Newt Gingrich, using Rules for Radicals?

Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner wrote a poorly reasoned hit piece against Newt Gingrich. Ironically, I was looking for a little anti-Gingrich material when I came across Klein’s post. It irked me enough to write a rebuttal, so this morning, Gingrich gets a free ride and Klein gets scrutinized.

Klein accuses Gingrich of using the tactics of Saul Alinsky. That’s an intriguing assertion, to be sure, but is it true? If it is, Klein fails to make a case for the charge.

Charge 1—Gingrich exploits resentment.

“Many of the tactics he spoke about—such as exploiting resentment … —have become a central part of Gingrich’s strategy for securing the Republican presidential nomination.”

Well, exploiting is bad, so of course Gingrich must be bad for doing it. Let’s see the details. Gingrich attributed his South Carolina victory partly to “the economic pain that people were feeling.” That’s all that Klein says. We are left to imagine the rest of the logical argument about how this follows Alinsky’s blueprint.

Charge 2—Gingrich pits himself against the establishment.

“Many of the tactics he spoke about— such as … pitting oneself against the establishment—have become a central part of Gingrich’s strategy for securing the Republican presidential nomination.”

Klein gives a specification, Gingrich said that he was victorious in South Carolina because people were angry at “the national establishment”. Of course if people really were mad at the establishment and thought Gingrich was the best candidate to … to … to punch them in the nose or something, then he would have told the truth; but Klein doesn’t deal with the question of truth, just the nature of the charge. He apparently thinks that pitting oneself against the establishment can ONLY be done in an Alinsky-esque way. Silly.

Gingrich does rail against the elite. Klein points that that Gingrich was part of the elite and hints that his position is, therefore, hypocritical. However, a fair amount of Gingrich’s rancor is directed against media elites and liberal elites; Gingrich is obviously not part of either of those elite groups. As for the elite politicians in Washington, rightly or wrongly, Gingrich got booted out of that group. In many ways Gingrich is on the outside of the elite power circles. His central hypocrisy, if anything, is that he probably wants to be back in the elite circles. Yet, whether Gingrich is hypocritical or not, one can be a hypocrite without Alinsky.

Charge 3—Gingrich uses Alinsky’s 13th Rule

“And the way he scolded CNN moderator John King in last Thursday’s South Carolina debate followed Alinsky’s 13th tactical rule, which states: ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.’”

Klein proves this damning charge by two specifications. First, he alludes to Gingrich’s response, in the recent Fox debate, to Juan Williams’ famous issue advocacy statement which the Williams tried to disguise as a question by ending his spiel with “Can’t you see…” Klein claims Gingrich personalized his attack on the media. Perhaps what really bothered media-member Klein is that Gingrich made Williams’ non-journalistic stand look bad by answering his rhetorical question.

The second specification is, in the last debate, when CNN moderator John King,

“tried to claim that it was another network, ABC, that had aired the interview with his ex-wife that had prompted the question about whether he had ever sought an ‘open marriage.’ Gingrich froze the target.”

Gingrich “froze the target” by “hollering” at the moderator: “John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else.”

Let me translate: a moderator asks a tough question, the candidate tries to squirm free with some vague notion that the question is based on bad journalism, the moderator says it wasn’t his fault, the candidate tells him it was.

And I thought Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was suggesting underhanded tricks.

 
United States Senate Seal
The Heritage Foundation yesterday posted a video that marked the 1000th day since the Democrat controlled U.S. Senate has passed a budget.  While the House has put forth (and passed) its own budget, the Senate has failed to do the same. To help illustrate how extraordinary this failure has been, their new video highlights a few of impressive feats in history that have been accomplished in less time.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
 

President Obama 2012 State of the Union AddressPresident Barack Obama had a lot to say in last night’s State of the Union address, I mean a lot… apparently this was the 10th longest in words and 9th longest in time.  It was broadcast from 8:00pm – 9:30pm (CST).  I frankly don’t have time to dissect everything that he said, but with his comments regarding education it is clear that he does not care about parental or state rights.  In a nutshell when he said last night he said, “that government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”  It is clear, based on his speech, that he doesn’t think there’s much we can do better by ourselves.

On education he first referred to Race to the Trough:

For less than 1 percent of what our nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every state in the country t0 raise their standards for teaching and learning — the first time that’s happened in a generation.

I know, that Mike Huckabee thought this was a brilliant idea, but bribing states with one-time money to adopt standards in way that undermines the democratic process, educational freedom, local control and parental authority was simply unconstitutional. Doing some simple fact checking demonstrates this wasn’t a good idea.  Like the idea that it raised the standards for teaching and learning is false.  He is right that this is the first time in our nations history that this has happened, and it was done in violation of the law.

So wonderful… he went on to demonstrate his lack of knowledge about how education is even run…

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced states to lay off thousands of teachers.

Who hires teachers and lays them off?  Not states, but school districts; of course in Iowa some do want to eventually make that a state function.

He then continued:

Teachers matter.  So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal.  Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones.  And in return, grant schools flexibility:  to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.  That’s a bargain worth making.

So here we see more meddling with education.  The “and in return”  now we get to No Child Left Behind waivers.  I’m not a fan of NCLB, but since Congress didn’t do what Obama wanted; they bypassed them.  Since President Obama is willing to do things “with or without this Congress” we shouldn’t be surprised.

Let me say something “radical” here (at least to the establishment and elites) there is no legitimate federal role in education – period.  There should be no bargaining with the states.  There should be no U.S. Department of Education stamp of approval on certain standards.  President Obama, unfortunately was not done, he presumptively spoke on behalf of parents and the states:

We also know that when students don’t walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma.  When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better.  So tonight, I am proposing that every state — every state — requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.

Now how does he propose to do this?  Probably he’ll do anytime the Feds want to foist something on the states, but threatening to withhold funds.   Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association said, “There appears to be no limit to the president’s desire for power. Car companies, banks, doctors, and now schools and the family. He’s gone way too far this time.”

Yes he has.  HSLDA in a press release today reminded that this again is historically unprecendented:

State-mandated attendance has not been the historical norm. In 1642, the Massachusetts Bay Colony stipulated that parents provide religious instruction for their children. For the next 200 years, most education laws were minimal and focused on family-centered education, giving children the tools to read, write, and do arithmetic, helping them understand what it meant to be virtuous citizens, and allowing them to learn a trade.

This is ultimately up to parents, not the Federal government, to decide.  Again, it is unlikely that President Obama would get this through Congress so I’m sure he’d find a way to bypass them and bully the states like he plans to do with colleges and universities if they don’t cap their tuition at the level he’d like to see.

We see clearly Obama’s lust for power in his remarks on education.

Enhanced by Zemanta
 

President Obama - 2011 State of the Union Address

I’m participating in a live chat with The Des Moines Register tonight during President Barack Obama‘s State of the Union address.  I will be joined by:

I’m embedding the live stream for President Obama’s address below:

You can participate in the Register’s live chat below, we’ll get it kicked off at 7:45p (CST)/8:45p (EST).  Just a note, since I’m just a panelist I won’t be moderating the comments, that’s up to the Register:

Enhanced by Zemanta
 

NBC-National Journal-Tampa Bay Times Republican Presidential DebateI did watch the NBC-National Journal-Tampa Bay Times Republican Presidential Debate last night, but I don’t have much of a review.  It’s basically an airing of grievances-only partially directed at the candidates.  One thing to note: The WiFi I had been using, nay, stealing, disappeared on me so I had to run to Starbucks to get a feed there.  Twenty minutes later I’m viewing the debate, but the site I used to watch the live stream kept buffering on me. By the last 30 minutes of the debate, however, I had a clear, clean feed which was probably due to the massive drop off of viewers-and here’s why:

This was a maddeningly boring and unsatisfying debate. When I finally jumped in, I was treated to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich arguing over the definition of “historian” and this new term dropped by Team Romney: “Influence peddler.” Romney did take a much more direct and tough approach with Gingrich this go around and surprisingly, Gingrich didn’t push back as fiercely as he did against John King’s opening question in SC. As a voter, the exchange between the two men went on far too long and there was a moment where I wondered if Rick Santorum and Paul were just there to hold the two brawlers’ spit cups.

