There is a reflexive desire among a certain species of moderate Republicans to be perceived as "civil" by liberal opponents who believe that the mere existence of free-market, limited-government conservatism is an indecent affront to humankind. All aboard the U.S.S. Lost Cause.
This disastrous, bend-over bipartisanship is a hard habit to break. In 2008, Arizona Sen. John McCain rode the "Barack Obama is a nice guy, but vote for me" wave to crashing defeat. In 2012, McCain's endorsee, Mitt Romney, has made "Barack Obama is a nice guy but in over his head" a standard stump-speech talking point.
Conservatives of good will who've watched President Obama brutalize his enemies have one question for the nice-guy niceties: Why, GOP, why?
Romney's smarter-than-thou strategists explain that he can't scare off independents and Democrats with straight talk about Obama's thuggery. But he's turning off the conservative base, on whom his hold is tenuous. More importantly, Romney's McCain-lite impersonation is also writing off independents and Democrats who've come to realize what the myriad targets of White House bullying have learned the hard way over the past four years: Barack Obama is not a "nice guy."
Ask Gerald Walpin, the former AmeriCorps inspector general who was pushed out of his job by the Obamas after exposing fraud and corruption perpetrated by Democratic mayor of Sacramento and Obama friend Kevin Johnson. Walpin was unceremoniously fired and smeared by Team Obama. The White House baselessly questioned the veteran watchdog's mental health and never apologized for slandering him.
Ask the family, friends and co-workers of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. They have been forced to sue the Obama administration to combat the Operation Fast and Furious cover-up of deadly policy decisions that led to their hero's death. "I think they are liars, and I would tell them that," Terry's father, Kent, said of Obama's henchmen.
As Townhall editor Katie Pavlich makes clear in her devastating new book, "Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-Up," the president, his corrupt attorney general, Eric Holder, and their minions weren't "in over their heads." They knew exactly what they were doing and have obstructed investigations into the bloody consequences of their policies ever since.
That's not "nice." It's rotten to the core.
Nice? Ask those who have felt the wrath of Obama: tea party members, bitter-clinging gun owners and voters of faith; budget-reform leaders, such as Wisconsin's GOP Rep. Paul Ryan and Gov. Scott Walker, Chrysler creditors and dealers, and Delphi auto-parts workers strong-armed and cut out of the White House auto bailout negotiations with United Auto Workers; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity and their donors; Fox News, conservative talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh; the Congressional Budget Office and the Supreme Court.
There is nothing shameful about shattering the left's defining fraudulent narrative -- which was promoted again this week by myth-making first lady Michelle Obama -- that the president has "brought us out of the dark and into the light."
There is nothing hateful about exposing Team Obama's hardball tactics and government witch-hunts against taxpayers, businesses and political opponents.
There is nothing unbecoming or un-presidential about questioning the Obama administration's Chicago gangster treatment of dissidents, whistleblowers and watchdogs.
Let it be noted that Mr. "Nice Guy" never goes out of his way to show his opponents respect. In 2008, Obama openly bragged that his campaign strategy is: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
Remember when he sneered at millions who turned out for the nationwide Tax Day tea party protests in 2009: "You would think they'd be saying thank you."
Remember when he taunted GOP leaders: "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
Remember when he told Republicans to shut up during the stimulus debate: "I want them just to get out of the way" and "don't do a lot of talking."
Remember when he outrageously insinuated before the 2010 midterms that conservatives were racist: He called critics of his amnesty policies "enemies" who needed to be "punished" by Latino voters because they were not "the kinds of folks who represent our core American values."
Remember when he remained silent about his surrogates' misogynistic attacks on GOP vice presidential candidate and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Remember when he remained silent about the vulgar rallying cry of Teamsters Union President Jimmy Hoffa, who introduced Obama at a Detroit Labor Day rally by urging union members to work against Republicans and "take these son of a bitches out."
Romney's surrogates insist that conservatives should "stick to the issues." But Obama's by-any-means-necessary ruthlessness is an issue. Like Chiffon Margarine said, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature." And it's not nice to delude the American electorate in the name of comity, politesse and simpering civility.
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
Mitt Romney won a crushing victory Tuesday, winning twice as many states as Rick Santorum and more that two and half times as many delegates, but his triumph is being portrayed in headlines across the nation as sign of weakness and failure.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Romney picked up 211 delegates while taking six states, bringing his total delegate count to 415. Santorum won in three states and added only 84 delegates to bring his total to 176.
Romney scored a huge upset in Ohio, coming from way back to take a politically diverse state that is representative of the type of place he’ll need to win to beat President Obama.
Romney is being widely panned by the press for an “inability to close the deal,” and yet the description seems far more apt for Santorum, who now has blown huge leads in the most critical contests of recent weeks, Ohio and Michigan. If anything, the more voters look at Santorum, the more concerned they become and less likely they are to sign on the dotted line.
Worse for Santorum, he will continue for the foreseeable future to split the most conservative votes with Newt Gingrich – who stays in after winning Georgia – and with Ron Paul, who would remain in the race until 2018 if he could. And Romney has a war chest that will swamp Santorum in the upcoming air wars for closely contested states.
And yet, despite all the evidence Romney largely vanquished his rivals Tuesday night, here are some of the headlines this morning:
Wall Street Journal: Romney Ekes Past Santorum in Ohio
New York Times: With No Knockout Punch, a Bruising Battle Plods On
Los Angeles Times: Battle in Ohio Reinforces GOP Divide; Romney’s Slim Victory Leaves Race Uncertain
USA Today: Romney, Santorum See Momentum
CNN: No Knockout Blow for Romney
Reuters: Romney Narrowly Wins Ohio, Fails to Knock Out Santorum
You get the idea.
There are several reasons for this.
All reporting is now sports reporting. Reporters love a battle and they love to go on TV and rave about how exciting everything is. And editors seek a bracing and never-ending storyline because it draws readers and ultimately pleases their corporate bosses, who want to sell papers and generate pageviews.
The headline “Romney Scores Six Wins and Continues Methodical Drive Toward Nomination” is just not going to drive eyeballs to your story.
And reporters also tend to be moderate to liberal. Bloodletting among Republicans at some level is agreeable to many of them. I have to believe that if this was Obama instead of Romney, the stories would be about the growing inevitability of Obama’s nomination.
That Romney is in all likelihood on the march toward nomination will probably soon become too apparent for any serious journalist to deny. At that point, for the reasons listed above, we will begin to hear feverish talk about the prospects for a third party candidacy.
(nee Virgilio) On March 9, 2012. Beloved wife of Benjamin D. Fetter. Loving mother of Austin Rollo, Jake Rollo and David Fetter. Devoted daughter of Thomas Virgilio and Florine "Bambi" Peters (James). Dear sister of Thomas and Nicole Virgilio. A former resident of Cranford, Michele worked as a Human Resources Manager for Interline Brands in Mt. Laurel for over 15 years. Relatives and friends are invited to the viewing 6-9pm Tuesday March 13, 2012 and 8:30-9:45am Wednesday March 14, 2012 at the BRADLEY FUNERAL HOME, 601 Rt. 73 South, Marlton, NJ. Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated at 10:30am Wednesday at St. Joan of Arc Church, 100 Willow Bend Rd., Marlton. Interment will be private. In lieu of flowers, the family has requested donations to the American Cancer Society, 1851 Old Cuthbert Rd., Cherry Hill, NJ 08034.
The rumors of Mitt Romney's political death in Michigan turned out to be greatly exaggerated. The former Massachusetts Governor won his home state by a relatively comfortable margin, besting Rick Santorum by four percentage points (as of this writing) and roughly 30,000 votes. We've ridden a public opinion rollercoaster through the Great Lakes State over the last few weeks: Romney swung from comfortably ahead to significantly behind after Santorum's unexpected three state sweep, then managed to piece together a final surge that put him over the top. "A comeback!" his supporters exclaim. Then again, just a month ago, few would have anticipated that a comeback would ever be necessary for Romney in his old stomping grounds. Nevertheless, a win is a win -- and Team Romney will gladly take it heading into Super Tuesday's ten contests. Here's Romney declaring victory and sharply criticizing President Obama (full transcript HERE):
His best lines were (a) "more jobs, less debt, smaller government, (b) the quip about America needing a "recovery from this so-called recovery," and (c) the reminder that President Obama also inherited an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. He proceeded to squander his chance to reignite economic growth in favor of Left-wing adventurism. Here's a cursory and somewhat haphazard look at that the exit polling data coming out of the Michigan rumble:
Women: Romney 42 - Santorum 38
Union Members: Santorum 45 - Romney 26
Crossover Democrats : Santorum 53 - Romney 17
Republicans: Romney 47 - Santorum 37
Independents: Romney 33 - Santorum 33
Very conservative voters: Santorum 50 - Romney 35
Tea Party supporters: Romney 42 - Santorum 41
Tea Party opponents: Santorum 39 - Romney 33
Catholics: Romney 43- Santorum 37 (!)
Santorum performed well among the most ardent ideologues -- at both ends of the spectrum. Democrats accounted for 9 percent of voters in the GOP primary, and they broke overwhelmingly for Santorum. The former Senator, who voted against right to work laws in Congress, also crushed Romney among voters affiliated with organized labor. Conversely, Romney won among self-identified Republicans by ten points. Over to you, Rick Santorum, one month ago:
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
By Phil Klein's back-of-the-envelope tabulation, if Santorum had gotten his way in Michigan, Romney's margin of victory tonight would have been 3.5 percentage points wider. As for Democrats' talking point that GOP turnout is depressed across the board (not true in Iowa or New Hampshire, and South Carolina by the way), Michigan's totals increased over 2008 levels. Romney has also eclipsed his personal raw vote tally from 2008, when he also won the state.
Finally, there was another election tonight in Arizona. Mitt Romney won that contest, too -- by a whopping 21-point margin (with 79 percent of precincts reporting). He also swept almost all major demographics, even tying Santorum among "very conservative" voters. Crucially, because of the state's winner-take-all system, the former governor pocketed all 29 delegates. So not only did Romney carry the popular vote in both states, he won the lion's share of the evening's 59 available delegates. WE'll keep you posted on the final tally once it's determined. Finally, a telltale sign that Romny had a great night: MSNBC's entire panel angrily dumped all over him after his victory speech, as did Paul Begala on CNN. The Left is transitioning into full blown slash-and-burn general election mode. If Romney continues to excel, expect a lot more of this sort of bigotry on parade in the months ahead.
Among all likely candidates for President in 2012, none has a record in public office or in commentary on public affairs as long or as thorough as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He has been voting or commenting on every important issue facing American politics, almost without interruption, for more than 30 years. An exhaustive analysis of every nuance of each proposal is neither possible here, nor terribly useful for our purposes. This report will focus on the highlights of his 19-year congressional voting record, as well as the economic policy positions he has most consistently championed in his post-congressional writings up to the present day.
Gingrich is best known for leading the 1994 “Republican Revolution” that swept the GOP into the House majority for the first time in over forty years, and he deserves immense credit for that. His actual voting record in the House, however, was somewhat less stellar.
