Fed’s QE3 ‘Detachment from Reality’

Welcome to the U.S.W., The United States of Weimar. Hope you brought your wheelbarrow. You’re going to need it. After QE3 kicks in and the Fed starts printing money like there’s no tomorrow, the dollar won’t be worth spit.

from: World Net Daily; Rep. Ron Paul on the Fed

A member of Congress who has been pushing for more transparency, including an audit, of the Federal Reserve for years, says the announcement Friday that the quasi-governmental agency is going to print more money to try to help the U.S. economy isn’t surprising.

Nor is it smart, said U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.

“No one is surprised by the Fed’s action today to inject even more money into the economy through additional asset purchases. The Fed’s only solution for every problem is to print more money and provide more liquidity,” Paul said.

“Mr. Bernanke and Fed governors appear not to understand that our current economic malaise resulted directly because of the excessive credit the Fed already pumped into the system.”

The Federal Reserve said today it is launching its third attempt to revive the U.S. economy, once again by printing more money.

According to a report in CNN, this edition of the program will involve having the government buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities per month – with no set end date.

There is a petition process set up to urge members of Congress to act on plans to audit the Fed.

The report says the central bank’s objective is to keep interest rates low, and thus trigger more spending and more hiring.

The Fed has been trying to impact the economy just about since Barack Obama took over the White House, but its usual tool – lowering interest rates – is ineffective now since those rates have been approaching zero for most of that time.

“For all of its vaunted policy tools, the Fed now finds itself repeating the same basic action over and over in an attempt to prime the economy with more debt and credit,” Paul said. “But this latest decision to provide more quantitative easing will only prolong our economic stagnation, corrupt market signals, and encourage even more misallocation and malinvestment of resources.

“Rather than stimulating a real recovery by focusing on a strong dollar and market interest rates, the Fed’s announcement today shows a disastrous detachment from reality on the part of our central bank. Any further quantitative easing from the Fed, in whatever form, will only make our next economic crash that much more serious,” he warned.

There are answers to your questions about the complicated Federal Reserve issue in “End the Fed,” “No More National Debt” and “The Case Against the Fed.”

Paul for years has advocated a full audit of the Federal Reserve, which routinely shrouds its actions in secrecy. Just this week, the U.S. House on a 327-98 vote adopted a bill that would set an audit process in motion.

It now is going to the Senate, where Sen. Harry Reid previously has been receptive to the idea, although there’s no word whether he’ll take time for it now.

Paul  argued that the Federal Reserve simply is illegal. Some of his concerns have revolved around Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which assigns to Congress the right to coin money.

There is no mention in the Constitution of a central bank, and it wasn’t until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that the Fed was created. (Thanks a lot, Woodrow Wilson)

Paul previously has said, “Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy.”

And he’s proposed repeatedly the idea of auditing the Fed to determine exactly what it has been doing and then begin making corrections. With a book titled “End the Fed,” he’s made no secret of his ultimate goal.

That the Fed is at least partly to blame for the financial problems that have developed in the U.S. seems not to be in dispute.

It was longtime Federal Reserve chairman Ben. S. Bernanke who admitted as much.

Bernanke said it was the Fed that caused the Great Depression, the worldwide economic downturn that persisted from 1929 until about 1939. It was the longest and worst depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. While originating in the U.S., it ended up causing drastic declines in output, severe unemployment and acute deflation in virtually every country on earth. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “the Great Depression ranks second only to the Civil War as the gravest crisis in American history.”

At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor economist Milton Friedman’s 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedman’s old home base, the University of Chicago.

After citing how Friedman and a co-author documented the Fed’s continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath – and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations in order to stop the devastating monetary contraction – Bernanke added:

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and [Anna] Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves – for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution – the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public – the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.

It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s infamous “liquidationist” thesis, that weeding out “weak” banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks – which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed – felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. …

History records that in 1913 President Woodrow Wilson approved the Federal Reserve Act but later reflected that his actions “unwittingly ruined my country.”

Wilson said that since the U.S. system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few, “we have become … one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.”

Current Delegate Count (03-07-2012)

Here are delegate counts as of 5:55 a.m. ET on Wednesday, March 17, as tabulated by The Associated Press:

 Mitt Romney, 415 delegates.

Rick Santorum, 176 delegates.

Newt Gingrich, 105 delegates.

Ron Paul, 47 delegates.

All told, the Super Tuesday states will send 437 delegates to the national convention beginning on Aug. 27 in Tampa, Fla. Some of them are superdelegates with automatic slots, who are not in play in Tuesday’s elections. The AP count includes superdelegates who have already made their choices.

What’s a Superdelegate?

Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party’s presidential nomination.

 Instead, most of the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current (Republican and Democrat) or former (Democrat only) party leaders and elected officials. Others are chosen during the primary season. All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination.

 Although originally created to describe this type of Democrat delegate, the term has become widely used to describe these particular delegates in both parties, even though it is not an official term used by either party.

 In 2012, there are 126 Republican superdelegates.There are potentially 3 superdelegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committeemembers. However, certain states either have no superdelegates or have them but their votes are bound by the results of the state vote.

The Magic of the Sweater Vest

Poll: Santorum takes first national lead

By Josh Lederman of The Hill:

Rick Santorum has taken the lead nationally in the Republican presidential race for the first time, a new poll showed.

Less than a week after besting Romney in primary contests in three states, Rick Santorum has a 15-point lead on the former Massachusetts governor, according to a national poll released Saturday by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling. Recent polls had shown Romney up about 10 points on Newt Gingrich, his nearest rival.

Santorum leads Mitt Romney 38 percent to 23 percent in the new poll, while Gingrich is in third place with 17 percent. Ron Paul comes in last with 13 percent.

This is the first major national poll to show Santorum in the lead. The closest he had come previously was after his surprise win in Iowa the first week of January, but even then, Romney performed 10 points better than Santorum nationally.

But Santorum has been riding a wave of momentum since his surprise performance on Tuesday, when he defeated the front-runner not only in Minnesota and Missouri, but also in Colorado, a supposed Romney stronghold. Santorum’s campaign has said he has raised more than $2 million since Tuesday, and he was the biggest attraction on Saturday when about 10,000 activists packed the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

Some of Santorum’s success in the new poll may be attributed to declining support for both Romney and Gingrich. Romney’s favorability rating has declined substantially in PPP’s polling and now stands at 44 percent — just one percentage point higher than the 43 percent who say they disapprove. Santorum remains highly popular, with 64 percent saying they approve and just 22 percent viewing him negatively. Gingrich’s numbers are almost identical to those of Romney.

Santorum is also besting Romney and the others with key demographic groups, including self-described very conservative voters, Tea Party voters and evangelicals.

“It’s important to keep in mind, though, that fewer than half of his voters are firmly committed to him,” said Dean Debnam, the polling firm’s president. “When he comes under attack in the coming days, his lead could evaporate just as quickly as it was created.”

The survey of 656 Republican primary voters was conducted Feb. 9-10 using automated telephone interviews and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Malkin Beats Me to the Punch

I am a Santorum supporter. Rather than just explaining why I don’t support the other schmoes, I’ve had a request to write an article explaining my support for him.

Well, it appears, I don’t have to. Michelle Malkin has expressed her support for Santorum as well as I ever could.

From Michelle Malkin:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual U.S. Senate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum
has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth”, as Newt did.

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.

And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists
at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t

changed for me in 2012.

Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.

It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”

For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.

And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.

Profits are Obscene

Six House Dems Would Confiscate Oil Company Profits
by Steve Maley

Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D’OH), have filed a bill aimed at controlling gasoline prices. Styled the “Gas Price Spike Act”, H.R. 3784 would establish a “Reasonable Profits Board” which would have the power to confiscate 100% of oil company profits above a level that they deem to be “reasonable”.

I know: “You had me at ‘Kucinich’.”

Which is which?

Which is which?

Kucinich is either a naive fool, a craven panderer to his electorate, or a throwback to Soviet-style central planning. That he could find five other elected nitwits (Reps. Woolsey, Langevin, Conyers, Fudge and Filyers) to put their names on such an anti-capitalist, unconstitutional fantasy is an indication that the Far Left Wing of the Democratic Party has left the ranch.

Consider, too, what it says about “Republican” presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who recently declared that he would consider Kucinich for a cabinet post in a Paul Administration.

Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left — including Kucinich, who shares Paul’s general anti-war stance.

Paul joked that if he brought the Ohio congressman aboard in his administration, he might have to create a “Department of Peace.”

“You’ve got to give credit to people who think,” he said.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and [natural] gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members “shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board.”

Oil companies would only be able to make less than a reasonable profit without penalty. Anything over 105% of reasonable would be taxed at 100%. Proceeds of the confiscation would be dedicated to tax credits for high-milage vehicle purchase and mass transit subsidies for the poor.

Peeling back the layers of stupidity in H.R. 3784 would be akin to peeling an artichoke. In the interest of time, I will cut to my central point.

Implicit in the very suggestion that a Windfall Profit Tax is called for is the notion that somehow the oil companies are able to manipulate the price of oil, and hence, gasoline.

Gasoline prices are at historically high prices. Despite the spike above $4.00 per gallon in 2008, you actually paid 10% more at the pump in 2011.

When we refer to the industry as “oil and gas”, we mean “oil and natural gas”, not oil and gasoline. All oil companies make a substantial fraction of their revenue — many more than half — from natural gas.

The price of natural gas has plunged to 10 year lows recently as a result of warm winter temperatures, slack industrial demand and burgeoning supplies.

Natural gas prices have fallen to levels that make it difficult to justify drilling for more. Many of the new supplies of gas that come on will be incidental to the successful search for oil.

I challenge anyone who believes that oil companies control the price of oil and gasoline to explain how they do it, and why they seemingly have no control of natural gas.

Current Republican Delegate Count

Methodology: Delegate numbers for each state are after the application of penalties and include unpledged delegates. In some states where actual delegates are assigned by multi-step procedures, the AP uses results from local caucuses to calculate the number of national delegates each candidate will win. The AP interviews unpledged delegates to determine their preferences and includes them in the total.

Attribution: AP, Wallstreet Journal

Rick Santorum, A Real Conservative

[Editorial Comment: The following was not a prepared speech. It was completely extemporaneous. There was no script, no teleprompter, no blackberry and no one speaking into his ear telling him what to say. You tell me who the REAL conservative is.]

Lexington, S.C.

From: The Weekly Standard:

In the back room at the Flight Deck restaurant Tuesday afternoon, a voter posed an interesting question to Rick Santorum. What is Santorum’s own view of the Constitution,
the voter wanted to know, given that Ron Paul frequently casts himself as the only candidate who wants to adhere to the Constitution? In response, Santorum fished out of his pocket his miniature copy of the Constitution and held it tightly in his hand.

“I have a very good grasp of the Constitution,” Santorum joked. Then the former senator from Pennsylvania got serious, describing his own philosophy on the Constitution and contrasting it with Paul’s.

Ron Paul has a libertarian view of the Constitution. I do not. The Constitution has to be read in the context of another founding document, and that’s the Declaration of Independence. Our country never was a libertarian idea of radical individualism. We have certain values and principles that are embodied in our country. We have God-given rights.

The Constitution is not the “why” of America; it’s the “how” of America. It’s the operator’s manual. It’s the rules we have to play by to ensure something. And what do we ensure? God-given rights. And so to read the Constitution as the end-all, be-all is, in a sense, what happened in France.

“You see, during the ti
me of our revolution, we had a Declaration of Independence that said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, [that they are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.

See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, “No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.” No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise….

My understanding of our founding documents and the purpose of this country is different. I would argue that [Paul’s] understanding of the Constitution was similar to the French Revolution and the French understanding of the Constitution.

The French had 21,
I think, constitutions, but their constitutions were initially patterned after the American Constitution. Gave radical freedom, like ours does.

But their founding document was not the Declaration of Independence. Their founding watchwords were the words, “liberty” and “fraternity.” Fraternity. Brotherhood. But no fatherhood. No God. It was a completely secular revolution. An anti-clerical revolution. And the root of it was, whoever’s in power rules.

Romney Likes to Fire People

This one has me ticked off. I am sick & tired of the lies flying around the republican primary.

What I heard today was the straw that broke the preverbial “Camel’s Back”.

Mitt Romney was speaking at an event when he said, “I like being able to fire people … who don’t give me good service.”

Find something wrong with that statement, I dare you. That is, without twisted the words around. In context, there’s nothing wrong with it.

Some people have twisted the words around to make Mitt say, “I like to fire people”.

That some being, the media, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman & even Rick Perry. The only candidate that didn’t was Rick Santorum. Good for you, Mr. Santorum.

Newt Gingrich has once again demonstrated he is the second coming of original big government progressive, Teddy Roosevelt, with his portrayal of Romney as the evil “Bain Capital”, wallstreet mogul. Teddy would have done the same. I’m sure it’s also an attempt at payback for what the Romney Super-pac did to him in Iowa.

He (Gingrich), Jon Huntsman & Rick Perry have all lied about the Romney quote. I say they’ve lied because anyone with a brain would understand what Romney very clearly said.

I am not even a Romney supporter, but when other’s just outright lie about a candidate, I have to say something.

I might add, it wasn’t some Super-pac on their behalf. It was the candidates themselves.

I get the whole Ron Paul half truth & lie by ommission commercials. He isn’t taken seriously by enough people. I don’t lend him enough credence to worry about. He’s in this to bring his delegates to the convention to advance some of his ideas. Hopefully it’s just the domestic ones.

I am also getting frustrated with the conservative radio hosts I usually trust to get it right. Neither Rush Limbaugh nor Sean Hannity got it right today. I discount Sean, due to him being the prototypical republican apologist.

I thought at least Rush might get it right though. He didn’t. Maybe he didn’t hear the whole Romney quote, so as to put it into context. If he didn’t, he should’ve held his comments. I didn’t hear the whole segment, so I may have missed something. For now, I’ll give Rush the benefit of the doubt. He’s usually right.

As I would expect, the only talk radio to get it exactly correct was the Glenn Beck show. Stu & Pat were hosting without Glenn today. They covered the whole flap. They were dead on.

This is what we all hate about politics guys!

ACLU Picks the Republican

The ACLU, that bastion of
righteousness, has now taken upon itself to rank the presidential candidates.
The Nashua Telegraph reports that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has released their “Candidate Report Card”, ranking candidates for the Republican nomination and President Barack Obama on how well – or poorly – they adhere to the Constitution.

I wasn’t aware The ACLU had a sense of humor? They must have quite a good one because they have to be kidding. What would they know about the Constitution other than how to subvert it?

You may also say, who cares. I, for one, care. If the ACLU rates high, any Republican candidate, you best run away, from said candidate.

So, let’s take a look and see what they came up with.

You would think this would be a slam-dunk for the anointed one. Oh contraire.

The criteria that they used to rank the candidates is as follows:

The rankings, represented by lit or unlit “Lady Liberty torches” (see, they do have a sense of humor), were based on seven categories: humane immigration policy, closing Guantanamo Bay and ending indefinite detentions, gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, ending torture, ending a surveillance state, gay marriage and freedom of reproductive choice. (Weren’t these first seven amendments in the Bill of Rights?) Candidates could score up to four torches in each category, according to the report.

Here are the 2012 candidates in order of ACLU preference:

Gary Johnson, libertarian w/ 21 torches

Ron Paul, libertarian w/ 18 torches

Barack Obama came in third w/ 16

Jon Huntsman w/ 12

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry each got only 2 ACLU torches

Rating lowest and last on the ACLU scale are Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum with 0 torches. Michele Bachmann also rated 0 but has dropped out of the race.

I don’t know about you but if the ACLU doesn’t like a candidate, that alone is a good reason for me to support them.

So, that tells me I have 3 candidates to choose from.

There’s Bachmann, but she dropped out. That’s not much of an option.

How about Mitt? Well
, he’s a squishy moderate that keeps telling us he’ll work with the democrats. “Work with democrats” is code for conservatives must compromise & libs don’t. He’s out.

That leaves one. Rick Santorum.

I stand corrected. The ACLU has performed a service after all.

Attribution: Nashua Telegraph, GOPUSA

Santorum moves on to New Hampshire

From The Daily Beast: Can Santorum Compete in New Hampshire and Beyond? by Lois Romano

(My Editorial Comments will be indicated by [EC])

Rick Santorum’s New Hampshire operation was over the moon Tuesday night as their man unexpectedly soared to a photo finish with Mitt Romney for first place in the Iowa caucuses, finally coming in a tight second by just eight votes. But it will take more than sheer joy and political dexterity for his small organization here to lift him from fifth place in the Granite State.

[EC: I agree. New Hampshire is an odd state. It has always been the bastion of conservatism surrounded, on all sides, by socialists. For the past several years the state has become much more liberal. Recently though, there has been blowback & a push to return to conservatism.]

The next test for Santorum now is whether he can realistically pivot his stunning Iowa success quickly into a New Hampshire surge—and beyond. Single-state strategies rarely are effective long-term, and many Republicans say this is no exception. Santorum has had neither the money nor the organization to get traction here.

[EC: Yes, and many of those saying that are just “Republicans”, not conservatives. They will do anything they can to torpedo Santorum’s campaign. Just watch. The “Republicans” want Romney, just as they wanted McCain. McCain, as it turns out, just endorsed Romney today. What a shocker. By the way, the democrats also want Romney.]

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, holds a commanding lead in New Hampshire, as well as millions of dollars to go the distance. And third-place Iowa finisher Rep. Ron Paul has an army of well-organized, messianic volunteers to propel him.

[EC: Romney does have a fortune to spend. He also has ‘Super-Pac’ money that will do the dirty work for him while he disavows any connection to them. Paul is an enigma. He has his minions that would follow him off a cliff. What I think is an interesting dichotomy; small government

This could be fun


Ron Paul & his ‘Occupy’ loving, hippy, want everything for free supporters. Do they not know he wants to shut down all the give-away governmental departments?]

In the most recent public-opinion survey in the state, Santorum was the choice of only 5 percent of the vote. He has had no money to run paid advertisements, and now he can count on his rivals to come after him with big guns.
[EC: 2-3 weeks ago Santorum had little more support in the polls in Iowa.]

“Senator Santorum is about to discover the wrath of the super PAC!” said Patrick Griffin, a senior fellow at the Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College: “Intense scrutiny, tough ads, and an uphill battle to raise money, continue to deploy staff, and search for a significant number of social conservative voters that are simply not as plentiful in New Hampshire as in Iowa.”

[EC: Mr. Griffin is right about the whole Social Conservative thing. It is imperative Santorum break out of that mold. He must become the conservative choice, not just the social conservative. As an aside, Mr. Griffin was a republican political strategist prior to joining Saint Anselm College. By sheer coincidence, one of his clients was Mitt Romney. Just an observation.]

Still, while some of his rivals are largely skipping New Hampshire and heading straight to the more conservative South Carolina for its primary on Jan. 21, Santorum has made it clear he has every intention of riding his wave into New Hampshire. “Game on,” Santorum told his cheering supporters Tuesday in Iowa.

With an attentive media contingent in tow, the former Pennsylvania senator hits the ground running with a two-hour town-hall meeting Wednesday night that will be followed by at least 10 more before Tuesday’s primary. He has spent considerable time here—and has an enthusiastic core of supporters and volunteers in place.

[EC: He is garnering more support here. I personally know he has many more volunteers. I’ve had more than a few calls from already. Some are even reading this blog.]

“I’ve spent more time in New Hampshire and done more events than anybody but Jon Huntsman. And the same thing with South Carolina,” he said. “We feel very, very good that we’ve got the organization. And money is coming in better than it’s ever come in. And [after Iowa] we suspect we’ll have the resources to be able not just to compete in New Hampshire, but to compete all the way through.”

Indeed, his staff is banking that his Iowa success will generate ample funds and supporters to help him push forward. In addition, Santorum will generate much free media coverage.

“We know we can build on this momentum,” says Bill Cahill, a co-chair of Santorum’s New Hampshire campaign. “We’re going to make it happen with what we’ve got. We’re not going to staff up. Look, if he can come in at third place, it would be a phenomenon and spectacular. And we think we can make it happen.”

[EC: He just may do that. There is a lot more buzz about Santorum up here. People actually know who he is now.]

Cahill dismissed the notion that New Hampshire voters may find Santorum too socially conservative with his oppositions to abortion and same-sex marriage. “Conservatives play well in New Hampshire, and his positions on trade, tax policy, and national security are appealing. There’s a very large Catholic and ethnic populations here … The old Reagan coalition is still around for us.”

[EC: Cahill was right to dismiss the notion of anti-abortion & homosexual marriage. The only reason they are still intact is thanks to New Hampshire’s democrat Governor’s veto pen. Santorum must push hard his fiscal conservative policies. Show he is a well-rounded & most of all principled & ethical conservative leader. Push his foreign policy, his support for Israel. Remind people how great and good America is under true conservative leadership.]