Conservative Samizdat

Mitt Romney Is The Winner Of The CNN Arizona Debate

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:24:00 +0000

Tonight, Mitt Romney gave another stellar debate by going on the offensive and giving solid answers. The biggest loser in tonight's debate is Rick Santorum.

Mitt Romney was agressive towards Rick Santorum the moment the debate started. When the issue of support for Congressional earmarks came up in the debate, Mitt Romney mentioned that Rick Santorum supported the Bridge to Nowhere. Rick Santorum tried to defend himself by pointing out that he accepted government money for the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. Mitt Romney gave a memorable response: "I was trying to save the Olympics while you were trying to defend the Bridge To Nowhere." The audience went wild.

About half way through the debate, Mitt Romney mentioned that Rick Santorum supported Arlen Spector over Pat Toomey. Rick Santorum never recovered from that attack and it went down hill from there for him. Mitt Romney reminded the audience his support and endorsement for Arlen Specter was essentially a vote for ObamaCare since Specter supported ObamaCare. Later during the debate, Rick Santorum's explanation for endorsing Arlen Specter was that the George W. Bush Administration instructed Santorum to support him so Arlen Specter could be chairman of the judiciary committee. Although it was not mentioned in tonight's debate, Arlen Specter was the 60th vote to pass the $787 billion stimulus.

Later during the evening, an audience member asked about No Child Left Behind. When it came time for Rick Santorum to respond to this question, he looked like a someone who was confessing to a Catholic bishop for supporting the law and was looking for forgiveness from the audience. Rick Santorum's excuse for supporting No Child Left Behind was that he voted for it because the Bush Administration wanted him to.

Rick Santorum did not come across as a leader tonight and he admitted that many times tonight. Nothing speaks to the American people like leadership as confessing taking one for the Bush Administration. While Santorum was being strictly honest about his record in Congress, the fact that he confessed to making too many mistaken votes did not impress conservatives across the country. I don't think that Rick Santorum realized that when he was confessing his sins for supporting No Child Left Behind and Arlen Spectrum, he essentially admitted that when he followed what the Bush Administration instructed him to do, it was also admitting to be the ultimate Washington D.C. insider because he was willing to take a couple for the Bush Administration.

Rick Santorum lost big tonight because he couldn't defend his record. Mitt Romney exposed Santorum as someone who isn't a conservative as he claims to be and Santorum didn't help himself with his multiple confessions tonight. Rick Santorum hurt himself by exposing himself as someone who isn't a leader.

The Problem With Sen Santorum's Support for Unions

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:19:00 +0000

During the 2012 election, Rick Santorum has taken a hard stance against public sector unions but his record reveals that he has a soft spot for private sector unions:

On June 15th1993, Rick Santorum voted for Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act (HR 5) which prohibits employers from hiring permanent replacements when employees strike over wages or benefits.
In the 104th Congress Sen. Santorum joined all Democrats and a minority of Republicans in voting to filibuster the bill S. 1788, the National Right to Work Act of 1995. (“On the Cloture Motion (motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to consider S.1788),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 188, www.senate.gov, 7/10/1996)
During that same congressional session, Santorum also voted to retain the 1930s-era Davis-Bacon Act that forces taxpayers to pay union wages in government-funded construction and gives Big Labor an unfair advantage over non-union companies and workers (“On the Motion to Table (motion to table Kennedy Amendment No. 4031 to S.Amdt. 4000 to S.Con.Res. 57),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 134, www.senate.gov, 5/22/1996)
He also voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Has flipped flopped on his positions regarding unions. He routinely supported them but then abandoned them as soon as he started running for President.
He also voted for Alexis Herman in which she was appointed by Bill Clinton to be Secretary of Labor.
He voted for a law to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board and also voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws. He also voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.
He voted twice for the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995 (HR 743 & S Amdt 4438) which amends the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 to allow employers to form labor-management cooperative organizations with employees without the presence of a union.
He also voted twice for the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 which would have forced Fedex to accept local unions (H.R. 3539)

Most bloggers simply provide a list of Rick Santorum's voting record as reasons why people shouldn't vote for him since each of the bills that he has supported has increase the power, size and influence of private sector unions. However, most bloggers stop there and do not continue their investigation for more facts about Santorum's ties with private sector unions.

For example, I did some further investigation by using maplight.org to see if Rick Santorum had accepted donations from any unions at all. I discovered that as a result of Rick Santorum's soft spot for private sector unions, he had no qualms in accepting campaign donations from them while he was in Washington D.C.:

The public record of Santorum accepting private section union political contributions certainly lends support to the claim that he likes private sector unions. This may explain why Santorum has gone hard after public sector unions during the 2012 presidential primary election but conveniently fails to mention his support for private sector unions. However, for conservatives, supporting private or public sector unions is unacceptable.

As I continued to dig further into Rick Santorum's support for private sector unions, I discovered that when he voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization, he was in the middle of a long standing battle between two large shipping companies. When it came time to pick a side, he chose to support the pro-union company United Parcel Service (UPS) that was attempting to force its competitor, Federal Express (FedEx), to accept local unions in their company.

The Battle Between UPS & FedEx

To understand how badly Rick Santorum betrayed the conservative principles of supporting the free market, you have to understand the story behind the long standing feud between UPS and FedEx.

The source of contention between these two companies arises from the fact that FedEx operates under a different federal law than UPS does which makes it easier or difficult for employees to form unions. FedEx currently operates under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) which makes labor organization more difficult since employees working for FedEx cannot form unions on a location by location basis but it must be done through a company wide vote in which every employee must vote in a single nationwide election and must obtain a majority not just of the workers voting but of voters and non-voters combined.

The reason why FedEx operates under the RLA is because when FedEx became a company in 1971, it was chiefly an air transport company in which it shipped mail and packages by plane. Later, FedEx expanded its operations to include trucks who would deliver the items that were shipped by plane.

In Federal Express Corporation v. California Public Utilities Commission (936 F. 2d 1075), the 9th Circuit of Appeals explained why FedEx falls under the RLA:

The trucking operations of Federal Express are integral to its operation as an air carrier. The trucking operations are not some separate business venture; they are part and parcel of the air delivery system. Every truck carries packages that are in interstate commerce by air. The use of the trucks depends on the conditions of air delivery. The timing of the trucks is meshed with the schedules of the planes. Federal Express owes some of its success to its effective use of trucking as part of its air carrier service.

"Federal Express is exactly the kind of an expedited all-cargo service that Congress specified and the kind of integrated transportation system that was federally desired. Because it is an integrated system, it is a hybrid, an air carrier employing trucks. Those trucks do not destroy its status as an air carrier. They are an essential part of the all cargo air service that Federal Express innovatively developed to meet the demands of an increasingly interlinked nation."

Unlike FedEx, UPS is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which allows for unionization at the local level. As a result, UPS has local teamsters unions whereas FedEx doesn't. UPS can't compete with a non-union company because of the costs associated with allowing unions as part of the day to day operations which makes it more expensive for customers to ship their packages with UPS than it does with FedEx.

That's why UPS made repeated attempts through lobbying and support of Democrats in Congress to get FedEx to operate under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) instead of the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

The Legislative Battle To Unionize FedEx

UPS, Unions and the Democrats have been, and still are, determined to force FedEx to accept local teamsters unions. Let me review the history of that battle with you.

When Congress was considering passing the ICC Termination Act of 1995, a key term, "express company” was removed from the coverage provision of the RLA. UPS and its allies contend that this deletion was intentional while FedEx and its allies claim that the deletion of that term was unintentional. The reason why the term, "express company" is because the deletion of that key term may have required FedEx to operate under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) instead of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). However, the facts clearly indicate that "Congress did not knowingly and intentionally strike the phrase "express carrier" and, by doing so, intend to strip Federal Express of decades-old rights" of operating under the RLA.

In 1995, Congress worked on passing the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1995 was bill that was to provide reauthorization of the FAA and to approve new airport security measures. To fix the accidental removal of the key term in the ICC Termination Act, Senator Ernest Hollings, (D. S.C.) offered a technical amendment to the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 3539, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1995. The Hollings amendment firmly establishes that FedEx Express was an “express company,” and would still be subject to the RLA.

The Conference Committee approved it and it went back to the House for a final vote. The late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, (D. Mass) tried to filibuster the entire Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1995 to prevent the Hollings Amendment from becoming law. However, the fillibuster failed and it was subsequently sent to the White House to be signed by the President. Despite angry approval from liberals and Democrats over the Hollings Amendment which was now part of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1995, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

The Ongoing Battle Between UPS & FedEx

Before I discuss Rick Santorum's votes on the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, its important to point out UPS and its allies are still working to force FedEx to unionize.

A decade after Congress passed Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1995 and was signed by President Clinton, Rep. James Oberstar, (D. Minn.) introduced a rider to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 which he called the “Express Carrier Employee Protection” Amendment, would amend the RLA to remove FedEx Express ground transportation employees from the coverage of the RLA and make them subject to the NLRA. Representative Oberstar's amendment was approved by the House but was not included in the Senate version of the bill and efforts to reconcile the two bills were unsuccessful. As a result, The FAA Act 2007 was not reauthorized, and the agency has recieved temporary extensions since its expiration in 2007.