The Club for Growth did not have its own scorecard for members of Congress during Gingrich’s tenure from 1979-98, but the non-partisan and pro-free market National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been issuing a congressional scorecard for decades and Gingrich’s record on economic issues, as provided by NTU, is worth analyzing. From 1979-98, Gingrich had an average score of 61% (with 100% being a perfect score on supporting lower taxes and limited government). The average Republican score over this time period was slightly lower at 56%.
TAXES
The Club for Growth is committed to lower taxes – especially lower tax rates – across the board. Lower taxes on work, savings, and investments lead to greater levels of these activities, thus encouraging greater economic growth.
From an economic growth perspective, Newt Gingrich is excellent on tax issues, except when he’s not. In general, Gingrich does favor lower, flatter tax rates, and has a pro-growth instinct toward reforms that lower rates and broaden the base. But he also has a persistent habit of supporting big-government tinkering that manifests itself in many unhelpful ways.
First, the good stuff. On various high-profile tax votes in Congress, Gingrich amassed the following pro-growth tax record:
Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush “Read My Lips” tax hike in 1990.
Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.
His vote and leadership against the 1990 Bush tax increase is especially praiseworthy, as it exhibited political courage to fight against a bad policy that was promoted by the president and congressional leadership of his own party.
Further, Gingrich can be one of the most clear-eyed and forceful advocates for supply-side economics and the value of free enterprise. He has most recently favored:
an immediate and permanent repeal of the Death Tax;
elimination of all capital gains taxes;
reduction of the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent;
a 50 percent payroll tax cut for both employers and employees;
a 100 percent tax write off for businesses’ equipment purchases.
Gingrich also favors broader fundamental tax reform. In a 2008 op-ed, he enthusiastically praised the idea of an optional, single-rate income tax reform proposal. According to Gingrich, “[a]n optional flat tax would save taxpayers more than $100 billion per year and reduce compliance costs by over 90 percent. This is a stimulus package that would have an immediate effect on our American economy.”
In addition, Gingrich has advocated a near flat tax proposal that would lower the current 25 percent income tax rate to 15 percent. This would, in Gingrich’s words, “in effect, establish a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of American workers.” Both of these options would be enormously good for our economy.
Now the bad stuff. Gingrich has an affinity – all too common even among conservative politicians – for gimmicky, special interest tax incentives that empower politicians to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. His favorite device is the tax credit.
In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Gingrich proposed a six month, $1,000-per person tax credit for 50 percent of the cost of personal travel more than 100 miles from one’s home. The idea sounds nice, but just as Cash for Clunkers only expedited the purchase of cars people were going to buy anyway (at non-car buying taxpayers’ expense), Gingrich’s Cash for Getaways would only have subsidized trips people were going to make anyway, enabling a transfer payment to frequent travelers from families without the time or inclination to travel. This proposal would also require more government to administer and oversee compliance. It is not a fiscally conservative policy. While perhaps not a large issue in itself, this is indicative of an approach Gingrich has frequently advocated. At times he has sponsored bills or issued proposals to do the following:
A tax credit for the purchase of home computers used for educational or professional purposes.
A $1,000 tax credit for low-income first-time homebuyers.
Refundable tax credits for auto companies for the cost of flex-fuels cars, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and the development of hydrogen cars.
Tax credits to encourage investment in biofuels and “renewable forms of energy.”
A permanent 50 percent tax credit for research and development, or at least for “companies that are willing to take on government's ‘grand challenges’ (for example, the first inhabitable moon base).”
A special business tax credit for “corporations that fund basic research in science and technology at our nation's universities.”
Along with these gimmicky tax proposals, Gingrich voted for at least one tax increase during his time in Congress. In 1984, he supported a $50 billion tax bill that closed $15 billion in loopholes, eliminated a tax break on interest income, increased cigarette taxes, and raised taxes on distilled liquor.
SPENDING
The Club for Growth is committed to reducing government spending. Less spending enhances economic growth by enabling lower taxes and diminishing the government’s economically inefficient allocation of resources.
Gingrich’s record is mostly supportive of smaller government, but he likes to tinker with the economy using more federal government involvement in areas that he is most passionate about. This is most pronounced on spending issues, and has led him to some very bad positions.
During his time in Congress, he had an exemplary voting record on a lot of the top spending proposals:
Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the “Contract for America” effort that he led) in 1995
Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.
Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996
Gingrich has also been a vocal opponent of most of the big spending habits pushed by the White House and Congress over the past few years. He opposed the $787 billion stimulus proposal, the auto bailout, and Cash for Clunkers.
But Gingrich also has a recurring impulse to insert the government into the private economy. A particularly bad mark on his record came in 2003, when he urged “every conservative member of Congress” to support the Medicare drug benefit bill. He called it the “most important reorganization of our nation's healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965.” The drug benefit now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
This flaw appeared again in late 2008, when he backed the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. While he was initially opposed to it, he “reluctantly” endorsed it when successful passage was uncertain in Congress.
Prior to those big errors, and somewhat since then, Gingrich has shown an odd condescension toward fiscal conservatives who do not share his views. In 1998, he derided a group of House conservatives by calling them the “the perfectionist caucus” for opposing a 4,000-page omnibus spending bill, adding that “those of us who have grown up and matured in this process understand after the last four years that we have to work together on big issues.”
FREE TRADE
Free trade is a vital policy necessary for maximizing economic growth. In recent decades, America’s commitment to expanding trade has resulted in lower costs for consumers, job growth, and higher levels of productivity and innovation.
In 1994, William F. Buckley, Jr. called Gingrich a “profoundly committed free trader,” and his record and rhetoric over the years bears out that characterization. Gingrich has been a reliable advocate for free international trade, and a critic of both the politics and economics of protectionism.
In 1993, Gingrich supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, and later argued for including Chile into the deal, with the eventual goal of having the entire Western Hemisphere as a free trade zone.
