Steven J. Gulitti's Open Salon Blog

Mitt Romney's Disturbing Selective Amnesia

Fri, 11 May 2012 17:05:03 -0400

Seems that Mitt Romney may be suddenly suffering from a disturbing bout of selective amnesia, apparently he can't remember having led an attack on another student at his prep school, one John Lauber, where Romney himself cut off the poor soul's hair. You see Lauber was a nonconformist who apparently marched to his own drummer and this was something Romney and his crew couldn’t abide. Quoting a recent Washington Post article, “Mitt Romney’s prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents”: “[Matthew] Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors. The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be identified.”

It goes without saying that the above account hardly paints Mitt Romney in a favorable or noble light and even though the incident took place so many years ago and could legitimately be considered to be out of character behavior, the real issue here isn’t whether or not it happened but Romney’s claim that he couldn’t recall the incident. In the ensuing fallout of this revelation Romney, appearing on Fox News, said “As to pranks that were played back then, I don’t remember them all, but again, high school days, if I did stupid things, why, I’m afraid I’ve got to say sorry for it”

First of all it’s highly unlikely that one could ever forget having engaged in such behavior unless, of course, this behavior was ongoing and common in which case Mitt Romney might forget one among many haircuts administered to offbeat class mates as there would be too many to remember in the first place. Also, the fact that five of those who were involved or witnessed the incident possess specific and vivid recollections to this day of the of the attack on Lauber pretty much renders Mitt Romney’s claim that he can’t remember the incident to be suspect prima facie.

So what we’re left to consider is two very unsettling questions related to Mitt Romney’s character. First, is he so driven by ambition as to totally disregard the truth in an attempt to skirt clear of this issue? What about the presumption of honesty that the voter is to have when assessing the qualifications of a candidate for president? Are we to assume in the final analysis that Mitt Romney is no more honest than the guy running a 3 Card Monty game on the street even though he’s got better credentials and wears well tailored suits? Secondly if Romney really and truly couldn’t recall an event as brazenly bold and dramatic as attacking another student and cutting off his hair, how can we rely on him to remember those important facts about economics, foreign and domestic policy, national security and military matters that are the daily bread of the president of the United States?

I’ll be the first to admit that I was no saint in high school or immediately thereafter and I myself pulled off a few bold and brazen stunts, some of which were truly stupid if not physically reckless, one or two which could have been considered borderline criminal. However, it doesn’t take too much of an effort to summon up memories of each and every one of them. I for the life of me can’t believe that Romney could, as if by magic, fail to remember an incident so searing in its boldness as the attack on John Lauber. Prior to this story the rap on Romney was that he was too rich to relate or too socially inept to come across as the proverbial “guy you’d like to have a beer with.” However this disturbing story from the past doesn’t bode well for Romney and only serves, along with others, to further keep him from getting back to the one topic where can actually take Barack Obama to task and that’s talking about the economy. In a campaign where negative attacks have already begun and will only intensify, Mitt Romney’s prep school past has just yielded up another negative image that belies his squeaky clean persona and will surely be used against him somewhere along the road to the 6th of November.

Steven J. Gulitti

5/11/12

Sources:

Mitt Romney’s prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents; http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/m...OKFU_story.html

Bullying Story Spurs Apology From Romney; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/us/pol...mp;ref=politics

Apology Tour; http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/10/apology-tour/?xid=thepage_newsletter

The Worst Jobs Record Of Any Governor In America‏

Wed, 9 May 2012 14:05:02 -0400

Remember back in February, at the height of the controversy surrounding public employee unions in Wisconsin, the idea was trotted out that Governor Scott Walker's anti-union efforts were part and parcel of a broader, bolder economic vision that would lead to growth and prosperity in the Badger State? Now one year on and with a recall election looming for Walker ironically it may be his record on job creation that does Walker more harm than his anti-union sentiments. Why, because since he took office and enacted his program "Wisconsin has lost more jobs...than any other state", according to Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What follows is an analysis of Scott Walker's economic performance. The figures below are all seasonally adjusted and all charts, graphs and statistics courtesy of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

1) Total Jobs. "In Gov. Walker’s first 13 months (using December 2010 as the baseline), the state lost 8,500 non-farm jobs. That was worst among the 50 states. Only four other states experienced a net decrease in that time. If you take the most recent 12 months -- January 2011 to January 2012 – the state lost 12,500 non-farm jobs, also worst in the nation, a fact Democrats have seized on."

2)Government jobs. "Wisconsin shed 14,500 public-sector jobs during Walker’s first thirteen months. That was the fifth-biggest decrease among 50 states in terms of total jobs lost, and the second biggest decrease in percentage terms (3.5%) after Texas."

3) Private-sector jobs. "In Walker’s first year in office (ending last December), Wisconsin had the 49th worst record for private-sector job growth, losing 9,700 jobs. But preliminary January numbers released last week were the best of any month so far of the Walker tenure: private-sector jobs rose by 15,700. That now puts the state in the positive column for net private job growth during the governor’s first 13 months, with 6,000 jobs added. Still, it’s a long way from the governor’s campaign promise of 250,000 new private-sector jobs during his first term. It also places the state 36th among the 50 states in private-sector job growth since Walker took office..."

4) Wisconsin’s performance compared to the nation. "The state has lagged substantially behind the national pace in private-sector job growth"

Here’s the Wisconsin trend compared to other midwestern states:

A close examination of the data points provided by the Journal Sentinel reveal a track record of failure for Scott Walker, a track record that lays waste to his claims about being a leader who could effect positive economic growth in Wisconsin. Like those who touted the windfalls that would follow austerity in Europe and elsewhere, those who banked heavily on Walkers program in Wisconsin have likewise invested too heavily in wishful thinking and the worn out rhetoric of fiscal conservativism. To date neither Scott Walker's program nor austerity generally have been at all effective in the throes of a major economic downturn. Like Europe, Wisconsin has little to point to for having bet so heavily on theories that, to my knowledge, have never worked in this type of economic environment.

To make matters worse, Walker's union and economic woes may be the least of his worries, for you see Scott Walker has also been implicated in a criminal complaint against some of his aides that may involve theft of public time and money: "A recall from his position as Wisconsin's governor could ultimately be the least of Gov. Scott Walker's worries, if a criminal complaint quietly moving forward in the Badger State court system continues on its current trajectory. At the moment, Walker seems to be at the bottom of a mountain where an avalanche is just beginning to roll. A 51-page criminal complaint (the "Rindfleisch complaint"), which formally charges Kelly M. Rindfleisch with four felony counts of misconduct in public office, contains factual allegations which implicate a number of individuals, listed as "interested parties," including WI's controversial Republican Governor, in a wide-reaching criminal conspiracy to misuse public employees and resources for partisan political gain."

Another potential problem for Walker may arise from the fact that Walker is currently sitting on a $25 Million dollar plus war chest amassed to save his job from a recall election. Why, because much of that money is likely to have come from donors seen in the state as unwelcomed interlopers of the ultraconservative variety. According to Chuck Todd of MSNBC, two thirds of that money came from out of state contributors, something that his opponents are sure to focus on even as they themselves receive outside funding.

All of this adds up to what could be a toxic stew for Walker: residual public animosity borne of his anti-union animus, generally the worst job creation record in the nation, criminal scandal and the taint of being a tool of wealthy conservatives like the Koch Brothers. From what I've read it seems that the Wisconsin electorate is almost evenly divided for and against Walker's recall with a mere 5% of the voters undecided. Will this toxic soup be enough to sway that 5% or cause others to go from voting for Walker to voting against Walker? It's impossible to know but even if Walker succeeds in remaining in office after the recall it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory anyway. It certainly will be if he survives and ends up out of office due to being tied to criminal misconduct. But then again, even if he survives all of these challenges its hard to see how, going forward, he could ever truly regain public trust and political effectiveness. After all voters elect politicians to office so they can produce tangible policy results and bipartisan harmony, not conflict and controversy. Walker may have already engendered so much of the later that it will cripple him in achieving the former.