For the second portion of the debate, Santorum and Paul eventually had questions directed at them and once again when Paul was asked his opinion on a foreign policy issue, this time Cuba, he gave his standard response: “We’re the bad actors here.” Williams also kept asking ridiculous hypothetical questions no President would ever face: “If Martians landed in Canada and the Iranians gave them Nigerian yellow cake, how would you respond as President?” Or something like that. Buffering…remember? Ron Paul‘s response: “Why can’t the Martians have yellow cake? Don’t they have just as much a right as we do to yellow cake? Mmm.”

Two other journalists were added to the panel, Beth Reinhard of the National Journal and Adam Smith, of the Tampa Bay Times. Conservative stalwarts, both…I’m sure. From that point Brian Williams checked out and started reading ESPN.com and let Reinhard & Smith take over. Reinhard threw out questions on immigration and asked the candidates to admit their hypocrisy at airing commercials in Spanish but not supporting ballots written in Spanish. If she really wanted to drive that question home, why not ask the whole question in Spanish? Go full NPR on these backward conservatives. Gingrich and Romney responses:

“I would have ballots in English, and I think you could have programs where virtually everybody would be able to read the ballots,” Gingrich said, and nearly all of his rivals agreed.” -Gingrich

“English is the language of this nation,” Romney said. “People need to learn English to be able to be successful, to get great jobs. We don’t want to have people limited in their capacity to achieve the American dream because they don’t speak English.” -Romney

Points off for not prefacing those answers with: “Republicans don’t hate Latinos-just asinine questions by journalists who’ve probably never met one.”

Some Florida specific questions were asked. Drilling offshore (good answers by Santorum and as an energy nerd he totally spoke my language), Immigration (One of the few points were the audience showed it had a pulse: Romney argued essentially that we don’t have to deport illegals because although they initially broke the law to get here, they’d be happy to return to their home countries on their own recognizance. “Self-deportation.” That one slipped by Team Romney’s spin doctors. He was deservedly laughed at for that). Other questions involved the Space Race, Big Sugar and Terry Schiavo. Issues big in every decade put the present one.

The debate wrapped up with one last question: “What have you done to further the cause of conservatism?” I like Gingrich’s response as it was forward looking and focused on taking out Pres. Obama‘s job. Romney’s fell flat for me. Stated bizarrely that having a family helped further the cause. Look, if Bachmann was mocked for her 23 foster kids line, I’m going to mock this one. Shorter Romney: “I helped further the conservative cause by having babies. Well, my wife did, but I had some input.” I saw that Ann Coulter tweeted a response to this: “Why isn’t this enough for you people?!” That one has gone off the deep end, no? Santorum had a good line and one I second. These guys rejected conservatism when it got hard.”

At this point in the night, the Barista at Starbucks is making a point to sweep extremely close to my table and I take the hint. I guess NBC has a vendetta against 7:30 EST. How I’d score this debate: Santorum, Romney/Gingrich, Paul.

Three Things:

(1) It was a  hard debate to score because so little happened. I think Romney needed a performance better than the one he gave in SC and although he didn’t hit a home run, he at least got on base. Gingrich’s performance was off and I’m wondering if it was a calculated move on his part to seem calmer and less combative or it simply came down to having a catatonic moderator and a stiff audience. I’d say he also hit a single. Both Santorum and Paul didn’t get much play in the beginning, but did toward the end. Once Paul starts on his foreign policy views I’m reminded why he’s a bad idea. When he brings it back to monetary policy he shines and I see why folks like him. I picked Santorum for the win because his answers are solid and he can frame things from a blue collar perspective. Also, I don’t know what to do with Gingrich and Romney here so that’s also why he places 1st.

(2) As this was a REPUBLICAN primary debate, geared toward REPUBLICAN primary voters, I am against baffled why these questions were so out of tune with the issues folks want to hear discussed. Keystone Pipeline, Unemployment, this noxious phrase of the President-”fair share” and many other questions not asked by the moderators.