In 1994, Gingrich supported passage of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, which established fast track authority for the president and the World Trade Organization.
In 1998, Gingrich supported Most Favored Nation (now Permanent Normal Trade Relations) status with China. And he supported free trade legislation between the United States and sub-Saharan African nations.
In 2010, Gingrich called for the creation of “Free Cities,” Hong Kong-style free trade zones, developed from scratch according to agreements reached between the United States and the “receptive governments” controlling the agreed-upon spots.
Evidence of any pro-protectionism support is scant. However, Gingrich did vote YES to keep trade-distorting peanut subsidies in 1985, although he later redeemed himself by voting against them in 1990.
REGULATION
Excessive government regulation stymies individual and business innovation necessary for strong economic expansion. The Club for Growth supports less and more sensible government regulation as a critical step toward increasing freedom and growth in the marketplace.
There’s a long list of big government regulations that Gingrich has opposed. Commendably, he advocates full repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley. He vocally opposed ObamaCare and favors repeal. He supports lifting restrictions on energy production like offshore drilling, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and nuclear plant construction.
Gingrich opposes the “Employee Free Choice Act,” or “card check,” especially its binding arbitration provision. And he opposed the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill in 2010, calling it “another big government power grab.”
Once again, however, Gingrich’s penchant for tinkering undermines his otherwise very strong record of pro-growth deregulation.
He fought President Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme and wants to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency. He also opposes the Obama EPA’s controversial plan to regulate carbon emissions via the Clean Air Act, and has urged Congress to prevent its implementation. But previously, in 2008, he starred in a television ad with Nancy Pelosi urging a bipartisan solution to climate change. In a debate with Senator John Kerry in 2007, Gingrich said, “the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere." While he insisted that government regulation wasn’t the answer, he said, “I would agree you would get more change more rapidly with an incentivized market rather than a laissez-faire approach.” That’s Gingrich-speak for government involvement.
More recently, Gingrich defended federal ethanol policies. Even Al Gore now admits ethanol subsidies hurt the environment and that he only supported them because of Iowa’s influential presidential caucuses. Gingrich singled out a Wall Street Journal editorial critical of ethanol policies, and suggested ethanol’s “big city” critics get their facts straight. Responding to the fact that, without subsidies, tariffs, and federal mandates, there would be no ethanol market, Gingrich said, “If they’re prepared to insist on a flex-fuel vehicle and every car in America capable of buying ethanol, I think the industry can stand on its own.” Thus, Gingrich would favor eliminating ethanol subsidies only after Congress mandates that everyone buy ethanol cars.
Gingrich has also long endorsed a federal role in supporting renewable energy projects and the development of clean energy technologies.
These inconsistencies are notable because they are inconsistencies. Gingrich’s default approach to regulatory issues is usually to favor the free market and empower entrepreneurs and consumers. Despite that good record, too often Gingrich seems overly compelled to find government answers to complex issues when the hurdles to free market solutions appear too high.
ENTITLEMENT REFORM
America’s major entitlement programs are already insolvent. The Club for Growth supports entitlement reforms that enable personal ownership of retirement and health care programs, benefit from market returns, and diminish dependency on government.
Gingrich has long advocated reforms, of one sort or another, of the federal government’s three major entitlement programs – Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But he has three glaring mistakes in his record that can’t be overlooked.
On Social Security, Gingrich has been consistently pro-growth and pro-reform and for all the right reasons. He favors personal Social Security savings accounts owned by individual taxpayers and off limits to congressional spendthrifts. He has written:
“With large personal social security savings accounts, even low- and moderate-income workers will accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars by retirement and will be able to leave a financial legacy to their children or other heirs. Personal social security savings accounts offer workers far greater personal choice, ownership and control than the current system.”
In addition to his own plans, Gingrich supported President Bush’s effort in 2005 to reform Social Security with personal accounts, and a 2004 plan offered by Congressman Paul Ryan and then- Senator John Sununu that would have done much the same.
Gingrich also favors comprehensive reform of the notoriously inefficient Medicaid program. He originally proposed the idea of block-granting the program back to the states in 1995, giving them more flexibility to administer it.
He has long advocated expanded health savings accounts, tax free accounts coupled with high-deductible catastrophic coverage to allow people to build a medical nest egg, like a health care 401(k) plan.
As noted above, however, Gingrich has a few doozies in his record. First, in his 2008 book Real Change, Gingrich advocated an individual mandate for health insurance – a similar mandate is central to ObamaCare and is being challenged by 26 states in court as being unconstitutional. Gingrich wrote:
“[I]ndividuals are expected to help pay for their care. Everyone should be required to have coverage. Those with very low incomes should receive vouchers or tax credits to help them buy insurance. Those who oppose the concept of insurance should be required to post a bond to cover costs.”
The second large error in Gingrich’s entitlement record was equally troubling: the former Speaker played a high profile advocacy role on behalf of President George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit bill in 2003. Gingrich penned several op-eds supporting the general thrust and specific provisions of the bill, urging House Republicans to pass what was billed at the time to be a $400 billion expansion of the federal government.
Among the lowlights of his advocacy:
“Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation’s healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65.”
“Congress should allow seniors to get the drugs they need by adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.”
Gingrich still maintains his support for Medicare Part D, and in a 2006 op-ed lauded the virtues of the first year of its implementation.
Finally, Gingrich supported the creation and eventual expansion of SCHIP, the government-run health care program for children of low-income families.
SCHOOL CHOICE
The Club for Growth supports broad school choice, including charter schools and voucher programs that create a competitive education market including public, private, religious, and non-religious schools. More competition in education will lead to higher quality and lower costs.
Education reform is another area that perfectly illustrates Gingrich’s dual (and occasionally contradictory) tendencies toward both pro-growth conservatism and big-government meddler.
For decades, Gingrich has been an unequivocal advocate for school choice, writing in a 2006 op-ed:
“The status quo is failing our students, and to truly see real change, we need to enact real change. The simplest and surest way to transform education is to give students and parents the freedom to choose where they will go to school. This means eliminating restrictive zoning laws that force kids into schools simply because they live nearby. This means introducing free-market forces into education, encouraging schools to compete for students, much like businesses compete for customers. This means that schools that do not perform will either improve or close their doors — which is as it should be. There is no middle ground.”
Gingrich admirably advocates charter schools, vouchers for families with children trapped in failing schools, and greater flexibility in rewarding good teachers and dismissing bad ones.
But Gingrich’s tinkering side reveals itself when he suggests that the federal government “save the children.” In 2006, he wrote:
“Finally, Congress should tie education funding to school accountability. The No Child Left Behind law is making it blaringly obvious just how many schools are crippling and destroying children. We should save the children. Congress should require school systems to institute metrics-based performance standards in order to receive federal funding to ensure that every child is getting the education that they deserve.”
Demanding that the federal government get involved in what most conservatives believe is a state or local issue is something that Gingrich doesn’t seem to appreciate.
TORT REFORM
The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation.
Gingrich has been a clear and consistent advocate for lawsuit abuse reform for years. The “Common Sense Legal Reform Act” was part of the Contract with America in 1994, and was passed by both the House and Senate, but vetoed by President Bill Clinton. The bill would have reformed the tort system by penalizing frivolous and predatory lawsuits by imposing “loser pays” rules and capping punitive damages.
More recently, Gingrich has supported tort reform in the context of health care reform and cost-containment. In 2009, Gingrich criticized President Obama’s health care overhaul for skirting the issue of lawsuit abuse reform: “The “plain and simple truth” is that leaving the tort system ‘as is’ ignores more than $200 billion in potential savings annually in health care.” Specifically, Gingrich cited statistics pertaining to the expensive and wasteful practice of “defensive medicine,” in which doctors perform unnecessary tests solely to protect themselves from predatory lawsuits.
In 2002, Gingrich called for a cap on “pain and suffering” awards in medical malpractice suits, and cited the dangerous shortage of doctors in many states that had not – to date – reformed their liability laws. In 2006, Gingrich noted the quick reversal of Texas’ trend of losing doctors after the state passed medical malpractice reform.
Gingrich has also called for the establishment of special “health courts” to manage the glut and exploding costs of medical malpractice litigation.
POLITICAL FREE SPEECH
Maximizing prosperity requires sound government policies. When government strays from these policies, citizens must be free to exercise their constitutional rights to petition and criticize those policies and the politicians responsible for them.
Except for one large blemish, Gingrich has what seems to be a clear, strong, and positive stand on behalf of political free speech.
In 1995, he countered calls for spending restrictions in campaigns by noting the 1992 presidential campaigns combined spent half of the major television networks’ news budgets. He said giving journalists free, unlimited access to the public while restricting campaign contributions represented “a nonsensical socialist analysis based on hatred of the free enterprise system.”
Gingrich has rightly been a harsh critic of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, saying in 2006 that it ought to have been named the “McCain-Feingold censorship law” and compared it to the Sedition Act of 1798.
According to Gingrich,
“A truly functioning campaign system would take power out of Washington and return it to its owners—the American people. Such a system would allow individuals to make unlimited contributions to candidates for Congress in their district, so long as it is reported immediately on the Internet and is transparent and accessible.”
Gingrich strongly supported Citizens United in their challenge against the constitutionality of the McCain Feingold bill, and recently appeared in a video produced by Citizen United commemorating the anniversary of the successful ruling.
Nevertheless, Gingrich supported the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987, a proposal that would force broadcasters to air all sides of a controversial issue. It obviously infringes 1st Amendment rights and it can only lead to bigger government as bureaucrats haggle over what’s controversial, what’s “fair”, and other details.
POLITICAL ACTIVITY & ENDORSEMENTS
Robust political activity is essential to producing a federal government that is more respectful of free markets and produces more pro-economic growth policies. The Club for Growth’s PAC has been active in some of the more central battles within the Republican Party nominating process in recent years, supporting pro-growth candidates over pro-government ones.
Whereas in most policy areas Gingrich’s record has been consistently or largely good, his record of involvement in political activity in which a clear pro-growth and anti-growth choice was available has been frequently poor.
In the 2009 special election for Congress in New York’s 23rd district, Gingrich was outspoken in his support of liberal Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava, up to the moment she finally quit the race after center-right voters rallied behind Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman. Long after most prominent conservatives had endorsed Hoffman, Gingrich held firm in his advocacy for a liberal candidate who supported Obama’s stimulus plan and the pro-union “card check” proposal, among other bad positions.
In 2010, Gingrich openly campaigned for embattled U.S. Senator Robert Bennett in Utah, whom Gingrich’s wrongly called “a true-blue conservative.” In 2008, Gingrich aggressively supported and campaigned for liberal Congressman Wayne Gilchrist (R-MD) when he faced a conservative challenge from now-Congressman Andy Harris. In 2006, same thing, when Gingrich backed liberal Congressman Joe Schwarz (R-MI) when he was challenged by conservative now-Congressman Tim Walberg.
It is of course common for leading Republicans to support incumbent Republicans who face primary opposition. However, Gingrich has taken this to another level, supporting incumbents even when he had long been out of office himself, and doing so with a vigor and passion that is entirely inconsistent with the level of conservatism that the candidates themselves espouse.