Steven J. Gulitti
5/9/12

Sources:

In Wisconsin Recall Fight, Focus Shifts from Unions to Jobs: http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/08/in-...e#ixzz1uNnuVPFw

The politics of Wisconsin's sluggish job growth; http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/142860605.html#!page=17&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst

Latest Indictments Look Bad for Scott Walker; http://www.progressive.org/latest_indictments_look_bad_for_scott_walker.html

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Implicated in Criminal Complaint Against Aides; http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=6692:wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-implicated-in-criminal-complaint-against-aides

Desperately Denying Reality

Tue, 1 May 2012 19:05:18 -0400

Over the past few days we’ve witnessed a barrage of criticism aimed at Barack Obama for his comments on, and a televised feature commemorating, the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death. Mitt Romney and many of his allies on the right initially tried to downplay, minimize or spin the political significance of bin Laden’s removal or they have tried to frame Obama’s televised piece as a “cheap political ploy”, a mere campaign promotional.

Mitt Romney, while campaigning in New Hampshire and asked about Osama bin Laden’s liquidation replied that he, of course, would have done the very same thing, suggesting that Obama’s decision was a “no brainer” that even Jimmy Carter would understand. Oddly enough, Mitt Romney was actually against such a move before he was for it, sort of a reverse of the flip flopping once ascribed to John Kerry. Back in August of 2007 Mitt Romney was singing an entirely different song: “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan…I [Romney] do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours… I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort…” Another one of Romney’s comments of 2007 is also coming back to haunt him, his statement to the Associated Press that with regard to getting bin Laden “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” Romney operative and veteran conservative mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, appearing on Meet the Press, claimed that Obama’s referring back to the bin Laden killing was somehow “divisive”, something that was driving a wedge further and further through American society. If Gillespie’s words aren’t representative of pure spin then what is, after all when is it inappropriate to acknowledge a military or security victory and how would it be considered divisive unless those doing the complaining had something to feel defensive about? Political commentator David Korn noted that Mitt Romney’s haughty and disdainful comments on Obama’s decision in the bin Laden hit give rise to the question of whether or not Romney himself appreciates and understands the gravity of the situation which Obama confronted in ordering the raid as well as whether or not Romney would be capable of performing as a Commander in Chief. To suggest that Obama’s decision was somehow obvious and apparent raises real questions as to Mitt Romney’s own judgment in dealing with matters of grave national importance regarding homeland security. After all committing special forces to this sort of operation can be a most dangerous endeavor as the experience of President Carter had already proven to be the case.

It’s obvious as to why Romney and his Republican minions are so desperately trying to underplay the importance of Barack Obama’s single greatest national security achievement, prior Republican administrations had almost eight years to achieve the same outcome and failed to do so. George W. Bush, after strutting across the deck of an American aircraft carrier under a banner touting the phrase “Mission Accomplished”, would go on to preside over the greatest foreign policy debacle in American history. That debacle, wherein which Iraq would be torn from end to end in an eruption of violence that would ultimately consume thousands of American lives as well as those of many more Iraqis came as a complete surprise to the Bush Administration who claimed that we would be welcomed as liberators. Its hardly a stretch to say that Bush’s war in Iraq coupled with rising isolationist talk among today’s right has had the effect of completely undermining the traditional Republican claim that they are the party best qualified to insure national defense and homeland security. This is a particularly vexing situation for the G.O.P. as it was on their watch that the country had gone from surplus to deficit, driven in a large part by the Bush Administration’s decision to go to war while at the same time cutting taxes, a first in American history. In today’s geopolitical calculus economic power ranks right along with military might in determining global power and to have severely undermined America’s balance sheet in pursuit of riding the world of Saddam Hussein factors in as much in the final analysis of Bush’s war in Iraq as does any military or political miscalculation. Just imagine how much different things would be here today if we had spent that $1.1 trillion dollars on roads, bridges and infrastructure in America rather than on two allies of questionable military and political value in South Asia.

Perhaps it is the reality that in many instances American conservatives have been consistently wrong in their approach to dealing with the changed world of Islam. They totally misread and misrepresented the connection, to the extent that it ever existed, between al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. They totally misread the rise of the post war anti-American insurgency, labeling the insurgents, in Donald Rumsfeld’s words “dead enders”, when they were anything but desperate men who were running out of options. They initially declared that Iraq and Afghanistan would be model democracies in a region dominated by autocrats and that dream has yet to be realized as well. Dick Cheney would go on to warn us that electing Barck Obama would guarantee another terror attack on American soil and that hasn’t happened either. Lastly, the ultra conservatives in America have completely misread the Arab Spring and fallen for the notion that it was a front for al Qaeda’s drive for a new world caliphate which it most certainly is not.

As for whether or not deciding to go in for the kill on Osama bin Laden was a lay up or not, the after action analysis reveals that nothing, from bin Laden’s actual location to a high probability of mission success was anything but guaranteed. Michael E. Leiter, Director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center at the time of the raid said on the cable circuit today that there was never any unanimous consensus as to whether or not bin Laden was in Abbottabad when the decision to launch the raid was made, the probability was put at 50-50. Likewise is assessing whether or not to launch the raid, many of Obama’s advisers put the chances for success at 40 percent. Admiral Mike Mullen, the head of the Joint Chiefs at the time, also quoted on the cable shows today, said that the decision to launch the raid to kill bin Laden’s was Obama’s alone thereby laying waste to the idea that Obama was indecisive and prodded into action by his advisors. In fact if you look at Obama’s record there’s no way that his conservative critics can honestly make the case that he’s an appeaser or someone who’s been weak in handling America’s security concerns. Quoting Peter L. Bergen of the New America Foundation: “The president who won the Nobel Peace Prize less than nine months after his inauguration has turned out to be one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades…Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership. He overthrew the Libyan dictator. He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. And, of course, Mr. Obama ordered and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden…Mr. Obama’s readiness to use force — and his military record — have won him little support from the right. Despite countervailing evidence, most conservatives view the president as some kind of peacenik. From both the right and left, there has been a continuing, dramatic cognitive disconnect between Mr. Obama’s record and the public perception of his leadership: despite his demonstrated willingness to use force, neither side regards him as the warrior president he is.”

Whether or not Barack Obama should use, or to what degree he could use the bin Laden raid as a backdrop for his reelection campaign is a legitimate question as the same controversy arose when George Bush did the same thing when he used Ground Zero as a backdrop for his 2004 campaign. However, that’s where the debate ends and the commentary on who, how and why said decisions were made and whether or not Barack Obama exhibited any personal courage and sound judgment in making them is now beyond the pale of the debate as the after action analysis shows. When Mitt Romney or his lieutenants use the issue of Obama’s campaign piece as the takeoff point to belittle the president’s accomplishments in the war on terror they have clearly crossed the line of what constitutes intellectual and factual honesty. The inane prattle about Obama’s actions being divisive or demeaning to the significance of the operation are nothing more then the parroting of shopworn talking points being mouthed by people who have nothing of substance to say in the first place and those comments should be identified as such. Barack Obama’s actions in defending America are likewise unequivocal and conservatives, if they want to be taken seriously, would be better served looking elsewhere for their critiques. President Obama built on the accomplishments of the previous administration in the area of counterterrorist operations and scuttled most of that which was ill conceived or ineffective. That’s what’s called effective and efficient leadership and conservatives need to acknowledge that as well. In the long run Mitt Romney has probably done nothing but given the Obama reelection team another sound bite to use against himself, nothing altogether new there as it turns out.

Steven J. Gulitti

5/1/12

Sources:

Romney attacks Obama over Pakistan warning; http://in.reuters.com/article/2007/08/04/idINIndia-28811520070804

Romney’s 2007 Bin Laden Gaffe Comes Back To Haunt Him; http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/romneys-2007-bin-laden-gaffe-comes-back-to-haunt-him.php

President Obama Dings Mitt Romney Over Bin Laden Ad Complaints; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/obama-osama-bin-laden-ad-mitt-romney_n_1465232.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=050112&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Warrior in Chief; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/president-obama-warrior-in-chief.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

True Republican Mavericks

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:04:13 -0400

Retiring Republican Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe seems to be taking a parting shot at the right wing extremism currently infecting the G.O.P. She recently said that she will not necessarily give her $2.36 million dollar war chest to another Republican. Quoting an article from the Kennebec Journal "outgoing Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) may be using her campaign cash to aid candidates of her choice rather than her party. In a letter written last week but released Tuesday, Snowe told campaign donors that she planned to give leftover cash to candidates in the "sensible center" rather than pledging that money to Republicans, signaling that the eventual GOP nominee may not be moderate enough for her taste."