(3) This debate shows why Fox News continually smokes its competition’s cigars. The admonition to attendees to hold their applause killed whatever energy the candidates could draw on to put passion into their arguments. And there was zero dueling between the candidates and moderators. Brian Williams acted as if this was just a time killer while his 10pm reservation at Tampa’s Six Tables rolled around. Fox brings the bells and whistles and encourages audience participation-to a point-Brett Baier does regulate.

Enhanced by Zemanta
 
A construction project to repair and update th...

Image via Wikipedia

If the primary purpose of education is to impart knowledge so that each generation of youth are able, first, to govern themselves and, second, to get a decent job, then how are today’s public schools doing?

Our schools fail miserably. A high school education was once a crowning achievement which enabled the high school graduate to work most jobs and even run a business. Today, the common perception is that a high school graduate is only little better than that socially despised failure, the dropout. Everybody needs to go to college to have any chance at all to succeed. Or so they say.

Our schools fail miserably. Academic performance is falling despite the concurrent lowering of academic standards. The number of delinquent youth is massive and growing. Children are not expected to grow up until, perhaps, their thirties—and too many of them barely meet this paltry expectation. In almost every way of measuring, society is more dysfunctional today than it was 50, 100, and 200 years ago.

Meanwhile schools are increasingly fantastically expensive.

Why?

Because the wrong people with the wrong ideas are running the show.

Educrats get excited by spending more on education; but for all their spending, student performance continues to slide. Making school days longer, requiring more days in class each year, starting mandatory schooling a year younger and compelling attendance for 16 and 17 year olds, funding more college tries—none of these things seem to make any significant improvement, nor will they ever. New philosophies of education, unified core curricula mandated by state education departments, federal testing to ensure that “no child is left behind”; repeal of NCLB and replacing it with something that does a better unconstitutional job of guiding states in reaching national goals for education policies—none of it will help.

Why?

Because we have forgotten what education is for.

Consider our system.

In a kindergarten, one school routinely has each child give his name and tell some particular fact about himself. At this school, one student, let’s call him Billy, is so profoundly handicapped, that he cannot walk, speak, or even sit up on his own. He eats from a bottle that is held for him. But he is in school and has his Individual Education Plan and those are good things, right? One day the students introduce themselves and tell what they are having for lunch. When it is his turn to introduce himself, Billy’s educational assistant takes his limp hand and depresses a button on the tape recorder. The assistant’s voice says, “Hi, I’m Billy and today I’m having hot lunch.” The other students snicker. Who can blame them? First, the voice is not Billy’s voice; he cannot speak. Second, he is not having a hot lunch; he is having a bottle—like he does every day. Perhaps school gives him a sense of belonging; but granting children a sense of belonging is manifestly not the purpose of education; imparting knowledge is.

Consider the high school-aged gang member who hates school and wants nothing to do with it. The state mandates that he go to school because that’s a good thing, right? Take a moment and consider the devastation this lawless thug wreaks upon what might otherwise be a learning environment. Perhaps it keeps him off the streets and helps the grown-ups feel safer; but schools are obviously not supposed to be day prisons for sociopaths; schools are to instruct students.

What about a different kind of high-school student? This student’s family would benefit from a different income stream so the single mom can be home more and keep the family from disintegrating. This student has an opportunity to work in construction and make decent money. With his ambition, strength, and aptitude, he would likely become a foreman in a few years and could eventually strike out with a construction company of his own. His success, however, is hindered by the recruitment efforts of a high school gang member like the one in the previous scenario combined with the temptation of easy money selling drugs, the privations of a grinding poverty, his mother’s absence from the family while she works a second-shift job, and a compulsory school attendance law. School should be helping him prepare for gainful employment but instead, it unwittingly prepares him for gang membership.

In each case, vast amounts of money are wasted, or worse, spent interfering with the very purpose of school.

There is a better way.

Enhanced by Zemanta
 

(WASHINGTON, D.C).- Congressman Raúl Labrador of Idaho’s First Congressional District released the following statement in response to the United States Senate’s failure to pass a budget in 1,000 days, saying:

This Senate has spent 1,000 days without a budget and without a clue.

Instead of passing a budget, the Senate has passed Obamacare, preferential industry bailouts and failed stimulus packages— saddling American taxpayers with an additional $4 trillion in debt. Still, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Democratic colleagues seem uninterested in making meaningful cuts to save this country’s financial future. After all, if you don’t have a budget, why would you care about debt?

If Idaho families must live on budgets each and every day, why can’t the federal government? If Idaho families must make prudent choices and live within their means, why shouldn’t the federal government? If Idaho families must plan for their financial future, why doesn’t the federal government?

It’s time to put aside politics and put America first. I call on President Obama to use tonight’s platform of the State of the Union address to finally hold the U.S. Senate accountable for the utter disarray they’ve created for our fragile economy.

Enhanced by Zemanta
 

Yesterday, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List gave her “State of the Unborn” address on the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision countering President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address to be given tonight.

Some excerpts:

“All candidates in the Republican primary field have reacted AGAINST the most committed ideologically pro-abortion President in history by uniting in support of three prolife policies:

“First – Only nominating those who are committed to judicial restraint and the original meaning of the Constitution to the U.S. Supreme Court

“Second – Advancing and signing into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

“Third – The complete and permanent end of all taxpayer funding for abortion and abortion providers both at home and abroad.

“Along with presidential nominees’ commitment, the US House of Representatives is united in ending taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the nation and a willing enabler of human trafficking.

“An organic grassroots movement is now defunding Planned Parenthood state by state and enacting pro life legislation in an historic wave of state based initiatives. Over 60 pro-life bills were enacted last year in state legislatures across the country.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
 

Details are still unfolding, but according to both social media accounts of Senator Rand Paul and his father, presidential candidate Ron Paul indicate that the Senator was detained this morning by the TSA at a Nashville airport.

The first tweet and facebook post apparently came from Rand Paul’s press secretary.

Ron Paul also posted about the incident.

Rand told the AP:

He said he was “detained” at a small cubicle.  He was later escorted out of the airport by local authorities and missed his flight to Washington for a Senate session.

This also brings into question whether or not this brief detention violated the US Constitution:

Article 1 Section 6:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Senator Rand Paul has long been a critic of TSA invasive pat downs.

His Father Ron Paul has also been critical of the TSA and authored a bill called the American Traveler Dignity Act that would have reigned in the invasive pat down procedures.

Over this last week we saw how powerful public opinion can be, as the SOPA and PIPA bills were stalled as the public took a stand against the bills that would have stifled some free speech on the internet.  When will the people stand up for their other rights?

Take a stand, Rand Paul did.

Enhanced by Zemanta
 
Bob Jones University sign at entrance on Wade ...

BJU divided between Gingrich & Santorum.

I’ve been telling the national media for years now that unlike Iowa Christians, South Carolina Evangelicals are a diverse lot, particularly when the candidates have similar positions on social issues.

I’ve also said that within Evangelicalism in the Palmetto State there is a Movement Conservative element that is more self-conscious and to a greater extent see themselves engaged in a culture war versus a biblical but more worldly Rotarian Evangelical group.

In the South Carolina Republican Primary, Newt Gingrich penetrated down through the Rotarians and deep into the Movement on Saturday.

Exit polls showed Evangelicals making up about 65% of South Carolina Republican Voters. Newt won 44%, Romney 21% and Santorum 21%.

But, at the Bob Jones University precinct in Greenville, the aggressively social issue candidate Rick Santorum eked out only a 15 vote victory. The finally tally at Greenville 27 was Gingrich 31%, Santorum 34%, Romney 18%, and Paul 17%. An impressive showing amongst religious conservatives for a guy whose adultery led the presidential debate two days before.

The combination of a desire to draw a sharp contrast with the incumbent president and hatred of mainstream media were factors in the Gingrich win among the hard core. It was as if even the strictest South Carolina Evangelicals were saying: “The war is on. The bullets are flying. We are pinned down on the beach and you want to know about the commander’s personal life? Get back to us later on that…if we survive.”

But another clue may be found in the words of a popular Christian catch phrase found on automobile bumpers all across South Carolina. That phrase? “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.”

Originally posted at Caffeinated Carolina

Enhanced by Zemanta
© 2012 Caffeinated Thoughts Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha