WaPo's Karen Tumulty: Mitt Romney Has Again Mangled Facts on Gingrich Ethics Case and Resignation

From Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post:

"Mitt Romney has again mangled the facts about the ethics investigation of former House speaker Newt Gingrich and the circumstances surrounding his resignation.

"In an interview on Fox News Channel’s 'Fox and Friends' Monday morning, Romney said of his GOP presidential rival: 'His experience as speaker of the House end[ed] so badly, with an ethics scandal and him having to resign in disgrace and with his own members, 88 percent of them Republican members, voting to reprimand him.'

"There was indeed a reprimand, and there was a resignation. But the two events occurred nearly two years apart and did not have anything to do with each other.

"The Washington Post’s own Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, has already taken Romney’s campaign to task for a similar distortion in an ad. But now that it is coming directly from the frontrunner’s lips, it is worthwhile to revisit those events to see how they really played out."

Tumulty than goes on to lay out a history of the events with links to Washington Post news reports written at the time of the events. This article and its links are well worth reading.

Especially interesting is Tumulty's explanation in the comments section of why she wrote the piece:

"I am old enough (sadly) to have actually covered both of these events. And I was really startled to hear Romney say today that Gingrich had resigned as a result of the ethics charges. That was simply not true, which is why I felt compelled to write this blog post."

Yes on the Moon Colony

Jonah Goldberg wrote this in his January 27th The Goldberg File e-mail:

"To the Moon!

"I've got to say, I don't like the way everyone thinks Newt's desire to go back to the moon is proof of his craziness. Now, yes, when the country is drowning in debt, proposing a moon colony is arguably politically crazy (though Floridians on the Space Coast probably don't think so). Indeed, when you have a reputation for saying whacked-out stuff, leading with your lunar ambitions can be confused too easily for lunacy itself ('I see what you did there' -- The Couch).

"But look: I like the idea of space exploration and I see it as one of the few areas where government can and should be involved. No, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of a big white elephant, or Amtrak in space. I think Gingrich is largely right about prizes and the like. When Romney had his line about corporate America having no interest in going to space, he was being deliberately obtuse. Of course 'corporate America' isn't much interested in going to space (though obviously some firms are). That's why you create prizes so you can get corporate America, and Americans generally, interested in going to space.

"I'm a cathedrals-in-space guy. In a previous life, I made a breathtakingly mediocre documentary about Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. I learned a lot in the process. One of the enduring takeaways for me was that there are some things society invests in to inspire everyone. The rich can always afford art and inspiration; cathedrals provided art and inspiration for rich and poor alike. In the Middle Ages, cathedral-building represented a space race of a sort. They were built on the highest land around and city-states competed to build the tallest spires in order to get closer to God.

"We are a pioneering people, and I see the effort to, as Reagan said, 'slip the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God' as a worthwhile endeavor for a great nation. I bet the Founders would be more comfortable with the idea of American expansion to the moon than with, say, Medicare. Can you say 'Louisiana Purchase in spa-a-a-a-a-a-ace'?

"If that's all too frilly for you, think of it this way: Lord knows I'm no Keynesian, but if you believe even a fraction of this multiplier stuff or a scintilla about the need to train up a new generation of scientists and engineers, then spending money on space exploration makes a lot more sense than most of the junk in the stimulus. I'm completely pragmatic about how to do it, and heavily biased toward free-market approaches, but I think it's worth doing.

"The mockery of Gingrich over this seems more like a poor reflection on our own national spirit than on Gingrich himself."
[emphasis added]

I remember how inspiring President John F. Kennedy's challenge to get to the moon in a decade was. And the utter thrill in seeing Americans walking on the moon.

It's instructive to remember that JFK said that at a time when the U.S. was in the economic doldrums. That's why Kennedy wanted tax cuts--to spur the economy. What happened that allowed the space race to heat up enough to meet that magnificent goal was that the U.S. economy boomed under President Lyndon Johnson. But, even in leaner times, Kennedy had a vision that inspired Americans.

I agree with Jonah Goldberg that the problem is not with Gingrich's vision, but with the small, cramped spirit of too many American politicians. This is an issue that touches on belief in American exceptionalism and whether the U.S. is just another country or a world leader.

Well said, Jonah!

Does McCain Agree that Chris Christie Made a Rookie Mistake?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Seems like Senator McCain may agree with Governor Palin's assessment that Governor Christie made a rookie mistake in making a Democratic party ad saying Gingrich was an embarrassment to the Republican party.

Drudge Hits One Month Low

Maybe it's not due to conservatives seeing that Drudge is playing the hit man for the Romney campaign, but his numbers are the lowest they've been in the last month according to Alexa.com.

Thompson: Is Negative Politics the Way to Win a General Election?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Makes me even more glad I donated to the Thompson campaign back in the day.

H/T Jim Hoft

Romney the Type of Man Who Can't Leave the Last Nickel on the Table?

Professor William Jacobson is rising to the top of conservative commentators with cause. He is among the handful of conservatives effectively speaking out against the Romney campaign's scorched earth policy of destroying other Republicans.

"As reported by Zeke Miller at BuzzFeed (h/t HotAir):

“'It not about winning here anymore,' one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. 'It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.'

"Humiliation, not mere electoral defeat, appears to be the goal. Much as among warring communities in the Middle East and the Balkans, Romney supporters even have sought to deprive Newt of his own history.
. . .
"I’ve been struggling to come up with a good analogy. Perhaps this works. I’ve dealt with many businessmen who just can’t leave the last nickel on the table; they not only have to get a favorable deal, they have to get a deal which humiliates those on the other side of the transaction.

"I don’t know if Mitt Romney was the type of businessman who could not leave the last nickel on the table. But that is the way he is running his campaign.

"And we will all pay the price for it."

Jacobson also quotes Mark Levin, another conservative commentator who has risen to the top because of his courage and ability to tell the truth when other conservatives are flustered are going along to get along. Here's what Levin has to say:

"Romney is not a conservative in the traditional sense, and he has a record of big-government Republicanism. Even many years after the success of the Reagan administration, he sought to distance himself from Reagan and the GOP, self-identifying as a progressive and independent. Thus, he resorts to spending multi-millions of dollars trashing his opponents, rather than providing thoughtful arguments on conservatism and constitutionalism. Lest we forget, it was Gingrich who was trying to run a positive campaign and who offered to debate Romney one-on-one, asking Romney to stop with the millions in unanswered ads attacking him. Romney declined. I have no doubt that Romney would do the same thing to Santorum if Santorum was rising in the polls, albeit on different issues."

Of course, Governor Sarah Palin was the first major Republican politician to speak out against the character assassination carried out by the Republican establishment (and conservative media).

"But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans 'bitterly clinging' to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the 'wisdom' of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all."

Unfortunately, it seems to be true. The Romney campaign has become the face of the Republican party's version of an evil empire--"sad" and "bizarre" in the words of Ronald Reagan.
---
Post edited to reflect the larger meaning of "evil empire".

Chaffetz Shows His Junior High Side

Rep. Jason Chaffetz

From The Hill:

"Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) found his own tactics turned against him during a Newt Gingrich event here Friday afternoon.

"Chaffetz, a Mitt Romney supporter, has been turning up at Gingrich events during the past two days, though he denied in a brief interview with The Hill that he was doing so in order to goad the former Speaker. He said he was merely there to 'offer some perspective.'

"But Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond decided it was time to do some goading of his own, as he briefed reporters. Hammond first waved with faux-glee at the Utah congressman and invited him to join the briefing. When Chaffetz ignored him, the spokesman instead marched the press over to where Chaffetz was standing with fellow Romney supporter Bay Buchanan.

"Hammond told Chaffetz that Sen. John McCain, a Romney supporter and former GOP nominee, has expressed distaste for the tactic of having campaign surrogates shadowing an opposing candidate's events. Chaffetz replied, 'I am just here attending.'"

"I am just here attending"? Talk about lame. And following a political candidate to harass is simply junior high. Like shadowing a girl on her dates because she turned you down. Rep. Chaffetz needs some social and political maturity.

UPDATE: Video of Chaffetz at a Gingrich rally. I wonder if Chaffetz is as hot to "shadow" President Obama and encourage Obama's defeat as to shadow a Republican opponent? Don't hold your breath.



UPDATE 2: Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion commenter Weirdave suggests that the Romney campaign's "Occupy Gingrich" is inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Heh.

Drudge Down; Newsmax and Memeorandum Up

The link to Matt Drudge's site has been removed from my side bar. He is more and more idiosyncratic politically--choosing to bash one primary candidate (Newt Gingrich) and not give equal coverage to the errors of the other leading candidate (Mitt Romney). Unfortunately Matt Drudge's flaws as a news aggregator have come to outweigh his value. Slanted news on the right (or left) is not my cup of tea. A viewpoint is fine, but irrational slashing is not.

Newsmax and Memeorandum have taken Drudge's place among the links in the Resources section. Both Newsmax and Memeorandum are highly recommended. I also have started a subscription to Newsmax magazine.

UPDATE: Drudge followed Romney team lead:

"A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.

"The effort hit a peak by Thursday, when the site was virtually taken over by headlines assailing Mr. Gingrich, whose advisers said they eventually gave up on trying to persuade the Drudge staff to spare them, acknowledging, in the words of one aide, that 'very little can be done.'”

Palin: We Will Look Back on This Week and Realize Something Changed

Governor Palin on her facebook page:

"We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

"We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

"I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

"We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, 'The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.' As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque re-writing of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

"But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 that didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

"I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

"As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?"
[emphasis added]

Sarah Palin is absolutely right. This week the GOP establishment and conservative establishment press and pundits have turned my stomach with their duplicity and lack of concern with the truth. I just posted Byron York’s mild rebuke, and here's another demurral from Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson:

"Newt shared the frustrations of many conservatives, including, from time to time, me, that the President permitted the bureaucracy to prove persistently feckless, undermining his program--as you'll recall if you're of a certain age, conservatives were always insisting that the President's staff should 'let Reagan be Reagan.' If Newt mouthed off, giving vent to these frustrations, so be it. He was in Congress. That was, in a sense, his job. And at one time or another, every conservative of any standing felt exasperated or worried--and urged the President not to go soft either on Communism or on our own bureaucracy. Newt's comments here place him in the company of William F. Buckley, Jr.--WFB vented his frustrations more artfully, but he vented them--and I'd have thought that for our friends at NR that would be quite good enough."

Thank God we have Sarah Palin (who the GOP establishment has tried to destroy) calling GOP and conservative "leaders" out on becoming conservatism's "New Left".

Conservative Media Incompetent and Biased?

Byron York directs his comment to the Romney campaign, but it is more aptly directed to conservative media and conservative pundits.

Why is a charge proven false still being allowed to stand? Not by the mainstream media but by conservative media?

Conservative media and pundits are looking like their mainstream media counterparts in incompetence and bias. The cloud's silver lining is that they too are no longer the gateway to information. The thousands of points of information on the internet, including original documents, speeches and interviews, have changed the rules of the game.

For me that means being able to find better sources of information than Drudge or NBC and better interviewers and commentators than Ann Coulter or Katie Couric. It also means I can and will fact check National Review as well as the New York Times.

Still it's sad that instead of challenging the mainstream media to higher standards, conservative media has dropped to the mainstream media's incompetence and bias.

Newt on President Obama, Jan Brewer, Raising Capital Gains to 30%

Wouldn't it be nice to have a happy president again who can laugh? And be able to admit mistakes? All the current candidates except Newt take themselves so seriously.

Nancy Reagan: Torch Passed from Goldwater to Ronnie to Newt

Nancy Reagan:

"The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive."

Uh, oh! Lots of conservative pundits and establishment types will be scandalized. Though they make take solace in trashing Goldwater's heroic loss along with their speculation about Newt's chances of losing.

The real conservative champions, like William F. Buckley, Jr., backed Goldwater to the hilt and saw in his loss the seeds of later success (as Nancy Reagan does in this clip). But the new conservative wanna-be leaders never think long term or about building conservatism. It's all about the odds of winning an election. They would have been against Goldwater too and even Reagan (as some like George Will were for Bush or Baker on grounds of electability rather than Reagan in 1980).

Total thanks to William Jacobson!

Gingrich Cleared of Ethics Violations

Byron York covered the case in the 1990's. Here's the conclusion of a long article on what he discovered:

"The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.

"Back in January 1997, the day after Cole presented his damning report to the Ethics Committee, the Washington Post's front-page banner headline was 'Gingrich Actions 'Intentional' or 'Reckless'; Counsel Concludes That Speaker's Course Funding Was 'Clear Violation' of Tax Laws.' That same day, the New York Times ran eleven stories on the Gingrich matter, four of them on the front page (one inside story was headlined, 'Report Describes How Gingrich Used Taxpayers' Money for Partisan Politics'). On television, Dan Rather began the CBS Evening News by telling viewers that 'only now is the evidence of Newt Gingrich's ethics violations and tax problems being disclosed in detail.'

"The story was much different when Gingrich was exonerated. The Washington Post ran a brief story on page five. The Times ran an equally brief story on page 23. And the evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC -- which together had devoted hours of coverage to the question of Gingrich's ethics -- did not report the story at all. Not a word.

"Gingrich himself, not wanting to dredge up the whole ugly tale, said little about his exoneration. 'I consider this a full and complete vindication,' he wrote in a brief statement. 'I urge my colleagues to go back and read their statements and watch how they said them, with no facts, based on nothing more than a desire to politically destroy a colleague.'"

SOTU Address and Response Surprises

1. President Obama threatened less taxpayer funding if tuition goes up. Rightly so since higher education costs have increased significantly (439% since the 1980's). The increase is starkly more even than the increase in healthcare costs (251% since the 1980's).

"And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford."

The American Federation of Teachers isn't going to like the threat of cutting federal dollars.

2. The President ended his speech with a double God bless: "Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America."

3. Governor Mitch Daniels, by contrast, did not invoke God's blessing or directly refer to Him at all. Rather Daniels used the more tepid "city on a hill" reference to link back to Reagan to link back to the Puritans to link back to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:14).

Strange when the Democrats do better at speaking the language of faith than Republicans. Though, perhaps, not a Republican who called for a "truce on the so-called social issues". Maybe to Governor Daniels that means avoiding all things religious as well as moral.

4. Neither man made any sort of clear comment on Obamacare. It's like one of the main political issues has just disappeared. Odd for President Obama because it is his claim to presidential fame. Odd for Governor Daniels because it's the single targeted issue that most Americans agree with Republicans on.

5. Just technically Governor Daniels needed help on his microphone quality. Especially in the beginning one could hear him drawing in deep breaths. Why do Republicans have such difficulties with small technical issues like this? (Remember Sarah Palin's teleprompter difficulties that she masterfully overcame so that no one noticed?) Unfortunately it leaves the hint of a question as to whether people who can't even get the sound quality right really can solve complex issues.

UPDATE: I forgot one big point. What's with Governor Daniels saying that the rich shouldn't get benefits like social security?

“Decades ago, for instance, we could afford to send millionaires pension checks and pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us. Now, we can’t, so the dollars we have should be devoted to those who need them most."

Maybe he forgot that social security was set up to be retirement insurance not a welfare tax. And, if we're only going to give to those who "need" it most, then payout should not be determined by years in the system or amount paid in, but purely by need. Talk about bankrupting the system. Someone in only 10 months might need a full pension more than someone in 30 years.

11 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan January 15 to January 21, 2012

January 15 - Died conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.
- Cpl. Jon-Luke Bateman, 22, of Tulsa, Okla.
- Lance Cpl. Kenneth E. Cochran, 20, of Wilder, Idaho.

January 18 - Spc. Keith D. Benson, 27, of Brockton, Mass., died in Paktika province, Afghanistan.
- Cpl. Phillip D. McGeath, 25, Glendale, Ariz.., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

January 19 - These Marines died while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.
- Capt. Daniel B. Bartle, 27, of Ferndale, Wash.
- Capt. Nathan R. McHone, 29, of Crystal Lake, Ill.
- MSgt. Travis W. Riddick, 40, of Centerville, Iowa.
- Cpl. Jesse W. Stites, 23, of North Beach, Md.
- Cpl. Kevin J. Reinhard, 25, of Colonia, N.J.
- Cpl. Joseph D. Logan, 22, of Willis, Texas.

January 21 - Cpl. Christopher G. Singer, 23, of Temecula, Calif., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Republican Elites Want Smoke-Filled Room Instead of "Democratized" Primaries

From the truth is stranger than fiction file comes this Real Clear Politics piece on an Andrea Mitchell report:

"'I talked to a top Romney adviser tonight who said, 'Look, if Mitt Romney cannot win in Florida then we're going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries. And we're going to have try to come with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich who could be Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, someone.' Because there is such a desperation by the so-called party elites, but that's exactly what Gingrich is playing against,' Andrea Mitchell said on NBC tonight after the debate."
[emphasis added]

The process is too democratic for them. They need to make sure they, not the voters, make the selection. You couldn't sell a novel based on this thesis, and here it is in real life. Republican insiders are trying to figure out how to derail the "democratized" primaries and get back to the "smoke-filled room".

Gingrich: A Natural Like FDR and Reagan

Peter Robinson, former Reagan speechwriter, compares Newt's political speech genius with FDR and Reagan using the following video clip as an example.

Did Chris Christie Miss 1999?

UPDATE 2: Byron York, who covered the Gingrich ethics case as it was developing gives a full blown description here. His conclusion:

"The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.

"Back in January 1997, the day after Cole presented his damning report to the Ethics Committee, the Washington Post's front-page banner headline was 'Gingrich Actions 'Intentional' or 'Reckless'; Counsel Concludes That Speaker's Course Funding Was 'Clear Violation' of Tax Laws.' That same day, the New York Times ran eleven stories on the Gingrich matter, four of them on the front page (one inside story was headlined, 'Report Describes How Gingrich Used Taxpayers' Money for Partisan Politics'). On television, Dan Rather began the CBS Evening News by telling viewers that 'only now is the evidence of Newt Gingrich's ethics violations and tax problems being disclosed in detail.'

"The story was much different when Gingrich was exonerated. The Washington Post ran a brief story on page five. The Times ran an equally brief story on page 23. And the evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC -- which together had devoted hours of coverage to the question of Gingrich's ethics -- did not report the story at all. Not a word.

"Gingrich himself, not wanting to dredge up the whole ugly tale, said little about his exoneration. 'I consider this a full and complete vindication,' he wrote in a brief statement. 'I urge my colleagues to go back and read their statements and watch how they said them, with no facts, based on nothing more than a desire to politically destroy a colleague.'"

UPDATE: Governor Palin is kinder to Governor Christie on this. Says "poor Chris" made a "rookie mistake" of "playing into the media's hands". He got his "panties in a wad" over Romney's South Carolina loss, and "[h]e just produced an ad for the Democrats." Read and enjoy:

"On New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie calling Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich an 'an embarrassment' to the Republican Party:

“'I do care to take him to task — poor Chris. This was a rookie mistake. He played right into the media’s hands. Here’s a host that asked Chris, ‘Does Newt embarrass the party.’ I think he asked him twice, and there Chris played right into it and spewed that about Newt embarrassing the party. Sometimes if your candidate loses in just one step along this path, as was the case when Romney lost to Newt the other night and of course, Romney is Chris Christie’s guy, you kind of get your panties in a wad and you may say things that you regret later. And I think that that’s what Chris Christie did. His response to what the media was asking him was reflective of a lack of self-discipline. I’ve learned my lessons all along the way, too, and not responding, not playing into the media’s hands when they’re trying to get you to say something like is this candidate an embarrassment to your party?'

"On if Christie was tricked into calling Gingrich an 'embarrassment':

“'I think if Chris were asked about some of his past actions, taking a state helicopter to his kid’s baseball game, some people may say, well, that sort of embarrassed your party, Chris. And he would then be on the receiving end of a comment that maybe he wished that somebody kept as an inside thought and not blasting that to the rest of the nation. He’s been in office a year or two is all, and he’ll learn that the media goad you. They want you to say things like that in order to boost ratings and make it more of a reality show-type scenario that we’re watching in the GOP primary. And a comment like that just kind of played right on into that narrative.'

"On how Democrats will use Christie’s comment against Gingrich:

“'He just produced an ad for the Democrats. If Newt is the nominee, he just handed them free this negative PR ad that they’re going to incorporate into their negative scenario against somebody who came out there against HillaryCare back in his day, who came out balancing budgets, working with a Democrat governor, who came out cutting taxes and trying to rein in government growth in order to put the country on the right track back then, and has intentions of doing that today.'”

-------

This weekend Governor Chris Christie stated that Speaker Gingrich was an embarrassment to the Republican party because of being "fined $300,000 for ethics violations".

Did Governor Christie miss 1999 (not to mention not do his homework of verifying before asserting)? As CNN reported in February, 1999:

"The Internal Revenue Service Wednesday cleared former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of an alleged tax law violation in connection with a controversial college course he taught."
. . .
"Democrats said it was a campaign gimmick and filed ethics complaints accusing him of illegal use of tax-exempt funds for political purposes. A tax expert hired by the House Ethics Committee said the course violated tax laws, and in 1997 Gingrich agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for making misleading statements to the ethics panel and failing to seek better legal advice before using tax-exempt money for the course.

"As it turned out, the course was legal after all. The IRS found that the sponsoring organization, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, 'did not serve the private interests of Mr. Gingrich' or Republican organizations."

Assuming Governor Christie was not in a coma during 1999, one is left to infer that Christie is willing to spread half-truths (Gingrich did pay $300,000) which imply falsehoods (Gingrich was guilty of ethics violations) for political benefit. Appalling.

H/T William Jacobson and Carolyn Gargaro

Daniel Henninger: Why Isn't Mitch Daniels Running?

On the Journal Editorial Report today Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal remarked that the Republicans had their "B" team in the presidential race, and he was perplexed why, for example, Mitch Daniels wasn't running.

Henninger is usually level-headed, but this was boiler-plate. In every presidential election I've voted in except when the incumbent president was running the complaint was the poor candidates to choose from--even in 1980 when Reagan was running.

Further, apparently Henninger didn't listen to Governor Daniels' statement as to why he didn't run. Concerns for his family. Yes. He didn't want to be put through the same wringer Sarah Palin went through. Or that Newt Gingrich is going through. Daniels' wife left him for another man, and then came back. Imagine how that would play out in the press. Imagine the two hour Brian Ross interviews on the subject.

All the people yelling about how Gingrich can't win running against the press (including some on the Journal Editorial Report), apparently don't see what their wide open standards on what is okay for the serious press to do has an impact. The same people who don't refute* poor and biased reporting (like that of Brian Ross) have no clue that it is forcing good, even "A team", people out of the public square. People like Mitch Daniels.
____
*The Wall Street Journal has a fig leaf on this because at least James Taranto in his opinion column pointed out some of Ross's fact problems. But, unfortunately, not the hard news or editorial divisions.

Brian Ross and ABC Fail Journalism 101

William Jacobson points out basic failings:

"The 'interview' was not so much an interview as an 8-minute ABC News attempt to portray Newt in an unfavorable light interspersed with very short clips of Marianne.

"A prime example was Brian Ross asserting that Newt divorced his first wife while she was 'being treated for cancer.' That account has been disputed, but no note of the dispute was made by Ross."

Further:

"Robert Costa of National Review reported yesterday a news story from 1999 that Marianne was the one who broke the relationship years before the divorce by cleaning out the house of all furniture while Newt was away, and that they were separated for six years before briefly reconciling[.]"
. . .
"Second, Marianne stated that Newt asked for a divorce after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Again, Ross did nothing to challenge the statement even though James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal reported earlier in the day that Marianne’s account was not consistent with an account she gave to the Associated Press in July 2000[.]"

Bill O'Reilly (who knows the turf and often has Bernard Goldberg address MSM journalistic failures) also failed Journalism 101. He interviewed Brian Ross last night without asking Ross about failing to address contrary evidence.

UPDATE: Scott Whitlock of NewsBusters points out that the blockbuster TWO HOUR interview with Marianne Gingrich laughably turned out to yield TWO AND A HALF MINUTES of actual footage in an EIGHT MINUTE report.

"How bereft of new information was the segment? According to reports that broke on Wednesday, Ross sat down with Marianne Gingrich for two hours. In the eight minute segment, ABC only used two and a half minutes of actual footage from that interview. But Ross breathlessly hyped, 'And we begin tonight with a story at the white-hot intersection of presidential politics, private lives and character.'"

Tebow Played With Injuries Saturday; Tebow Starting QB in 2012 Season

Tim Tebow played after rib, lung and chest injuries received in the 3rd quarter of Saturday's playoff game with the New England Patriots.

“'It’s just the physicality of playing football. Sometimes you get hit and it can hurt a little bit. But, I wanted to play a lot of the game,' Tebow said after the game.

"The outcome had long been decided by the time Tebow got hurt.

“'I just wanted to show character. You just continue to fight and it doesn’t change who you are, how you play, how you go out there, you should be the same at all times,' Tebow said. 'That’s what I wanted to show, it didn’t matter if it was the first play or the last play or you were down by 42. I was going to be the same player and I was still going to give everything I have. Because that’s all I have to give.'”

Tebow noted that running isn't as dangerous as staying in the pocket.

"Tebow ran for 660 yards, most by a quarterback in team history, in the regular season and another 63 in the playoffs, leading to concerns among some that he was exposing himself to injury. But Tebow noted that he actually takes glancing blows, if any, from smaller defenders while on the run, making him less vulnerable than when he stays in the pocket and might get sandwiched by 300-pound linemen."

John Elway said on Monday that Tebow will be the Bronco's starting quarterback in training camp next summer.

Tebow led the Broncos to their first playoff games in six seasons.

Gingrich for President!

We need a president who can articulate common sense and conservatism like Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is head and shoulders above all the other candidates in being able to do this.

We need a president who knows how to balance the federal budget. Gingrich is the only candidate who has been able to do this.

Like the First Dude, I'm going rogue. Gingrich for President!

14 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan July 18, 2011 to January 15, 2012

July 18 - The Department of Defense announced today the death of a sailor who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom [Afghanistan]. Petty Officer Stacy O. Johnson, 35, of Rolling Fork, Miss., died July 18, while supporting operations in Bahrain. Johnson was a master-at-arms assigned to Naval Security Force Bahrain.

December 31 - Spc. Pernell J. Herrera, 33, of Espanola, N.M., died in Helmand province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered in a non-combat incident.

January 2 - Petty Officer 1st Class Chad R. Regelin, 24, of Cottonwood, Calif., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Regelin was assigned as an explosive ordnance disposal technician to Marine Special Operations Company Bravo.

January 5 - Died in Shir ghazi, Helmand province, Afghanistan, when their vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device.
- Senior Airman Bryan R. Bell, 23, of Erie, Pa.
- Tech. Sgt. Matthew S. Schwartz, 34, of Traverse City, Mich.
- Airman 1st Class Matthew R. Seidler, 24, of Westminster, Md.

January 6 - Died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their vehicle with an improvised explosive device.
- Staff Sgt. Jonathan M. Metzger, 32, of Indianapolis, Ind.
- Spc. Robert J. Tauteris Jr., 44, of Hamlet, Ind.
- Spc. Christopher A. Patterson, 20, of Aurora, Ill.
- Spc. Brian J. Leonhardt, 21, of Merrillville, Ind.

January 8 - Pfc. Dustin P. Napier, 20, of London, Ky., died in Zabul province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained from enemy small-arms fire.

January 10 - Pfc. Michael W. Pyron, 30, of Hopewell, Va., died in Parwan province, Afghanistan.

January 11 - Pfc. Neil I. Turner, 21, of Tacoma, Wash., died in Logar province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident.

January 15 - Sgt. 1st Class Benjamin B. Wise, 34, of Little Rock, Ark., died in Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, of injuries sustained on Jan. 9 in Balkh province, Afghanistan, when enemy forces attacked his unit with small-arms fire.

Sarah Palin: Conservative "Elder" Statesman

Sarah Palin is acting like a conservative elder statesman at a time when other conservative leaders are throwing brickbats at top conservative candidates. She stands up for and highlights the conservative reasonableness of the candidates when other conservatives are criticizing them.

In contrast, National Review (which managed to take out four conservatives with one swipe), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and lesser conservative lights have bashed one or more of the conservative candidates for one reason or other.

Compare Palin's response to the supposed anti-capitalist statements of Gingrich and Perry against Romney. First, she put them in the context of the harsh attack ads unleashed by Romney supporters against Gingrich in Iowa. Second, she pointed out the reasonableness of asking for proof when past business experience is used to claim ability to spur job creation as president. Third, she pointed out the importance of Republicans vetting the candidates hard enough to prevent an October surprise by the Democrats to swing the election at the last minute (as almost happened to George W. Bush).

Palin also points out strengths of the conservatives. For Perry it's his job creation success in Texas when the rest of the nation is crying for jobs. For Ron Paul it's his fiscal conservatism and realizing that a bankrupt nation cannot be a militarily strong nation nor can the U.S. afford to intervene in other nation's affairs when it can't even fund its own affairs. (This reminds of Senator Rand Paul's statement: “If you ask the American people if we should borrow money from China to give it to another foreign country, they look at you like you have three eyes”.) Palin also has warned against marginalizing Ron Paul and his supporters.

As to Speaker Gingrich's new strategy of attacking Romney, she didn't call it "angry" or "vindictive" as other commentators did. Governor Palin noted that the only way to win an election is to go on offense--especially after having "faced millions and millions of dollars in negative ads being run against them. You know, they kind of bucked up, and they said, 'Well we’re going to take some shots at the front runner who had just taken shots at us', via his superpac."

Governor Palin is showing herself as a defender of conservative values and conservative candidates in a way no other major conservative voice is doing. Having received incoming hits from conservative critics on everything except her political positions, Palin has taken Reagan's 11th commandment (say no evil of a fellow Republican) and is applying it wholesale to conservatives as well as to moderate Republicans (though, like Reagan, a bit more lightly to the latter).

At this point, Palin is the only major conservative figure playing the elder statesman role. She keeps growing into bigger and bigger boots and dwarfing other conservative "leaders". It seems she was right in saying that she could accomplish more by staying out of the presidential race than by running--at least for now.

UPDATE: Palin also stood up for Donald Trump. She's not allowing any conservative (other than conspiracy nuts, racists and the like) to be painted as "crazy" or someone to dismiss without addressing their arguments. Palin stands up for them even when they have conflicting positions and arguments. This is like William F. Buckley, Jr., who held together a broad coalition of conservatives with differing views but a central core.

Palin: Bain Is Fair Game

Governor Palin says that Governor Romney's time at Bain Capital is "fair game" and brings up important issues like how to get back jobs sent overseas and how to incentivize the private sector to create more jobs.



Transcript from about the 1:25 mark:

GOV. PALIN: "Mitt Romney, though, being the front runner, I think he having recently come under some criticism for some past actions in the private sector that he was involved in in Bain Capital, gives an opportunity for us to talk about some of these issues now, today, in case he is the nominee before some kind of October surprise were to be thrust upon voters."

ERIC BOLLING: "Well, Governor, let’s talk about that for a little bit. We knew the Left was going to come out. We heard David Axelrod trashing Mitt Romney. We heard the White House trashing Mitt Romney for his time at Bain Capital. They claim that he destroyed jobs. But, were you surprised to hear Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman also taking shots at Mitt Romney for the same time at Bain Capital. I mean, after all it is Bain Capital, capitalism, isn’t it?"

GOV. PALIN: "Well, I think having just come out of that Iowa race where these other candidates, especially Newt Gingrich, had faced millions and millions of dollars in negative ads being run against them. You know, they kind of bucked up, and they said, “Well we’re going to take some shots at the front runner who had just taken shots at us”, via his superpac. Though I know that they all distance themselves from these super pacs. But, I think that, you know, that that’s fair game.

