Santorum gets David Gregory’s goat for what he says and how he says it, not how often he says it. Gregory comes across here as very excited, almost obsessed by Santorum.
He’s not the only one, of course. See this exchange with Margaret Carlson leading the charge but also being told off.
The sound you hear is a Republican tearing his hair out.
Mitt Romney spoke to several empty seats Friday in Detroit, in a speech that offered Democrats more fodder for their attacks and failed to deliver the major economic address his campaign promised.
Is there a skilled politician out there? Somewhere? I leaned toward Romney (asked by lib Dem close friend) some months back.
Now I aim to cast my Illinois vote on March 20 for the Santorum man, who by the way gets a strong thumbs-up by the extremely well-versed international politics expert Michael Ledeen in the WS Journal.
HOLD ON THERE: Larry Kudlow praises Romney’s Detroit speech, in which
. . . he touted his new across-the board 20 percent reduction in personal tax rates. The language is crucial: “By reducing the tax on the next dollar of income earned by all taxpayers, we will encourage hard work, risk-taking, and productivity by allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn.”
This is supply-side language. It is incentive language.
And what this voter wants to hear. What’s going on here? The Hill has been reliable, ditto Kudlow.
Get a load of this stunning message from the county board president. Egad, if she isn’t something new for Crook, what is?
Sorry for this: Thought I was posting a complete email message, but it was not post-able. Didn’t check it in time, deleted message, cannot find it on my computer nor on the ‘Net. Preckwinkle had good advice presented in quite usable fashion. More later maybe, but not now . . .
She does talk up econ development, however, and has been doing so from the start.
. . . oil companies should not export?
You’re paid so handsomely [writes Donald J. Boudreaux, of Cafe Hayek and Geo. Mason U.] because there’s a large nation-wide demand for your commentary and bombast. In your career you’ve worked for broadcasters in Boston, Dallas, Denver, Hartford, and elsewhere. And before moving to Fox you were a correspondent for ABC News.
You apparently never hesitated to sell your product to the highest bidder; you never hesitated to export yourself from one market to another in search of higher pay; you never resisted the bidding for your services by buyers (i.e., employers) far and wide which put upward pressure on the amounts of money that you are paid, both to appear on television and to deliver lunch and dinnertime speeches.
As the nation’s best-known populist, can we expect less?
She concedes that “the story is too light to ever be wrenching” (to engage one’s interest, I’d say). It’s “accompanied by . . . a delightful, old-timey, bouncy, Depression- era, “silver lining,” “sunny side of the street,” orchestral sound track.” (Music was good, yes.) “Its tender moments are truly [tender].” (Treacly?)
But I disagree with her in this:
“The Artist” focuses on visual storytelling, which is precisely what film is supposed to be. Anyone who has gone to film school will appreciate the forceful message here, summed up by the last word of the film: “Action!”
If visual storytelling is the essence of film, why do so many movies use talk? She explains:
Filmmaking true to its pedigree tells the story visually. Lazy filmmaking tells the story through words and plenty of voice-over. “The Artist” must tell the story visually, you see, because it’s a silent film.
Yes, I see. I still find it mannered, precious, even exhibitionist. It’s an adorable film for people who went to film school and other buffs, but its silence, like charity and sin, covers a multitude of faults.