God, Politics, and Rock 'n' Roll

Here Is How A Talking Point Dies

2012-01-26T16:01:00.003-06:00

We were told that Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.

ABC reports that the secretary, Debbie Bosanek, pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent. If true, it means that Bosanek is making in excess of $200,000 a year--which doesn't make her a good representative of the working class.

After conservative pundits did the math, it was revealed that Bosanek makes $60,000. Megan McArdle then does some complex mental gymnastics trying to figure out HOW Bosanek pays less than Buffett. In summary, it's not possible UNLESS you are willing to compare apples to oranges.

Bosanek's salary also becomes a source of embarrassment for Buffett. He's willing to pay more taxes--when actually, he could do his part to end income inequity by increasing his secretary's salary. His net worth is estimated at 39-billion dollars.

And so a talking point fades from the national consciousness. Until VH-1 does another "I Love The 2000s" special.

In all seriousness, this again proves the worth of the Internet is disallowing the use of unchallenged spin to influence national debate.

Romney/Simmons 2012

2012-01-26T15:44:00.002-06:00

My favorite rock group is KISS.

I caucused for Mitt Romney.

Today, Gene Simmons of KISS expressed his support for Mitt Romney.

I didn't know that Simmons would be supporting Romney when I went to caucus for Mitt. Awesome minds simply think alike.

And if you support someone else, you are just NOT COOL.

Speaking of cool, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's book sales have jumped from 285,568th place to 29th following her verbal smackdown with the President.

Who'll be Newt's "Mini-Me" when he rules the moon?

2012-01-26T12:31:00.001-06:00

From BoingBoing. Awesome.

Invisibility!

2012-01-26T09:45:00.001-06:00

The other day, Jeff and I found ourselves with some time to kill at the Bass Pro Shop near Des Moines. For non-campers/non-hunters/only occasional fisher-people like us (don't tell the NRA that Jeff doesn't hunt!), it's a wonderland of mysterious gadgets and weird objects. There's a whole aisle of bottles of fake deer urine. There are taxidermied creatures in the rafters.

Always the bargain shopper, I noted that there are great deals on polarized sunglasses (the better to see the fish you're trying to catch or, in my case, the better to see as you drive through glittery snowfields on winter days). There were also some super markdowns on shorts in my size (it being winter here in Iowa--not that the guy I saw at the bus stop in shorts yesterday got the memo). But the thing that got us laughing the hardest was the camouflage lingerie. Giggling like teenagers (come on, we were extremely bored), I snapped a photo.

If invisibility in the bedroom isn't enough for you, you might be interested to know that there's been scientific progress toward invisibility elsewhere--and while it's not quite a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings elf style invisibility cloak, it does have "exotic electromagnetic properties." Sexy!

Will the posthumous baptism issue hurt Romney's campaign?

2012-01-25T17:03:00.002-06:00

I am an amateur genealogist. I have been researching my family's history for over 17 years, and I have an extensive database of information and photographs. I can trace some branches of my family back over 500 years. If I could choose any career, it would be to be a professional genealogist and historian.

As a genealogist, I know that one of the greatest resources for researchers like me is the extensive collection of records compiled and archived by the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). This ever-expanding, searchable collection is one of the first stops for any new researcher and a reliable source of primary records. Genealogists can visit Salt Lake City for the greatest access, but there are also family history centers at Mormon churches throughout the world.

The reason for this, in simplistic terms, is that Mormons believe that it is important to provide everyone, even people who have died, with the opportunity to be baptized into the LDS church. In order to do that, you have to know who they were.

Andrea Stone, at the Huffington Post, has a great article that explores the potential ramifications of this practice for the Mitt Romney campaign. The loudest voices in opposition to the practice have come from Jews who protest that the posthumous baptism of Holocaust victims is a terrible insult to the faith that they were killed for having. The Vatican has also weighed in, directing Catholic churches not to release records to the LDS church for microfilming.

The death of a once-promising campaign

2012-01-25T16:14:00.001-06:00

Folks who like "campaign insider" stories will enjoy this one, from First Read, about the "rise and fall" of Rick Perry's campaign.

Shared Cultural Values

2012-01-25T13:38:00.002-06:00

As a perfect follow-up to my post on the loss of America's shared cultural values, Kyle Munson of the Des Moines Register profiles the work of the better half of this blog during Munson's 99-county tour of Iowa.

Folks ask how Tara and I navigate our political differences during our marriage.