"That issue, of course, the Democrats were going to come after him. I think the Democrats wanted to wait for an October surprise to be able to start talking about those efforts at Bain Capital that did result in some jobs being lost or being chased overseas. Now we get to talk though about what it’s going to take to get those manufacturing jobs back here in America. How we can incentivize the private sector to create more jobs for our skilled work force that’s ready and waiting."

H/T Stacy Drake

Political Insight: Sarah Palin vs. the Other Conservative Commentators

You don't see George Will, Dick Morris, Karl Rove or the editors of National Review and the Weekly Standard pointing out the reason for the media's strange lack of attack on Governor Mitt Romney. Time will tell whether Governor Sarah Palin is smarter than the other conservative political commentators.

Palin believes the mainstream media is going to hit even harder at Romney's challengers while going easy on Romney himself because the mainstream press (as well as the Obama campaign team) want Romney to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. Romney will be a much easier candidate than Gingrich, Santorum, Perry or Paul for identification with the 1% vs. the 99%, already a major Obama campaign theme.

Here's what Governor Palin had to say on Judge Jeanine Pirro's show yesterday [about the 6:10 mark; transcript below].



Transcript:

Gov. Palin: "You know what Mitt Romney is going to face, though, in these coming days? He’s going to face from the mainstream media, I don’t really know how to describe this except to say, kind of a hands off approach from the mainstream media, because I believe the mainstream media and Obama want to face Mitt Romney in the general election because they are already gearing up to be able to portray him, accurately or inaccurately, they are going to portray him as being out of touch with the working class. As being so rich and from such a kind of perfectly coiffed family, maybe not facing the hardships that a lot of Americans do face, so hence being a bit out of touch from working class, middle class Americans, and the challenges that we all face. They are going to portray him as that, and I believe that they are going to have a hands off approach to him in the primaries, and really start beating up even heavier on Newt and on Santorum and all the other candidates in order to, I believe, try to bolster Romney’s chances of being the candidate to finally face Obama.

Judge Pirro: "But, isn’t it true, Governor, that most of the surveys that have been done indicate that Mitt Romney would indeed be the strongest Republican candidate against Obama? So, that would kind of go against your theory that they want to run against Mitt. I mean he is certainly, he appeals more to the independents, does he not?

Gov. Palin: "Well, my opinion is that I can see what’s coming and that’s that the media will try to bolster Romney so that they can try to tear him down. And that’s quite unfortunate. And my opinion, though, as we head through these primary states and get finally to the end of the line where we have a candidate is any of the candidates are going to be better than what we have in there today with the failed socialist policies of Barack Obama. Here, you know, thwarting the Constitution, and making appointments not even while the Senate is actually on a recess. While he’s cutting the military at a time when we shouldn’t be seen as an isolationist nation and why we shouldn’t be seen as being disinterested in what is going on in Iran and in Russia and in China. Here all the things that Obama is doing wrong that is still leading to high real unemployment rates, ridiculously high, and mortgages under water. And you know the housing crisis that really isn’t getting any better. Well, all those failed policies of Obama, any of these GOP candidates know better how to defend our Republic and the free market and free men and women who want opportunity to progress."

H/T Ian Lazaran

Tony Blankley, RIP

I will miss Tony Blankley and his clear-headed, insightful, charitable political commentary. I second Cal Thomas' praise: "He was the kind of writer who made me want to read what he said because I was always interested in what he said."

From the Washington Times tribute:

"Tony Blankley, a noted conservative commentator, Ronald Reagan speechwriter and former editorial page editor of The Washington Times, died late Saturday, leaving a legacy of significant analysis that bridged politics and culture with finesse, optimism and a sense of history.

"He was 63 and had been battling stomach cancer.

"At the time of his death, Mr. Blankley was an executive vice president of the Edelman public relations firm in Washington, a visiting senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation think tank, a syndicated newspaper columnist and an on-air political commentator for CNN, NBC and NPR.

"He was also a regular weekly guest on 'The McLaughlin Group.'

"From 1990 to 1997, he served as press secretary and general adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ultimately earning a reputation among political friends and foes as one of Washington’s most genial, quick-witted and effective operatives.

"Mr. Gingrich, campaigning in New Hampshire on Sunday for the Republican presidential nomination, called his former press secretary a 'very dear friend' and a key part of the team behind the 1994 Contract With America.

"'His father had been the accountant for Winston Churchill. Tony grew up with this deep passionate commitment, that I think he got from his dad, for freedom,' Mr. Gingrich said. 'Tony was a very special person. He was more than a great professional. He was a great human being. He was a caring and loving person. He was a tremendous amount of fun, remarkably erudite and educated.'"

From Tony's last column: Newt's Past and Future Leadership published at Real Clear Politics December 14, 2011:

". . . And after the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years (and the Senate, too, by the way), Gingrich's four years as speaker proved to be the most productive, legislative congressional years since at least 1965 to 1967, and they were led by Lyndon B. Johnson from the White House. Working against -- and with -- Democratic President Bill Clinton, we passed into law most of the Contract with America, welfare reform, telecommunications reform (which ushered in the modern cell phone and Internet age), we had the first balanced budget since before the Vietnam War, we cut taxes and lowered unemployment to under 5 percent.

"Just who the heck do all these wizard political pros think managed all that? It wasn't us clever staffers or many of the now grumbling GOP K Street crowd. We helped, but Gingrich led. I admit Gingrich's methods were not orthodox. He modified the seniority committee chairman system and picked the best members for the key posts. More than a few feathers got ruffled."

Associated Press Again Fails on Basic Reporting (and Misleads the Des Moines Register)

According to the Des Moines Register (relying on Associated Press reports*), there were no votes cast in Keokuk County for Jon Huntsman or "other" candidates.

