A Man Without a (Tea) Party

Wake up Tea Party. You’re backing the wrong man and I can’t figure out why?

Newt’s latest attack of Romney is over Bain Capital and how Mitt has “destroyed jobs”, etc.

There is plenty of things to tag Romney with. Why pick the one capitalist thing he has done? That doesn’t sound like a conservative.

Yet plenty of Tea Party leaders are backing Newt.

“My sense is there is a growing coalition behind Newt Gingrich,” said Joe Dugan, leader of the South Carolina Tea Party. He added that Tea Party members do not want a “moderate” like Romney as their standard-bearer.

He would much rather throw in with an FDR “Progressive” than a moderate or a real conservative like Santorum.

Yes, I said FDR. As I have stated in past articles, Newt has proclaimed reverence for the 4 most despicable presidents in history; Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt. If given enough time, he’ll probably eulogize LBJ.

If I knew nothing more about Newt, that would be enough. No real conservative would ever back such a man.

I recall going to Tea Party events, where many were condemning Obama for his socialist, Marxist, communist, terrorist friends and ties. You do pick your friends, allies and idols, you know.

Now, I suppose, it’s ok to discount the candidate’s own words & alliances.

I guess we’ll just overlook when Newt stated how, “The Four Freedoms still work.”

In his own words:

No Reagan, no Coolidge or Harding. Just FDR & Wilson.

If you are not familiar with the Four Freedoms, it was part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union speech where he said everyone in the world should have the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

The first 2 are fine, but the third & fourth? Really? Are they in the Constitution, Mr. “History Professor” Gingrich?

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said, “Newt Gingrich is not perfect, but he is head and shoulders above the best candidate in the field right now.”

Holy crap!! I think I just figured it out. I began writing this article without knowing why my supposed brethren would do this. I was just hoping to solve it before I completed this.

Let’s read what Phillips said again. He is the best “Candidate” in the field. That’s it; Candidate!

Well folks, a candidate can’t govern. These Tea Partiers backing Newt are evidently giving little to no thought of how he will govern once he becomes president. They are so blinded by the possibility of Barack Obama winning a second term; they are willing to sell out what I thought they/we stood for.

Do they think Newt’s fire & brimstone style will carry the day? He only surges after debates. Without them, he is surely toast anyway.

Remember people; both sides have to agree to debates. How many, where, when, etc.
They will also be moderated by the enemy and the audiences that Newt relies on so heavily, will be stacked against him. I guarantee it.

If Newt wins the nomination, Obama may debate him once, even twice early on and then, nothing. There will more than ample time for any debate bounce to vanish.

I don’t care if Newt says he’ll follow Obama to the ends of the earth, The One, will not continue to debate him and the media will certainly carry his water in that regard.

Now, with my rant finished, I will still more than likely, hold my nose once again and vote for Newt, if he wins the nomination. I would vote for a dirty diaper before casting my ballot for King Barack.

Election Analysis by a Brit

The following is a post election anaylsis by british reporter Toby Harden of the UK Daily Mail. Sometimes it’s fun to see if their prospective is any different from our own. I think he is fairly spot on. Pip Pip, Cheerio!

He titles the article:

THE FIGHT IS ON! NEWT GINGRICH VICTORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA MEANS NO MORE MR. INEVITABLE FOR MITT ROMNEY

Turnaround: Mr. Gingrich’s victory came after an amazing fight back over the past week.

What a turnaround! A week ago, it looked like Mitt Romney was going to head into the Florida primary with three victories under his belt. Then it turned out that Rick Santorum won Iowa after all and South Carolina voters backed Newt Gingrich, delivering a message to Romney and the media: ‘Not so fast!’

So, for the first time in Republican history there’s been a three-way split decision between Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Next up, in 10 days’ time, is Florida, where Romney holds a solid double-digit lead and has the money and organisation that should ensure he wins a large state with nine separate television markets.

Of course, Romney’s emphatic 16-point win in New Hampshire and consequent double-digit poll lead here in South Carolina should have delivered him victory tonight so no one in Romneyworld will be taking anything for granted in the Sunshine State.

What did it for Gingrich here? Two very strong debate performances were key. His best moment was his exchange with Juan Williams of Fox in Monday’s Myrtle Beach debate in which he gave full-throated voice to the conservative philosophy of self-help and free enterprise as well as casting aside political correctness and racial tiptoeing.

Then, the much-ballyhooed ABC News interview with his second wife Marianne backfired spectacularly. CNN gave Gingrich a gift by asking him about the ‘open marriage’ allegation right at the start of Thursday’s debate in Charleston. Savaging the ‘liberal media’ is almost invariably a winner in Republican primaries and Gingrich took full advantage.

More generally, however, South Carolina voters decided they did not want a coronation or to send an unvetted nominee into battle against President Barack Obama, with a billion dollars in campaign funds behind him, in November.

He remains the favourite for the GOP nomination but it is now clear that Romney is no shoo-in. And nor should he be. Obama’s long and bitter primary contest with Hillary Clinton in 2008 ultimately meant that he was battle-tested for the general election. Whoever emerges as the Republican nominee in 2012 needs to be the same.

Romney, uncharacteristically, was vague and halting in the two debates this week and need to turn in a strong performance in Tampa on Monday. In his ‘concession’ speech (I never heard him concede to or congratulate Gingrich) he was fiercely combative, indicating that he will go for Gingrich’s throat in Florida.

Previewing a key line of attack, Romney compared Gingrich to Obama: ‘Our party can’t be led to victory by someone who also has never run a business and never run a state.’
Gingrich still has a mountain to climb. By every measure, he is significantly behind in Florida and one lesson of this race so far is that momentum from one victory matters very little. But tonight has burst the bubble of inevitability in which Romney had been enveloped.

Romney’s opponents have long suspected he has a glass jaw. Now we will see whether he can take a punch, get up off the floor and keep fighting.

George W. Bush recovered from a drubbing in
New Hampshire in 2000 at the hands of John McCain. Barack Obama overcame a stunning defeat at the hands of Clinton in the same state in 2008. Romney now has the chance to prove he is made of similar stuff.
Gingrich, the early December front runner, has already sunk once in the polls under sustained negative attack from Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Perry. He’ll need to brace himself for a Romney onslaught in Florida with every detail of his ethics violations, marital infidelities, House leadership stumbles and activities on behalf of Freddie Mac laid bare for all to see.

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

Another Green President, Perhaps

With the recent shakeup in the republican primary, Mitt Romney can no longer be considered the prohibitve favorite. I still think he is favored, but it’s getting very interesting.

With that said, do we really want or need another global warming advocate in the White House? Is Mitt a greenie or a flip flopper? You decide.

I guess I wouldn’t classify Mitt Romney’s positions on Global Warming, Flip Flops. I would say it’s more of a slow climb over a fence, climbing from the left to the right side of the fence.

First you’re on one side. Then you climb up, you straddle said fence while you inspect the lay of the land on the other side and then climb down. Voilà, you have changed your position.

As recently as his 2010 book, No Apology, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring. … I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

In June of 2011 he said, “I think the earth is getting warmer. … I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”

During a campaign stop back in October 2011 Mitt Romney stated, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,”

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said recently, “Governor Romney has been consistent in his statements on global warming.”

However, EPA Abuse reports:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has had numerous positions on climate change, carbon dioxide and global warming over the years.
His most recent views seem conservative, but as governor of Massachusetts, his views were in line with Al Gore’s views.

Human Events columnist Deroy Murdock recently outlined some of these “hot and cold” positions on global warming from the man who wishes to be President of the United States.

Murdock notes:
In 2004, Romney launched the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, “a coordinated statewide response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate,” as his office described it.

Romney’s December 7, 2005 press release announced, “Strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.”

“These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” Romney said. This red tape, the communiqué noted, is designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from power plant smokestacks.” Furthermore, the experts whom Romney consulted “include John Holdren [sic]…at Harvard University.”

“Romney (or his staff) was misled by John ‘Holdren’ [sic], a rabid environmentalist and collaborator of the notorious Paul Ehrlich.

John Holdren is now Obama’s science adviser,” says Dr. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a University of Virginia professor emeritus of physics and environmental science and the U.S. Weather Satellite Service’s founding director. “They consider CO2 a pollutant and mention it along with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury — all real pollutants, injurious to human health. Clearly, they had no clue about the science.”

“No one would choose such a green course, enlist such advisors, and then suddenly reverse himself,” the Cato Institute’s Dr. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., tells me. “As president, Romney will revert to his more familiar green self.”

