Ron Paul Campaign Pushes Back Against Former Staffer's Report

I've commented pretty heavily on all of this already, but there's more news out today on the Ron Paul racism controversies.

National Journal reports that the Paul campaign is going ballistic over Eric Dondero's hit piece out today, "Ex-Aide: Ron Paul Foreign Policy is 'Sheer Lunacy': Eric Dondero says Paul is an anti-Israel 9/11 truther."

Dondero's report is at Right Wing News, "Statement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism."

I saw it earlier at Althouse's, where she lasers in on the intensity of Dondero's descriptive language, "Ron Paul is not an anti-Semite, but he is 'most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general'." She also calls out Dondero for astonishingly bad writing, and commenter Deb provides this observation: "Dondero sounds a bit clueless too in his assessment of what is/is not anti-Semitic and homophobic." I agree. Because according to the report, Paul is vehemently, viciously anti-Israel --- and pro-Palestinian to boot. And combined with the statements Dondero says Paul made on Nazi Germany --- that the U.S. had no business fighting World War II --- there literally is no other conclusion to make. It's a devastating indictment. Pamela Geller picked up on that last bit big time, "RON PAUL: U.S. SHOULDN'T HAVE FOUGHT HITLER JUST TO SAVE JEWS FROM HOLOCAUST."

And in an epic example of trying to have your cake and eat it too, the New York Times has this, "Paul Disowns Extremists’ Views but Doesn’t Disavow the Support."

There's lots of links at Memeorandum as well.

I won't be surprised by a Herman Cain type meltdown for Ron Paul anytime now. And if it happens, credit bloggers for doing the heavy lifting.

Final Iowa Ad War Begins

At Los Angeles Times, "Christmas cease-fire over."

And for your full Iowa coverage, check the Des Moines Register's "Iowa Caucuses" blog and, of course, The Other McCain, "Fear and Loathing at BWI."

Robert Stacy McCain Heads to Iowa

See: "Memo From the National Affairs Desk: How’s the Weather Today in Vanuatu?"

Robert's been providing some excellent campaign coverage. And I'm interested in reports on the lead-up to the January 3rd  caucuses. It's coming down to the wire.

Plus, more McCain family videos at the link: "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

VIDEO: Ron Paul's Keynote Address to the John Birch Society 50th Anniversary Gala

Well, there you go.

Is that strange, or what?

When I was a kid growing up in Orange County, folks attacked my home turf as the stronghold of the "racist" John Birch Society. When it was announced that the Society was a sponsor of the 2010 meeting of CPAC, progressives had a field day bashing conservatives as unreconstructed white supremacists. There's a bad reputation there that's not going away, despite the organization's best efforts to come out from the cold. See the New York Times, "Holding Firm Against Plots by Evildoers."

That's why it's revealing that Congressman Ron Paul decided it was perfectly fine to speak at the organization's 50th anniversary celebration in September. That's not the first time Paul has spoken at the Society's events, and his questionable ties to the group, obviously, haven't had a noticeably negative impact on his political fortunes. Perhaps that will change with Paul still leading in the Iowa polls. Jamie Kirchick focused explicitly on Paul's ties to the Birchers the other day: "Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters?" And just out is this devastating indictment of Ron Paul at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, "How Did We Get Here? Or, Why Do 20 Year Old Newsletters Matter So Damn Much?" (via Memeorandum and Reason). The author, Steve Horwitz, speaks of the "Rothbard-Rockwell strategy" of appealing to the "paleo-libertarian" base to build a movement fighting "the collapse of Western civilization at the hands of the blacks, gays, and multiculturalists." And to quote Horwitz at length:

The paleo strategy was a horrific mistake, both strategically and theoretically ... The explicit strategy was abandoned by around the turn of the century, but not after a lot of bad stuff had been written in all kinds of places. There was way more than the Ron Paul newsletters. There was the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, which was another major place publishing these sorts of views. They could also be found in a whole bunch of Mises Institute publications of that era. It was the latter that led me to ask to be taken off the Institute’s mailing list in the early 1990s, calling them “a fascist fist in a libertarian glove.” I have never regretted that decision or that language. What the media has in their hands is only the tip of the iceberg of the really unsavory garbage that the paleo turn produced back then.

Through it all though, Ron Paul was a constant. He kept plugging away, first at the center of the paleo strategy as evidenced by the newsletters. To be clear, I am quite certain he did not write them. There is little doubt that they were written by Rockwell and Rothbard. People I know who were on the inside at the time confirm it and the style matches pretty well to those two and does not match to Ron Paul. Paul knows who wrote them too, but he’s protecting his long-time friend and advisor, unfortunately. And even more sadly, Rockwell doesn’t have the guts to confess and end this whole megillah. So although I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist, like Archie Bunker, he was willing to, metaphorically, toast a marshmallow on the cross others were burning.

Even after the paleo strategy was abandoned, Ron was still there walking the line between “mainstream” libertarianism and the winking appeal to the hard right courted by the paleo strategy. Paul’s continued contact with the fringe groups of Truthers, racists, and the paranoid right are well documented. Even in 2008, he refused to return a campaign contribution of $500 from the white supremacist group Stormfront. You can still go to their site and see their love for Ron Paul in this campaign and you can find a picture of Ron with the owner of Stormfront’s website. Even if Ron had never intentionally courted them, isn’t it a huge problem that they think he is a good candidate? Doesn’t that say something really bad about the way Ron Paul is communicating his message? Doesn’t it suggest that years of the paleo strategy of courting folks like that actually resonated with the worst of the right? Paul also maintained his connection with the Mises Institute, which has itself had numerous connections with all kinds of unsavory folks: more racists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, the whole nine yards. Much of this stuff was ably documented in 2007 and 2008 by the Right Watch blog. Hit that link for more.

Those of us who watched all of this happen over two decades knew it would come back to haunt us and so it has, unfortunately just as Ron Paul and libertarianism are on the cusp of something really amazing. And that only goes to show what a mistake the paleo strategy was: imagine if the newsletters were not an issue and Paul were to win Iowa. Yeah, he might get ignored, but he would not be the easy media target he is now, nor would all of libertarianism pay a potential price. The legions of young people supporting Paul did not come in via the paleo strategy; they came because libertarianism in general is on the rise in all kinds of venues (and yes, the Mises Institute’s post-paleo influence is important here, but it’s hardly the only institution that matters). These young people, for the most part, are surprised by all of this dirty laundry. That, in my view, is the real tragedy: I think libertarianism could have got to this point just as fast, maybe faster, without the toxic baggage of the paleo strategy.

So why deal with this now, when libertarianism is so hot? Because those newsletters are not what libertarianism is and the sooner and louder we make that clear, the better. There are too many young people who don’t understand all of this and who we need to help see the alternative liberal vision of libertarianism – and to understand that “liberal libertarianism” is radical, principled, and humane and not “beltway selling out.” To do that, we need to confront the past and explicitly reject it. That doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting Ron Paul in electoral politics, but it does mean that we cannot pretend the past doesn’t exist and it means that Paul and the others involved need to do the right thing and take explicit responsibility for what they said two decades ago. That has not happened yet. Then we need a complete and utter rejection of the paleo world-view and we need to create a movement that will simply not be attractive to racists, homophobes, anti-Semites etc., by emphasizing, as we have done at this blog, libertarianism’s liberal roots.

Read the whole thing at the link.

That's an admirable essay, and as an ideological initiative it's something that principled libertarians should be proud to embrace. The opposite is something like this, a particularly vile piece of paleo-bullshit propaganda: "Who Leads the Attack On Ron Paul?"

Retailers Brace for Hordes of Post-Christmas Shoppers

I'm looking forward to the total retail sales numbers.

A big holiday season will give the 4th quarter GDP numbers a boost. That's going to be great for Americans, and could help Obama's reelection prospects --- to the great consternation of Republicans.

At Los Angeles Times, "Hordes of post-Christmas shoppers expected."

Mitt Romney Leads in New Survey From New Hampshire

At Los Angeles Times, "Poll: Mitt Romney in command in New Hampshire":

Christmas brought good news for GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, who is holding on to his double digit lead in the critical early primary state of New Hampshire.

