Short, But Sweet – Huck Melts Down, Gingrich Confuses, Daniels Plays Passive-Aggressive, and Romney and Pawlenty Just keep Rolling Along
Lowell continues to drown in employment, an issue he hopes soon to resolve, and I have had a number of personal issues arise in the last week that will continue to threaten blogging for the next couple of weeks. We beg the indulgence of our loyal readership if we lack the regularity, depth and analysis of our best work. We will return to normal as soon as feasible. So here it is short and sweet.
Mike Huckabee, not satisfied with being completely wrong but extensively and analytically wrong about the president’s upbringing, decided to go after single mothers last week too. Right idea – wrong target. If that is not enough to make you shout, “Put a fork in him!” There is news that should be. FOXNews has suspended Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum because of their impending presidential campaigns. What’s missing from this picture? Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. Things can change, particularly in the Palin case, but I’m reaching for the fork.
Besides, it’s early. A lot could still happen.
Newt Gingrich announced he was going to make big news and then really didn’t. One can recover from such stumbles, but when you have as hard a slog ahead of you as Gingrich does, such stumbles can be disastrous. BTW, his courting of Evangelicals is just not going to fly. We know he is smart, we know he is valuable – but if “authenticity” is the thing, we certainly like people that know how to be faithful in marriage. And when they slip, which happens frequently, we expect enough contrition from the “slipper” to know their limits.
Mitch Daniels keeps excusing himself from the race, but not saying, “no.” Folks, I could tell you a thing or two about Hoosier passive-aggression. It’s a skewed version of “Minnesota nice.” There are going to be a lot of heart-broken people out there.
I don’t know whether Haley Barbour is a racist or not, but I do know that the media will never let him prove otherwise – no matter what he does.
Meanwhile, the serious players just keep chugging along. Even NPR is figuring out that Romney and Pawlenty are the serious players at the moment.
Mitt Romney is making good hires, and talking plain in New Hampshire – beating back the naysayers.
They do, however, keep finding excuses to bring up Romney’s faith. The latest is BYU basketball. The world seems to find it weird that a religious school asks their players to remain chaste. And so they end up discussing Romney and Mormonism on sports talk radio?! And then there is the whole Huntsman thing. (Has Fox suspended Huntsman? Oh wait, that’s wrong, he just left the OBAMA administration.) Even the Brits are getting in on the Huntsman angle. (Boy is that story a yawner – even for the Economist. You’d think they’d find something new to print.)
The good news is this is silliness when it comes to Romney’s faith. It’s not being discussed in the serious punditry, or frankly amongst serious religious leaders – it seems to be at the moment just a press play thing.
Religion News…
A Christian couple opposed to homosexuality have lost a battle over their right to become foster carers.
Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, from Derby, said the city council did not want them to look after children because of their traditional views.
The pair, who are Pentecostal Christians, say they were “doomed not to be approved”.
The High Court ruled that laws protecting people from sexual discrimination should take precedence.
“Religious tests” will soon have us agreeing with our British cousins in such matters.
Not awful ideas, but we have to find a better way to put them.
Please put a sock in discussions like this.
Lowell adds . . .
I can’t let David Brooks’ comments go unmolested. Brooks is a respected pundit but is well-known as a deeply moderate Republican. Here’s what he said:
BROOKS: I wish Mitch Daniels would run. I think it’s an extremely weak field without Daniels in it.
I don’t think Newt Gingrich. Do not let that man near a management job. Very interesting to listen to. Don’t let him run anything.
I really think it’s down to Pawlenty and Romney in terms of the people in front of us. It’s so sad to be so narrowed down so fast. I don’t think Huckabee’s going to run. And so it’s really down to these two sort of establishment figures around which, so far, there’s not much definition or excitement. Maybe they can generate it. But so far, I’d say a lot of Republicans are feeling some letdown.
It seems to me that even though David Brooks doesn’t find Romney exciting, that may not be a big problem for the Governor. The Republican voters who pay attention to what David Brooks thinks are not the ones whose votes Romney needs to get nominated.
Finally, a Romney quip:
You may have noticed that the president and his people spend more time talking about me and Massachusetts health care than ‘Entertainment Tonight’ spends talking about Charlie Sheen.”
Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Chino Blanco on 07 Mar 2011 at 1:52 pm #
David Brooks is well-known as a deeply moderate Republican? What does that even mean? Is it a warning against all “deeply moderate” Republicans everywhere? Or just the ones who’re “well-known” or what? Leave it to Lowell to lacerate the Mormon doctrine of moderation in all things.
dnlchisholm on 08 Mar 2011 at 7:31 am #
I can’t recommend this piece highly enough. This will be all the ammo conservatives will need when talking to other voters during the 2012 general election.
Former Obama adviser Larry Summers praises ‘RomneyCare’ http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1321686&srvc=rss These guys just don’t stop. I’m glad Mitt pointed out the absurdity of virtually every Obama official praising his health care plan.
TVHall on 08 Mar 2011 at 12:04 pm #
Leave it to Chino Blanco to feign ignorance in an effort to make an obtuse argument. To describe David Brooks as a “deeply moderate Republican” is a charitable euphemism. It provides context for the quote that follows. As for the “doctrine of moderation in all things,” I suspect it would need to be balanced by the admonition against being “neither cold nor hot.”
In the political world, the “moderate” label is a dodge. It is used by those that hope to obfuscate their liberal progressive views. It also allows them to stand “above” the conflict, where they can look down on the two sides and bask in their perceived superiority.