From Fox’s Special Report with Bret Baier | Tuesday, February 14, 2012
On Congressional negotiations over the payroll tax cut extension:
It’s the perfect example of what all the [congressional] fights are about. This is a free lunch presidency. But he now wants to add dinner and breakfast onto the menu.
The Republicans are the ones trying to act, in some way, responsibly. They tried to on the debt ceiling and they tried to in December on the payroll tax. It wasn’t that they opposed the cut. It was, they said: If we are going to have $100 billion added to the debt for something that will do nothing [to] stimulate the economy or create jobs… at least we’re going to try to offset it with spending cuts.
Obama opposed it and in the end he won in a rout. And that is why the Republicans are now rethinking this in an election year. They are not going to allow Obama to out-cynic them, which he did in December.
On Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum’s prospects:
I still think he [Gingrich] will have strength in the south, but I don’t think he has a path to the nomination. I don’t think it will discourage him…. He will go all the way to Tampa.
But I think what’s really interesting is how Santorum has chosen his targets. I think Michigan is a lot about the symbolism. In the same way that he understood, as most observers didn’t, the importance of the three states that were run last week: Minnesota, Colorado, Missouri. Everybody said there were no delegates at stake. And there weren’t….
But he showed if he took on Romney one-on-one, which had been his argument — and in Missouri, Gingrich wasn’t on the ballot and he [Santorum] beat Romney by 30 points. So he not only was able to show how weak Romney is if he’s up against a plausibly presidential opponent, but he also was able to push Gingrich out of way. Perhaps not out, but out of the way.
And that is what he will try to do in Michigan because it’s Romney’s home turf.
If he defeats Romney in Michigan, the game starts all over, it’s the first quarter, and the score is zero-zero.
I see the good doctor's point, but I for one think the R's cave on the payroll tax cut is very cynical. "We know people voted for us to be fiscally responsible, but Obama will call us names so we're just going to roll over. But vote for us again this November and we promise we'll do better next year."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe. the payroll tax cut extension, sometimes politics is a cynical game. Rail against it all you want, but it's like complaining about the sun coming up in the east. There is no way the GOP can win the payroll tax cut argument. Resisting simply allows Obama to muddy the waters on taxes and steal away one of the GOP's most powerful issues. The best course would be to simply pass the extension and then pick out another, much less popular, Obama spending program or initiative and push for its repeal as a way of making up the SS shortfall caused by the lost payroll tax revenue. Surely the House and Senate leadership could, for instance, unite behind a bill to defund all the Czars, just as one example. In other words, give Obama the popular initiative and then force him to defend paying for the unpopular one, even though the latter would fund the former. Then, relentlessly pound on the fact that every penny of the $1,000 payroll tax savings enjoyed by workers will be eaten up this year by gasoline price hikes, which are a direct result of Obama's stupid energy policies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs for Krauthammer's election take, I would only quibble on a couple of small points. One, I do think there is still a way for Gingrich to win the nomination. It would require a near sweep in the south and a stumble on the part of Santorum; both of which are certainly possible. It's a little early to say the die is cast, considering how many times the die has already been shattered and recast so far. Second, I disagree that Romney losing Michigan would mean "the game starts all over, first-quarter, zero-zero." I think the more apt sports metaphor would be a basketball one, ie; "underdog takes four point lead with three seconds left in game, barring stupid foul by underdog, favorite falls from tournament."
Republicans in Congress would have come out looking bad regardless.
The public remembers that from 2000-2006, the Republicans in the legislature were only too happy to approve all sorts of unpaid for actions proposed by President Bush... wars , tax cuts, medicare Part D, there was little if any complaints then.
So cut to 2012, the newfound righteousness about deficit spending just comes across as just an attempt to slow improvement in the economy that could redound to Obama's advantage this Fall.
As it is, they caved, going against their supposed principles.
The republican legislature made its bed in 2000-2006, they would have come across as politically cynical regardless of what they did.
This issue was a loser for Repubs all the way, because the framing totally favored Democrats.
Democrats believe in Keynesian spending to stimulate an economy, so they had an explanation consistent with their principles as to why they favored deficit spending in this instance.
Repubs have no such explanation. It just looks like more politics, but better to look like that in February than to give Obama ammo to use it in October.
In the long run, Boehner & Co did the right thing by capitulating, get the issue behind them and off the headlines.
Its done, time to move on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree with Doctor K about the game "starting all over" if Santorum wins Michigan.
If that happens, Romney is dead. Finito. Kaput.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSuper Tuesday will be a bloodbath for him if he manages to lose MI.
"But he showed if he took on Romney one-on-one, which had been his argument —"
Which had been Newt's argument......one that he was excoriated for making
And 'starting all over'? Really? How many times does someone else have to win before Romney's lackluster, losing performances are at all apparent to you people?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse