this conference by trying to hold us hostage." Waxman was referring specifically to rumblings from Republicans that they might attach the provision to legislation extending a payroll tax cut through the end of 2012. Waxman is one of the 20 bipartisan negotiators who are working to reach an agreement on that extension by Feb. 29, when the current extension is set to expire.

A few quick points on this asininity:

(1) What a brilliantly effective "bipartisan negotiator" Waxman must be, given his obvious diplomatic sensitivity. Although isn't it US policy not to negotiate with terrorists, Henry? Explain yourself.

(2) This is just another folder in the bottomless file of wildly over-the-top Democratic rhetoric -- again, brought to you by the self-appointed selective civility cult. The Left had a fevah over the summer, and the only prescription was more GOP/Tea Party = terrorist imagery. I'm still looking forward to the next time a conservative says something slightly untoward and these dolts are overcome by fainting spells.

(3) Think about this for a second: Henry Waxman went nuclear on Republicans over the Keystone pipeline, of all things. This is a project that would create tens of thousands of American jobs, reduces our reliance on oil from unfriendly nations, has the support of many Democrats and labor unions, has zero known environmental risks after multiple studies, is backed by our Canadian friends, and would cost taxpayers zero dollars. Republicans forced the president to determine if the project is in the national interest. Obama decided, for all intents and purposes, that it is not. And for this Republicans are terrorists, per Waxman. Who's the extremist here, again?

(4) Back to the Koch Brothers nonsense for a moment. If there's a politically active billionaire whose interests may intersect with this political fight, it ain't David Koch. Does Waxman know (or care) about this?

"Koch Industries has no financial stake in the Keystone pipeline and we are not party to its design or construction," Philip Ellender, president of Koch Companies Public Sector, said in a statement...If Waxman and Rush and their fellow Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee are interested in seeing if political favoritism has entered into the debate over the Keystone pipeline, they might want to talk to Warren Buffett, the Omaha-based billionaire who has been a strong supporter of President Barack Obama. According to Bloomberg Business News by way of the San Francisco Chronicle, Buffett's Burlington Northern Santa Fe "is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration's decision to reject TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit."

Well then.

Tags: New Tone , Warren Buffett , Koch Brothers , Keystone Pipeline , Henry Waxman

Obama to Target Schools for Rising Tuition Costs

Erika Johnsen

Posted at 8:34 AM ET, 1/27/2012

The federal government has been subsidizing and passing out student loans at an ever-increasing pace for years, making is possible for more people to obtain student loans more easily, and President Obama has often proselytized about the supposed need for every American to go to college. But when demand increases like that, the colleges and universities need some kind of mechanism to limit their application pool to a reasonable level -- so the price goes up. These are basic economics of which the federal government is apparently woefully ignorant. The Obama administration has made grants and loans more available, made loans easier to pay back, provided tuition tax breaks, and kept interest rates artificially low; and now they're trying to place the blame for rising education costs on the universities. It belies logic:

President Barack Obama will announce Friday a plan to shift some federal dollars away from colleges and universities that don't control tuition costs and new competitions in higher education to encourage efficiency as part of an effort to contain soaring college costs.

Obama will spell out his plans at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The speech will cap a three-day post-State of the Union trip by the president to promote different components of his economic agenda in politically important states.

On Tuesday night during his State of the Union address, Obama put colleges and universities on notice to control tuition costs or face losing federal dollars. That's had the higher education community nervous that he could set a new precedent in the federal government's role in controlling the rising costs of college.

The money Obama is targeting is what's known as "campus based" aid given to colleges to distribute in areas such as Perkins loans or in work study programs. Of the $142 billion in federal grants and loans distributed in the last school year, about $3 billion went to these programs. His plan calls for increasing that type of aid to $10 billion annually.

Education is not free -- it's not a human right that just exists in a vacuum. We as a nation really need to move past the idea that everybody needs to go to college, and get rid of the stigma that you're somehow a loser if you don't. We're creating an education-bubble, and it's bound to pop eventually.

Update -- Behold, a press release from the White House (I recommend skimming the entire thing): "Fact Sheet: President Obama's Blueprint for Keeping College Affordable and Within Reach for All Americans." I rest my case:

“Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid… States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.” — President Barack Obama, State of the Union, January 24, 2012

In his State of the Union address, President Obama laid out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values. As an important part of keeping the American promise alive, the President called for a comprehensive approach to tackling rising college costs. In today’s global economy, a college education is no longer just a privilege for some, but rather a prerequisite for all. To reach a national goal of leading the world with the highest share of college graduates by 2020, we must make college more affordable.

President Obama has emphasized the responsibility shared by the federal government, states, colleges, and universities to promote access and affordability in higher education, by reining in college costs, providing value for American families, and preparing students with a solid education to succeed in their careers. Over the past three years, the Obama Administration has taken historic steps to help students afford college, including reforming our student aid system to become more efficient and reliable and by expanding grant aid and college tax credits.

This year, President Obama is calling on Congress to advance new reforms that will promote shared responsibility to address the college affordability challenge. If these proposals are passed, this will be the first time in history that the federal government has tied federal campus aid to responsible campus tuition policies. ...

Update II -- Here's Secretary of Education Arne Duncan before President Obama's speech at the University of Michigan this morning, with more perennial wisdom on how to achieve the exact opposite of your ostensible intentions:

I would also like to point out, that the Obama administration is trying to push every American go to college, while also trying to bring more manufacturing jobs back to the United States. That is all.

Tags: Student Loans , Economics , College Education , Education

A Strategy of Silence: ObamaCare Is Still Happening

Townhall.com Staff

Posted at 8:26 AM ET, 1/27/2012

Editor's note: posted by Leah Barkoukis

If anything (aside from substance) was missing from President Obama’s SOTU address on Tuesday evening, it was any considerable discussion of Obamacare. Since the president first stepped foot in the Oval Office, health care is almost all the public heard about. Until, of course, the 2010 elections became a referendum on the issue, showing just how widely unpopular Obamacare actually is. Even though Obama refused to believe it, analysts, advisers and even Democratic pollster, Pat Caddell, argued that though the economy was important, it was healthcare that was ultimately the decisive factor in the defeat of 63 House Democrats. But now, the mere 44 words devoted to the issue in the SOTU seems more like a strategy of silence, and it is.

With the Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) just around the corner, the wheels are turning once again to remind the American public about the truth behind Obamacare -- just what the administration wants you to forget. On Thursday, The Heritage Foundation’ held an event in DC that served as a potent reminder for what's in store for Americans as 2014 nears. The panel, consisting of Sally C. Pipes, Michael D. Tanner and Grace-Marie Turner shared key facts and insights about PPACA and how it will fundamentally transform our lives, for the worse, if it is not repealed and replaced. Here are some important (and frightening) aspects of Obamacare the panel shared:

1) The constitutionality of the central tenet of PPACA, the individual mandate, has huge implications for the future. The individual mandate is the provision of PPACA that essentially says that everyone has to buy government-approved health insurance. Straight from the CBO:

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

If it has never done this before, you better believe there is good reason. But then again we all know how this legislation was "passed"... Anyway, the constitutionality of the individual mandate is huge. If it is determined to be constitutional, Pipes quipped, what are they gonna' tell us we have to buy next? A Prius? Kidding aside, freedom of choice is called into question big time, and healthcare is just the beginning.

2) "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." Touché, P.J. O'Rourke. Yes, that's right -- Obamacare is extremely expensive. Tanner said the SOTU could be summed up in two words: "We're broke." Obamacare is not going to be any more economical for the consumer nor will it relieve any bit of the national deficit. In fact, it is estimated to cost between 2.5 and 2.7 trillion dollars, adding about 800 billion to the federal deficit. Sweet.

3) And finally, a laundry list of other random things about Obamacare to consider: It still won't be universal; you will not be able to call your doctor's office and get an appointment the same day, week or month; the quality of care you receive will likely decline; 40 percent of doctors are thinking of leaving practice in 2014; Catholic hospitals will be forced to provide preventive medicine, such as birth control, which violates their fundamental beliefs; coverage won't look much different than Medicaid coverage; private insurers will be run out of the market; lastly, your friendly and helpful HMO and government bureaucrats will be in charge of your health.

Don't be lured by the bait. The only discussions about Obamacare seem to be short snippets of the "good" in it, such as 26-year-olds staying on their parents' plan and free preventive care. But there's so much more in the 2,500 page PPACA that is not good for you or the nation. If you don't think it sounds that complex, serious or awful, take a look at the Joint Economic Committee's organization chart that maps the new mandates, regulations and government agencies Obamacare will usher in. Totally makes sense.

By 2014 this will be impossible to get rid of. Let’s get moving, people.

Tags: Healthcare Repeal , Barack Obama , Obamacare

Mike Gallagher Show

Mike Gallagher

Posted at 4:00 AM ET, 1/27/2012

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace.

Michael Reagan discusses Ronald Reagan's legacy and the GOP Presidential race.

Winning the Future: Rick Tyler.

Allahpundit	Quotes of the day
Jazz Shaw	Reuters/Ipsos poll has Mitt up by 11 in FLA with three days to go
Allahpundit	Video: The greatest guitarist ever?
Allahpundit	Video: Guy who’s been campaigning for president since 2004 suddenly against “perpetual political campaigns”
Jazz Shaw	Norquist: Impeach Obama over taxes?
Allahpundit	McCain: Let’s face it, there was some sort of anti-Mormon element to that South Carolina vote