In this article, Tara describes our shared commitment to building strong families and instilling a work ethic in our young people.

Those are principles which unite us (and most Americans) beyond specific policy views.

It's snowy and it's Monday

2012-01-23T11:36:00.003-06:00

So you definitely need to watch this video (via BoingBoing) about whales and dolphins playing together. Near Hawaii. Where it's warm.

We Have Met The Enemy...

2012-01-23T09:29:00.000-06:00

And he IS us.

When talking politics with neighbors, I find that their number one complaint is that "Washington doesn't get anything done...they just fight with other and can't agree to anything."

Extreme or hyper- partisanship is what this is labeled.

I am reminded of the saying, "you get the government that you deserve." We live in a representative democratic republic, and what we don't want to face is that the divisions among our elected officials represent us quite nicely.

Those divides come into clear focus in the new book by Charles Murray called "Coming Apart: The State Of White America 1960-2010."

In a column summarizing the book, Murray uses statistics to contend that, despite income disparities, Americans had formerly shared common cultural values.

But that's not the current case. At one point in American history, the rich worked its way up from the middle class and understood the values of working hard, getting a good education, and taking advantage of opportunities.

The nation is now seeing a class of rich and powerful families who have had money and power for multiple generations and have lost this ethic.

Meanwhile, the working class is walking away from the institutions and values that unite that group: marriage, religion, and education.

Each group looks contemptuously and without understanding at the lives of the other group.

Then we elect people to speak for us. They are doing so successfully.

Why Mitt's tax returns matter

2012-01-23T08:50:00.004-06:00

As we now know, Mitt Romney's defeat in South Carolina has prompted him to agree to release his 2010 tax return and an estimate of his 2011 taxes. We've also heard that he pays taxes an the infuriatingly-low rate of 15%, because his earnings are taxed as capital gains, rather than income. In addition, the release of these returns will pull back the curtain on the kind of "work" a guy does to earn the income he's had. James Surowiecki has a short piece in the New Yorker that explains why private-equity firms like Romney's are bad news all around (this is a long excerpt, but you should click through for the rest):

The real reason that we should be concerned about private equity’s expanding power lies in the way these firms have become increasingly adept at using financial gimmicks to line their pockets, deriving enormous wealth not from management or investing skills but, rather, from the way the U.S. tax system works. Indeed, for an industry that’s often held up as an exemplar of free-market capitalism, private equity is surprisingly dependent on government subsidies for its profits.

...

Having already piled companies high with debt in order to buy them, many private-equity funds had their companies borrow even more, and then used that money to pay themselves huge “special dividends.” This allowed them to recoup their initial investment while keeping the same ownership stake. Before 2000, big special dividends were not that common. But between 2003 and 2007 private-equity funds took more than seventy billion dollars out of their companies. These dividends created no economic value—they just redistributed money from the company to the private-equity investors.

As a result, private-equity firms are increasingly able to profit even if the companies they run go under—an outcome made much likelier by all the extra borrowing—and many companies have been getting picked clean. In 2004, for instance, Wasserstein & Company bought the thriving mail-order fruit retailer Harry and David. The following year, Wasserstein and other investors took out more than a hundred million in dividends, paid for with borrowed money—covering their original investment plus a twenty-three per cent profit—and charged Harry and David millions in “management fees.” Last year, Harry and David defaulted on its debt and dumped its pension obligations. In other words, Wasserstein failed to improve the company’s performance, failed to meet its obligations to creditors, screwed its workers, and still made a profit. That’s not exactly how capitalism is supposed to work.

The people who ran Harry and David into the ground have a defense: economic conditions changed in unforeseeable ways. But that’s precisely why loading firms with debt in order to reap short-term benefits is bad. It leaves companies unable to weather tough times, and allows private-equity firms to make money even if things go wrong.

As if this weren’t galling enough, taxpayers are left on the hook. Interest payments on all that debt are tax-deductible; when pensions are dumped, a federal agency called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation picks up the tab; and the money that the dealmakers earn is taxed at a much lower rate than normal income would be, thanks to the so-called “carried interest” loophole. The money that Mitt Romney made when he was at Bain Capital was compensation for his (apparently excellent) work, but, instead of being taxed as income, it was taxed as a capital gain. It’s a very cozy arrangement.

Now I know that some people will argue (see the long comment thread over at Althouse for a prime example) that the lower rate on capital gains is an incentive to investment. Maybe that's true, especially given the above. When you're pretty much guaranteed a payout, even if the company in which you're investing fails and dumps its obligations on the Federal government, what's not to like? And the suggestion that those capital gains have already been taxed at the corporate tax rate of 35% is just nonsense. There's no getting around the Gordon Gekko comparisons, because they are accurate.

The Vengeance Of The Newt

2012-01-23T08:03:00.001-06:00

While reviewing the South Carolina primary results over the weekend, I couldn't help but continually think of this column by Kevin D. Williamson which sums up the race between Gingrich and Romney:

It is between those Republicans who disagree with Barack Obama, believing his policies to be mistaken, and those who hate Barack Obama, believing him to be wicked. Mitt Romney is the candidate of the former, but is regarded with suspicion, or worse, by the latter. The former group of Republicans would be happy merely to win the presidential election, but the latter are after something more: a national repudiation of President Obama, of his governmental overreach, and of managerial progressivism mainly as practiced by Democrats but also as practiced by Republicans.

If you've got Democratic friends on Facebook who spend a lot of time laughing at Republicans (and were out in full force this weekend mocking the Gingrich win), it's a wonderful fantasy to picture Gingrich not only beating Obama, but humiliating him and the media while doing it.

“Conservatives are very frustrated, and rightfully so. Their feeling is that they play by the rules – they work hard, pay their taxes, raise their kids right – but what do they get for it? Their values are mocked on television and the movies, the media castigates them as a bunch of extremists, they pay taxes while half of the country does not, and the Obama administration took to demagouging them virtually from day one of his tenure. I know of what I speak – a few months back I was driving down the road and saw a sign in front of a business lamenting, ‘Where is the America I grew up in?’ I nodded my head in approval.

“Enter Newt Gingrich, the person on the debate stage who finally speaks truth to power. ‘Not so fast, John King!’ ‘Hold it just a damned minute, Diane Sawyer!’ ‘How dare you talk to me like that, Brian Williams!’ These are the sorts of thoughts that millions of conservatives have every week. And now here is Newt Gingrich actually saying it right to them.

Setting aside emotion for the moment, one must take a look at Newt's huge unfavorables.

With Newt as the nominee, the Republican message to swing voters is, “Vote for the guy you detest to replace the president who you still like but who has disappointed you.” That’s not an impossible sales pitch, but it is an extraordinarily difficult one.

So look for the Obama campaign to play up the likability and the media to consent: witness this past week, when we debate Mitt's taxes and Newt's marriages while ogling President Obama singing...and preparing for Michele Obama's "healthy kids" tour. Remember that there's reality and there's politics...the Obamas may actually be arrogant and contemptuous of the working class, but the media won't be focusing on that.

Complete bipartisan agreement with former IDP Chair Gordon Fischer in our household

2012-01-19T14:46:00.000-06:00

You all know that Jeff and I have big political differences. However, we agree wholeheartedly with one another on one important political issue--the Iowa Caucuses. We also agree with our good friend, former Iowa Democratic Party Chair Gordon Fischer, about why Iowa should continue to be the first state in the nation to weigh in on the Presidential field. Here's what Gordon had to say today. I think Jeff and I would agree that we couldn't say it better ourselves:

Every four years, there are catcalls and brickbats by some that the Iowa Caucuses should not be first. But you have to start somewhere. Some have said, Iowa is unrepresentative. Well, there is no single state which is representative of the entire nation. Others have said there ought to be a regional primary. That would be tantamount to always nominating the most well known and well funded candidate – lesser known, lesser funded candidates simply couldn’t compete. Again, we’ve got to start somewhere, and Iowa has a long and honorable history, by both parties, of giving all candidates a fair shake. Our state allows for retail politics, refreshing in the current political environment, where candidates meet and greet voters in places like coffee shops, union halls, and pizza places, and folks get to directly hear from the candidates, and directly ask them questions and share concerns.

Now, Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status is again under attack. People across the country are pointing to the GOP recount as evidence that Iowa shouldn’t go first, or even can’t go first. That is wrong. Two facts must be kept in mind. First, the Iowa Caucuses are not run by government officials, not at all; the Iowa Caucuses are run by the respective political parties, which means almost all the work is done by volunteers. I’m not sure, with all due respect, that other states could do the same. Second, it’s important to keep in mind this last GOP Caucus was decided by a mere handful of votes; something far, far less than even 1 percent of the vote. Essentially, it was a tie. That’s what was reported on Caucus night, albeit very late. And that’s still what is being reported now – a virtual tie. As a former Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, I am not used to praising the Iowa Republican Party. But I think, considering the almost-ridiculous closeness of the vote, the Iowa GOP did just fine.

Finally, even if you think the 2012 Iowa GOP Caucuses were somehow flawed (ignoring the closeness of the vote), that doesn’t change Iowa Caucus history. For about two decades Iowa has provided a full, free, fair and level playing field to all candidates of both parties, with very little controversy. Even making the unwarranted assumption the 2012 GOP Caucuses were somehow bad or flawed, one bad night doesn’t mean you can ignore two decades of history.
The Iowa Caucuses are good for not only Iowa, but for our country. Let’s not forget all the advantages – for U.S. citizens everywhere – that Iowa’s Caucuses are a great place to start the presidential nominating process.

Why liberals should like Tim Tebow

2012-01-19T12:00:00.001-06:00

Jonathan Miller makes the liberal case for Tim Tebow today over at the Huffington Post. I haven't written about Tebow recently, because it's hard to disentangle my love for the Florida Gators from my feelings about this very outspoken Christian.

But Miller seems to make sense to me. One of the greatest criticisms I have of some very conservative Christians is the exclusive nature of their faith. They are right; I am (and many of us are) wrong. And maybe in his heart, Tim Tebow believes that too.

But many of his most public actions are in line with the best of Christian tradition and teaching, and that's commendable in a young person who's been given the world on a platter. Maybe it's time for liberals to give the guy a chance, rather than letting the narrowest minds in so-called "Christianity" claim him for their own.

The Results Change...AND Remain The Same

2012-01-19T10:28:00.003-06:00

The always-awesome Jennifer Jacobs scoops the world and reports that the Iowa GOP will certify the results of the caucuses...but without the outcome in eight precincts. Santorum becomes the winner according the numbers available.

The fall-out? Well, the folks who don't like Iowa's first-in-the-nation status will ramp up the rhetoric. But I don't think the Hawkeye State will lose the status--activists in both parties EARN the status by their enthusiastic involvement. Candidates were turning out 300-600 voters at rallies over the holidays. Which other state will duplicate that?

In the ironies of ironies, this result probably helps Rick Santorum. He gave a great speech to re-introduce himself nationally following his top-tier finish...and now he gets to tout his Iowa "win" to counter Rick Perry's "indication of support" for Newt Gingrich.

That's what I mean when I say that the results changed...but remained the same. Bachmann dropped out after a poor Iowa showing..and the Huntsman and Perry candidacies couldn't recover from their anemic results.

Iowa winnowed the field and performed its duty.

The Last Stand Of The Not-Romneys

2012-01-18T16:49:00.004-06:00

My conservative friends in Iowa would like to see Gingrich and Perry leave the GOP race to allow conservatives to unite around Rick Santorum. But since Gingrich appears to have momentum, Erick Erickson wants Perry to get out and endorse Newt.

It's the last stand of the "not Romney" voters...hoping that the field will shrink to one conservative candidate around which early voters will unite and deny the Republican nomination to Mitt Romney.

That's because there are still a lot of delegates to be awarded. But the longer that the field contains Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum, Romney will continue to win.

Despite Santorum's Iowa win, it DOES appear that Gingrich is getting his third wind...because the Romney campaign has gone back on the attack.

Going Deeper

2012-01-18T10:48:00.003-06:00

I've stated on this blog numerous times that all media is biased. Fox News is conservative, MSNBC is liberal.

I once saw a speech by Wall Street Journal writer John Fund in which he maintained that the biggest problem with today's media is not bias, but laziness.

I think that's partially the problem, as much of the media refuses to "go deeper" when reporting or analyzing a story. However, I don't think the problem is just laziness; I think that the media refuses to believe that the public can think about a story on multiple levels.

For example, I believe that climate change is a legitimate problem. However, I also know that many of the groups that propose a "solution" are more interested in wealth redistribution and control of private property than prudent stewardship of the earth. I know they've hitched their wagon to the efforts of people sincerely concerned about the environment.

I also believe in treating people of other faiths with respect. However, I know that some of the people urging us to "coexist" actually believe all faiths need to be viewed as "correct."

I'm a Christian--I believe that the only path to heaven is through Jesus Christ. You may believe differently. Someone is right. Someone is wrong. I can respect and love you but believe I'm right.

One of the many positive aspects of the Internet is that a person can go as deep as they'd like in regard to any political topic. Maybe you just want to read "Politico." Maybe you'd like to access the work of the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute. It's up to you.

But no-one controls the freedom of information. That's why when one media source is lazy, another calls them on it. And this freedom should be contemplated as Wikipedia goes dark today.

Girl Scout Cookie Time!

2012-01-12T14:52:00.002-06:00

A local Scout leader has posted that Girl Scouts will be at a local grocery store this weekend selling the awesome treats that help cure the post-holiday blahs.

Make no mistake, this nation is SERIOUSLY in love with Girl Scout cookies. A story posted on HuffPo announcing a new cookie attracted 706 comments. The Post is now inviting readers to vote for their favorites and learn each cookie's history.

Call me a populist, but I love me some Thin Mints. What's scary is that I always open the box intending to eat one or two...then just a few more...okay, just a few more...

And then it's off to the store before Tara realizes that they are gone.

Hai Karate, RIP

2012-01-12T14:02:00.002-06:00

Tara sent me this wonderful article titled "6 Forgotten Drugstore Colognes And Aftershaves." Chances are that one of these brands was the choice of your dad or granddad.

But I was also sad to read that "Hai Karate" is no longer produced. Not so much because I wore it, but because of the affection that I have for the commercials for Hai Karate. I loved how a nerdy guy was forced to fight off the aggressive advances of a beautiful woman using the karate moves included with every bottle. I am sure that a lot of nerdy guys put themselves in his place. Not that I would know that, since I was a young hipster.

With Hai Karate gone and Twinkies in bankruptcy, I can feel my childhood innocence slipping away.

A "Downton Abbey" Snuggie Is Inevitable

2012-01-12T12:03:00.003-06:00

Tara and I are unabashed in expressing our affection for "Downton Abbey," and apparently a large number of American viewers agree with us.

I am sure it's success has surprised many, and it would be easy to take an obvious shot at much of the television programming tossed our way these days (Hillbilly Handfishin'*--really???), but I'll just say that both the writing and acting is superb.

After recovering from the surprise, book publishers are leaping onto social networks to promote books that center around similar topics.

I think the publishers are correct that the "Downton" audience is a literary one--especially with the availability of the Kindle or Nook. Since getting our Kindles, Tara and I have definitely agreed that we read more often and more total books in the course of a year.

*Yeah, I realize that the show scored the most viewers of any debut in Animal Planet history. Sigh.

"Too ugly" to be a successful politician...?

2012-01-11T09:36:00.002-06:00

I love British politics. Where else could you get an exchange that includes a suggestion by a radio host that his guest, Labour leader Ed Miliband, might just be "too ugly" to lead his party?

Despite denying suggesting that Mr Miliband was too ugly to be a party leader, Mr Humphrys pressed the point.

He said: 'What I am suggesting to you is that there are some qualities needed in a leader that you may decide at some point you don't have and that you are becoming a drag on the party.'

'Like what,' Mr Miliband responded, apparently becoming flustered. 'What? What are you saying.'

Mr Humphrys went on: 'The way you perform... the way you appear.'

Here's the Google image search you now want to do. And sure, maybe he does look a little bit like Wallace from Wallace and Gromit. But I think he's kind of cute. He's also been the focus of all sorts of odd attention, including this Google Street View shot of him through a distant window and criticism of a "robotic" and repetitive interview.

New Hampshire: Yawn.

2012-01-11T09:24:00.001-06:00

I'll admit it; I didn't much care what happened in New Hampshire. But if you did, or if you want to know what a smart person who did care thought about yesterday's finish, read John Deeth's post. And then for fun, read what the Borowitz Report has to say about what the Republican field is doing to save Rick Perry's bruised ego.

Say It Again: BAIN!

2012-01-10T12:58:00.002-06:00

Both pundits and organized groups on the right are unhappy that Mitt Romney's opponents are attempting to sink Mitt's campaign by disparaging his time at Bain Capital.

But the early election process centers on nominating the best candidate for the job.

Did anyone believe that the Democrats weren't going to raise the issue?

Romney needs to face this type of attack now for two reasons:

1) It allows his campaign to find an effective answer for the attack.

2) It gets Romney beyond the issue early.

If Romney becomes the nominee having faced the "Bain" attacks, it relegates the tactic to yesterday's news. There is no chance that the Obama campaign would center its closing argument in November 2012 around this tactic: "I'll say it again: BAAAAAAAIN!" The Obama campaign will need to find some other talking point to move the polls.

And if the attacks do prevent Romney's nomination, it will be because GOP voters think that the chief executive of a private-equity firm is not the candidate to be running in the general election. Romney needs to make his case that his experience in turning around failing businesses (and failing enterprises like the Salt Lake City Olympics) makes him the ideal candidate for the presidency during an anemic economy.

Newt, saying it doesn't make it true

2012-01-06T16:41:00.002-06:00

I represent indigent clients in civil legal cases. To qualify for services through my office, a client's household has to be at or below 125% of the federal poverty level. If you're curious, the 2011 guidelines are here. For a household of four to qualify for representation in my office, their gross income has to be less than about $29,000. Nearly every client I represent is receiving food assistance benefits.

I bring this up because Newt Gingrich is taking aim at people like my clients who receive food assistance. He has claimed that "millionaires" get food assistance. He has claimed that food assistance is cash that people can use to go on trips to Hawaii. He suggests that people are choosing to receive food stamps instead of paychecks.

However, as Peter Dreier points out, "Among the food stamp recipients 33% (13.4 million) are white, 22% (8.9 million) are black, 16.7% (6.6 million) are Hispanic, and 2.8% (1.1 million) are Asian.

Almost half (47%) of all Americans who receive food stamps are children. Another 8% are elderly. About 20% are disabled. These are not people who have a choice between paychecks and food stamps."

The truth is that food assistance is a narrowly-drawn, targeted program. It's not a lot of money (here's a calculator), and it's not available for things other than approved food items. A family of four earning $2,000 (gross) monthly, with a monthly rent payment of $600, would get $234.00 per month. That same family with a monthly rent payment of $1,000 and childcare costs of $400 would get $492.00 per month. Take out the childcare costs and the food assistance benefit is $317.00 per month.

Fraudulent use of food assistance cards (most often by getting cash back from unscrupulous stores or by buying items and then reselling them for lower prices--likely the source of the persistent "people buying lobsters with food stamps" story) is at an all-time low, and the Obama administration is cracking down on abuses with new enforcement and monitoring programs.

Here are descriptions of the food assistance programs in Iowa. And here's what recipients can and cannot buy:

Recipients with food stamp benefits can use their EBT Card for eligible food purchases at most grocery stores and some other retailers. Food stamps can only be used for food and for plants and seeds to grow food for your household to eat. Food stamps cannot be used to buy:

- Any nonfood item, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, and household supplies, grooming items, toothpaste, and cosmetics.
- Alcoholic beverages and tobacco.
- Vitamins and medicines.

The intersection of all of our blog's titles in one post

2012-01-05T14:35:00.002-06:00

We do call ourselves "God, Politics, and Rock 'n' Roll," though it's rare for us to blend all of those topics in one post. Today's an exception, because the group "Christians for a Moral America" has made news twice recently--once for praying for singer (and my teen crush) George Michael to die while he was seriously ill in a hospital in Austria and today for endorsing Rick Santorum for President.

I am pretty sure praying for any person to die should result in instant revocation of your right to call yourself a "Christian."

The Good News/Bad News For Rick Santorum

2012-01-05T12:10:00.004-06:00

To the dismay of some pundits--and Jon Huntsman--who want to dismiss Iowa's value, Rick Santorum benefits from his hard work in the Hawkeye State by leaping to second place in the GOP presidential contest in a national poll.

The good news for Santorum is that his path to the nomination is clear: be the conservative around whom the "not-Romney" folk unite.

Here's the bad news: Santorum's big obstacle to achieving Romney-alternative status can be summed up in two words:

Newt Gingrich.

I had, at one time, considered going to caucus for Newt (full disclosure: I supported Mitt), but I am glad that I didn't. The new "negative" Newt doesn't appear as if he is changing campaign strategy. It appears that his ego is bruised and he wants to get all passive-aggressive on Romney.

That said, Newt will continue to draw a significant share of votes, as will Rick Perry. It can be assumed that Mitt will win New Hampshire and benefit from the crossover vote in the open South Carolina primary.

That means each vote for Gingrich and Perry will prevent Santorum from pulling the "not-Romney" vote together. Santorum would be in better shape had Perry and Gingrich called it quits after Iowa.

Perry remaining in the race makes sense: he's got money and he's heading toward the South. But Gingrich only appears to be engaging in a scorched earth strategy meant to punish Romney for the negative attack ads aired in Iowa. Ironically, Newt's ego may actually benefit Mitt.