NRO Newsletters . . . Morning Jolt . . . with Jim Geraghty
April 24, 2012
|
Here's your Tuesday Morning Jolt!
Enjoy.
Jim |
| 1. Romney's Short List Is a Long One
It's a little amusing to watch Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio feign incredulity about running-mate selection, because when you bring a guy whom many conservatives adore from one swing state to campaign in another swing state, well, as they say on ESPN, come on, man. The Hill: Mitt Romney told reporters Monday that "the process for selecting a vice presidential running mate is just beginning" and there was no short list of candidates.
He made the remarks while standing alongside Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who's considered to be a favorite to be added to the Republican ticket.
"We really haven't had a discussion yet of putting together a list or evaluating various candidates," Romney said.
He made the remarks in his first press availability since he became the presumptive GOP nominee.
The former Massachusetts governor said that his campaign team along with adviser Beth Meyers -- who last week was put in charge of the search -- were spending time hiring law and financial firms to do a through vetting of the potential candidates.
And while Romney's appearance with Rubio in Philadelphia on Monday was widely thought to be a vice presidential audition, neither man was willing to openly acknowledge that prospect.
"I'm not talking about that process anymore," Rubio told reporters. The Florida senator has previously denied interest in the position.
For what it's worth, I thought Rubio's answer in this interview seemed pretty definitive: NRO: So . . . you're probably sick of being asked questions about being someone's running mate.
RUBIO: I guess I'm flattered that people ask about it -- people don't usually ask that about someone who they don't think is credible. But it's not going to happen. My answer on that issue hasn't changed.
NRO: When you say it's not going to happen, do you mean you don't expect to be asked, or that if offered, you would turn it down?
RUBIO: When you say it's not going to happen and you're not interested, they're not going to ask. You don't ask somebody to be your vice president who has already said they're not interested. It doesn't work that way, as you well know. There's a process to selecting a vice president. It's not like asking someone to go to the prom. This is a very significant decision that involves a lengthy process. If you're not involved in that process because you've made it clear you're not interested, you're not going to be asked.
NRO: So this is you sending a signal, "don't ask."
RUBIO: I'm focused on some other things going on right now. Particularly some issues that I look forward to being involved with in a majority in the Senate, if, God willing, we're able to win in November. At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey chuckles at how every denial from Rubio seems to set off another, more intense round of speculation. Wouldn't it be ironic if a Republican politician called for everyone to chill out for a while and let Mitt Romney engage in his process for picking a running mate -- and used it as a springboard for even more speculation? Oh, wait -- that's not irony, it's punditry. Either way or both at the same time, I doubt that anyone will take Marco Rubio's advice and find something else to discuss for the next three or four months . . . like, say, dog handling or cookie analysis:
Rubio says, "The last thing he needs are those of us in the peanut gallery to be saying what we would or would not do," so of course that's the first thing the rest of us will do. Look, people. Marco Rubio is doing everything possible to let you know that he's not interested in being part of a Republican presidential ticket! In fact, let's look at his schedule: On Wednesday, April 25, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) will deliver a major speech on the future of U.S. foreign policy at an event hosted by The Brookings Institution. Rubio's remarks will focus on whether U.S. global leadership is sustainable and even necessary in the 21stcentury. Ah. Yeah, that'll tamp down the speculation. |
2. We're Smarter, Better, and BelovedLet's not kid ourselves: We have some dumb people on our side -- just, thankfully, fewer than they have on their side. The Daily Caller: Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.
On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled "Partisan Differences in Knowledge."
The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.
"Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge," said the study, which noted that Democrats outscored Republicans on five questions by an average of 4.6 percent. "Better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism" -- and more modest, too! I mean, we probably are those things, but no need to go around bragging about it. Of course, this detail seems particularly fascinating: A March Washington Post poll showed that Democrats were more willing to change their views about a subject to make their team look good. For example, in 2006, 73 percent of Democrats said the GOP-controlled White House could lower gas prices, but that number fell by more than half to 33 percent in 2012 once a Democrat was in the White House.
In contrast, the opinions of GOP supporters were more consistent. Their collective opinion shifted by only a third, according to the data. In 2006, 47 percent in believed the White House could influence gas prices. By 2012, that number had risen to 65 percent up 17 points compared to the Democrats' 40 point shift. Susan Duclos observes: The social networking results compared with the partisan knowledge gaps which remain consistent according to Pew makes perfect sense when combined, because if liberals refuse to draw on a knowledge base simply because they disagree and will delete, unfriend or completely ignore someone who disagrees politically, then they are limiting their knowledge pool to sources that agree with their own "opinion" rather than sources that could offer additional facts. |
3. Is John Edwards Really Such a Great Legal Mind? You're probably sick of John Edwards. I'm sick of John Edwards. Everybody's sick of John Edwards, except for 3 percent of poll respondents. But I found this detail fascinating. Just before John Edwards was indicted Friday, prosecutors made a final offer: They would accept his guilty plea to three misdemeanor campaign finance law violations in the $925,000 cover-up of his affair.
With the deal, the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee would avoid a felony conviction -- and almost certainly keep the law license that had made him wealthy.
But there was a catch.
The government wanted to dictate a sentence that would result in up to six months of prison for Edwards, even with the plea to lesser charges.
Edwards and his lawyers were concerned. They wanted the ability to at least argue to a judge for alternatives, such as a halfway house, weekend releases, home arrest or some arrangement that would allow Edwards to be with his school-age children. He is a single parent after the death of his wife, Elizabeth, in December.
But the way the possible plea deal was structured, the Edwards lawyers believed they would be muzzled from advocating at all about Edwards' confinement before a judge, according to multiple people who were involved in the negotiations. Those sources described the plea negotiations in detail on a condition of anonymity because the case is ongoing. Just how much legal work does Edwards think he'll be getting in the future? What client would want him in front of a jury?
Anyway, Walter Shaprio writes at the New Republic that Edwards may be in much more legal trouble than coverage has suggested: Up to now, the pre-trial coverage has assumed that [philanthropist Bunnie] Mellon, like [now-deceased Dallas trial lawyer Fred] Baron, was intent on helping Edwards cover up his philandering. But the trial will raise the strong possibility -- and you will have to trust me on the sourcing for this -- that the then-97-year-old socialite was as ignorant of the existence of Rielle Hunter (or any other Other Woman) as any Democratic voter besotted with John Edwards. When she was asked for the money, delivered in seven installments beginning in June 2007, she apparently thought that she was donating in some round-robin fashion to the Edwards campaign, not covering up an affair. The editors are doubtful any crime was committed: If Edwards et al. have committed other crimes, then they should be prosecuted, but to prosecute him under campaign-finance rules in a situation in which no campaign funds were used and no campaign expenses paid seems a stretch. We have had enough unseemliness associated with Edwards without adding a questionable prosecution to the catalog. |
4. Addendum
Saturday Night Live alumnus Jon Lovitz sounds like a deeply disappointed, deeply angry Obama voter. Profane-language warning: This is probably not safe for work. |
| | | | Save 75% . . . Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the regular subscription rate. Click here for details. Check out all of NRO's free newsletters: Morning Jolt, The Goldberg File, NRO Digest, and NROriginals. Click here for details. 
|
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Join the Morning Jolt Mailing List - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | |
Comments
Post a Comment