Now, let’s juxtapose Rick Santorum’s (you know, the real conservative) view on the subject:

“There is no such thing as global warming,” he told a smiling Glenn Beck on Fox News in June 2011. That same month, he told Rush Limbaugh that climate change is a liberal conspiracy: “It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Santorum accused the EPA of acting on a philosophy of “We hate carbon, we hate fossil fuels, we hate blue-collar Americans who work in those areas.”

“Drill everywhere” is his philosophy when it comes to oil, he told Beck.

Santorum doesn’t see what the big fuss is about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline traversing the Ogallala Aquifer. “Has anybody looked at the number of pipelines that go through that aquifer now? I mean, you can’t even see the aquifer if you look at a schematic of how many pipelines are there,” he told Iowans at a Dec. 31 rally. Opposition to the pipeline is just “pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” he continued. “… It has to do with an ideology, a religion of its own that’s being pushed on the American public.”

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Attribution: UK Guardian, CBS News

Conservatives Rule??

From The Blaze:

While many elements of society seem to surely be shifting ever-further to the left of the political spectrum, a recent Gallup poll released Thursday reveals otherwise. According to the survey, conservatives continue to make up the largest political segment in the country, outnumbering liberals nearly two-to-one.

The Gallup poll shows that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent moderate; and 21 percent view themselves as liberal. The figures are no different than they were in 2010 and conservatives have outnumbered both moderates and liberals for three years running now.

Politico adds:

Conservatives began outstripping moderates in 2008, and the percentage of moderates has declined steadily over the last two decades, from 43 percent 1992 to 35 percent in 2011.

In fact, both self-identified conservatives and liberals have risen in number since the early 1990s, indicating a growing polarization in American politics.

While self-identified conservatives dominate the Republican Party, making up 71 percent, the Democratic Party is more split – 39 percent of Democrats view themselves as liberal, and 38 percent consider themselves moderates.

It might be worth noting that, per the poll’s findings, independents are mainly moderate (41 percent), but veer more towards conservatism (35 percent) than liberalism (20 percent).

The Gallup poll was conducted with 20,392 respondents and allows for a margin of error of plus or minus one.

Editorial Comment: Sorry to be a downer, but I personally am not buying any of this. If this poll is even close to accurate, how is it we keep electing and reelecting, squishy, middle of the road moderates. How is our frontrunning presidential candidate, “Thoroughly Moderate Mitt”.

Maybe it’s conservatives fear of losing that overshadows their better judgement? I don’t know what it is. All I know is that I am conservative & I am disappointed every election cycle.

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

Confirmation of the Santorum Surge

I attended a Republican forum the other night where the debates, polling and the various candidates were discussed. I introduced the results of a Rasmussen poll regarding the continued surge of Rick Santorum. Well, the place started buzzing. It seems, no one had heard or seen this poll.

I thought it odd the panel of experts discounted it so quickly, claiming Rasmussen’s record wasn’t that great. The mantra continued to be, Romney will win going away. He may very well & he’d better. The expectations in New Hampshire are that Romney kills the competition. In my opinion, if Santorum comes within 10 points of Mitt, it’s really going to upset things in the establishment.

From Newsmax:

Rick Santorum has vaulted into second place among the Republican presidential candidates, polling well into the double digits in the last month, according to two new national surveys from the leading poll outlets Rasmussen and Gallup.

Rasmussen has Santorum in second with 21 percent of likely Republican primary voters in its latest poll, just behind Mitt Romney at 29 percent.

The poll was conducted Wednesday night, a day after Santorum’s surprising second-place finish at the Iowa caucuses, in which the former Pennsylvania senator fell short of Romney by only eight votes.

The Gallup poll has Santorum’s share of the vote increasing to 11 percent, from 8 percent, in its daily tracking poll. Gallup uses a five-day rolling sample, meaning that only 20 percent of its interviews were conducted after Santorum’s showing in Iowa. That implies that Santorum polled at or just above 20 percent in interviews conducted on Wednesday alone, consistent with his standing in the Rasmussen Reports survey, The New York Times pointed out.

In the Rasmussen poll the two frontrunners were followed by Newt Gingrich at 16 percent, Ron Paul at 12 percent and Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman at 4 percent each. Santorum began November at 1 percent in the same survey, and finished the month at only 4 percent.

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.]