However, Keokuk County's Daily Gate City reports that votes cast just at the Republican caucus at Keokuk High School included votes for Sarah Palin and Jon Huntsman:

"Other totals from the Keokuk Republican caucus were: former Pennsylvania congressman Rick Santorum, 46 votes or 14.6 percent; Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 24 votes or 7.6 percent; Minnesota congressman and Iowa native Michele Bachmann, nine votes; former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, five votes; and U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, two votes."
. . .

"Mike Foley, a self-described tea party member, asked caucus goers to write in Palin’s name.

“'We’re not looking for (former President Ronald) Reagan, we’re looking for Sarah Pallin (sic),' he said.

"Dr. Eloise Skelton backed Huntsman.

“'He can speak with people on foreign policy, he can work with people of both parties and he is smart,' Skelton said.

"When asked later about Huntsman’s lack of attention to Iowa compared to the other candidates, Skelton said Huntsman probably is trying to get more national exposure for a more serious presidential run in 2016."

The Associated Press couldn't find either Sarah Palin's or Jon Huntsman's votes, though the Daily Gate City was even able to name and interview some of the voters.

That's a mistake of 7 votes caught in just one caucus venue in one Iowa county. And Romney supposedly won the Iowa caucuses by only 8 votes. How many other counties' votes are inaccurate as well?

This, again, shows why 54% of Americans have a reason for not trusting the press. (Though, kudos go to small town reporters like those at the Keokuk Daily Gate City who with real shoe leather reporting embarrass the big guys at Associated Press.)

*The Des Moines Register's county details chart states it was "Designed and developed by Craig Johnson. Election returns as reported by the Associated Press."

H/T Ian Lazaran

Did Santorum Mistakenly Cite C. S. Lewis for Friendship Quotation?

I think Senator Rick Santorum mistakenly cited C. S. Lewis as the author for the quotation he read on friendship last night. Tony Lee:

“'C.S. Lewis said a friend is someone who knows the song in your heart and can sing it back to you when you have forgotten the words,' Santorum said last night, referring to his wife."

That doesn't sound like C. S. Lewis. In fact, Coolnsmart.com attributes it to Bernard Meltzer.

C. S. Lewis did highly value friendship and wrote about it at some length (see his chapter on "Friendship" in The Four Loves). But, Lewis saw friendship much less romantically than the quotation above.

First of all, Lewis saw friendship as group-oriented.

". . . for it is only four or five people who like one another meeting to do things that they like. This is friendship. Aristotle placed it among the virtues. It causes perhaps half of all the happiness in the world, and no Inner Ring can ever have it." ("Inner Ring" in The Weight of Glory)

"In a perfect Friendship this Appreciative Love is, I think, often so great and so firmly based that each member of the circle feels, in his secret heart, humbled before all the rest. Sometimes he wonders what he is doing there among his betters. He is lucky beyond desert to be in such company. Especially when the whole group is together, each bringing out all that is best, wisest, or funniest in all the others." ("Friendship" in The Four Loves)

Second, C. S. Lewis saw friendship as based on common interests and commitments rather than the more emotional figure of seeing into another person's heart.

"Friendship, I have said, is born at the moment when one man says to another, 'What! You too? I thought that no one but myself . . .'" ("Friendship" in The Four Loves)

"In [friendship], as Emerson said, Do you love me? means Do you see the same truth?--Or at least, "Do you care about the same truth?" The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance, can be our Friend. He need not agree with us about the answer." ("Friendship" in The Four Loves)

This is the closest I can find to Lewis linking "heart" and "friend".

"For we all wish to be judged by our peers, by the men 'after our own heart'. Only they really know our mind and only they judge it by standards we fully acknowledge. Theirs is the praise we really covet and the blame we really dread." ("Friendship" in The Four Loves)

But this isn't about seeing into another person's heart, but about sharing his values.

There isn't a lyrical passage like this in any of Lewis' letters to his life-long best friend, Arthur Greaves. (See They Stand Together)

Even in Lewis' most emotional book, A Grief Observed, on the loss of his wife, he does not write romantically about what lovers see in one another.

"Does H. now see exactly how much froth or tinsel there was in what she called, and I call, my love? So be it. Look your hardest, dear. I wouldn't hide if I could. We didn't idealize each other. We tried to keep no secrets. You knew most of the rotten places in me already. If you now see anything worse, I can take it. So can you. Rebuke, explain, mock, forgive. For this is one of the miracles of love; it gives--to both, but perhaps especially to the woman--a power of seeing through its own enchantments and yet not being disenchanted." (Chapter 4, A Grief Observed)

Singing the song back to you when you have forgotten the words is a lyrical way to say "encourage someone in tough times", but it was not C. S. Lewis' way. Senator Santorum might need someone to vet the quotations in his speeches.

Go Santorum!

I hope Rick Santorum does well, even comes in first, in Iowa. Not because I have decided that he is the best presidential candidate (even though he is in my top three).

It's because I want to see Dan Savage's sicko conspiracy buried. Savage plotted to make Santorum's last name bring up a filthy concept in Google searches. The Santorum presidential surge means that lots of people google his name to find out political and personal information, and those searches are eclipsing Savage's despicable plan.

So, do a few google searches on Santorum and click on the political and personal information links.

The sweet thing is that Savage's comeuppance didn't have to be orchestrated. Googling his last name already brings up a good description of his character.

H/T Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion