Nikki Haley to be indicted for tax fraud? (update)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Updating my post from earlier today, it looks as if South Carolina Gov. (and right-wing star) Nikki Haley is not going to be indicted for tax fraud:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley's office Friday provided IRS documentation that she is not facing investigation for tax fraud, calling accusations that she was "totally contrived."

Haley denied the rumors of a looming tax indictment on Thursday. The rumors were based on an anonymously sourced blog post alleging that the Internal Revenue Service was investigating possible tax fraud at a Sikh center where the governor's parents are top officials. The Palmetto Public Record claimed Haley managed the temple's finances as recently as 2003 and implicated her in a failure by the temple to pay contractors. The governor denied keeping the books for the church.

Well, as I wrote, innocent until proven guilty, and the rumor only came from this one relatively unknown blog, at least outside of South Carolina, the Palmetto Public Record.

Unsurprisingly, Haley has taken aim at "dirty blogger politics," a typically Palin-esque way of deflecting a crisis (or any bad news), and is also arguing (ridiculously, it seems to me) that such rumors are hurting the state's efforts to attract business investment, but actually, as The State reports, there were other reasons for speculation, and even if the IRS isn't investigating Haley personally, it is probing possible tax irregularities (to put it nicely) at her parents' Sikh temple. 

Again, there may be nothing to this. For all I know, the IRS will find, or has already found, that the temple did nothing wrong or that, even if it did, Haley didn't do anything wrong. But I do still wonder how all this will hurt Haley's national profile, if at all.

Would she have been on Romney's VP shortlist? Will she be, even now?

It's hard to see Romney going with an inexperienced young governor after the Palin debacle of '08, but she seems to be much more substantial than Palin and obviously is demographically desirable for the extremely white/male GOP.

It's certainly a possibility.

Nikki Haley to be indicted for tax fraud?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

S.C. Gov Nikki Haley, with some unidentified attention-seeker

Well, so much for being a possibility for the Romney ticket in November. Looks like the South Carolina governor is going to be dealing with some legal troubles soon:

Two well-placed legal experts have independently told Palmetto Public Record they expect the U.S. Department of Justice to issue an indictment against South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley on charges of tax fraud as early as this week.

A highly ranked federal official has also privately confirmed rumblings of an investigation and possible indictment of the governor, though the official was not aware of the specific timeframe.

Yesterday, Palmetto Public Record exclusively reported that the Internal Revenue Service has been investigating since March of 2011 the Sikh worship center run by Gov. Haley’s father. At least five lawsuits have been filed against the Sikh Society of South Carolina since 2010, alleging that the group bilked contractors out of nearly $130,000 for the construction of a new temple.

Gov. Haley is reported to have managed the temple’s finances as late as 2003, and our sources believe any indictment would center on what happened to the missing money.

I know, I know, innnocent until proven guilty. But it wouldn't exactly help a privileged rich douchebag to have someone accused of tax fraud as his running mate, even if her conservative bona fides are in order and she endorsed him back when he really needed a boost.

(Besides, while she would bring certain demographic benefits to the ticket (female, non-white), she's not exactly crazy Christianist enough for Republicans, many of whom would recoil at the mere thought of a Mormon/ex-Sikh ticket, even if she is a Methodist now.)

For more, see Ed Kilgore at Political Animal.

(photo)

Santorum targets South Carolina, a must-win primary

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He'll lose in New Hampshire, Romney's backyard, likely very badly, but the future for Rick Santorum is not granite but palmetto.

Yes, South Carolina is next up after New Hampshire. It will hold its open primary on Jan. 21, a long 11 days after the New Hampshire vote and a similarly long 10 days before the Florida vote.

It's on its own, then, and it will be the site of intense Republican campaigning. For Romney, a win -- and he's currently ahead in the polls -- would pretty much cement the nomination, though he could lose, win in Florida, Nevada, and Maine, and still be in good shape. For Santorum, it'll be make-or-break. Assuming he improves his sorry lot in New Hampshire, and the polls show him rising but still way behind not just Romney but Paul as well, he'll have to win South Carolina or at least come close enough to Romney to make it a one-on-one race (with Gingrich and Perry dropping out).

No wonder, then, that Santorum is taking his post-Iowa booty and plunking it right down in South Carolina:

Enjoying a wave of momentum from his near-win in the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum’s campaign is raising money faster than ever before. Donors have added $2 million to his campaign’s war chest in the last 48 hours alone.

And a Santorum aide tells ABC News that in the space of 10 hours — between midnight Thursday and 10 a.m. — the campaign took in $250,000 of that $2 million total. The quarter-million figure total represents online contributions only.

What's the campaign doing with that fresh infusion of cash?

For starters they are taking out a 1,000-point television ad buy in South Carolina ahead of the state's Jan. 21 primary.

The campaign is calling is a "major buy," and an adviser to the former Pennsylvania senator's presidential bid told ABC News the spot will play heavily on cable. According to a GOP source who tracks ad spending, the Santorum campaign has only spent $12,000 on the airwaves in South Carolina so far during the election cycle.

The Santorum campaign also plans a heavy mail drop in the state that begins early next week.

It may all be futile, as Romney is the likely nominee, but, then again, Santorum's whole campaign seemed futile as recently as just a couple of weeks ago. And while he faces an uphill battle in South Carolina, not least given Romney's excellent ground campaign (and Haley endorsement), it is just the sort of socially conservative state (with a Tea Party hostile to Romney), like Iowa (sort of), that suits him. If he can't do well there, he's done for good.

And make no mistake, while he may be a detestable bigot and theocrat who wants to keep women in chains, evangelize and/or eradicate Muslims, deny blacks access to government aid, and send gays to hell, I wish him all the best. I think he'd be a truly wonderful GOP nominee for president. Republicans would do well to kick Romney and his pandering faux conservatism to the curb and embrace this exemplary man, a man very much in tune with the Republican zeitgeist.

You think I'm kidding? I'm not.

(photo)

Conservative South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley endorses faux conservative Mitt Romney

By Michael J.W. Stickings

At first glance, it seems somewhat surprising that right-wing South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley would endorse a faux conservative and shameless opportunist like Romney. Shouldn't she be going for Newt, or perhaps even for a more authentic conservative like Santorum?

Whatever else you want to say about Haley, she seems to be politically savvy in a way that many other young stars in the Republican Party aren't.

The reasoning she gives for her endorsement is that Romney has changed for the better since 2008, when she also backed his bid for the GOP nomination. He's no longer just a candidate, she says, but a leader focused on getting things done. (As opposed to Gingrich, who was just a legislator, she dismissively argues.) And he's promised her that he'd give her state an opt-out from the Affordable Care Act, a not-insignificant pledge for a conservative like Haley given Romney's poisonous association with Obamacare as the original health-care reformer in Massachusetts (hence why so many on the right loathe him).

As for Gingrich, she dismisses him as a worthless legislator and tarnished insider: "I don't want anybody who was involved in anything to do with the chaos that was in Washington," she said, presumably also dismissing Newt's Contract with America.

Plus, she didn't like how Gingrich criticized Republican wunderkind Paul Ryan's Ayn Randian budget plan earlier this year, characterizing it as right-wing social engineering. (Newt recanted, you'll recall, but that obviously wasn't good enough for he, nor for many pro-Ryan fantasists on the right.)

How does this reflect her political savvy? Haley is ambitious and has a bright future in the GOP, possibly at the national level. It may not be now, but it could be 2016. And so she's being careful not to make any mistakes by backing the wrong horse and upsetting the party elite that she herself would need to court for her own presidential run.

Indeed, I suspect that the real reason she doesn't support Newt is that she knows his campaign is a train wreck waiting to happen and prudently thinks better of hopping aboard. This way, if Romney wins the nomination, she'll be seen as one of his most high-profile and important supporters, helping in a key early-primary state. She could be his running mate but even if not she'll have made a good name for herself with the party elite, both politicians and pundits alike, that for the most part is backing Romney and that would perhaps promote her down the road. Were Romney to become president, she's have a close ally in the White House. Were he to lose, she'd be well-positioned to be a major player in 2016, as a serious contender for the nomination or as a top-tier veep pick for someone like Christie or Huntsman.

See? Very savvy. Watch out for Nikki Haley. She could come out of all this Republican madness looking very strong.

(image)

**********

Here, watch Haley and the three morning morons on Fox News:

Newt now well ahead of Mitt in Florida and South Carolina. Are we approaching "inevitability" territory?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Whether or not Newt won Saturday's debate, though he probably did, one thing is clear: He's opening such a significant lead in the key early primary/caucus states, New Hampshire excepted (and even there he's closing in on Romney), that there may be nothing that can stop him from winning the GOP presidential nomination. Indeed, given that winning the marathon that is the presidential primaries is to a great extent about momentum, we may be close to having to use the word inevitable when describing Newt's prospects for victory.

Because if he wins Iowa, does well in New Hampshire (say, a strong second to Romney), and then breezes to big wins in South Carolina and Florida, where he's currently well ahead of Romney in the polls... well, that may well be that.

Before you know it, we'll have to talk seriously about possible running mates for Newt.

Happy, Republicans?

Rand Paul slams Newt, says he's "not even a conservative"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Writing today at The Des Moines Register, extreme Teabagging Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, son of renegade libertarian Republican Ron Paul, pulls no punches in going after GOP presidential frontrunners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich:

Unfortunately, while all Republican candidates would be an improvement over the present administration, two of the current frontrunners simply do not represent the tea party, the conservative movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs in 2012. 

Let me begin with the most obvious reasons:

Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich supported the outrageous $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailouts — "one of the most unpopular government programs in American history," even according to President Obama's own Treasury Department.

Both Romney and Gingrich have been outspoken and unapologetic supporters of the individual mandate. This is the heart and soul of ObamaCare.

Since the tea party started as a reaction to Republicans who voted for TARP, and was strengthened into a national political force during the fight over ObamaCare, I believe this disqualifies both Romney and Gingrich from tea party support.

And then he specifically targets Gingrich, who "began his career as a Rockefeller Republican from the liberal wing of the party" and whose "heart is still there," who was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, and... well, you get the picture. Basically, "Gingrich is not from the tea party" and "is not even a conservative." He's a member of "the Washington establishment" and "has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day."

Most of this is ridiculous. As a long-time lawmaker, Gingrich certainly has a more nuanced record than an ideologue like Paul, who just arrived on a scene a few years ago. And, sure, Gingrich has been pragmatic, allying with Democrats at times and also taking positions out of line with right-wing Republican orthodoxy, and particularly out of line with Tea Party extremism. But he's still a conservative, whatever his occasional lapses on issues such as climate change and immigration.

What's interesting here is, first, how Rand characterizes himself. He describes himself as "a U.S. senator elected from and by the tea party," not as a Republican. But what's also interesting is the severe litmus test Paul, one of the most influential Teabaggers, is applying to the GOP presidential race. If even Gingrich isn't conservative enough, and he's certainly more conservative than Romney, then what? Or, rather, who? Rick Perry is more theocrat than Teabagger. Michele Bachmann probably qualifies, but she's an also-ran at this point. So who else could there be?

Ah, yes, Papa Paul.

While the race has turned into a Gingrich-vs.-Romney battle, with Newt now pushing back against Mitt's attacks, Ron Paul is lingering as a solid third-place candidate. He won't win the nomination, but he has a loyal and intense following of libertarian Republicans and could do well enough in some states, including Iowa, to influence the outcome. Indeed, the latest RCP averages have him tied for second with Romney in Iowa at 17.4 (well back of Gingrich at 29.8) and running a solid third in New Hampshire (though also well back in South Carolina).

So perhaps Rand is just shilling for Ron, trying to make the case that Newt's not the right Tea Party choice. Perhaps he even understands, as Conor Friedersdorf does, that a Gingrich win would be a disaster for the Tea Party.

Whatever the case, there's no denying the ongoing influence of the Tea Party in the GOP and how unsettled the situation remains. Gingrich has emerged at just the right time, and a big win in Iowa followed by a strong showing in New Hampshire and a win in South Carolina and then Florida could very well propel him too far into the lead for anyone to catch up. But it's clear that a lot of Republicans, Rand Paul included, aren't happy with Gingrich, while the alternative, Romney, is even worse.

So what can they do? Keep promoting Ron Paul, perhaps, though Paul would be even less likely to be able to unite the party, regardless of what his fanatics think.

Really, though, is it any wonder Republicans are already in a state of near-panic? Denial may be holding them back, but reality is about to take over.