NRO Newsletters . . . Morning Jolt . . . with Jim Geraghty
April 26, 2012
|
Here's your Thursday Morning Jolt!
Enjoy.
Jim |
| 1. The U.S. Solicitor General, Befallen by an Old Gypsy Curse
After an unexpectedly bad performance at the Supreme Court's oral arguments over Obamacare, I called Solicitor General Donald Verilli the Scott Norwood of Supreme Court arguments. But Norwood was famous for one high-stakes miss.
I'm having a hard time coming up with famous two-time high-stakes goats. Not Joe Pisarcik. Not Grady Little. Not Bill Buckner. Will they soon be referred to as the Don Verillis of the sports world? In Wednesday's oral arguments, Supreme Court justices showed little sympathy for the federal government's complaint that state police officers would violate federal immigration jurisdiction if they check the status of someone they pull over. That argument is seen by legal analysts as the weakest in the government's case against the Arizona statute.
Justice Antonin Scalia all but laughed the federal government's lawyer out of the courtroom when he suggested that Arizona police officers would somehow deter the federal government from enforcing immigration by calling federal officials to ask about a person they stop. "Arizona isn't trying to kick out anybody that the federal government hasn't already said doesn't belong here," he said. "The Constitution recognizes that there is such a thing as state borders and a state can police their borders." "How do you know you've had a bad day at the Supreme Court -- or in Donald Verilli's case, another bad day?" asks Ed Morrissey. When a justice who is presumably sympathetic to your case tells you your argument "isn't selling very well" and you might want to try coming up with another, you're probably having a bad day. Once again, the rough treatment of the Solicitor General in a case brought by the Obama administration seems to signal that the White House will suffer a big loss. After noting that oral arguments don't always foreshadow how justices will vote, he concludes: If the White House loses their challenge to the most controversial part of the law, expect the Left to go after Verrilli again as they did after his difficult day defending ObamaCare. He may have performed better this time, though, at least on the secondary issues. And once again, the problem was less with Verrilli and more with the administration's positions that Verrilli had to defend. |
2. Obama, the Wealthy State Senator Who Struggled with Student LoansABC News' Jonathan Karl looks at Obama's tales of struggling to pay back his student loans well into adulthood, and finds they don't quite add up. But according to their tax returns, which are available on the White House website, the Obamas had a healthy, six-figure income by the year 2000 (the earliest return available). And for at least two years before his loans were paid off, Obama, by his own definition, made so much they were wealthy enough to pay higher taxes.
Here's a rundown of the president's income, according to his tax returns, in the years before he paid off his student loans:
2004: $207,647
2003: $238,327
2002: $259,394
2001: $272,759
2000: $240,505
In 2001 and 2002, the Obamas would have met the $250,000 standard the president has set for those wealthy enough to afford to pay more taxes.
It's also notable that the Obamas didn't claim deductions for student loans on any of those years, most likely because they made too much money to qualify for the student loan deduction.
Then again, being wealthy enough to pay higher taxes under the Obama plan does not mean the Obamas were not struggling for years to pay off their student loans. Which is the point: Obama's definition of "wealthy" is significantly lower than most Americans'. If husband and wife each make $125,000 per year, they clearly are doing well, but they may not live the lifestyle associated with "the rich," especially if they live in an area with a high cost of living. An increasingly common term for this demographic is HENRYs -- "High Earners, Not Rich Yet" -- and in Obama's us-vs.-them world, there's no room for this sort of nuance. |
3. The Sheep, Unloading Their Entire Clip, Emerge from the Dust Victorious There's no point in gloating to Newt Gingrich's frustrated supporters, some of whom I respect a great deal. But the adventure of the Gingrich campaign is nearing its close: Newt Gingrich told Mitt Romney on Wednesday morning that he would suspend his presidential campaign next week and begin working to turn out conservative voters for Mr. Romney and Republican candidates in the fall election, Mr. Gingrich's spokesman said in an interview.
Mr. Gingrich plans to officially endorse Mr. Romney's candidacy after suspending his own efforts next week, said R.C. Hammond, the spokesman. Mr. Hammond said that Mr. Romney was "cordial and respectful" during the call and that Mr. Gingrich said he was "committed to helping him in the fall."
"A Republican turnout, especially among conservatives, is key to stopping an Obama second term," Mr. Hammond said in a brief interview with The Times. "Victory only comes for Republicans with a strong conservative turnout in the fall." I myself was hoping for more of an "out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia" tone as found in Gingrich's earlier statements, rendered in cartoon form here.
The rise, fall, second rise, second fall, and then long, stumbling conclusion of the Gingrich campaign do offer a few lessons for future candidates. Sometimes you can advance your causes, your ideas, and your stature within the party in a campaign that doesn't succeed. Ronald Reagan in 1976 is the classic example, but the same description might apply to Pat Buchanan's bids in 1992 and 1996, Mike Huckabee's bid in 2008, and Rick Santorum's bid this year.
But Phil Klein takes measure of Gingrich and finds his stature diminished in almost every sense by the campaign: Going into the campaign, Gingrich had a career as an author, speaker, Fox contributor and policy entrepreneur. But now, as Molly Ball reported last week: The Fox News contributor gig is no longer, having been suspended when Gingrich became a candidate, and quietly canceled thereafter. Relations between Gingrich and the cable channel have notably soured. Recently, Gingrich told a Delaware Tea Party group that he felt the network had exhibited a bias against him, accusing it of "distortion"; the network fired back with a biting statement: "He's still bitter over the termination of his contributor contract." It seems safe to say that bridge, for Gingrich, has been burned.
The policy and consulting enterprise Gingrich helmed is similarly on the rocks. American Solutions for Winning the Future, his major nonprofit, shut down last August, and the Gingrich Group, his for-profit advocacy shop, filed for bankruptcy in Georgia earlier this month. Together, the two entities had grossed more than $100 million over the course of a decade, according to Bloomberg. Now, thanks to Gingrich's quest for the presidency, they are defunct. Had Gingrich's campaign actually lived up to his branding of it as being solutions oriented, it might have served some benefit, even if it came at a personal cost. But Gingrich's campaign for president was largely an embarrassment to himself and to conservatives. Early on, he attacked Rep. Paul Ryan's entitlement reforms as "right-wing social engineering" and as he became desperate to make gains against Mitt Romney, he attacked free market capitalism. Given his penchant for saying outlandish and unexpected things, I expect to see him reemerge as a media figure. Coming soon to CNN: a new Crossfire, featuring Newt Gingrich . . . and Keith Olbermann.
When Olbermann manages to get himself fired from that gig, they'll replace him with Anthony Weiner. |
4. Addendum I don't know how many readers of the Morning Jolt are members of the National Press Club in Washington, but I'll be giving a talk there on Monday. Here's the too-generous notice for my talk: Have you ever wondered how to make it big online as a journalist? To create your own unique presence in a sea of voices? If you have then don't miss this upcoming "Get it Online" Lunch & Learn sponsored by the Events Committee with National Review writer Jim Geraghty on Monday, April 30th from 11:45 a.m. - 1:15 p.m.
Geraghty is a blogger and regular contributor to National Review Online and National Review. He writes a daily newsletter titled "The Morning Jolt" blogs on "The Campaign Spot" at NRO and has over 19,000 followers on Twitter. Geraghty will join with members of the Club at lunch to discuss how to be successful as an online journalist and what it takes to be a journalist covering politics in DC.
Lunch will start promptly at 12 p.m. Prepared remarks will be limited to 15 minutes to maximize time for an informal discussion among the participants and Geraghty.
Seating is limited. Members should register in advance. There is no fee to register but you must be logged into the website in order to register. Members will provide their member numbers to the wait staff and pay for their own lunch.
For questions, contact Kim Bender at kimberlybender@gmail.com or Havilah Ross at hross@press.org. |
| | | | 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