In Gingrich’s worldview, he appears to elevate partisanship to principle. His conflation of party expansion with genuine political or policy success is a common mistake, especially among establishment leaders and Washington insiders. This mistake can easily morph into a strange contempt for serious conservative reformers within the GOP. After all, from a pro-growth perspective, it is clear that the candidates Gingrich strongly opposed, Senator Mike Lee and Congressmen Andy Harris and Tim Walberg are far superior to the RINO incumbents they defeated.
Here again, Gingrich’s penchant for condescension appears. In that NY-23 race, for instance, Gingrich went so far as to attack conservatives who supported Hoffman (whom Gingrich belatedly endorsed himself), saying: “So I say to my conservative friends who suddenly decided that whether they’re from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don’t think so.”
SUMMATION
As a historical figure, it is undeniable that Newt Gingrich has played leading roles in some of the most important battles on behalf of economic growth and limited government in the last quarter century.
His opposition and momentary defeat of the 1990 Bush tax increase, his leadership of the 1994 Republican Revolution, and his spearheading of the provisions of the Contract With America are major league achievements. His consistent support for pro-growth tax reform, free trade, Social Security reform, tort reform, and political free speech also evidence a clear and impressive understanding of the fundamentals that underlie the free enterprise system that has made America prosperous.
Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause. On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side. His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic. His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction. And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome.
The totality leads one to be rather unsure what kind of president Newt Gingrich would be. Past is often prologue, and in Gingrich’s case there is an enormous volume of past on which to base a judgment. One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.
You may have been told eating a bland, low-fiber, white-flour diet is unhealthy. But when symptoms of Crohn’s disease flare, it can lead to relief. What are some other ways to avoid and soothe symptoms of the disease? Read on for 11 tips from top experts. Plus, how well do you understand Chron’s disease? Take our quiz to find out…
It’s important to eat a rainbow-like variety of high-fiber foods such as fruits and vegetables, right? Not if you have Crohn’s disease. Those foods might actually aggravate your condition, dietitians say.
Potato products, bread and bananas were least likely to cause problems for people suffering symptoms of Crohn’s disease, according to a 2006 study from Utrecht University and University Medical Center, Netherlands.
“It sounds really unhealthy, but it’s only temporary,” says Susie Ofria, R.D., a registered dietitian at Gottlieb Memorial in Melrose Park, Ill. “Once you’re out of your flare, you can start reintroducing whole grains and raw veggies into your diet one item at a time.”
Besides white foods, “eating smaller meals and avoiding certain foods also can dramatically decrease pain and symptoms,” says Laura Jeffers, R.D., M.Ed., outpatient nutrition manager at the Cleveland Clinic.
Read on for 11 ways to minimize pain and discomfort during a Crohn’s disease flare.
1. Consult a doctor or dietitian who specializes in Crohn’s treatment. The pain and inflammation of Crohn’s disease can ruin your appetite and make it hard to digest and absorb nutrients, says Armen Simonian, M.D., a Trenton-based gastroenterologist at Capital Health Regional Medical Center and director of the Center for Digestive Health in New Jersey.
That’s why women with Crohn’s disease are sitting ducks for nutritional deficiencies.
Dietitians can order blood tests to help you correct nutritional problems and pinpoint foods that exacerbate symptoms.
“A dietitian can help you figure out which foods are safe to eat and those that cause symptoms,” says Nicole Kuhl, R.D., a registered dietitian in Santa Monica, Calif.
2. Determine what triggers your flares. Triggers can vary, says Susy Weems, Ph.D., R.D., director of nutrition sciences at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.
That’s why Crohn’s patients are advised to “keep a food diary to track what you’re eating and how you feel,” advises Lisa Moskowitz, R.D., a New York-based dietitian.Write down everything you eat for a month or two, including quantity, time and the symptoms you have. That will help you and your doctor or dietitian create a balanced diet that avoids foods that exacerbate symptoms of Crohn’s disease, like cramping, gas and diarrhea, she says.
“If a certain food bothers you, remove it from your diet for about a month and see if symptoms of Crohn’s disease improve,” Kuhl says.
Experts agree, however, that when symptoms flare, forget about normal healthy eating and stick to a “Wonder Bread” diet.
3. Don’t skimp on calories. You’ll lose necessary nutrients if you have chronic diarrhea and possibly vomiting, according to the Crohn’s & Ulcerative Colitis Foundation (CCFA), a nonprofit organization for people with these digestive disorders.
That’s why your body needs more calories to fight Crohn’s disease.
Medications also work better if you’re well nourished, says the CCFA.
“With Crohn's disease, you need to eat a high-calorie, high-protein diet, even when you don't feel like eating,” Simonian says.
But big meals can overstress your digestive system, increasing gas, pain and diarrhea.
That’s why Weems advises sticking to “five or six small meals daily to ensure you get enough protein, calories and nutrients to replenish and repair your body.”
To aid digestion, take small bites of food and chew it really well, says Ofria.
“Also take vitamins and minerals that your physician recommends,” Weems says.
4. Cut back on fiber. High-fiber foods like fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains are not your friends during Crohn’s flare, says Jeffers.“Stick to a low-fiber diet that revolves around white bread and other refined white flour products, smooth and bland cooked cereals like Cream of Wheat, white rice and pastas, and well-cooked or steamed veggies (not cruciferous) that are soft enough to cut with the side of a fork,“ she says.
Here are more tips from Jeffers:
Avoid vegetables like lentils, beans, legumes, cabbage, broccoli and onions. They’re difficult to digest and cause gas, bloating and pain.
Avoid crunchy foods, such as raw veggies and fruits, which irritate your intestines and increase diarrhea.