Snowe's profile in courage in standing up to radical rightwing extremism was picked up by the leader of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a guy named Matt Canter, who opined: "Mitch McConnell and national Republicans have disenfranchised moderates in Maine and across the country...So it should not be a surprise that Sen. Snowe is questioning whether to give her money to support the extremist, right-wing Republican agenda."

Few would deny that Olympia Snowe has the courage of her convictions and she can only be seen as a leader of what's left of the "sensible" right. Is she a fading voice in the wilderness or is she one of the first among an emerging element of Republicans who are seeking to "take their party back" from the political amateurs on the far right? Could it be that those radicals who may have shot their bolt in 2010 and whom have since proven only that they can succeed in obstructing government when the American people want bipartisan compromise and results have created an opening for the sensible conservatives to reassert themselves?

As it turns out there's increasing evidence that Senator Snowe may be far from a fading voice on the right. A recent Republican primary fight in Illinois, between Don Manzullo and Adam Kinzinger, revealed a weakened and ineffective Tea Party who's candidate was beaten by a Republican freshman who had refused to toe the extremist line even though he was backed by the Tea Party when first elected. However when you go behind the headline what you find is that one of the G.O.P.'s rising stars, Eric Cantor played a important role in Kinzinger's victory: "Kinzinger, meanwhile, got a critical boost from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who bucked convention by endorsing the Air National Guard pilot while his allied super PAC dropped $50,000 on a pro-Kinzinger ad."

Right next door in Indiana long time senator Richard Lugar is also facing a Tea Party backed challenger and both Governor Mitch Daniels and the man once considered to be the G.O.P.'s preeminent maverick, John McCain, have come to Lugar's assistance. But even more importantly is the fact that in both Illinois and Indiana, as well as in several other states, the mavericks have super PAC money helping them blunt the extreme right as well. "Major donors, including former fundraisers for President George W. Bush and McCain, are putting money into pro-Lugar super PACs. Lugar, moreover, isn't the only incumbent or establishment Republican candidate receiving strong support from big donors through super PACs and political nonprofits. This election cycle the GOP establishment has turned to these new unlimited-money vehicles to help tamp down the Tea Party insurgency that many in the top tiers of the party blamed for the Republicans' failure to take control of the Senate in 2010. Super PACs and political nonprofits, despite arguments that they have expanded the ability of competitors to challenge incumbents, may actually be doing the opposite. The flow of money released by the 2010 Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions has encouraged independent GOP establishment-oriented groups and donors to get involved in primary contests that had previously been dominated by the more radical Club for Growth and FreedomWorks."

Further to the west the same situation is clearly evident. "In Utah, Sen. Orrin Hatch appears to be successfully fighting back a Tea Party challenge with the help of the American Action Network." At the same time another prominent Utah politico, Jon Huntsman has publicly criticized the Party: "Gone are the days when the Republican Party used to put forward big, bold, visionary stuff, I think we're going to have problems politically until we get some sort of third-party movement or some alternative voice out there that can put forward new ideas." Meanwhile in Texas, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has the "support of two super PACs, backed with major contributions from the biggest Republican donors, against a challenge from former state Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who is supported by Tea Party-aligned groups including the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks."

What we seem to be observing is a cadre of Republican leaders who, for the past two years, have been drowned out by Republican Party radicals and who, aware of the failure to retake the Senate in 2010 and the Party's historically low standing, are now working to defeat these same radicals in an intraparty fight. The irony of this is that the big money that came out of Citizens United seems to be flowing against the right wing radicals within the G.O.P. and working to the advantage of those who are truly concerned about the G.O.P. and who want to take their party back.

S.J. Gulitti

4/26/12

Sources:

Olympia Snowe War Chest May Not Go To Next Republican Nominee; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/olympia-snowe-war-chest-republican-nominee_n_1449753.html?ref=topbar

Illinois Primary Reveals a Weakened Tea Party; http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/22/illinois-primary-reveals-a-weakened-tea-party/

Senate Races 2012: Republican Establishment Tries To Tamp Down Tea Party Insurgency; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/senate-races-2012-republican-establishment-tea-party_n_1437646.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=042012&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Jon Huntsman Criticizes Republican Party, Compares Actions To Communist China; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/22/jon-huntsman-gop_n_1444529.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=042312&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Mr. Fiscal Responsibility

Sun, 22 Apr 2012 12:04:54 -0400

Remember how Newt Gingrich so reverently and so often spoke about the need to be a good steward of the public's money? Odd but the principle of fiscal sanity doesn't seem to apply to Mr. Gingrich himself. Of late it's come to the fore that Newt Gingrich is costing the American taxpayer $40 Thousand dollars a day for Secret Service protection according to Liz Marlantes of the Christian Science Monitor, who appeared on this morning's Chris Matthews Show.

Gingrich, who's campaign for the Republican nomination is effectively over, a fact that's obvious to everyone save Newt himself, has now come under fire from tax activist groups as well who can't help but point out the fiscal irresponsibility of Gingrich's continued use of Secret Service protection: “For a guy who for all intents and purpose, and isn’t doing a lot of campaigning, needs to suspend his Secret Service detail,” said David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance in Alexandria, Va. “He needs to do what’s right for the taxpayer and say, ‘I’m done with Secret Service protection...Gingrich has the “Camp David” package of Secret Service, which includes but is not limited to six cars, six federal agents, four state troopers at a campaign stop, four local agents when the candidate arrives and a press agent if there is a press bus, a person with knowledge of the Gingrich campaign said. Although the cost to keep the Secret Service detail on the Gingrich campaign couldn’t be determined, it includes agents’ meals, hotel stays, transportation and salary. The person with knowledge of the Secret Service and the campaign said Gingrich’s protection might be helping him stay in race because the cost is borne by taxpayers.” What that last sentence means is that there are numerous and sundry expenses that the Gingrich campaign need not lay out due to being protected by the Secret Service. These outlays would include costs related to: vehicular transport, drivers, gas, advance staff to prepare the next campaign stop for the candidates arrival as well as private security for the candidate which costs $50 thousand dollars a month. Thus in effect taxpayer money flowing into the Gingrich campaign via the Secret Service is in a large part keeping this moribund effort alive and sputtering forward all on your dime.

But its not just the American taxpayer who's getting stiffed by Newt Gingrich, its many a small business owner as well. Now isn't that odd, that Gingrich, who has so often extolled on the virtues and importance of small business would have no problem leaving these same people holding the bag as a result of his failure to pay bills for services rendered? Quoting Dan Eggen of the Washington Post " Newt Gingrich, whose quixotic presidential bid has been dogged by financial problems, racked up nearly $3 million in new debt for private jet flights, security consultants and travel costs in March even as his campaign teetered on the edge of collapse, according to new disclosures. The former House speaker entered April with $4.3 million in total debt, up from $1.5 million the month before, according to reports filed late Friday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)...The disclosures outline what has become a typical scenario for Gingrich in his topsy-turvy, year-long campaign for the White House, which nearly imploded last summer amid runaway spending and staff defections. Financial problems also have swallowed the private consulting empire he built after leaving the House in the late 1990s, including a private health-care think tank that filed for bankruptcy earlier this month." So not only has Gingrich shortchanged a number of private business, he's also destroyed much of his own business enterprise as well. As such I think its safe to say that its a God send that this political charlatan isn't about to secure the Republican nomination for president, least he be elected president. Based on this self inflicted personal financial debacle can you just imagine what kind of damage he might wreck on the nation as a whole? One things been proven out by Gingrich's latest political misadventure and that is that he's no fiscal Einstein.

In the final analysis this latest Gingrich denouement is but a sad commentary on the politics of ego and vanity as well as the poisonous effect of Citizens United which allowed a single contributor, Sheldon Adelson, to fuel the egotistical drive of a man who was easily the most unsavory candidate, in terms of ethical and marital trespasses, of the entire Republican field. Perhaps Newt Gingrich should take some of his speeches on fiscal responsibility, stand before a mirror, and reread his own words while periodically looking into that mirror so as to come to terms with his own hypocrisy. I think its fair to say that Mr. Gingrich's rare second act in American Politics is at an end, save for his next cable news gig. Such is the pathos of ego, vanity and ill conceived fiscal folly.

Steven J. Gulitti

4/22/12

Sources:

Gingrich Urged to End Secret Service Detail at Taxpayer Expense; http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...xpayer-expense/

Newt Gingrich goes deeper in debt as campaign disintegrates; http://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/22/po...-disintegrates/