Newt stumbles, Obama surges and Ron Paul exposed
8:59 am December 27, 2011, by Jay
A handful of political developments to get us started in the last week of 2011:
Newt Gingrich — at this point a longtime resident of Virginia, not Georgia — has failed to qualify for the Republican ballot in his home state, which holds its primary on March 6. That’s important in purely practical terms, because Virginia is a big state with a lot of delegates, and because Gingrich was expected to do well there. Instead, only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will appear on the ballot there, because they were the only ones to collect enough valid signatures.
The failure is also important as a symbol of the former speaker’s lack of discipline and competent leadership. He likes to talks a big game — he and his advisers have likened the ballot failure to the attack on Pearl Harbor — but grand rhetoric is no substitute for execution.
Gallup has confirmed what earlier polls have reported as well — President Obama is having a good holiday season. His job-approval rating of 47 percent is now higher than his disapproval rating of 45 percent. The test will come in trying to sustain that kind of support. Congress, in contrast, will end the year with an approval rating of 11 percent, which is really mind-boggling if you think about it. And what’s truly dismaying about that number is that it is so well-deserved.
With the Iowa caucuses exactly one week away, Ron Paul continues to do well in the polls. But with success comes greater scrutiny, and in Paul’s case it has focused on the contents of an “investment newsletter” that Paul produced and profited from back in the ’80s and ’90s. The publication — titled the “Ron Paul Investment Newsletter” or the “Ron Paul Survival Newsletter” — contains a series of racially biased attacks, whacked-out conspiracy theories and anti-gay rhetoric.
The newsletters were long been known, but have become more relevant as Paul attempts to break out of his cult-figure niche into the mainstream. Paul himself claims that he didn’t write the pieces published under his name, which a., I find difficult to believe and b., doesn’t matter even if it’s true. If you allow such pieces to be published under your name, for your own personal profit, they become your responsibility.
– Jay Bookman
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
819 comments Add your comment
Jay
December 27th, 2011
11:53 pm
They’ll always take the word of a left wing lib perfesser sitting in an ivory tower with an agenda over the people that actually will be doing the hiring and actually providing the jobs.
Tell ya what, Thulsa. If the Keystone Pipeline people want to guarantee they’ll hire the hundreds of thousands of workers they claim their project will produce, and surrender any profits if they don’t, then I’ll believe them. Lacking that, I’d say they have quite a powerful incentive to exaggerate, wouldn’t you?
Thulsa Doom
December 27th, 2011
11:54 pm
“According to an independent assessment by Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations” Yep. A librul perfessor in a classroom setting knows better.
There’s your sign. Oy!
Kamchak
December 28th, 2011
12:05 am
You would think libs would pick up a history book and read some basic history.
Yep. An
librulidiot phlogiston economics perfessor in a classroom setting knows better.There’s your sign. Oy!
Thulsa Doom
December 28th, 2011
12:05 am
Jay,
Lets say they only produce 6500 direct jobs. Its 6500 jobs Jay. Why the potus has waged such an all out assault against the American economy is beyond me.
And what you conveniently seemed to have left out of your article is the various indirect jobs that will be created catering to the workers such as restaurant jobs amongst many other job categories. Funny how you guys left that out.
“If the Keystone Pipeline people want to guarantee they’ll hire the hundreds of thousands of workers they claim their project will produce”,
First of all I don’t remember Keystone saying that they themselves will hire 200,000 people so lets dispense with the dishonesty. They were stating that many other indirect jobs would be created as a result of the direct jobs. And even you must acknowledge that indirect jobs would certainly be created no matter what the number of actual jobs created.
“and surrender any profits if they don’t, then I’ll believe them.”
More wealth envy? Or just corporate hating? Why should they surrender any profits? Taxes will be paid on the profits they reap and substantial, badly needed taxes will be paid through the payroll of employees hired and of indirect jobs. One would think that libs would be in favor of this bonanza of tax revenue. One would think…
“Lacking that, I’d say they have quite a powerful incentive to exaggerate, wouldn’t you”
Suppose you’re right jay and that they are exaggerating. So? The point is that a substantial amount of direct and indirect jobs would be created along with badly needed energy and badly needed tax revenue. Unless of course you have a problem with America stepping a little bit closer to energy independence, jobs being provided, and of course hefty tax revenues to the treasury.
Thulsa Doom
December 28th, 2011
12:08 am
“phlogiston economics card” for the 4 millionth time. Sooo predictable!
There’s your sign. Oy!
getalife
December 28th, 2011
12:16 am
Why in the world do you want more welfare for big oil when they do not need it?
They can use trucks to transport the oil and don’t need a pipeline.
Lets help the American worker by providing long term jobs.
Thulsa Doom
December 28th, 2011
12:21 am
getalife
December 28th, 2011
12:16 am
“Why in the world do you want more welfare for big oil when they do not need it?”
getalife,
First of all they’re not asking for corporate welfare. They’re simply looking for permission for a go ahead on the project. There’s a difference ma’am. The oil company and its employees would be paying enormous amounts of taxes back into the system.
“They can use trucks to transport the oil and don’t need a pipeline.”- getalife
getalife,
This is truly one of the most ignorant statements you’ve ever made. The economies and cost savings of transporting oil via pipeline instead of by truck or enormous. And I believe this is crude oil not refined gas. Just what we don’t want is thousands of more heavily laden gas trucks going up and down the road. Sheesh.
With that doomy out.
getalife
December 28th, 2011
12:24 am
Just keep chanting drill baby drill doomy like last cycle.
The results will be the same.
Jackson Baer
December 28th, 2011
2:24 am
Ron Paul will win Iowa and then either take New Hampshire or come in a strong second… yet he’s not viable? It’s funny how the media is claiming a Paul victory in Iowa will discredit the state but not if anyone else wins. It doesn’t get much more hypocritical than that.
http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/
Normal
December 28th, 2011
6:18 am
This is why you don’t need religion.
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/12/28/pagan-students-and-public-schools/
USinUK
December 28th, 2011
6:21 am
Normal – 6:18 – oooooooo … starting the day with a grenade, I see!!
I hope you and all the little Normals had a FAB Christmas!! (did the Missus keep you off of ladders this year??)
Maker (non-gov't/union worker)
December 28th, 2011
6:55 am
Liberals are the worst. What happens when all the conservative makers who go to work everyday to support the liberal gov’t workers and welfare takers, listen to Jay’s and granny godzilla’s advice and become liberals who don’t work? Who will pay the taxes for the outrageous gov’t salaries then. Liberalism MUST fail because it is unsustainable. Someone must work, and I mean real jobs, not school teachers (entitled lazy trolls, most of them who live off taxes), firefighters, first responders, and other gov’t workers whos are NET tax takers NOT tax payers. All liberals are worthless. This country will thrive when everyone TAKES CARE OR THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITIES and not before. As a conservative, liberals want me to pay all my bills and their bills also. Now who is correct and responsible- me or the liberal living off my work?
Willis
December 28th, 2011
7:04 am
If God acted like Ron Paul, God would be denying that he is responsible for the Bible.
AmVet
December 28th, 2011
7:09 am
Maker, I’m curious what it it exactly that YOU make.
Cars? Planes? Furniture?
Bueller?
Adam
December 28th, 2011
8:11 am
What happens when all the conservative makers who go to work everyday to support the liberal gov’t workers and welfare takers
I know Ayn Rand has some good quotes and all, but she is mostly full of crap.
And btw, welcome to the whack-a-doodle libertarian club!
Adam
December 28th, 2011
8:13 am
And also, as soon as you agree to put up your taxes instead of trying to cut them,. I’ll believe you’re a maker. Until then, you’re really just another taker, insisting everyone ELSE pay taxes, but not you.
A dad
December 28th, 2011
8:48 am
Man, can’t belive this blog kept going through most of the night. Don’t you people ever sleep. Morning Adam. Hopefully you’ll remember our discussion yesterday re keynesian economics, of which one of the basic tenets is to let people keep more money so they’ll spend, spend, spend. So, wouldn’t cutting taxes and allowing people who pay higher taxes to keep more of their money equate to allowing them to spend more?
Chilidog
December 28th, 2011
2:12 pm
So, are the Ronulans still defending the goofy little twerp?
Tom
December 28th, 2011
8:59 pm
Come on folks, Ron Paul is not presidential timber. But, when you stop to think of it, all the GOP candidates for president are either demented or out of touch.