Steer clear of anything with hulls or seeds, such as nuts, seeds, popcorn, strawberries, watermelon, grapes and crunchy nut butters. (Smooth nut butters are an excellent alternative and a great source of protein.)
Limit fruit to bananas. (Avoid fruits with skins, such as apples.)
Canned fruit is fine if it doesn’t contain high fructose corn syrup, which can aggravate diarrhea.
Avoid dried fruit, which is hard to digest and may get stuck in the intestines.
Steer clear of citrus fruits, which have seeds and are also very acidic, because these may increase pain and irritation.
5. Eat healthy fats. Foods rich in polyunsaturated fats (walnuts, olive, flaxseed oils and butters) and omega-3 fatty acids (salmon, tuna and mackerel), can promote healing, says Christian Renna, D.O., an integrated medicine physician who specializes in autoimmune diseases with Lifespan Medicine in Santa Monica, Calif.
The anti-inflammatory nature of omega-3 fatty acids eases Crohn’s symptoms, according to a 2011 study conducted at the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at St. Panteleimon General Hospital in Nicea, Greece.
6. Drink plenty of liquids. “People with Crohn’s disease are at increased risk for diarrhea, so drink lots of water with and in between meals to avoid dehydration,” says Jeffers, who also offers these tips:
For each pound you weigh, drink one half-ounce of water per day, in addition to water-based foods, such as soups.
Also avoid highly acidic fruit juices made with citrus, cranberries and pineapple, which increase inflammation.
You may be able to tolerate low-acid juices made with bananas, pears, mangoes, grapes, watermelon, coconut and apricots. Avoid fruit-flavored juices and drinks that contain high fructose corn syrup, which also increases inflammation.
Sip beverages rather than gulp them. Gulping introduces air into the digestive system, causing discomfort.
Avoid carbonated beverages like soft drinks and sparkling waters because they increase gas and flatulence. Most soft drinks also contain high fructose corn syrup.
Avoid caffeinated beverages like coffee, tea and chocolate-based drinks, which increase inflammation and exacerbate diarrhea.
Stay away from alcohol, including beer, wine and hard liquor, which irritates intestines and increases pain.
So what can you drink? Sip homemade chicken or vegetable broth.
“You’re getting a really nutritious drink that’s easy to digest,” Kuhl says.
7. Focus on lean protein. Your body needs protein to build and heal tissue. If you have Crohn’s disease, you may not absorb enough to promote healing and prevent muscle wasting, says Moskowitz.To reduce pain, gas and other symptoms, try these tips:
If red meat makes you feel queasy and exacerbates diarrhea, switch to leaner cuts like sirloin or ground round, or stick to fish or poultry without the skin, says Moskowitz.
Avoid fatty hot dogs, sausage, pork and anything with a tough skin. The fat can cause diarrhea and their skin can be difficult to digest, says Jeffers.
Liquid formulas like Ensure, Glucerna and Pulmocare, which are absorbed in the upper rather than in the lower intestine, help some Crohn’s patients, says Jeffers.
8. Watch out for dairy products. You may feel better if you limit or avoid dairy products during your flare.
“They may cause gas, abdominal pain and diarrhea in some women with Crohn’s,” says Jeffers.
Can’t live without your milk mustache? Try lactose-free varieties or add an enzyme product, such as Lactaid, which breaks down lactose, suggests the CCFA.
Or for a healthy, easy-to-digest protein, eat plain yogurt. It contains acidophilus, a probiotic that has been shown to ease Crohn’s symptoms.
If Crohn’s disease runs in your immediate family, you may be able to ward it off by getting enough vitamin D, the study advises.
If you already have Crohn’s, this powerful anti-inflammatory vitamin and hormone can relieve inflammation and ease symptoms, says Michael Holick, Ph.D., M.D., professor of medicine, physiology and biophysics at Boston University Medical School, prominent vitamin-D researcher and author of The Vitamin D Solution (Penguin).
The Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, recommends getting 600 International Units (IUs) of vitamin D daily.
The best source of vitamin D is the sun, which activates the body’s production of vitamin D, says Holick.If you don’t get enough sun, eat foods rich in vitamin D, including beef liver, egg yolks, sardines, salmon, shrimp, cod and, if you’re able to, fortified milk. Also take a vitamin-D supplement.
10. Avoid hot spices and fake sugar. Spicy foods like four-alarm Mexican, Thai or Indian cuisine, as well as whole spices, can irritate the lining of your intestines and increase pain, says Jeffers.
Avoid hot spices like chili powder, ginger, horseradish, Chinese mustard and black pepper.
But if you’re going to use whole spices in cooking, make sure they’re very mild and finely ground,” Jeffers says.
And avoid artificial sugar substitutes.
“Sorbitol, found in sports drinks, soft drinks and many processed foods, can really put you over the edge if you have Crohn’s disease,” Moskowitz says.
That’s because sorbitol can damage the intestinal mucosa, trigger spasms and increase inflammation, according to a 2009 Brown University study.
11. Embrace probiotics, not prebiotics. Pro- and pre-biotics are all the rage for improving digestion, but will they relieve symptoms of Crohn’s disease? Probiotics are friendly bacteria that live in your gut and aid digestion, while prebiotics help stimulate the growth of the beneficial bacteria, says the Mayo Clinic.
A 2011 study conducted by the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Saint Panteleimon General Hospital in Nicea, Greece found that probiotics relieved Crohn’s symptoms.
But prebiotics appear to add fuel to the fire. A 2010 Harvard study found that prebiotics didn’t ease Crohn’s symptoms, and increased flatulence.
How Well Do You Understand Chron's Disease? A diagnosis of Crohn’s disease comes as a shock for many people, some who never suspected their abdominal discomfort could be something serious. This inflammatory disorder has far-ranging – and often serious – symptoms. Find out how much you know about it.
