Bullets Blog News

The Rise and Fall of Newt Gingrich

2012-01-26T19:08:00.000-05:00

Newt was floundering around after a sub-par fifth place finish in the New Hampshire Primary, and needed something to dig into and gain traction to propel his way forward. Along came ABC News and John King. Last Friday, the morning of the biggest debate in the career of Newt Gingrich, ABC News came out with an interview with one of his former wives explaining how the man had asked for an open marriage because he was having an affair. What topic did John King, the CNN moderator for the debate that night, bring up as the first question? You guessed it, that interview:

Well, that was a fantastic response from Mr. Gingrich. In fact, it was that response that lead to him shooting up the polls and erasing a double digit Mitt Romney lead on his way to winning the South Carolina Primary in a landslide. Despite the opinion of many people, I think Newt's response was completely fine. The fact is, nothing that came out in the ABC interview was not already out there for the public to read. All of this information was readily available, so why release this interview at such an important time for a man who is trying to win the Republican nomination? Clearly there was another motive for ABC beside just enlightening the people. Then, add in the fact that this topic was brought up as the first question of the most important debate? Come on, how about you at least start the debate with the important issues? I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed, as it absolutely should, but is that really a topic that's worthy of occupying the first question? I don't think it is. His reaction to that question created a surge that won him South Carolina, and turned the tables nicely to wind up taking a 9 point lead in the Florida polls just a week after Mitt Romney had a 26 point lead. His reaction to that question put him back on the map in the GOP race. Now that he's a serious contender though, he's subject to increased scrutiny.

I supported Newt Gingrich. If you've followed my political posts, you would know that I've been a strong supporter of Rick Santorum for a while now. Since Santorum just doesn't have the finances or the publicity to win the nomination, my decision was left between Romney, Gingrich, and Ron Paul. Despite the fact that he's very bright economically, I can't vote for Ron Paul due to his foreign policy. I had been extremely tentative about Romney as he's clearly the most moderate of the candidates, which caused me to support Gingrich. That and the fact that he's a fantastic debater, and I would pay an obscene amount of money to see him debate Obama, simply because he would crush him.

However, yesterday my support faded. Not because of anything he did or said, but because of what other people have said. It's truly become apparent that not only do liberals hate Gingrich, but an unbelievable amount of conservatives hate him as well. One of my favorite conservative women, Ann Coulter, is an enormous fan of Mitt Romney, and clearly a lot of it has to do with her passionate hatred of Newt Gingrich. Here's what she said on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Monday:

I could listen to that women talk forever, as she's unbelievably intelligent. I question her claim that Romney's the most conservative candidate, as there's no way in hell he's more conservative than Santorum, but other than that she's fantastic. Another one of my favorite people, Glenn Beck (say what you want), has also come out and crushed Gingrich:

I've been listening to his radio show but I couldn't find a video from that, so I figured this one would prove the point. Either way, you'd a conservative like Beck, who is widely criticized by liberals for being radically right-winged, would support a man who is running as a "Bold Reagan conservative". Then, finally, to someone who I find to be even more radical than Beck, Michael Savage. Even I think Savage is a bit of a nut, although the man is unbelievably intelligent. As a side not, Savage has a PhD in Botany. Yes, botany. I'm pretty sure nobody has ever gotten a PhD in that field without being legally documented as a genius. Also, he's banned from the country of England, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, the man is so against Gingrich that he offered him a million dollars to not run for president. Not only is it repulsive that a radio host has that much money to throw around, but to hate someone that much? That's inconceivable.

The amount of backlash against Gingrich is appalling, and since it's coming from strong conservatives along with the far left it's hard to defend Newt. If the man can't even win the support of the people who he's supposed to be appealing to, then how can we expect him to gain enough support from independents to beat Obama? Again, say what you want, but I respect these people, and they all agree that Newt is simply not a true conservative. It's impossible to ignore these views coming out, and it's really hard to cause this volume of people to flat out despise you. Well done Newt, you managed to do it. You're only slightly ahead of Ron Paul in my book. And I mean slightly.

The State of The State of the Union

2012-01-25T16:00:00.002-05:00

Last night, Obama gave his State of the Union address. Sadly, due to a scheduling issue I was unable to see the first half. Of what I saw, I enjoyed parts of it and did not enjoy others as much. This blog will center on the financial aspect of his speech.

One of the points Obama made during the address was his firm belief in a graduated tax scale. He detailed a new plan, called the "Buffet plan," which basically says that all families earning over one million annually would be required to pay 30% federal income tax. In addition, this plan would eliminate families that earn that much wouldn’t be allowed to take deductions for mortgage interest, health care, retirement or child care. Obviously, charitable contributions would still qualify for tax breaks.

I like this plan, even though I'm typically a very conservative financial thinker -- that is to say, I support traditionally conservative policies, such as less government spending. However one issue I disagree with is the idea of a flat income tax. I believe that there should be some sort of graduated income tax, based on what you can afford to pay.

Facts back me up on this one. In a theoretical study done by Cornell's Robert Frank, a study was done that proved that higher tax rate for the wealthy did not decrease their spending power. This sounds impossible, but the wealthy who spend millions of dollars on lobbyists for tax cuts would not change their spending practices whatsoever in the event of a graduated tax. This is proven in history -- following the Reagan and Bush tax cuts in the late 80's and early 90's, the unsubstantial amount of excess capital they would have possessed would have provided low utility and satisfaction.

In addition to that, if across the board tax cuts are imposed continuously, the end result (assuming no increase in output exists) is more wealth for everyone, but also a rise in inflation, basically negating the increase in money by having a lower tax rate.

Finally, by having the rich pay a higher tax, it allows the government to have more revenue. When government spends money, it becomes income to a large number of citizens. This pumps money into the economy, to the people who are not wealthy. In terms of spending, the times when tax cuts are applied to the rich, we have seen that the economy will contract. The only fundamental way to increase the economy in terms of spending is to increase taxation on the rich.

Like I said earlier, I typically shade to the right on financial issues, but I think I'm with Obama on this one.
Something I was NOT with Obama on was the way he made higher education sound like a right and not a privilege. It is not. Plain and simple, if every single person who attended high school ended college, a college degree would mean absolutely nothing. And, trade jobs that are typically filled by skilled laborers who have high school degrees would be vacant. That would be bad for the economy.

Another issue on education, Obama called for every single state to require students to remain in school until they were 18 or they graduate. Once again, some students are just A) Not dedicated to learning, B) Do not care about getting a degree, or C) Would be better served by joining the military or a trade job. Requiring students to stay in school is an idealistic idea that sounds good on paper, but would not help our country in the long run. If anything in education needs to be reformed, its the teaching system that allows teachers to get tenure after 3 years, and stop trying. Not fixing the students who will never be successful in the first place.

All in all, Obama made some good points. What was your opinion on the speech?

The Oil-Pipeline fiasco

2012-01-24T00:59:00.003-05:00

Looking back over time, when a current president up for re-election is trying to gain more support, they will suddenly become more moderate, cross party lines more, and basically do everything they promised to do from the start.

A great example of this is Bill Clinton. With the backing of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, he was able to begin the process of balancing the budget prior to the 1996 election, which he won. By cutting government spending, he won the support of many moderates for the election, some of whom would have voted Republican without that strategic move.

This year, Barack Obama, the incumbent, has a chance to do the same thing. In what figures to be a very close election, and with huge issues such as the war on terrorism, the pesky economy and growing debt and prevalent (and polarizing) social issues such as abortion at the forefront of this election, Obama had an opportunity to win some support from the moderates by signing a bill legitimizing an oil-pipeline from the tar sands of Canada to the refineries in Texas.

In what was a stunning political move to many, he did NOT sign the bill.

This move made a huge splash in the political world.

It did not make any sense in terms of increasing the votes he would get, but it does set an interesting precedent in terms of doing the right thing.

The far right would rather see myself on the ballot than another four years of Obama. Signing this bill would have no effect on their vote.

The environmentalists who adamantly opposed this bill were already Obama supporters, and will vote Democrat if they put up a real donkey in honor of their party’s symbol. So, by signing this bill, Obama was not trying to get votes from the environmentalists.

What that leaves is the moderates, some on the right and some on the left, including me, who for the most part do not like the signing of this bill. Obama did not sign this bill, and it will cost him votes.

Does this mean the unthinkable?

Did Barack Obama make a political move that — and please, stay with me on this one — was a part of his platform, because he believed it was the right thing to do?

Sticking true to his guns, a United States president made a political move that cost him votes, despite pressure from lobbyists, congress and the public, because it was what he believed in, was one of the things that got him elected.

Like him or not, like his political motives or not, like his decision or not, what Obama did took some balls.

I gained a lot of my respect back for Mr. Obama this past week. He not only refused to sign the bill into law because it was what he believed in, but he also proposed a new bill (that is not to say he drew up a blueprint for a new pipeline, but he detailed why he didn’t sign the bill and the issues attached to it) that explained where the pipeline would have to go to avoid interfering with an environmentally unstable area.

Gotta love that!

The political landscape is changing drastically, and currently my vote is up for grabs. But by doing what I did not support, the very opposite of what I wanted to see, but by sticking to his guns, Obama gained some respect from me. Let’s see if he can impress me further!

What is the most important aspect of a person’s political stance?

South Carolina: the whirlwind that was

2012-01-22T19:10:00.003-05:00

10 days ago today, Mitt Romney won the state of New Hampshire on a wave of momentum that carried him from a tight-second place finish in Iowa (originally declared the winner, after re-voting it turned out Rick Santorum won). He seemed to be in complete control of the Republican race, and I all but declared him the winner right then and there.

The race turned to South Carolina. Romney strolled in on that wave of momentum, with a lead in straw polls on Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Santorum. But then the game changed — and quickly.

First, Rick Perry dropped out of the race. He threw his support to Newt Gingrich, calling him a “visionary” and someone that can “lead the republican party back to prominence.” His supporters, for the most part, began supporting New Gingrich.

Second, there were a few debates that occurred, and in the first Gingrich came out as the clear winner. The second debate, the proctor opened with a question about Gingrich’s estranged life. Gingrich stopped, thought for a moment, and the proctor asked if he wanted to answer the question. Gingrich stared the proctor in the eye and said “I don’t want to, but I will.” He then went on to once again dominate the debate, coming across as a strong leader and someone who even the biggest Romney supporters had to applaud.

Finally, in the past few days, straw polls began showing Gingrich ahead of Romney. By the time polls opened today, Gingrich held a comfortable lead, approximately 40% in favor of Newt and 26% in favor of Romney.

And now, here we sit, with 3 major networks declaring him the official winner. Gingrich has apparently pulled off the win.

I don’t need to explain the importance of South Carolina — the winner of SC has won the nomination since 1980. Is this prophetic? We’ll see.

How did this happen?

For starters, Perry’s folding greatly helped Gingrich. It is estimated that 36% of Perry’s supporters switched to Gingrich, and only 20% switched to Romney. That was certainly a boost.

Another reason are the debates. Gingrich made himself seem like a much stronger candidate simply by being a great debater. Barack Obama’s incredible public speaking skills definitely helped him win both the nomination, and then the presidency.

So how does this change the shape of the election? I think it does in a few ways.

First of all, Romney is no longer a shoo-in. Before South Carolina, it was tough to imagine any candidate making a strong push against him. His success in the preceding states was absolutely unmatched, and the prime contestant in his previous states was not Gingrich but Santorum, who fell off the table in NH and SC.

Second of all, I think Gingrich’s success here all but ends Santorum’s candidacy. Gingrich called for Santorum to drop out, so Gingrich can make him his VP and end the continuing struggle between Gingrich and Santorum that divides the far right in the primary. My guess is that Santorum dropping out will greatly increase Gingrich’s chance of winning, and the longer he continues to run, Gingrich will lose ground.

Who will win? Tough to say. My vote is still for Mr. Romney, but New Gingrich has certainly made this a tougher race. Florida is in a few days, we’ll see what happens there!

Why I Don't Want to Support Mitt Romney

2012-01-20T13:24:00.000-05:00

Despite being registered as such, I don't like to refer to myself as a Republican, I'm much more representative of a Conservative. Hence the title, I'm not the biggest of fans of Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Since the field is down to just four candidates now, as opposed to seven just a couple weeks ago, the anti-Romney vote (The majority of true Conservatives) is now being
split between just two people, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Romney appeals to the more moderate voters, and the fact that his poll numbers have hovered around 20-25% during the majority of the campaign shows that Conservatives are tentative to give him a shot, electing instead to exhaust all of the other possibilities. Yesterday, one time (Although very brief) frontrunner Rick Perry dropped out of the race. With him being a strong Conservative, his votes will most likely go in the direction of Newt Gingrich who has been surging after his undeniably impressive debate performances this week, or Rick Santorum, as they share similar values. However, as long as Gingrich and Santorum are both fighting for that demographic, and Ron Paul remains in his own little world, Romney will remain the frontrunner. This alone is why Rick Santorum, my favorite candidate, needs to drop out of the race.

Now, I'm sure a lot of people won't understand this. They'll ask, "Why would this idiot want the candidate he wants to run this country to drop out? He can't really hate Mitt Romney this much, can he? Why is Romney so bad?" And to these people I will say first and foremost I am only an idiot about certain things and this is not one of them. Secondly, with the help of the tools I'm gaining in my pursuit of a Math Degree, I have devised a formula that shows that if Santorum drops out, Newt will win. I know, it's abstract, and hard to follow, but here goes:

Let S = Santorum's votes, R = Romney's votes, P = Paul's votes, and G = Gingrich's votes
Total Republican Votes = R + P + S + G

That's fair to say, they are the only ones receiving any substantial amount of votes.

Conservative Votes = S + G
Moderate Votes = R
Insert Synonym for "Lunatic" Votes = P
Total Republican Votes = Conservative Votes + Moderate Votes + Other Votes

It's fair to say that Santorum and Gingrich are splitting the Conservative votes, Romney has the Moderates, and Paul has a number of different adjectives for his supporters. Combined, these three types of voters make up the vast majority of Republican Votes.

Now, let's add in the percentage for each of the candidates in the newest national polls, and then in the South Carolina polls as their primary is tomorrow.

Romney Votes = 31.6 Nationally, 31.5 SC
Gingrich Votes = 19.4 Nationally, 32.5 SC
Paul Votes = 14.4 Nationally, 14.0 SC
Santorum Votes = 14.2 Nationally, 11.8 SC

As of now, Gingrich is leading in the polls in South Carolina, but it's too close to call. Take a look at how the Conservative vote is divided nationally:

Conservative Votes = S + G
Conservative Votes = 14.2 + 19.4
Conservative Votes = 33.6

33.6% of the people in this great country are associating themselves with a Conservative candidate, and it's reasonable to conclude that if Santorum were to drop out, the vast majority of his votes would go to Gingrich, leaving that 33.6% constant, and pushing Gingrich to surpass Mitt Romney.

Now, to the question as to why I hate Mitt Romney, my answer is simple: I don't. I don't hate Mitt Romney, I just don't love him. I love Santorum's stance on family values and building from the bottom up. The fact that the family unit is becoming such a problem in this country, I truly believe that if that is fixed, a lot of the social problems such as a lack of ambition, drive, or motivation would be eliminated (Occupiers, I'm looking at you). I love Gingrich's debating skills, he's fantastic to listen to, and despite his immense amount of baggage that is completely fair game, he comes across more genuine than Romney. Gingrich is a true Conservative. As for Romney, there's just something missing. He's not a great debater.

He doesn't seem particularly candid, in fact I think I trust Newt more than Romney and Newt's had three wives, two of which he's cheated on.

There's just something missing with Romney. I don't get excited about him, and being my first election in which I can vote, I want to vote for someone who I actually want to vote for. I don't want to have to settle for someone who comes across as a spineless snake. Up against Obama, Mitt Romney will get my vote every day of the week, but I'm not going to be excited to go out and vote. That's the difference. It's nothing tangible, just a feeling I get, and clearly I'm not the only one who feels the same way, otherwise Romney wouldn't be in this predicament.

On a side note, and a very important note about the General Election, people like me need to stop disrespecting Ron Paul and his supporters. Firstly, if Ron Paul decides to run as a third party after he doesn't receive the nomination, you can say hello to four more years of Obama. Second, whoever the Republican nominee is, they're going to need the votes from his supporters if they want to win the presidency. Obama supporters should be lining up at Ron Paul's house, begging him to run in the General Election. The Republican candidate would be done if that were to happen.

And then there were 4: GOP Primary

2012-01-20T00:50:00.001-05:00

With the news of Texas governor Rick Perry dropping out of the Republican Primary, the former Republican clusterfuck has been left to a four horse race.

Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Santorum remain in the running.

Currently, I would say it is clearly Romney in the lead. He won (contested) Iowa, definitively won New Hampshire and is the straw poll leader in South Carolina. It is safe to say that with a few more states under his belt, Romney can all but walk away from this thing as the winner.

So, any conservative out there who dislikes Romney for whatever reason, it is time to follow my esteemed colleague Chris Talone and begin to make sacrifices.

Chris is and has been a Rick Santorum supporter since the beginning. But in a conversation with him earlier today, he said he wants Santorum out of the running, and for him to throw his support to Newt Gingrich, similar to what Rick Perry did earlier today.

As a supporter of Santorum, one might ask why he would want Santorum to drop out. The answer is simple, and also very telling.

Chris is so against Romney, that he would rather see his candidate drop out, so that the more conservative supporters of Santorum are forced to support Gingrich, which will inevitably topple Romney as the current favorite.

He's right of course, with Santorum out of the picture, his supporters would rather be called a liberal than support Romney. They would then vote for the most conservative remaining candidate, Gingrich. Ron Paul is on his own little planet somewhere, technically a Republican, but more of a libertarian. The vote would be split essentially between Romney and Gingrich, with the more moderate conservatives supporting Romney and the more "extreme" supporting Gingrich.

I wonder aloud to all of my loyal readers, assuming any of them are Republicans who are passionate about the nomination, to tell me: what is it about Romney that is so bad? I have my own opinions, and I know Chris's reasoning. But it seems to me like some moderates would rather see Obama as president again before Romney. Let me know what you think!

SOPA: Where do you draw the line?

2012-01-19T13:17:00.007-05:00

A lot has been made of the new SOPA and PIPA bills that are currently on the floor of Congress. But if you’re like me, you haven’t really figured out exactly what they are, or how they will affect our current internet use.

So I did some digging, and found out.

SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, basically is designed to tackle the problem of foreign-based websites that sell pirated movies, music and other products on the web. So, at its roots, it sounds like a good deal. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, hereafter the MPA, 13% of adults have watched pirated movies online, and this illegal action has cost Hollywood billions.

With the national debt rising by the day, billions of dollars shot into the economy sounds pretty good to me.
There is a flip side, however. SOPA allows private entities, such as the MPA, and government entities, such as anti-piracy groups, to monitor the use of these foreign sites. This will without a doubt reduce our privacy, and give the government more control over what we do online and how we do it. Not to mention, its the classic “where do you draw the line?” debate, if the government can control foreign-based websites, who’s to say they can’t start censoring what we post?

The supporters of this bill are, no surprises here, big businesses and the government who want to stop piracy, generate more revenue for the American people, and reduce the problem of copyright infringement online. The people against this bill are foreign based websites, also including social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, who allow their users to upload and create material that may be in direct violation of the new laws. Also, search engine giant Google, and the world’s largest encyclopedia Wikipedia, are in opposition to this bill due to the fact the most of their content is user-generated, and therefore potentially infringement material. Those two sites had a blackout yesterday, where their material was not available to the public for 24 hours.

So, what is the right answer here?

It’s a tough decision. You’re going to have people very passionate on both sides. Some of my friends have tweeted, started Facebook groups and signed petitions to send to Washington against this bill, and a few of my friends have told me that this is good for American business, and should be passed immediately. I myself am very torn.

I think if this bill was put on the Congress floor and I was voting on it, I would vote it into law.

The main reason I would agree to this is because I personally live within the framework of the law when it comes to downloading foreign sites and abusing copyright infringement. I have never once downloaded music illegally, all 7600 songs on my iPod are from CD’s, cassettes and yes, even records that I had converted to mp3′s. Not one song was downloaded illegally!

When it comes to watching videos online and TV shows, I typically only use sites sponsored by the show itself, or a network website. For example, I use southparkstudios.com to watch South Park, and tbs.com to watch Family Guy. If SOPA was enacted this very second, my internet usage would not change a lot.

Another interesting thing to think about. The only people who complain about mandatory drug tests at the work place are the people who take illegal drugs. Sure, drug tests are annoying, and potentially could be viewed as an invasion of privacy, but if you’re clean you don’t really care. If you don’t do illegal things online, you won’t have a problem following the “new” laws put in place by SOPA.

What I find very interesting is that some of the people who are concerned with privacy online are the very same people who post ridiculous thing about themselves that make one think they are not very concerned with privacy at all. For example, the world doesn’t need to know just how drunk you are on a Monday, and if you’re tweeting that you clearly don’t really care who knows. You’re telling the government doesn’t already check those things? And if not the government, prospective employers? You are not concerned with privacy, you just want to keep your ability to download movies, TV shows and music illegally.

So, in conclusion, where do you draw the line? Government entities might be able to control what you put on the web, but that isn’t going to stop me from using Facebook and Twitter exactly the same way I do now. Or Google, for that matter. I really don’t like the idea of censorship, but I don’t think it will get that far. If stopping illicit activities online can help save our economy, and open up the job market for me when I graduate from college, sign me up. What do you think about the bill?

The fall of Eastman Kodak

2012-01-14T22:51:00.000-05:00

Not many companies have fallen as hard as Eastman Kodak.

Eastman Kodak Co. is an imaging company based in Rochester, New York. In order to understand how huge the company was to the area, you need only go to to Rochester, find someone with a bit of gray hair, and mention the word "Kodak." The reaction could be a variety of things.

The reaction could be positive: after all, it is because of Kodak and its main rival, Rochester based Xerox, made Rochester into the boom town that it was. Kodak alone employed 60,000 people in the Rochester area into the 1970's, and the famed Kodak Park spanned 4 miles across downtown Rochester. Many people I know from the area refer to Kodak Park as "a college campus," that had its own shoe store, restaurants, and other amenities that helped make Eastman Kodak the leading employer in Rochester. The population swelled to one million people by the 1980 census. Kodak invented such world-changing devices like Kodachrome, the first color film for amateurs in 1935, and the Instamatic camera, an easy-to-load camera that was immensely popular for 2 decades, in 1963.The company held a gigantic share in the market of digital imaging, and life was good for Rochester.

The reaction could be negative: Kodak plunged following its enormous success in the 1950's through 1970's. A lawsuit with Polaroid forced Kodak to pay $925 million in 1991. The company introduced disc photography in 1982, which was ultimately unsuccessful and lost the company lots of money. But the most glaring example of why Kodak has such a poor name now: a lack of foresight into the digital photography market.

Kodak had been a forward thinking company throughout its history, developing the brownie camera and patenting the aforementioned Kodachrome and Instamatic camera. These products were ahead of their time, and simply put, they created the market for their product. Rather than inhabiting an already existing market, they invented a product that changed the market and reset it for themselves.

Digital photography was developed in the 1950's, but was not made commercially available until Sony released the Sony Mavica in 1981. The issue was the Kodak did not believe that digital photography would succeed. They stubbornly stuck to their old ways, using film photography, acknowledging that digital photography was indeed easier for the consumer, but that film photography was still superior in terms of quality. And that alone would propel their film photography to more success.

Once they did produce a digital camera in 1995, Kodak accidentally got companies such as Microsoft into the digital photography market. Microsoft developed a digital image making software which flooded the market with more cameras, more markets, and more technology that Kodak was not equipped to handle.

Well, we all know what happened.

Digital photography exploded into the only form of photography currently used by most people. This wave of technology was the knockout punch for Kodak.

The former "college campus" company that employed 60,000 people in Monroe County, New York, is currently a shadow of its former self. The company employs 7,000 people, its market share is miniscule for the once proud company.

And then, stories like this appear. Kodak has resorted to selling its own patents in order to generate revenue. The company has not reported a profit for a fiscal year since 2007.

In other words, the collapse of Eastman Kodak is unique, but at the same time all too familiar: a failure to recognize changing markets doomed a once dominant corporation. Is there any way to prevent this from happening in the future?

Assessing The Field

2012-01-13T22:34:00.000-05:00

It's been quite a ride thus far, and we're only through two states. Here is a recap of the Iowa Caucus, and New Hampshire Primary, as well as a look ahead to the South Carolina Primary.

Iowa was a roller coaster ride that ended in what was essentially a Miracle on Ice moment. In the months leading up to the Iowa Caucus, there had been a plethora of leaders in polls, with only one constant: Mitt Romney was at right about 23%. Michele Bachmann took the early lead after she won the Iowa Straw Poll in late August. She then fell due to the rise of Rick Perry. Perry's support dropped after this:

Hermain Cain took the support from Rick Perry, thanks to some fantastic rhetoric, and a plan that appealed to everyone that didn't have a high school degree:

Newt Gingrich took the lead after Cain fell off and eventually ended his campaign due to a couple mental slips and allegations of sexual harassment. Newt's gain was short-lived however, as Mitt Romney crushed him with negative adds, and Newt fell back down again. Just a couple days prior to the Caucus, Rick Santorum caught fire, and applied a ton of pressure to Romney, falling just eight votes short. Ron Paul finished in third, Newt fourth, Perry fifth, and Bachmann sixth. Due to the disappointing finish, Bachmann decided to end her campaign. Thanks to the surprise finish for Santorum, he was deemed "The Winner" of the Caucus, simply because he exceeded expectations by such a great margin. He wound up raising one million dollars just the next day.

The finish by Santorum gave him a lot of momentum going into New Hampshire last week, just one week following Iowa. Romney was the major favorite from start to finish. Other than newcomer Jon Huntsman, all of the candidates were campaigning hard in Iowa, and New Hampshire was pushed to the back burner. Santorum was looking to capitalize on his momentum, but his target audience, the socially conservatives, are not as vast a percentage of the New Hampshire population as they are in Iowa. Santorum struggled, barely holding off Gingrich for fourth place. Romney won in a landslide, while Ron Paul and Hunstman finished farther behind, respectively. Perry didn't even campaign in New Hampshire, skipping the state entirely and focusing his time in South Carolina.

So, after the first two states, Mitt Romney holds a resounding lead over his competition, and is currently holding about a 4 point lead over Newt Gingrich in South Carolina. Usually a strong conservative state, South Carolina has never failed to produce the Republican nominee. Tensions will rise as it's sure to get rather nasty between the candidates in the coming weeks, each attempting to gain votes in the conservative south. It will undoubtedly continue to be an interesting race.

Welcome!

2012-01-13T21:57:00.001-05:00

Due to the fact that it's an election year, we here at Bullets Blog decided to add in a Politics page! Hope everyone enjoys!