In 2009, Rep. James Oberstar, who became the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, made a second attempt to have his RLA amendment inserted as rider to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. The House approved the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 with the Oberstar's amendment attached to it. FedEx mobilized to ensure that the Olberstrar's amendment would not appear in the Senate version of the bill or in the final version of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.

Section 806 of the House version of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 become a hotly contested issue for both UPS and FedEx in the Senate. Fortunately, FedEx prevailed and was victorious against UPS. neither Section 806 or the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 became law.

Had this bill passed, it would have had major consequences for FedEx and for our nation if both companies were unionized:

Since the US small parcel market is currently structured as a duopoly, the fear exists that the union could easily affect price and service in the form of coordinated work interruptions. If FedEx and UPS employees instituted a work stoppage at the same time, shippers in the US would be left with USPS for all parcels, and they simply don’t have the breadth and depth of services UPS and Fedex have.

During the 2010 midterm election, Rep. James Oberstar, was defeated and Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.) who is now the current chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011. In this bill so far, there has been no attempt to force FedEx to unionize and Democrats will not prevail in any attempts to do so due the fact that the Democrats suffered heavy losses in the 2010 midterm election.

Rick Santorum Sides With Unions

Now that you understand the repeated attempts by UPS, Democrats and socialists to unionize FedEx, it becomes clear why Rick Santorum voted twice for the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 is a real betrayal to the conservative approach to labor issues and the free market. When it came time to supporting unions or non-union companies, he was clearly, unambiguously and undoubtedly on the side of the unions.

This fact is even more offensive when you consider that he received $14,000 in campaign donations from FedEx while working in Washington D.C.:

Even worse, he also received $11,199 in campaign donations from UPS:

Its clear that while Rick Santorum was receiving money from both sides of the battle, he ultimately sided with the pro-union company rather than the non-union one.

As a result, moderates, independents, tea partiers and conservatives cannot support Rick Santorum in the 2012 Republican Primaries and allow him to become the Republican nominee due to his support for private sector unions.

Mitt Romney Remains The Winner Of The Maine Caucus

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:53:00 +0000

Last Saturday, immediately after Maine announced the results of the caucus, Ron Paul came up with a conspiracy theory as to why he lost in Maine:

The Paul campaign had tried to lower expectations somewhat during the day, alleging that the Romney campaign had been involved in some tricky business, and predicting that the results would be very close.

In particular, a senior Paul aide had suggested that the Romney campaign was involved in the cancellation of Washington County’s caucuses, a small county where Paul’s campaign had expected to do well. “It’s not completely insidious, but they knew we were going to swamp it up there,” said Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton.

As a result, Ron Paul is refusing to refusing to accept the results that Romney won that state's caucus.

Maine conducted a recount of the votes and found that Mitt Romney remains the winner of the caucus:

The party decided to recount the votes after determining that votes from caucuses in Waterville, Belfast and a number of other towns were left out of the final results, and that the tallies for Paul and Romney were reversed in Portland.

Chairman Charlie Webster said the exact vote count of Maine's nonbinding straw poll would be released Friday afternoon, ahead of Saturday's caucuses in East Machias in Washington County.

Here are a breakdown of the final votes:

TOTAL - 5814
ROMNEY - 2269 (39% ROUNDED OFF)
PAUL - 2030 (35% ROUNDED OFF)
SANTORUM - 1052 (18% ROUNDED OFF)
GINGRICH - 391 (7% ROUNDED OFF)
UNDECIDED - 59 (1% ROUNDED OFF)

The Truth About Romney's Conservatism

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:48:00 +0000

Many conservative bloggers, commentators, speakers, journalists, politicians as well as television and talk radio show hosts claim that Mitt Romney is not a conservative. These claims are false. Let's review the truth about Mitt Romney's conservatism:

1. Traditional Marriage: Mitt Romney has been a fierce supporter of traditional marriage. Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, has penned an excellent article defending Mitt Romney's record on gay marriage. A group of citizens of Massachusetts publicly released a letter defending Romney's record on traditional marriage. Furthermore, he signed the a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) supporting marriage between a woman and man. As a result, Mitt Romney has been the strongest and consistent supporter of traditional marriage. That is clear from the facts and from those who served with Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. Moreover, Mitt Romney's marriage is another example of his support for traditional marriage since he's been a strong family man since he's been married once to the same woman for 42 years. No sexual harassment charges against him. No accusations of adultery. Romney has been able to create the ideal family: stable marriage, stable family, stable job, great home and lots of grandchildren.

2. 2nd Amendment Rights: Romney has been accused of supporting gun control and expanding the Assault Weapons ban in Massachusetts. The reality is every year he was governor he worked with the NRA on legislation making small reforms to Massachusetts’ existing draconian gun control laws, considered a step forward for gunowners by the NRA. In 2005, he issued a proclamation declaring May 7 “Right to Bear Arms Day.” Gun Owners Action League, the Massachusetts gun organization, issued these statements about Romney’s record, “During the Romney Administration, no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. Governor Romney did sign five pro-second amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law.”

3. Defender of Religion: Mitt Romney has a very long history of defending religious liberty while working as governor of Massachusetts a strong defender of religion. For example, in 2005, Romney actually vetoed a bill that would have forced Massachusetts hospitals to offer abortive contraception. He also defended Catholic Charities in Massachusetts who being forced to compromise their religions principles in matters of adoptions by filling a bill to protect religious liberty called the An Act Protecting Religious Freedom. As a result of his defense of religious liberty in Massachusetts, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty awarded him its prestigious Canterbury Medal in 2008.

4. Capitalism: Mitt Romney's economic record as a conservative cannot be impeached. He has only spent four years as a politician by being the Govenor of Massachusetts. The rest of his life has been in the private sector.

5. Foreign policy: Mitt Romney has been strong on issues of national security, terrorism, and supports our military. I strongly recommend everyone read Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech at The Citadel.

6. Law: Mitt Romney's positions and record on matters that are important to legal conservatives is also unimpeachable. He has a strong record of defending the Constitution, state's rights and appointing judges that do not legislate from the bench.

7. Health Care: Mitt Romney's record on health care is clearly conservative. Before the 2012 election, RomneyCare wasn't a problem for conservatives. It wasn't a problem for conservatives when he proposed his health care plan.The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation liked it and published a report titled the "Massachusetts Health Reform: The Myth of Uncontrollable Costs." There are several fan over at the Heritage Institute such as Robert Moffit, Ph.D., and Edmund Haislmaier. In fact, the Heritage Foundation advised Mitt Romney in the creation of RomneyCare before they flipped their support for RomneyCare when it became politically unpopular to support it. Many conservatives endorsed RomneyCare. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have supported RomneyCare. For conservatives worried about the constitutionality of RomneyCare, his health care plan is constitutional whereas ObamaCare isn't.

8. 2008 Election: During the 2008 Presidential primary, Mitt Romney was hailed as the "true conservative alternative" to John McCain. All the major conservative bloggers, politicians, talk show hots, columnists were strongly endorsing and encouraging conservative voters to support Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney won the conservative vote in many of the state primaries and caucuses. Yet, in one of the strangest reversals in conservative history, Mitt Romney is somehow painted as not a true conservative in this 2012 election.

9. 2010 Election: Mitt tirelessly campaigned on behalf of conservatives and Tea party candidates in 2008 and the 2010 elections. He demonstrated his character by working to help the McCain/Palin team defeat Obama. During the 2010 election, he went on a whirlwind tour supporting conservative candidates across the country and provided millions of dollars in donations to local, state and Congressional candidates win. Mitt Romney was an powerful force in helping the Conservative tsunami happen.

10. 2012 Election: Many people say that Mitt Romney isn't getting the support of conservatives in the primary election. However, if you look at the facts, its clear that Mitt Romney has been receiving strong support from solid conservative voters in the primary elections so far.

People keep insisting that Mitt Romney is not a conservative. Yet, the record clearly shows that he's been consistently conservative ever since he entered into politics. What more evidence do conservatives need to prove his conservative credentials? The fact is that Mitt Romney has always been a conservative. If you want to get more details about Mitt Romeny's conservative record, check out Mitt Romney Central, WhyRomney.com, AboutMittRomney.com and Mitt Romney Encyclopedia.

In conclusion, let me leave you with the words of a conservative candidate who strongly endorsed Mitt Romney:

"In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party's nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built.Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear," Senator Rick Santorum (Feb 1, 2008)

Ron Paul & Rick Santorum Whine About Mitt Romney's Victory At CPAC & Maine

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:22:00 +0000

After Rick Santorum sweeps Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota, Mitt Romney gets his momentum back with some big victories that he wasn't expected to win in:

At CPAC, the former Massachusetts governor nabbed 38 percent of activists’ support to edge out Rick Santorum, who finished second with 31 percent.

In Maine, he won by just three points, 39 percent to Paul’s 36 percent. Santorum trailed in third with 18 percent, and Newt Gingrich received 6 percent of the vote.

Like Newt Gingrich after suffering at loss at the ballot, Rick Santorum is upset about Mitt Romney's victory at CPAC:

When CNN's "State of the Union" host Candy Crowley said she was surprised Santorum didn't do better with party conservatives, he shot back: "Well, you know, those straw polls at CPAC... for years Ron Paul has won those because he trucks in a lot of people, pays for their tickets, and they come in and vote and they leave. We didn't do that, we don't do that. i don't try to rig straw polls."