Congress: Establishment media are swooning over the unexpected departure of ultraliberal Barney Frank. But this "champion of the little guy" actually helped cause the mortgage disaster, then kept the system broken.
'Congress will now be a little dumber," was the kind of nonsense we heard from the mainstream liberal media after Frank, D-Mass., former chairman of the House Banking Committee, said no to running for re-election next year.
Formally reprimanded by a heavily Democratic House on a 408-to-18 vote in 1990 for ethics offenses regarding his financial relationship with a male prostitute, Frank has for decades been a fast-talking, acidic presence in House debates.
But he wasn't smart enough to realize that the politically correct poisoning of mortgages would lead to a calamity rivaling the Great Depression. "I, like many others, did not see the crisis coming," Frank said Monday.
He sure didn't. Back in 2003, what did he say when the Bush administration proposed what the New York Times described as "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago," including a new agency to supervise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Frank said: "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Fannie and Freddie, of course, are those corrupt public-private hybrid monstrosities that gave lots of mortgages to people with horrendous credit ratings.
After 1996's welfare reform, liberals like Frank found other ways to redistribute wealth. Yet even after the politicization of mortgages led to the financial crisis, last year's Dodd-Frank reform kept "too big to fail" and other defects in our federally mismanaged banking system.
Manhattan Institute scholar and "After the Fall" author Nicole Gelinas warned before Dodd-Frank's passage that the law "encourages wild risk-taking — and penalizes prudence" by making well-run banks pay to bail out poorly run ones.
As a result, Gelinas said: "Every firm will take more risks, guaranteeing another crisis down the line, and more taxpayer bailouts."
The media would have us believe this is the departure of a great statesman. But as the 17th House Democrat to announce his departure, Frank becomes just another liberal who realizes his party has little chance of winning in 2012 after the mess they've spent the economy into.
With Frank's district newly re-carved after the 2010 Census, Sean Bielat, the smart ex-Marine who gave him a run for his money in 2010, might just win this time.
Making sense of Barney Frank's departure isn't hard. A once-powerful liberal who loved to make congressional witnesses look dumb, he leaves a legacy of failure that, with time, makes him look dumber and dumber.
“We must envision a 21st century system of lifetime learning more flexible, more productive, more individualized and more capable than any bureaucracy could achieve.”
– Newt Gingrich
The continued growth of American jobs and American prosperity in a knowledge-based, internet-connected, globally-competitive world will be determined by quality of America's schools. If America is going to remain competitive with China and India in the 21st century, then we must commit to improving education, especially in math and science, and moving from a bureaucrat-dominated status quo to an innovative system that emphasizes accountability, transparency, and parental choice:
Empower parents to pick the right school for their child. Parents had the right to choose the school that is best for their child, and should never be trapped in a failing school against their will.
Institute a Pell Grant-style system for Kindergarten through 12th Grade. Per-pupil school district funding should go into each child’s backpack, and follow them to the school their parents wish to attend. Parents who home school their children should receive a tax credit or be allowed to keep the Pell Grant.
Require transparency and accountability about achievement. Each state must set a rigorous standard that allows every student everywhere to master the skills they will need to be competitive, and develop a process for grading the effectiveness of every school.
Implement a “no limits” charter system.
All of the money allocated for student education goes directly to the school.
The school manages its own staff, whereby it is exempt from laws regarding tenure, and need not unionize.
The school defines its own curriculum, in line with the state standards and assessments. Students in charters are not exempt from state assessments. The schools are not exempt from reporting requirements, nor should they be.
State law allows the school to "franchise" its model without limitation. That means they need not apply for a new school every time they can build a new one. If they have the demand, they must be able to serve it.
The state has NO CAPS on the number of charter schools that can be approved, and the process for approving charter schools is smooth and efficient.
Establish a pay for performance system. States and school governing boards should lift all existing prohibitions that prevent a principal from evaluating teachers based in part on student achievement.
Welcome business talent in our communities into the classroom. Every state should open their systems up to part-time teachers so that retired physicists, neighborhood pharmacists, or local accountants could teach one or two hours a day and bring knowledge to the classroom, and business-like adult expectations to the students. And programs like Teach For America should be encouraged and not limited.
Restore American history and values into the classroom. America is a learned civilization and every American, including immigrants, should learn American history and the principles of American self-government, productivity and prosperity. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1820: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Every student must learn to read and much of what they read should reinforce American civilization.
Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.
Encourage states to think outside outdated boundaries of education. States have developed very innovative models:
Students who graduate early should get the cost of the years they skip as an automatic scholarship, following the model of Governor Daniels’s program in Indiana.
Every state should have a work-study college that enables students to graduate debt free, following the model of the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.
Individualized, 24/7 learning should be universally available online, with the Florida Virtual School (over 120,000 students for K-12) as a model.
Shrink the federal Department of Education and return power to states and communities. The Department's only role will be to collect research and data, and help find new and innovative approaches to then be adopted voluntarily at the local level.
Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country -- Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. -- but never in Chicago.
So it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.
Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).
The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator.
After O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them -- by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)
And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.
Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.
Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.
Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."
Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.
The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.
John Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned -- and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.
Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator -- allowing him to run for president -- is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.
One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.
But then The Chicago Tribune -- where Axelrod used to work -- began publishing claims that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.
From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a "wife beater." He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.
Hull's substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.
Luckily for Axelrod, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced.
The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.
But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan's ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.
Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.
Axelrod's courthouse moles obtained the "sealed" records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially "unseal" them -- over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.
Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!
A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).
With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama's Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.
And that's how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)
Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.
In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull's sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story."
Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."
This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.