This morning’s Boston Globe poll shows the former Massachusetts governor leading the Republican field with 39% among voters likely to cast ballots in the Jan. 10 Republican primary. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has led in some national polls, was tied with Texas Congressman Ron Paul in second place with 17%.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who has spent virtually all of his time campaigning in New Hampshire, won the support of 11% of likely GOP voters. All of the other candidates ranked in the low single digits. (The University of New Hampshire Survey Center conducted the poll of 543 likely 2012 Republican primary voters. The margin of error within that group was plus or minus 4.2%).

Romney’s potential path to the Republican nomination relies on a sizable win in New Hampshire, where he owns a summer home and has been laying the ground work for his run since he withdrew from the 2008 presidential race. Though Iowans will be the first to cast ballots on Jan. 3, Romney spent three days touring New Hampshire last week in his campaign bus – hitting as many as six stops in one day.

We'll see how it goes. Romney should be okay with a New Hampshire win, and if Ron Paul takes Iowa we all can prepare for an epic attack campaign launched by the GOP political establishment. After that we could see Newt Gingrich raise a challenge in some key states. But the former House Speaker failed to qualify for the Virginia ballot, where the election is scheduled for March 6, which could cause problems for Gingrich if the campaign drags out to the later months of the season.

More a the Boston Globe (via Memeorandum).

Merry Christmas From Newt and Callista Gingrich

Well, here's a little equal time:

And at Los Angeles Times, "Gingrich may be too arrogant for Iowa."

Merry Christmas From the Romneys

It's a nice touch:

Even Profitable Firms Fleeing California

Something I've written about on numerous occasions.

At O.C. Register, "California businesses can expect little sympathy from leadership in Sacramento":

Democratic reaction to the news that Waste Connections, a $3.6-billion company and major Sacramento-area employer, is headed to Houston to seek a friendlier business climate tells other businesses all they need to know about the attitudes of those who run California's government.

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, gave these clueless and snarky remarks in response to the news: "In this instance you have a company that is, in fact, profitable, making significant revenue gains in 2011 and 2010. That doesn't speak to a bad business climate here in California when a good company is able to thrive in that way. So whatever Mr. Middelstaedt's (company CEO) reasons are to leave the great state of California, I know I'm pushing back."

Steinberg claims to have worked on improving the state's business climate, but from what we see in Sacramento, Steinberg and the party he helps lead have been pushing hard mainly for additional regulations and much higher taxes. The California Democratic Party's attitude long has been that businesses are basically trying to rip off the public, and the source of all wealth and advancement can be found in the public sector, When businesses leave. Steinberg and Co. show little sympathy.

That's because Democrats suck.

Continue reading at the link.

Newt Gingrich Goes After Ron Paul on Newsletters

At New York Times, "With Paul on the Rise in Iowa, Gingrich Takes Aim":

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Newt Gingrich turned his fire on Representative Ron Paul of Texas on Friday, saying that his Republican opponent had to answer for political and investment newsletters that included racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel passages that Mr. Paul has disavowed.

Mr. Gingrich also sharply criticized Mr. Paul for what he said were his isolationist views on foreign policy. The pointed comments suggested a new dynamic in the presidential primary race, with Mr. Paul as a new and enticing target. His fortunes have risen in Iowa, scrambling the field as some polls suggest that Mr. Paul could pull off a victory in the caucuses on Jan. 3. But in recent days, he has come under increasing scrutiny for offensive passages in newsletters that bore his name, although he has denied writing or approving them. 

“These things are really nasty, and he didn’t know about it?” Mr. Gingrich said to reporters after a town-hall-style meeting here.

At the same time, Mr. Gingrich refrained from criticizing Mitt Romney, with whom he has frequently sparred, calling him, at worst, “a Massachusetts moderate.”

Speaking to a large and enthusiastic crowd outside the Blue Marlin restaurant here on a warm and sunny day, Mr. Gingrich mainly framed his candidacy in opposition to President Obama. But he strongly criticized Mr. Paul’s foreign policy positions. Mr. Paul’s criticism of American military involvement overseas is at odds with the views of many Republican voters who may otherwise be attracted to his strong antigovernment message.

“The only person I know who is for a weaker military than Barack Obama is Ron Paul,” Mr. Gingrich said.

“His positions are fundamentally wrong on national security,” he added. “I do not agree with him that America is at fault for 9/11, I do not agree with him that we can ignore an Iranian nuclear weapon, and I do not agree with him that it’s O.K. if Israel disappears.”

A top official with the Paul campaign, Jesse Benton, suggested that Mr. Gingrich’s comments were slanderous and an overreaction to the possibility that Mr. Gingrich might not have collected enough signatures to get on the nominating ballot in Virginia — a matter not yet resolved.

“Today was a bad day for Newt Gingrich,” Mr. Benton said in an e-mail, adding that the former House speaker had “jumped the shark trying to slander Dr. Paul.”

Continue reading.

And notice at the video how Rachel Maddow and Melissa Harris-Perry are using Paul's racist newsletters to smear not only the American right, but American society all together!

Ron Paul won't be the nominee --- indeed, he's probably in a situation akin to Herman Cain's: caught in the headlights upon emerging as the frontrunner, and even if he wins Iowa it's going to be a long primary process and Paul's scrutiny will only intensify. He'll have to answer and answer decisively at some point. But as noted, there's something of a nativist and isolationist trend that animating the primary process. That's something quite different from the small-government conservatism that drove the tea parties in 2009. All this together is extremely fascinating. And how some of these tensions are resolved over the next few months will go a long way towards determining the GOP's chances in defeating the Democrats next November.

Iowa and the Future of the GOP

This is a point I argued previously.

From David Yepsen, at Wall Street Journal, "No matter the outcome, Ron Paul's strength indicates a resurgence of the libertarian and isolationist wings of the Republican Party":

This race feels a bit like 1980. Democrats and some pundits tee-hee about the "dwarfs" in this race, but perhaps their snickers are premature. Can "has-been" politicians stage comebacks? Yes. Can new stars emerge? Yup. With the right candidate, can the party pick off a sitting Democratic president with weak poll ratings? You betcha.

Some insights to consider as the contest enters the final days:

• No matter the outcome, Ron Paul's strength indicates a resurgence of the libertarian and isolationist wings of the Republican Party. Hard times and unpopular wars will do that.

It's always wise to watch which candidate is attracting new people because they—or their message—are on to something. That was true with George McGovern in 1972 and Pat Robertson in 1988. In this race, the one candidate attracting hordes of new people is Mr. Paul. Many of them are young—and while Mr. Paul is unlikely to become the GOP nominee, those young adults will mature into a political force, just as Mr. McGovern's antiwar factions and Mr. Robertson's religious conservatives have done.

• The Iowa contest will also help the party chart its course on immigration—and it may not be a successful or wise one. Candidates are falling over themselves to bash illegal immigration.

While that plays well to GOP activists, it fuels the fire of nativism that burns so hot inside the GOP today. It also alienates people of Latino ancestry and is driving them and their children into the Democratic Party. That shift will have a huge impact in the fall campaign, since many toss-up states could be decided by the votes of Latinos.

You'd think the GOP would learn. Just as the Yankee Brahmins drove the Irish into the Democratic Party generations ago, many GOP leaders are pushing Latinos there today.

• Too much is made of the power of social conservatives, perhaps because both politicians and pundits tend to fight the last war. Polls show that only about 40% of likely caucusgoers describe themselves as evangelicals or born-again Christians. That would mean 60% aren't. (In 2008, some polls had it 60%-40% the other way.)

Continue reading.

Yepsen warns that the GOP could end up like McGovern in '72 --- getting clobbered in a landslide of epic proportions. But I'm not down with that suggestion. A conservative candidate --- I'd prefer Michele Bachmann --- can beat the president by hammering the administration on the economy. Progressives laugh when they hear such stuff, but hubris will do them in, and the president's the most hubristic of all.

New York Times Decries 'Right Wing Extremism' — Again

Well, since I've been reading the Times' editorials, here you go with the latest attack on the "extremist" right, "The Race to the Right":

The toxic effects of right-wing extremism in Washington were vividly on display during the payroll-tax fiasco — even to the right wing. On the campaign trail, though, those lessons are being ignored. The leading Republican presidential candidates are overtly competing for the title of Most Conservative, distorting their own records and advocating increasingly radical positions.

Candidates often move to the ideological edges to win a primary, because that’s where the primary voters are, but the frenzied efforts of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are particularly hard to watch. Neither has a record as a dogmatic conservative, and they are competing with candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann who have much longer and more consistent conservative records. That makes their rush to the right all the more desperate and convoluted.

Last week, Mr. Romney blasted Mr. Gingrich as “an extremely unreliable leader in the conservative world,” citing specifically Mr. Gingrich’s criticisms of Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan and his appearance with Nancy Pelosi in a commercial against global warming. Mr. Gingrich, in turn, claims he’s “a lot more conservative” than Mr. Romney.

Real conservatives, in their columns and magazines, say neither of them qualifies, noting that both have previously called themselves “progressives” when appealing to very different audiences than the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mr. Romney once supported abortion rights, though now he says he has changed his mind. Mr. Gingrich fiercely opposes the government’s role in the housing market, but worked for Freddie Mac. Both have supported an individual mandate for health insurance, as well as the TARP bailout of Wall Street.

To make up for their lapses in orthodoxy, each has now adopted positions at the far end of the ideological spectrum. Mr. Romney wants to send home all 11 million illegal immigrants and make them wait many years to return. He equates the president’s goal of raising taxes on the rich with redistributing wealth until the government achieves “equal outcomes” for everyone, all but calling President Obama a Marxist. Rather than demonstrate prudence after the death of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, he recklessly demanded that the United States now push for regime change there. (Without feeling any need to explain just how that might be done, just as he has failed to explain precisely how he will end Iran’s nuclear ambitions once and for all.)

Mr. Gingrich, meanwhile, is now dispensing with the Constitution in his call to drag federal judges before Congress to explain their decisions...

Continue reading.

Call me a right wing extremist, because I don't think any of that stuff from Romney is that exceptional. Sure, both Romney and Gingrich are pandering to the base, but frankly, the concerns of the tea party and others at the grassroots aren't going to be easy to ignore heading into the general election. Republicans have to stay on  message on the economy. They have to hammer this administration for painting extreme economic conditions  in order to seize more power for a massive bureaucratic response to the recession. It hasn't worked. Just keep plugging away on that and in no time the payroll tax debacle will be ancient history and Obama will have to run on his economic record fair and square. And screw the New York Times' editors. These people are pathetic losers cheerleading for more of the same old failed policies. Progressives suck like that.

Ron Paul Has a Lot of Disqualifiers That Make It Impossible for Him to Be the Next President of the United States

From John Hawkins, at Right Wing News, "Liberalism In 120 Seconds: Ron Paul’s Fans Can’t Have It Both Ways":

Also, from Jamie Kirchik, at The New Republic, "Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters?" (via Eric Dondero).

Obama Post-Recession Recovery Badly Lags the Reagan Recovery After the Severe 1981-82 Recession

At Investor's Business Daily, "Five Myths About President Obama Economic Recovery":

Over the past several months, President Obama has spent much time pleading for patience on the sluggish economy and ongoing high unemployment, arguing that the economic hole was so deep and the crisis so monumental that a slow recovery — now in its 30th month — was inevitable.

But in making his case, Obama appears to be perpetuating several myths about the recession he inherited and the slow recovery over which he's presided. Among them....

2) The country had to dig out of a historically deep hole. Obama often explains the length of the recovery by noting how deep the recession had been.

But while the so-called Great Recession lasted 18 months and sent unemployment to 10.1%, the 1981-82 recession was comparable in length and severity. That one lasted 16 months, and pushed unemployment even higher, to 10.8%.

The difference is that today unemployment is still at an historically high 8.6%, and it's only that low because the labor force has declined. Real GDP is a mere 0.04% above its pre-recession peak. At the comparable point in the Reagan recovery, unemployment had plunged to 7.3%, while the economy had grown 12% above its pre-recession peak, and was still climbing fast.

RTWT at the link.

PHOTO CREDIT: The White House, "President Barack Obama talks with a patron at Reid's House Restaurant in Reidsville, N.C., during a lunch stop on the American Jobs Act bus tour, Oct. 18, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).

Ron Paul Talks About Newsletters in 1995 Video

Ron Paul can't keep walking out on interviewers when asked about racially inflammatory statements.

With videos like these, he's on record in the mid-1990s as being very knowledgeable about the content of things put out under his name. The New York Daily News has a report, "Video surfaces of Ron Paul talking about racist newsletters in 1995, far earlier than he said he knew about them."

And the New Republic has a roundup, "TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters."( Via Memeorandum.) And see also David Weigel, at Slate, "Ron Paul and the Coming Race War."

By this time it's pretty much all out there. The best thing for Ron Paul would be to come clean. His name is on some of these newsletters, so it sounds like a bald faced lie when he denies knowledge of them.

And see previously at Pamela's, "BOMBSHELL! RON PAUL'S RACIST NEWSLETTERS."

Mitt Romney Highlights His Marriage in New Hampshire

This is part of Romney's bid to batten down the hatches in the Granite State.

At Los Angeles Times, "Spotlight on Romney's marriage casts shadow on Gingrich's past":

Reporting from Lancaster, N.H.— It was a simple errand, a husband buying a Christmas gift for his wife. But in this case it was Mitt Romney buying for Ann Romney, the woman he introduces alternately as "my bride," "my sweetheart" and occasionally "the boss."

And with 13 days before the first votes are cast — with thousands of voters to win over — the former governor brought more than a dozen reporters, cameramen and photographers along for the holiday excursion.

Taking his wife of 42 years by the hand, the former Massachusetts governor led the way Thursday around the outdoor outfitter Simon the Tanner: "Ann, keep your eyes open here."

They reminisced about the best Christmas gifts he's given her — a horse, which he called "the gift that keeps on giving" — and the worst.

"For the first, I don't know, 10 years of our marriage, I would buy her clothing of various kinds," the candidate told reporters at the store, "and she would say, 'Ohhhhh, this is so nice,' and then it was gone a week later."

The candidate suggested presents along the shelves without much success. Finally, Ann Romney tried on a sleek white ski jacket and modeled it for her husband as he looked on approvingly.

"Christmas accomplished," he beamed. After picking up the $300 tab, which included socks for his eldest granddaughter, he joked to his wife that she was lucky he hadn't picked out her gift at the next stop, an Agway farm store.

Continue reading.

Romney denies that he's playing the marriage card to hammer Newt Gingrich, but with this latest video narrated by Ann Romney --- featuring nostalgic pictures of the early family --- it's undeniable that the value of family is central to Mitt's persona. And no doubt he has a nice family. He seems genuinely doting. But some have already indicated that Romney will get hammered for suggesting his family's better than Gingrich's. Divorce is a fact of life in this country. The issue is whether Newt cheated during his first and second marriages. Perhaps so, although there's considerable dispute on the details. Either way, it's a potential minefield. Gingrich has admitted his mistakes and signed a pledge to "uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others." Romney will look like he's browbeating if he keeps harping on the issue.

Yeah, House Republicans Screwed Up — So Suck It Up and Get Back to Fighting Democrat Big-Government

I'm glad Boehner "caved," as the radical progressives describe it.

Now Republicans can work to minimize the public relations fallout over being bizarrely tarred as favoring tax increases on the middle class. It's going to take a few news cycles and perhaps a few pessimistic economic forecasts before the administration will be forced back into what should rightfully be a defense of its failed policies. In the meanwhile, the MFM outlets are having a field day with the schadenfreude, so might as well roll with it for a while.

At New York Times, "The House Backs Down":

For a full year, House Republicans have replaced governing with confrontations that they allow to reach the brink of crisis, only then making extreme demands in exchange for a resolution. On Thursday, that strategy crumbled. Battered by public opinion and undermined by more reasonable Senate Republicans, the House’s leaders backed down and signed off on a deal to continue the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for two months.

The House Republicans’ stubborn opposition to the extension “may not have been politically the smartest thing in the world,” Speaker John Boehner said, in the understatement of the week. He still called it “a good fight.”

If the deal goes through on Friday — and even one angry lawmaker could stall it — the paychecks of 160 million workers will not shrink for at least eight weeks and three million jobless workers will keep their benefits. That will be paid for largely by mortgage fees, and negotiations will resume on paying for the remaining 10 months.

A Republican demand that President Obama make a decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline will remain in the measure, as negotiated by the Senate last week. Republicans also won some minor adjustments to prevent small businesses from being harmed by the extension.

The struggle to reach an agreement, which was a clear victory for President Obama, exposed voters in the starkest way to the real temperament of the House that Americans elected a year ago. If the president wants it, they’re against it. If it might assist the middle class, as opposed to the rich, they will concoct an economic argument to oppose it. (“The payroll tax cut isn’t really that effective.”) And if it absolutely has to pass, they will throw in stray ideas — an oil pipeline, air pollution regulations — to win some part of their agenda, or kill the bill trying.

The Republican wounds this time were entirely self-inflicted. The crisis over the two-month extension wasn’t really about the payroll tax at all; it was about the hurt feelings of bumptious House members having to accede to a deal driven by the Senate and the White House. The real confrontation, over paying for the tax cut, is yet to come.

Well, enjoy the moment, New York Times. Paying for that "tax cut" is really more about paying for the endless entitlement state, which we can't afford and which is killing innovation and entrepreneurialism. The GOP House screwed up the messaging and tactics, but the larger goal to starve the bureaucratic beast is a necessity. The tough choices of reinventing government would perhaps be less wrenching during a period of robust growth. But we don't have any luxuries right now.

See Don Surber for more on that, "It’s worse than Zero Hedge said."

'Home for the Holidays'

Via Darleen Click, at Protein Wisdom, "Obama sends out instructions on how to really annoy your family members at Christmas."

And it's not just about being obnoxious, although there's no shortage of that. No, parents might also realize that they wasted their lives bringing such stupid people into the world. Families can say to their kids, "Obama promised 'Hope and Change' in 2008. All he's delivered is debt and destruction of our most cherished values. Wake up dear ones before it's too late."

George H.W. Bush Endorses Mitt Romney

Unofficial, they say, but it still counts quite a bit from a former president.

At New York Times, "Elder Bush Tells Paper Romney Is 'Best Choice'."

And at the Houston Chronicle, "Bush 41 backs Romney for president, admits he’s not Gingrich’s ‘biggest advocate’."

Obama Claims Victory as Congress Reaches Payroll Tax Deal

It's a good thing Boehner took the deal. The GOP was getting hammered on this, letting the Obama-Democrat-Socialists seize the mantle of tax-cutters. What a joke that is.

At Los Angeles Times, "Lawmakers reach tentative deal on payroll tax cut; House action Friday":

The agreement amounts to a reversal of sorts for the House Republican majority, which had rejected a compromise plan that the Senate overwhelmingly passed last weekend to extend relief for wage-earners for 60 more days.

Boehner had said the House wanted a full-year extension, and called on President Obama to demand the Democratic-controlled Senate return to Washington to continue negotiations.

Earlier Thursday, the Ohio Republican showed little sign of reversing course, convening his top negotiators in an otherwise-empty Capitol to call on Democrats to join them for "serious negotiations."

Asked later about the perception that Republicans had caved, Boehner said, "I think our members waged a good fight." He admitted, though, that it may not have been a politically popular one.

The White House issued a statement from Obama congratulating members "for ending the partisan stalemate.""This is good news, just in time for the holidays," he said.

"This is the right thing to do to strengthen our families, grow our economy, and create new jobs."

I commented on this debacle previously at length. But check Howard Portnoy at Hot Air, "The GOP’s costly fumble over the payroll tax extension." And also, Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Capitol Hill Fiasco Again Shows Why Obama is No Pushover." More at Memeorandum.