Did Romney rig CPAC?

"You have to talk to the Romney campaign and how many tickets they bought, we've heard all sorts of things," Santorum said.

"We didn't pay them to turn out," he added, speaking of his supporters at CPAC, Missouri and elsewhere.

Of course, Mitt Romney dismissed Santorum's accusations:

“Rick Santorum has a history of making statements that aren’t grounded in the truth," said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul.

"Yesterday Mitt Romney won the CPAC straw poll and won a separate nationwide survey of conservatives conducted by CPAC organizers. Also, Mitt Romney won the Maine caucuses. Conservative voters recognize that in order to change Washington, we need someone who isn't a creature of Washington.”

Ron Paul is also unhappy with his loss and which is why its not surprising he's come up with a conspiracy theory as to why they lost in Maine:

The Paul campaign had tried to lower expectations somewhat during the day, alleging that the Romney campaign had been involved in some tricky business, and predicting that the results would be very close.

In particular, a senior Paul aide had suggested that the Romney campaign was involved in the cancellation of Washington County’s caucuses, a small county where Paul’s campaign had expected to do well. “It’s not completely insidious, but they knew we were going to swamp it up there,” said Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton.

As a result, Ron Paul is refusing to refusing to accept the results that Romney won that state's caucus.

In this election, we have seen three men who are aspiring to the highest office of the land acting like children who are upset when they lose an election. If Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul continue to whine whenever they lose an election, they will drive away voters into supporting Mitt Romney who is the only mature and responsible adult in this election.

California Teacher Punishes Students "Who Say God Bless You"

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:53:00 +0000

A teacher named Steve Cuckovich who teaches at William C. Wood High School in Vacaville, California has openly admitted that he will reduce if a student says "God Bless You" to someone who sneezes:

In a perverse way, it makes sense that a health teacher would prefer that his students say Gesundheit —which in its most literal translation means “health-ness”—when someone sneezes. The one thing they can’t say inside the classroom of the delightfully named Steve Cuckovich is “God bless you.” If they do, they automatically lose 25 points off their grade.

Cuckovich, who teaches health at William C. Wood High School in Vacaville, California, claims that this standard rote response to a sneeze is disrespectful and disruptive.

Instead of sharing my thoughts on this matter, there's someone who has already given his deep insight on this issue. Over to you Dane Cook:

The Case Against Voting For Rick Santorum In 2012

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:21:00 +0000

Rick Santorum has had a great night tonight by winning the Colorado and Minnesota caucus and the non-binding Missouri primary. However, voters need to know why conservatives cannot vote for Rick Santorum in future election contests. Look at the list below for reasons why:

Rick Santorum has trashed the TEA Party.
Rick Santorum faces several ethical questions about using his position in Congress to benefit himself and others.
In the 104th Congress Sen. Santorum joined all Democrats and a minority of Republicans in voting to filibuster the bill S. 1788, the National Right to Work Act of 1995. (“On the Cloture Motion (motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to consider S.1788),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 188, www.senate.gov, 7/10/1996)
During that same congressional session, Santorum also voted to retain the 1930s-era Davis-Bacon Act that forces taxpayers to pay union wages in government-funded construction and gives Big Labor an unfair advantage over non-union companies and workers (“On the Motion to Table (motion to table Kennedy Amendment No. 4031 to S.Amdt. 4000 to S.Con.Res. 57),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 134, www.senate.gov, 5/22/1996)
He also voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Has flipped flopped on his positions regarding unions. He routinely supported them but then abandoned them as soon as he started running for President.
He drafted legislation that would increase the national minimum wage.
In 1993, Santorum was one of 17 House Republicans who sided with most Democrats in backing a Clinton administration bill to protect striking employees from being permanently replaced by their employers.
He quickly became a millionaire in six years after after losing the Senate.
Rick Santorum may have played a role in the K Street Project scandal but he denies it.
Rick Santorum has repeatedly attacked Mitt Romney in several debates about RomneyCare yet he endorsed RomneyCare.
He also supported President George W. Bush’s big government entitlement program Medicare Plan Part D.
He failed to qualify for the Virginia ballot and the Indiana ballot.
He supported Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey, and thereby provided Obama, years later, with his final critical vote for the “Affordable Care Act,” or Obamacare.
He also voted for Alexis Herman in which she was appointed by Bill Clinton to be Secretary of Labor.
Lets not forget his embarrassing involvement in the Terri Schaivo case.
He voted for Alaska's Bridge To Nowhere.
He voted against confirming Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense in 2006.
Rick Santorum also voted for mandatory Federal child care funding.
He has voted for minimum wage increases on six different occasions.
He voted no on the Employer Verify Amendment (S AMDT 4177)
Voted yes on English As National Language Amendment (S AMDT 4064) which would have made English the official language of the United States but voted against the on the English as Unifying Language Amendment (S AMDT 4073) which requires that all services or materials provided by the U.S. government to be only done in English. This vote doesn't make sense to me since he wants to make English the official language of the U.S. but doesn't want our government to publish all documents only in English.
In 2005, Santorum voted against the Reduction in Dependence on Foreign Oil (S AMDT 784) that sets a goal to decrease imports of foreign oil by 40 percent over the next 20 years.
Voted against the Kosovo Resolution that would have authorized President Bill Clinton to send troops in Yugoslavia.
He voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act. (HR 3450)
In 1993, Santorum voted against Authorization for Use of U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia (S J Res 45)
He voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization
He voted for a law to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board and also voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws.
He voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses
In 2001, he voted against eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
He voted for the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act (HR 5) which prohibits employers from hiring permanent replacements when employees strike over wages or benefits
Amazingly, he voted against Off-budget Lockbox Amendment (S Amdt 3690) which would protect Social Security surpluses and move Medicare trust fund surpluses off budget to prevent using them for other purposes. This bill alone would have helped save America tons of money and help us reduce our national deficit since politicians love to raid entitlement funds to pay for other projects we cannot afford only to make it more difficult for America to keep our entitlement programs running. Unless we reform our entitlement program, our country is headed for some serious economic trouble.

Based on Rick Santorum's record, he's a candidate conservatives and Republicans cannot support. I could go on with more facts about his voting record but its sufficient to say that there are alot more reasons why Republicans and conservatives cannot vote to support him.

We need a President who will really help us become energy independent, fight against unions, will support free trade, lower taxes and manages our entitlement programs responsibly. Clearly, Rick Santorum isn't that man.

Newt Gingrich's 2012 Campaign Beginning To Melt Down

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:03:00 +0000

Every time Newt Gingrich loses an primary election to Mitt Romney, he gets angrier and angrier to the point that it becomes disturbing. Newt Gingrich displayed that same level of bitterness and anger last night after it was declared that Mitt Romney won the Nevada Caucus.

Rather than give a speech in front of his supporters, Newt Gingrich chose to hold a press conference in which he goes on a deranged rant on Mitt Romney. Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post described this press conference as a mixture of "Howard Dean’s scream and Richard Nixon’s White House farewell speech."

You can watch him melt down on the video below:

While Newt Gingrich was delivering his rant, Saturday Night Live opened up with a skit spoofing Newt's plan to establish a colony on the moon by 2020:

It was an unfortunate coincidence for Newt Gingrich to have SNL run this skit while he's giving his angry press conference because it now fuses two ideas about Gingrich together. He's both angry and crazy.

Even John Stewart couldn't resist poking fun at Newt's plan for a lunar colony:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

John Stewart adds new dimension to the public perception of Newt's character and may have done the most damage to Newt Gingrich's image because he brilliantly tied his history of infidelity with his outlandish idea to establish a lunar colony.

The public perception of Newt Gingrich is a serious problem for him. It doesn't help the fact that Gingrich's favorability ratings are low because of his conduct as Speaker of the House during the 1990s and that he's unfaithful man to both his wife. People are starting to become even more unhappy about him now that its been revealed that his relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are closer than he explained it to be.

However, rather than change the public perception of him, his behavior is only increasing his unfavorability ratings even further. Newt Gingrich is now justifiably being portrayed as an angry, bitter, vindictive politician and Newt's only behavior confirms that. Newt's press conference made his bad night of losing to Romney even worse and doesn't help him at all. Moreover, he's now being compared to Ron Paul in that they are both politically loony because they offer ideas that are neither economically feasible, politically possible or make sense. Ron Paul maybe crazy, but he's not angry or bitter. Newt has both negative qualities.

Newt Gingrich will get even more angry and crazier as he drives voters and political donors to the Romney Camp. But he has no one to blame but himself.

Mitt Romney Wins The Nevada Caucus

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:29:00 +0000

Mitt Romney got a strong victory tonight when all the major news outlets declared him the winner despite the fact that only 20% of the results have been reported. Once victory was declared, Romney gave a rousing speech defending economic liberty, religious liberty and the Constitution.

Tonight's victory is expected to be first in long string of victories as more and more primary states hold their elections. An important ally in helping Mitt Romney win the upcoming primaries might be the people of his own faith:

Now that he has survived, if only barely, the evangelical-dominated contests in Iowa and South Carolina, Romney is poised to benefit as the geography of the GOP race moves west to states such as Nevada, Arizona and Colorado.

There, Romney will be aided by the more robust presence from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members tend to vote in high numbers and supported Romney en masse in 2008. That makes the Western-heavy lineup of February primary and caucus states, which also includes Romney’s native state of Michigan, a promising opportunity for Romney to deny his opponents any semblance of political traction.

On top of the sheer numerical bonus of having more Mormon voters at the polls, Republicans say it will help Romney to compete on turf where voters of all stripes — even more conservative Christian Republicans — are more familiar with Mormonism and view it with less suspicion.

“The LDS thing I think is probably less of an issue here … because we’re so familiar with Mormons and the LDS faith,” said former Colorado Rep. Bob Beauprez, a Romney supporter. “I think most people see them as patriotic folks, good neighbors, hard workers, wonderful family values. The mystery, if there’s any of that, just doesn’t exist out here.”

However, Mormons won't be the only group that will help propel Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination. Exit polls from all the primary states so far that he's winning the support of people from across the board religiously, economically, by age and all along the wide spectrum of libertarian, moderate, and strong conservatives. The fact that Mitt Romney is doing so well across a variety of voters in the primaries is a preview of the kind of support he will receive in the general elections from Reagan democrats, moderates, independents, libertarians, Tea Partiers and conservatives. Its possible that many liberals will also abandon Obama at the ballot box in November given his poor performance on the economy.

Nobody can predict the future but all indicators suggest that Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination. Right now, he's far ahead in the delegate count with 95 delegates, has a major fundraising advantage over his Republican competitors, has superior campaign organization and an awesome campaign staff. These advantages will surely help Mitt Romney in the general election when he will defeat Obama and become the next president in 2012.

Newt Gingrich Under Investigation For Petition Fraud

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:08:00 +0000

Sometime in late December, through sheer incompetence, Newt Gingrich failed to get on the Virgina ballot despite the fact that all the candidates had five months to gather enough signatures to qualify, received a memorandum from the Virginia Republican Party that explained the validation process for candidate petitions in the presidential race to qualify for the primary ballot in October and sent out verification requirements to all campaigns in March of this year.

Regardless of the fact that Newt Gingrich had advanced notice from the Virginia Republican Party about what it will take to get on the ballot, he was determined to get on the ballot. He vowed to wage a write in campaign until he discovered that a write in campaign is illegal in Virginia. Frustrated that he wasn't on the ballot, the former Speaker of the House complained that his failure to get enough signatures to get on the ballot was alot like Pearl Harbor.

Another candidate who failed to make the Virginia ballot was Rick Perry. He sued to get his name on the ballot but the judge rejected the lawsuit because all the candidates waited too long to sue. This was a major setback for all of the candidates who didn't qualify.

Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General for Virginia announced that he planned fix the problem by filing emergency legislation to allow more candidates to make it on the ballot but then backed off on the idea.

We are now learning that Newt Gingrich was so desperate to get on the Virginia ballot that he's now under investigation for petition fraud:

In late December, after Gingrich failed to turn in enough valid signatures to qualify in Virginia, he was caught on video tape telling a supporter in Iowa that the reason for the failure was due to a campaign worker who created 1,500 fraudulent signatures.

"We turned in 11,100, we needed 10,000, 1,500 of them were by one guy who, frankly, committed fraud," Gingrich is seen and heard saying in video originally aired by CNN.

The signatures prompted the State Board of Elections to send the case to the Virginia Attorney General's office two weeks ago. The Deputy Secretary of the SBE called the actions described by Gingrich, if true, "definitely an illegal act."

Newt Gingrich, not a man to waste an opportunity to whine about the primary election process is now complaining about his major loss in Florida by challenging Florida’s “winner take all” rule and is demanding proportional award of delegates even though Newt Gingrich knew about Florida's winner take all rule before the election but waited after the election to complain about it:

Asked about the challenge on FOX News' "Hannity" program Thursday night, Romney said, "It would be nice if he challenged the rules before he lost, rather than after he lost."

Romney also compared the legal challenge to the one Gingrich unsuccessfully launched after missing out on making the ballot in Virginia.

The leaders of the Florida Republican Party sent out a memo that effectively takes the wind out of Newt's challenge by explaining that Florida has already been punished for moving their primary election up on the calendar:

"With regard to proportionality, the RNC does not have the authority to intervene in a state’s primary plans beyond the imposition of the Rule 16 penalties. A contest procedure exists for challenges to a state’s delegation or delegates. The RNC cannot consider any issue regarding Florida’s delegation unless and until a proper contest is brought. If a contest is properly and timely filed, the Committee on Contests and the RNC will have the opportunity to hear the contest and determine if there are any further steps to be taken beyond the penalties that have already been imposed"

So far, Mitt Romney will get to keep his 50 delegates that he won from the Florida primary. Newt's strategy for challenging Florida is to make sure that Romney doesn't win the Republican nomination even if Gingrich himself doesn't win either:

The strategy of the Gingrich campaign is not necessarily to win 1144 delegates, as much as it is to deny Romney the 1144 delegates needed to secure the nomination and attempt to convert the “not Romney” delegates to his slate at the convention. Taking the steps to alter Florida’s winner take all method to a proportional method works to Gingrich’s delusional fait accompli. If he can’t win the nomination, no one else should either.

This is why conservatives cannot support Newt Gingrich because he is as narcissistic, impulsive and arrogant as Bill Clinton and Obama and will stop not nothing to get his way even it it means potentially engaging in voter fraud, complaining about the results of the primary after instead of before the election, or damaging the Republican Party in the process of trying to win.

Newt Gingirch Will Destroy The Rule Of Law

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 03:06:00 +0000

Rodney K. Smith, who is a teacher at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and a good friend of mine, wrote an article for the Deseret Newspaper to explain how Newt Gingrich's whitepaper will undermine the rule of law in America:

In that whitepaper, Gingrich declares, "A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers by itself and acting in coordination with the legislative branch to check and balance any Supreme Court decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in federal judge(s)."

And, if necessary, Gingrich would direct the United States Marshal's Office to bring judges with whom he disagrees before Congress to explain their decisions.

If such expressions of displeasure with judges were unsuccessful, then the Gingrich administration would turn to more draconian methods to impose its constitutional will on recalcitrant judges. The Gingrich administration would "abolish judgeships," "eliminate funding of the courts to carry out specific decisions or a class of decisions," "limit the general application of a judicial decision" or, if all that failed, simply "ignor(e) a judicial decision."

Legal conservatives, such as myself, cannot support Newt Gingrich because he will erase the checks and balances that keeps our nation free. Once the delicate checks and balances are removed by a president who has no respect for limits of his power, it makes it easier for future presidents to further erode the structure of our government and rise to greater heights of abuse of presidential power:

If the executive branch uses its enormous store of power to impose its "constitutional" will and ignore court decisions, the rule of law will be eviscerated. Even if Gingrich exercises this extreme power wisely, he must understand that his successor may not. He will have put in place a grandiose plan that permits a president, at his whim, to deprive the American people of life and liberty.

Conservatives are rightly outraged at the current abuses of presidential power in the White House. However, Newt Gingrich's vision for the judiciary is far dangerous to our country than anything Obama has done in office because its a direct threat on the Constitution. It strikes at the very core and foundation of our nation since our country is predicated on the dedication and respect for the rule of law.

Conservatives are rightly concerned about activist judges, unconstitutional judicial decisions and the abuse of judicial powers. However, Newt's solution will not fix the problem but will contribute to the further imbalances of power among the three branches of our government.

Legal Conservatives should rally around Mitt Romney because his solution to the problems in our judicial system is to appoint as many conservative judges who respect the rule of law and are strict constructionists. Mitt has an excellent record that legal conservatives can be proud of. As a result, Mitt Romney is the candidate legal conservatives want in the White House in 2012.

Mitt Romney Wins Florida Primary!!

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:00:00 +0000

Mitt Romney won the Florida primary by a huge margin:

Lets take take a look at the results of each county in Florida:

Let's take a look at election results to see where we were in 2008 and just how big this win was for Mitt Romney tonight.Statewide in 2008, Mitt Romney lost to John McCain by a margin of 36% to 31%, a four-point deficit. In 2012, Romney improved upon his statewide total to win 46% to 32%, a resounding 14-point victory.

With tonight's victory in Florida in which Mitt received 50 delegates, he has a huge lead over all the other candidates in getting the 1,444 delegates needed to win the Republican nomination:

Mitt Romney's victory is significant because it was a closed primary in which it was only limited to registered Republicans. This fact is important because despite what you hear in the conservative or liberal media, blogs and magazines, Mitt Romney had a lot more conservative/Republican support than they would like you to believe. Mitt Romney received strong support in almost every demographic in Florida with the exception of the "very conservative" vote:

Mitt Romney swept to victory in the Florida primary Tuesday night by winning nearly every income, age, religious, ideological, and ethnic group – falling short only among the one third of Florida Republican voters who called themselves “very conservative” and among the 40 percent who described themselves as white evangelical Christians, although he only narrowly lost among the latter group, according to the network exit polls.

The former Massachusetts governor displayed especially strong appeal to Latino voters – winning 53 percent of them – and to married women, to self-described moderates (winning 62 percent of them), to wealthier voters, and to those who said that the ability to defeat President Obama was the quality that most mattered to them – more so than the candidate’s experience, character or true conservatism. Nearly three out of five the voters who said beating Obama is the top priority voted for Romney.

The exit poll results demonstrate that Mitt Romney has a broad support from a wide spectrum of conservatives. I believe that we see similar polling results in future primaries.

As far as future primaries go, things are only going to get better for Mitt Romney. He's the only candidate who has the resources, finances, and organization to compete in multiple states at a time. He's also made the ballot on every state.

The most important fact to take away from tonight's victory is that Mitt Romney demonstrated that he's a fighter and that he can bounce back from a loss in South Carolina and deliver a hard punch back to Newt in Florida. Democrats are preparing give Mitt Romney a taste of his own medicine by going after him the same way Romney has gone after Gingrich. However, Mitt Romney is excited and eager to use all of his political firepower that he possesses to blast Obama out of office.

Mitt Romney Is Not Behind The Redistricting Of FL-22

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:13:00 +0000

A lot of conservative blogs are up in arms today about the current redistricting plans for Florida which must be done in order to conform to Florida's new redistricting laws. This new law, Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment, known as Amendment 6 on the on the ballot during the 2010 midterm election, was a constitutional amendment to Florida's state Constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment was approved by the majority of voters.

There are false rumors that Mitt Romney and/or his surrogates in Florida are trying to push Represenative Allen West out of action:

Conservatives pointed out that a major player in the process, Florida Speaker Designate Will Weatherford, has been a surrogate for Mitt Romney in the past. Some used this fact to suggest that Romney was involved in a campaign against Allen West.

This claim is bullshit.

I can prove it.

Let's look at the language of the Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment:

In establishing Congressional district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.

(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.

(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

Now, lets look at Representative Allen West's district:

Lets take an ever closer look at FL-22:

Looking at these maps, its pretty clear that FL-22 is a blatantly gerrymandered district with all those squiggly line reaching inland to very specific regions. Those stretched and distended shapes were done to make that district Republican and competitive in a region that is well known to be heavily populated by Democrats.

Its obviously clear that under the new anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative, FL-22 cannot remain as it is and be legal. It has to change in order to comply or conform to the Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment which the voters of Florida overwhelmingly supported. As a result, the GOP leadership's hands are tied. They must follow the law.

As a result, any legal redrawing of FL-22 is going to be naturally be filled with more Democrats since the district as it currently stands is artificially a Republican district due to the obvious carve outs on the map.

Its clear that the Florida GOP did the best they could do under the law to help Representative Allen West since that area covers Palm Beach County which is not known for being a strongly conservative area, Mr. West should be greatful that his district only became 4 points more Democratic than it used to be. Things could have turned out worse for him but it didn't.

Lets not forget that Allen West isn't the only person to be affected by the proposed redistricting plans for Florida:

Case in point are Reps. Tom Rooney and Allen West. Both of their South Florida districts got about four points more Democratic, which should make life significantly tougher for each of them. Rooney now has a more compact swing seat (the 18th) north of West Palm Beach, while West’s already Democratic-leaning 22nd district just south of Rooney’s became even more Democratic and will be tough for him to hold.

West has been a very outspoken tea party freshman and has raised huge money, but line-drawers don’t appear to have done him many favors. His district, as constructed, would have gone about 43 percent for the last two Republican presidential nominees.

Both men appear to have options, though. Rooney could run in the new 17th, which includes much of his current territory in the Everglades, while there has been some talk of West running across the state in Mack’s district. (Though West has shown no interest in this.)

Other Republicans who see their districts getting slightly less friendly include Reps. Steve Southerland , Vern Buchanan and David Rivera. Buchanan actually gains registered Republicans and retains the vast majority of his current district — both positives for him — but the performance of his district moves about a point towards Democrats.

The evidence is clear. Mitt Romney or his political allies in Florida are a part of some evil, nefarious back room deal to push out Representative Allen West. Its clear that those who were on the committee to redraw the district did as much as they could to help him out.

Allen West is a soldier and he can fight under tough circumstances. It will make things harder for him but he can do it. Other people may whine and cry about the new district changes, but Allen West won't. He'll just suck it up and fight harder. And he'll win.

My Predictions For Who Will Win The 2012 Florida Primary

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:51:00 +0000

With the Florida Primary election taking place tomorrow, I will make my prediction as to who will win. Here they are:

Mitt Romney: 44

Newt Gingrich:`29

Rick Santorum: 16

Ron Paul: 11

Mitt Romney will most likely win Florida by a huge margin. Many people have said that if Mitt Romney wins Florida, he will most likely have the GOP nomination all wrapped up. The race isn't over yet..I don't foresee Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul dropping out anytime soon. Rick Santorum will probably stay in the race but it really depends on how his daughter is doing.

However, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have an uphill battle after Florida because the primary elections will becoming fast and hard. Except for Romney, none of the other candidates, with the exception of maybe Ron Paul, have the staff, resources and organization to keep up with the increase in pace of elections.

Let me share with you what the race looks like up until Super Tuesday. The next primary race is in Nevada on February 4th and Mitt Romney will definitely win in that state. After that, on February 7th in which three states will be holding elections: Colorado (caucus), Minnesota (caucus) and Missouri Missouri. A few weeks later on February 28th, Arizona and Michigan will hold their primary Washington will hold their primary on March 3rd and then a few days later will be Super Tuesday in which 10 states will be holding their primaries or caucuses. Those states are: Alaska (caucus), Georgia (primary), Idaho (caucus), Massachusetts (primary), North Dakota (caucus), Ohio (primary), Oklahoma (primary), Tennessee (primary), Vermont (primary) and Virginia (primary).

Its hard to predict how well each of the candidates will do after Florida but I can tell you that Mitt Romney will win most of the primaries up until Super Tuesday. I expect all of the candidates to stay in until Super Tuesday. I do think Rick Santorum will drop out after that and it will be down to Romney, Paul and Gingrich after Super Tuesday.

Is Ron Paul A Racist Or Not?

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:14:00 +0000

I get a lot of e-mails and comments on my blog from Ron Paul supporters who argue that Ron Paul is not a racist and provide me YouTube clips and news articles to prove it.

However, Ron Paul's newsletters raise some serious doubts as to whether or not he is a racist. First, lets review the facts.

Its been established by witnesses and public records that Ron Paul was heavily involved in his newsletter published under his own name:

"...the officers of Ron Paul & Associates included Paul's wife Carol, Paul's daughter Lori Pyeatt, Paul staffer Penny Langford-Freeman, and longtime campaign manager Mark Elam (who has managed every Paul congressional campaign since 1996 and is currently the Texas coordinator for the presidential run), according to tax records from 1993 and 2001."

Its clear that he was intimately and deeply involved with the magazine in terms of editing, publishing, financing, advertising, and staffing his newsletter.We don't know exactly how much money Ron Paul made from these newsletters but from all the available evidence, he profited nicely from it. We also know that Ron Paul let Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard ghost write many of these racist articles. Both of these men are known for spouting racist and anti-Semitic views in other forums. We know that Ron Paul started publishing these articles in the 1990s.

Now that we've established the basic facts, lets review why his newsletters raises some serious doubts as to whether or not he is a racist.

First, if Ron Paul isn't a racist, why publish the trash in his newsletter in the first place? Yet, those articles are there for all to see.

Initially, Ron Paul absolutely denied he penned those newsletters. Then we get a half admission that he did write articles but we're to believe he only focused on economic issues. But given all the lies Ron Paul has said about his own newsletters, its difficult to believe that he only wrote the economic articles. Can we really believe Ron Paul didn't write them?

Even we are to believe that he's being honest that he only wrote the economic articles, he allows well known racists to write the articles. Why hire these men in the first place? Why didn't he reject the articles when these men submitted it for publication? Why didn't he issue a retraction and apology after they were published? Why didn't he fire these men after the article were published? The fact that he let racist men write racist articles with his approval and never once objected to it before or after these articles were published is troubling.

There's the additional question of why even try to use racism as a strategy to increase his business? Its such a horrible business and public relations idea unless you know your articles are being read by the racists in America who have no qualms or objections with the content of the newsletters. Then there is no problem.

If a magazine or newsletter was found to have published racist material, they would have issued an apology and retraction immediately. Moreover, they would not have purposely used racism as business strategy to increase circulation and profits.

Ron Paul never did this. Instead, the let these articles stand as they for more than a full decade since the 1990s without any corrections, retractions or apologies. Only when he's running for President in 2008 and 2012 does he try to distance himself from his own newsletters that were published under his name.

How convenient.

I think the evidence is overwhelming that raises serious questions about Ron Paul's bigoted views towards minorities. I don't like accusing people of racism and I don't do it lightly.

Yet, its very clear that there's strong evidence that he is. There's no denying that there are serious questions about Ron Paul's bigotry. Even if we are to view all the evidence in a way that is most favorable to Ron Paul, his actions and words strongly raises doubts that's not a racist.

Whether Ron Paul is a racist or not is a matter of legitimate debate since we're deciding which man we want to live in the White House and be President. With all the available evidence and the troubling questions they raise before you, I'll let you decide if Ron Paul is a racist or not.

Herman Cain Finally Endorses Newt Gingrich

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:17:00 +0000

When Herman Cain dropped out of the 2012 race about a month ago, there were rumors that he would be endorsing Newt Gingrich. Now, Herman Cain has given his endorsement to Newt Gingrich which he has wanted to do for quite sometime now:

Just over a week ago, Cain addressed a gathering of Republicans in South Carolina and said he had held off from endorsing a candidate because he didn’t want an endorsement to “split my support.”

He said Saturday that the decision to back Gingrich had been in his heart for some time.

“There are several reasons, many reasons as to why I have reached this public decision,” he said. “I had it in my heart and mind a long time ago.”

“One of the biggest reasons is the fact that I know that speaker Gingrich is a patriot,” Cain said. “Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas. And I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president, and going through this sausage grinder -- I know what this sausage grinder is all about -- I know that he’s going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America. We all do.”

The endorsement isn't surprising given that one lying adulterer is endorsing another adulterer. I don't think his endorsement will help Newt Gingrich at all.

Actor Jon Voight Endorses Mitt Romney

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:08:00 +0000

To be honest, I almost fell out of my chair when I found out that Jon Voight endorsed Mitt Romney at a rally at the Fish House in Pensacola, Florida today:

Academy Award winning actor Jon Voight threw his support behind Mitt Romney today, telling a crowd of hundreds at a local restaurant that Newt Gingrich “falls short” of having the characteristics needed to run the White House.

“Governor Romney is a man of faith, honor, love, and truth,” said Voight. “These are the first very important qualities a president must have. He is strong, honest, and wants to bring the country back to its exceptional place, where we have been for hundreds and hundreds of years, until President Obama decided to follow his father’s footsteps and take us to socialism.”

“I’m sorry to say Speaker Gingrich may fall short in many ways,” said Voight. “Please join me to bring in Gov. Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.”

The reason why I am surprised by this endorsement is because Jon Voight acted in the controversial cinematic disaster called, September Dawn, in which he played the role of fictional bishop Jacob Samuelson. The movie was released during the midst of the 2008 Presidential primary when Mitt Romney was making his first attempt to become President of the United States.

The film was not a success because it received strong negative reviews from movie critics like Roger Ebert and Eric Snider. The movie also flopped because the film mixed too much fiction for it to be called a historical movie. It was a horribly written script with bad acting, bad dialogue and shoddy filming. Some people called the film massacre porn. Many Mormons and non-Mormons were upset with the film since it viciously attacked the LDS Church by falsely conflating the Mountain Meadows Massacre with modern day Islamic terrorism

Jon Voight defended the film by describing it as a warning against religious fanaticism and denied that the film was not intended as a direct criticism of Mitt Romney.

I understand that Jon Voight was just doing his job as an actor. Its good to see that he can separate his work from reality and politics. I am surprised but happy to hear that he had endorsed Mitt Romney.

2012: What The GOP Race Looks Like Right Now

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:09:00 +0000

When the 2012 campaign first started, there were a lot of Republicans that were thinking about throwing thier hat into the ring. As time went on, the field started to shape up as candidates were announcing that they were either in the race or not.

This is what the 2012 GOP race looks like right now:

Currently Running

Mitt Rommey, former Governor of Massachusetts

Rick Santorum, former Senator for Pennsylvania

Newt Gingrich, former Reprsenative of Georgia's 6th district

Ron Paul, current Reprsenative of Texas' 14th district

Buddy Roemer, former Governor of Louisiana

Fred Karger, Gay Rights activist

Dropped Out

Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota

Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico

Herman Cain, business executive and talk radio show host

Michelle Bachmann, U.S. Representative Minnesota's 6th district

Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah and Ambassador to China

Rick Perry, current Governor of Texas

Decided Not To Run

Donald Trump, real estate magnate

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor

Haley Barbour, current Governor of Mississippi.

Mitch Daniels, current Indiana Governor

Chris Christie, current New Jersey Governor

Paul Ryan, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district

Mike Pence, U.S. Representative for Indiana's 6^th district

John Thune, U.S. Senator, South Dakota

Jim DeMint, U.S. Senator, South Carolina

Sarah Palin, Former Governor of Alaska

Donald Trump, business executive

Fact Check: Newt Gingrich And Rick Santorum Endorsed RomneyCare

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:24:00 +0000

During CNN's Florida Republican GOP debate, both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum attacked Mitt Romney over his health care plan. However, both candidates supported RomneyCare before they were against it.

Newt Gingrich & RomneyCare

USA Today fact checked Newt's claim during the CNN debate that that he never endorsed RomneyCare and found out that Gingrich's claim is FALSE:

Former House speaker Gingrich claimed he had never favored a federal mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance — only a state requirement.

Gingrich: I didn't advocate federal mandates. I talked about it at a state level …

Not true. Gingrich said "Congress" must require high-income persons to have insurance, not state legislatures. He did so explicitly in a 2007 opinion piece:

Gingrich, June 25, 2007: In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to [among other things] require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.

His support for a federal mandate is of long standing. In 1993, on NBC's Meet the Press, he said:

Gingrich, 1993: I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

Gingrich was proposing an individual mandate as an alternative to the Clinton administration's ill-fated health care plan, which was centered on an employer mandate, requiring businesses to provide insurance for their workers. And he held to a similar position as recently as last May, also on Meet the Press:

Gingrich, May 15, 2011: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond … or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.

NBC's David Gregory: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?

Gingrich: It's a variation on it.

If Gingrich was thinking about a state-only mandate, he never said so at the time. And he clearly said "all of us" would be subject to his "variant" of the mandate just last May. We judge that Gingrich is falsifying his own history on this matter.

Rick Santorum, Individual Mandate & RomneyCare

During the CNN debate, Rick Santorum went after both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for supporting the RomneyCare and individual mandate. The New Republican found that Rick Santorum is being dishonest in his attacks since he supported the individual mandate:

PolitiFact verified several days ago that Santorum's claim that Gingrich has supported some version of the mandate for 20 years was "mostly true." But it didn't think to ask whether Santorum, too, has supported the individual mandate in the past. And as it happens, he has. He supported it in 1994, according to this April 7, 1994 article in the Allentown, Pa. Morning Call, and this May 2, 1994 article in the same newspaper. It's possible that the newspaper would have gotten this wrong once, but in the heat of a primary campaign it's highly unlikely Santorum's campaign would have allowed it to get this wrong twice.

Moreover, Rick Santorum has flipped flopped on RomneyCare. He endorsed Mitt Romney during the 2008 Presidential elections yet Santorum had issues with it now:

“I feel we need someone who is a strong, principled conservative who believes not in government mandates, not in government control of the health care system, but in a patient-centered approach to health care,” Santorum said.

Santorum added that both the state and federal laws "tend to drive employers out of the private sector plans because they’re expensive and more people end up on the government plan."

“Ultimately, it’s a failure," Santorum said.

Apparently, the phrase, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" has no meaning to Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. They can't hide from their past and are hoping voters won't notice the glass shattering every time they try to attack the individual mandate or RomneyCare. But the voters do notice it.

These two men also don't realize why Mitt Romney is bullet proof when it comes to attacks on RomneyCare. They'e in no position to be throwing blows at Romney since they've both supported the individual mandate and RomneyCare. As as result, every time they attack Mitt, they get weaker and weaker while Mitt Romney gets stronger and stronger.

Ron Paul Was Intimately Involved With His Racist Newsletter

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:12:00 +0000

The more we find out about Ron Paul's involvement in his own racist newsletter, the less credible his denials of knowing about the bigoted content of his newsletters become. Initially, Ron Paul said that he contributed absolutely nothing to his own newsletter:

Now, Paul says he had nothing to do with the contents of the newsletters published in his name.

"Why don't you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I've said for 20-something years, 22 years ago?" Paul said on CNN Wednesday. "I didn't write them. I disavow them. That's it." Paul then removed his microphone and abruptly ended the interview.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and "did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them."

A few days later, in an interview with Dave Wiegel for Slate.com, admitted that he did contribute articles to his own bigoted newsletter but that he only wrote articles focusing on economic issues:

CALLER: Dr. Paul, how confident were you at the time that the newsletters that bore your name were representative of your views on taxes, on monetary policy, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, all the things that you hold dear? How confident were you that the newsletter accurately portrayed your views on those things?

PAUL: Well, the newsletters were written, you know, a long time ago. And I wrote a certain portion of them. I would write the economics. So a lot of what you just mentioned… his would be material that I would turn in, and it would become part of the letter. But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in. And I didn’t even really become aware of the details of that until many years later when somebody else called and said, you know what was in it? But these were sentences that were put in, a total of eight or ten sentences, and it was bad stuff. It wasn’t a reflection of my views at all. So it got in the letter, I thought it was terrible, it was tragic, you know and I had some responsibility for it, because name went on the letter. But I was not an editor. I’m like a publisher. And if you think of publishers of newspapers, once in a while they get pretty junky stuff in newspapers. And they have to say that this is not the position of that newspaper, and this is certainly the case. But I actually put a type of a newsletter out, it was a freedom report, investment, survival report — every month since 1976. So this is probably ten sentences out of 10,000 pages, for all I know. I think it’s bad that happened but I disavowed all these views, and people who know me best, people of my district, have heard these stories for years and years, and they know they weren’t a reflection of anything I believed in, and it never hurt me politically. Right now, I think it’s the same case, too. People are desperate to find something.

CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they’re gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.
PAUL: The paper money now is pink, you know? No, we haven’t had runaway inflation, but I still fear that.

Recently, several close associates have come forward saying that Ron Paul was intimately involved in his own newsletter.

The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

There is additional evidence that demonstrates how close Ron Paul was with his bigoted newsletter:

Yet a review of his enterprises reveals a sharp-eyed businessman who for nearly two decades oversaw the company and a nonprofit foundation, intertwining them with his political career. The newsletters, which were launched in the mid-1980s and bore such names as the Ron Paul Survival Report, were produced by a company Paul dissolved in 2001.

The company shared offices with his campaigns and foundation at various points, according to those familiar with the operation. Public records show Paul’s wife and daughter were officers of the newsletter company and foundation; his daughter also served as his campaign treasurer.

Another person close to Ron Paul claimed that Ron Paul started adding racist material in his newsletter in a way to increase their profit in their magazine:

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

It is unclear precisely how much money Paul made from his newsletters, but during the years he was publishing them, he reduced his debts and substantially increased his net worth, according to his congressional and presidential disclosure reports. In 1984, he reported debt of up to $765,000, most of which was gone by 1995, when he reported a net worth of up to $3.3 million. Last year, he reported a net worth up to $5.2 million.

The newsletters bore his name in large print and featured articles on topics ranging from investment advice to political commentary. Frequently written in first person, they contained personalized notes, such as holiday greetings from Paul and his wife, Carol.

The Washington Post obtained dozens of copies of the newsletters from the Wisconsin Historical Society. Texas news outlets wrote about them in 1996, and the New Republic published extensive excerpts in 2008. The issue resurfaced late last year, when Paul’s presidential campaign picked up momentum. The extent of Paul’s involvement and his business strategy had not been known.

Paul’s publishing operation began through a nonprofit organization he created in 1976, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, which advocates for limited government and a free market. The group, founded the year Paul entered Congress, published Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, mostly a collection of his congressional speeches and commentaries.

In 1984, just before losing a Senate bid and leaving Congress, Paul formed Ron Paul & Associates. He soon began publishing the Ron Paul Investment Letter, initially offering mostly economic and monetary information. Texas tax records listed Paul as president of the business, his wife as secretary, his daughter, Lori Paul Pyeatt, as treasurer, and a longtime Paul associate, Lew Rockwell, as vice president.

Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period, and the two men discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” are more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

The evidence keeps piling up. We know that Ron Paul Paul wrote a letter to his subscribers promoting his racist magazine.We know that Ron Paul let Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard ghost write many of these racist articles. Both of these men are known for spouting racist and anti-Semitic views in other forums. We also know that Ron Paul has some association with known racists. As a result of the growing evidence of Ron Paul's racism, its gets difficult to believe his denials that he is not a racist.

Its clear that conservatives, Tea Partiers and Independents should not vote for or support Ron Paul.

Is Newt Gingrich Playing Passive-Agressive With Romney's Faith

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:59:00 +0000

Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne, the Pentecoastal pastor who runs the The River at Tampa Bay church, held a Newt Gingrich rally on church grounds. After the completion of that pro-Newt rally, Dr. Rodney-Brown explained to Florida voters that they can overlook Newt's affairs but they cannot accept Romney's faith:

After the event, Howard-Browne said that the marital infidelities of Gingrich, like all sinners, could be left in the past.

'We've got to hold people accountable. But if they say they've asked for forgiveness then we have to go with what the word of God said - we have to forgive.'

He expressed grave reservations, however, about Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

'Mormonism is a cult and that's the problem,' he said.

'Mormonism, if you study the whole history of it, and I'm not trying to create a problem, but they had death squads that would go around kill everybody that wasn't a Mormon.'

Mormons, he said, were 'very honourable people, very clean-married, godly, family' and their faith had 'been doctored up and painted nicely.' But the 'problem is the additon to the scripture, which is the book of Mormon, and all the other additives that Joseph Smith brought to the table.'

Howard-Browne said he was not aligned with any candidate, though he left the church grounds in Gingrich's bus afterwards. Gingrich was not present for his prayer.

Dennis Prager, a well known Los Angeles conservative talk show host has this to say about those who believe Romney's faith is a cult or a bizzare religion:

This kind of rhetoric about a candidate's religion has no place in any political campaign. Pastors like Robert Jeffress and Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne are preaching a dangerous, false and dark idea that a candidate's faith is more important than his values.

The good news is that other religious leaders have publicly stated that Christians can vote for a Mormon. Influential Christians like Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen , Richard J. Mouw, Reverend Franklin Graham and Reverend Rob Schenck have all stated that Christians can vote for a Mormon. The truth is that a candidate's values is more important than his faith.

I recommend my readers to watch a debate between attorney Jay Sekulow and Pastor Robert Jeffress on Mitt Romney's religion because they discuss whether or not a candidate's faith or values is the primary issue voters should be using when deciding to vote for a candidate. Its a powerful and educational debate that every voter should watch.

Newt Gingrich is trying to play the same old tired strategy of playing passive-aggressive with Mitt Romney's faith. This strategy started with Mike Huckabee who employed this trick during the 2008 Presidential election. Other candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry have attempted to employ this tactic in this election before dropping out of this race.

What is so interesting is that Newt Gingrich, along with other 2012 candidates, denounced Pastor Robert Jeffress who supported Rick Perry and called Mormonism a cult. When Craig Bergman, who used to be the Iowa campaign director for Newt Gingrich's campaign called the LDS religion a cult, the Gingrich team quickly dispatched a spokesman to repudiate Craig Bergman's statement:

"He made a comment to a focus group prior to becoming an employee that is inconsistent with Newt 2012's pledge to run a positive and solutions orientated campaign," said R.C. Hammond, press secretary for Gingrich.

Another Iowa Gingrich campaign staffer emphasized that Newt did not agree with Mr. Bergman's statement:

Linda Upmeyer, the chairwoman for Gingrich’s Iowa campaign, reached by telephone for reaction this afternoon, said she’s never heard Gingrich himself say anything negative about Mormonism.

“I’ve never had any discussion that resembled that with Speaker Gingrich,” Upmeyer said. “I have no doubt there are people that reject Mormonism but I’ve never engaged in a conversation regarding that, ever.”

Is this part of a new desperate strategy to defeat Romney by employing a passive-aggressive strategy against Mitt's religion? So far, there has been no response from Newt Gringrich's campaign. They haven't rushed out to repudiate Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne's statements about Romney's faith like they have with Pastor Jeffress or Craig Bergman. I hope and expect that the Gingrich campaign issue a statement distancing themselves from Rodney-Browne's statements about the LDS faith very soon.

WSJ: Bain Saved America In The 1980s

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:09:00 +0000

The Wall Street Journal has an article explaining how private equity firms like Bain helped saved America during the 1980s:

Not only did Bain Capital save America, but no matter what turn Mitt Romney's political career takes, Bain Capital may stand as the best of Mr. Romney's lifetime contributions to the nation's economic well-being. If only he'd tell the story.

We are of course putting forth "Bain Capital" as not merely the Romney private-equity house but as the stand-in for the period of American economic history that ran from 1980 to 1989. Back then it was called the Greed Decade, with asset-stripping barbarians at the gate. Virtually everything about this popular stereotype is wrong. Properly understood, the 1980s, including Bain, were the remarkable years when an ever-resilient America found a way to save itself from becoming what Europe is now—a global has-been.

...

Arguably, the primary force that set off the 1980s upheaval in U.S. corporate restructuring was the deregulation begun by Jimmy Carter and continued by Ronald Reagan. Airlines, ground transportation, cable and broadcasting, oil and gas, banking and financial services all experienced regulatory rollback. Meanwhile, a competitive, globalized marketplace was rising. Management at some of America's biggest companies, confused by these rapid changes, found themselves sitting on huge piles of unused or poorly deployed cash and assets.

Thousands of Mitt Romneys allied with huge pension funds representing colleges, unions and the like, plus a rising cadre of institutional money managers, to force corporate America to reboot. In the 1980s almost half of major U.S. corporations got takeover offers.

Singling out this or that Bain case study amid the jostling and bumping is pointless. This was a historic and necessary cleansing of the Augean stables of the American economy. It caused a positive revolution in U.S. management, financial analysis, incentives, governance and market-based discipline. It led directly to the 1990s boom years. And it gave the U.S. two decades of breathing room while Europe, with some exceptions, choked.

Obviously, Bain didn't single handedly save America but the private equity firms did of which Romney's company was among many firms that helped America revitalize its businesses by forcing them to reform, restructure, evolve and slim down.

We need a candidate who will reduce the size and scope of government and create an atmosphere were businesses can grow or reform and revitalize itself. If you want to return to another economic boom of prosperity similar to the one America experienced in the 1980s, then Mitt Romney is your candidate.

Judicial Watch: Newt Gingrich Is Corrupt

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:23:00 +0000

Judicial Watch just released its top 10 corrupt politicians of 2011. While Newt Gingrich is not on the top 10 list, he does get an honorable mention. Judicial Watch explains why:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a career plagued by scandal and corruption.

Perhaps most notably, on January 22, 1997, by a vote of 395 to 28, the House of Representatives voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich for “intentional…or reckless” disregard for House rules and ordered him to pay an unprecedented penalty of $300,000 for ethical wrongdoing. It was the first time in the 208-year history of the House that such a step against a Speaker had been taken. (Gingrich had faced a raft of charges for alleged ethics violations during his tenure in the House.)

Following a scathing special counsel report to the House Ethics Committee detailing the charges against Gingrich, the former Speaker admitted to providing “inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable” statements to congressional investigators. In a written statement, Gingrich stated that his actions ''brought down on the people's house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.”

During the current presidential campaign, Gingrich has continuously misled the American people about how he, like many retired politicians, participated in DC’s lucrative influence-peddling industry.

Gingrich insinuated during one presidential debate that some members of Congress who took money from Fannie and Freddie should go to jail. And yet, over a span of eight years, according to Bloomberg News, The Gingrich Group was paid between $1.6 and $1.8 million by the home mortgage company. At the same time, Freddie Mac was engaged in massive fraud. Gingrich suggested he was a “historian” for Freddie Mac. But the evidence clearly shows he was “throwing his weight” behind the two Government Sponsored Enterprises to prop them up, saying in one interview that Fannie and Freddie provided a more “liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have” without them. Ironically, President Obama, the man who Gingrich is seeking to oust from office, is keeping secret each and every Freddie Mac (and Fannie Mae) document, including those that could shed light on Gingrich’s relationship with Freddie.

Gingrich also has claimed, “I have never done lobbying of any kind.” However, as documented by the Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney, Gingrich was a hired gun for the drug lobby who “worked hard to persuade Republican congressmen to vote for the Medicare drug subsidy that the industry favored.” Carney reports that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America confirmed that they paid Gingrich. Bloomberg News “cited sources from leading drug companies AstraZeneca and Pfizer saying that those companies had also hired Gingrich.”

Gingrich has also sustained heavy criticism for his troubled personal life, including the admission by Gingrich that he cheated on his second wife while serving as Speaker of the House with then-House employee and current wife, Callista Bisek.

The Unelectability Of Newt Gingrich

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:12:00 +0000

A few weeks ago, I thought the race would boil down to a competition between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. However, Newt Gingrich has bounced back from Romney's SuperPac on him in Iowa. He's won the endorsement of Rick Perry and won the South Carolina primary yesterday.

If Newt Gingrich thinks he can win the Republican nominations, he's got a lot of hurdles to overcome. Those hurdles are listed below:

1. Rick Perry's big campaign donors are supporting Romney, Not Newt:

While many of Perry's evangelical Christian donors in Texas could find Gingrich appealing, fundraisers from the establishment wing of the GOP are more likely to gravitate to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Indeed, two top Perry fundraisers—Mississippi-based political strategist Henry Barbour and Dirk Van Dongen, a lobbyist who co-chaired the governor's fundraising efforts in Washington--signed on to the Romney camp Thursday.

"Most people I'm talking to seem to be ready to go to Romney," Barbour said. "Newt's impressive, but I don't think he can win the White House. Look, this is about winning in November and I think Gov. Romney has the best chance to win. If we don't win in November, we're wasting our time."

Barry D. Wynn, a South Carolina fundraiser who left Perry's campaign to raise money for Romney two weeks ago, said he and other members of the finance team were turned off by Perry's attacks on Romney's business record. He noted that Gingrich has been even more vehement in his criticism of Bain Capital, the private equity firm that Romney led.

2. Not only does Newt Gingrich have fundraising problems, he's got campaign organizational problems. Newt Gingrich doesn't have the organizational stamina or financial resources to go head to head with Obama. As a result, Newt Gingrich will gas out early in the campaign because he doesn't have the resources to last long against Obama.

3. Newt is still struggling to pay back the debt he created in the early days of the 2012 election because he spent alot of money on his wife when he should have been spending it on his campaign. Perhaps with Newt's victory in South Carolina, he might be able to pay it off. I doubt it given that major donors are lining Mitt Romney because they know he manages people's money very well.

4. Newt Gingrich is not on the ballot in may of the primary states:

Karl Rove explained why getting on each of the state ballots matters:

Organization truly matters, especially in low-turnout caucuses. Four years ago, for example, 118,917 Republicans turned out in Iowa—and only 424 votes separated the third- and fourth-place finishers. The total turnout was considerably less than the 229,732 Iowans who voted in the GOP primary for governor two years later. Being organized in all 99 Iowa counties means more people can be dragged to caucus meetings who might otherwise stay home on a wintery eve, believing their vote doesn't matter.

5. Newt Gingrich as has a freight train of baggage:

He was accused of approximately 84 ethical violations while he was Speaker of the House. It is an established fact that Newt Gingrich has had to pay back $300,000 in ethics fine back in the 1990s after The House Committee on Ethics released its report on Gingrich.

6. Newt's adultery reveals he is a morally challenged man:

During the South Carolina Primary debate, Newt Gingrich deflected the question about his second wife's accusation that he requested an open marriage. However, the audience rose to its feet not because the accusation was false but that he did a masterful job in avoiding the question:

The substance of the answer was preposterous, of course. This is the man who was calling Clinton to resign because of lying over his sexual indiscretions. He also accused the Clinton administration of lacking moral standing and gravitas. I bet every one of those audience members screaming for Newt mostly likely called for Clinton’s resignation even before it was known he lied under oath.

Why was his terrible answer widely and uncritically received as “hitting it out of the ballpark”?

Because the answer was not about whether he asked his wife for an “open marriage,” it was about managing the political fallout from the accusation.

As David Frum tweeted: “It’s manifestly true that Gingrich wanted open marriage. He had one! Only dispute is whether he told his wife about it.”

Newt Gingrich cannot deny the fact that he divorced his first wife while she was being treated for cancer so that he could marry the woman that he was having an affair with while he was married to his first wife. Shortly after marrying his second wife, he began cheating on her by having an affair with a congressional staffer. Then he decided to divorced his second wife shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis so that he could marry his current wife who he was having an affair with during his second marriage.

The sad question for voters all across America is whether or not Newt's second wife, Marianne, was telling the truth about Gingrich's request for an open marriage?

I believe Marrianne is telling the truth. However, even if she isn't telling the truth, we have to understand that the difference between an open marriage and adultery is that in adultery, a man is sleeping with someone other than his wife without the wife’s permission. When Newt didn’t get his wife’s permission to carry on a relationship that he was already having, he just continued on with out her permission. What is equally shocking about Newt's multipe affairs is his excuse for his unfaithfulness as a husband was that it was the result of working too hard for America.

7. As a result of his multiple affairs, Newt Gingrich will definitely lose the female vote. He will push female voters into voting for Obama and will cause women vote against the GOP for years to come in the future.

8. With Newt Gingrich's multiple affairs, he is a poor spokesman for issues that are important to values voters. He has no credibility when it comes to issues like traditional marriag. He will discredit and destroy the social conservative movement. He will harm them for many years to come because not an asset but a liability to them. If Social Conservatives back newt, they will lose credibility with rest of America.

9. Newt Gingrich is possess traits that they don't like about Bill Clinton and Obama:

10. Newt Gingrich cannot win the general election against Obama. Conservatives, for whatever bizzare or irrational reason, like Newt but the rest of America doesn't. He has high unfavorability ratings in 1996 very bad:

And yet, his approval numbers while he was in charge of the House were dreadful. Gallup found his net favorable rating in negative territory by the early spring of 1995 (33 percent approve to 47 percent disapprove, or a 14 point net negative), and at the end of 1995 his net negatives would exceed 25 points, where they would remain for the rest of his tenure.

By the time of the 1996 election, Gingrich had become a drag on the nationwide Republican brand. Consider the following chart, which tracks Gingrich’s favorable rating in the 1996 exit poll, by two metrics. First, it looks at his approval rating among all voters, and among only Bob Dole voters. Second, it looks at his approval rating nationwide and in Georgia.

These are very weak numbers indeed. Obviously, his 32 percent national favorable rating shows that only the core GOP base was behind him, but even then Gingrich was viewed favorably by just 61 percent of Dole voters nationwide. And in Georgia – his home state where people knew him best – he could not even pull in three quarters from Dole voters.

Right now, favorability is low and his unfavorability is high. Newt Gingrich is simply unelectable and it would take a miracle for him to reverse that trend. In fact, Newt will probably not win the Florida primary but if he does, there will be a major effort to take him down before he does any more damage to the Republican party.

11. Due to Newt's high unfavorability ratings, he will also most definitely lose the crucial independent voter. The more independents learn about him or are reminded of who this man is, the less they will like him. Independent voters will not like the choices of choosing between Obama and Newt but they will select Obama over Gingrich at the end of the day.

12. Another byproduct of his high unfavorability ratings is that Newt Gingrich will reverse all our gains in the 2010 midterm elections. He will hurt the local, state and national Republican candidates who are seeking to ride a second wave the against the Democrats in public offices across this nation.

The facts are clear. Newt Gingrich may have won South Carolina and he may go on to win the Republican nomination. But he will never, ever be able to defeat Barak Obama.

Mitt Romney's South Carolina Speech

noreply@blogger.com (J) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:15:00 +0000

Mitt Romney gave one of the best speeches I've seen after he won the New Hampshire and he's given Americans another great speech tonight after coming in second in the South Carlina Primaries. Watch Mitt's speech below: