Massachusetts Conservative Feminist | Ordinary: Degrees of Moderation and Sanity

Florida Attorney General Applauds Romney Care? Plans on Being on Romney's Health Care Advisory Board - Red Flag!

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:51:00 +0000

The Florida Attorney General, in an interview with Fox News' "On The Record" (video below) compared Romney's Health Care Plan to Obama's and was extremely favorable about the plan - Frankly, it is hoped that the AG was not referring to the current Massachusetts Health Care Plan as the model - if she was, that's a problem - it is exactly the model for "Obama-care" - and with all due respect:

The Massachusetts Model takes up the majority of the budget (see the Mass 2011 Health Care Budget - and costs for health care reform (Commonwealth Care) at $1,781,800,000).

Taxes have been raised to cover the costs of "Romneycare" - ( See 25% Sales Tax Increase), and the Commonwealth lost population to the point where a Congressional seat was lost (in the silver lining column, Barney Frank did resign due to the redistricting.)

If one cannot afford Health Insurance in Massachusetts, one if forced to pay a fine (for a married couple who does not have health insurance that amounts to a fine comparable to a per month charge for a Commonwealth Care Plan - payable directly to the Massachusetts DOR) - it is less expensive to pay a fine in some instances than to purchase health insurance in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a choice of three carriers, plus "Commonwealth Care" - which is run by the Commonwealth (or the State) - the costs and demand has been so high, they are no longer accepting new enrollee's. Also, it offers excemtpions if one cannot afford either the State Health Insurance or their Employers Health Insurance, leaving those families uninsured - and one can bet it is more than 2 percent of the population.

If this AG is referring to Mitt Romney's version of Mandated State Health Care - she's drinking Koolaid, or has been promised a position with a hefty bonus.

It has driven doctors out of the business (before this bloggers family doctor quit his practice, he spoke to the fact that between malpractice insurance and the costs of the Mandate, he could not longer afford to practice in the Commonwealth), and patient wait time is ridiculous.

A good health insurance program would allow more carriers to compete - Massachusetts did the smart thing when they opened the borders to Auto Insurance, and as a result, premiums were drastically reduced - however, that did not happen under Mitt Romney's watch.

Hopefully, Fox got it's heading on the video below dead wrong, otherwise, what this woman is suggesting is in way way, shape or form, a conservative ideal - although, to this point of view, Romney was never a conservative, as a moderate, he's to the left ideologically speaking (or as he governed). If not, and the good people of the State of Florida have several choices, and at this point, Newt Gingrich, Rick Sanotorum and Ron Paul are all better choices than the man who literally gave us Obamacare.

Video from You tube: Heading is correct if the Fox Sub-headings are to be taken literally

GOP 2012 National - Gingrich Leads, Florida- Romney plus 9, 32% May Change Mind – Romney’s Help from Washington Guard, False Attacks Helping Gingrich.

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:16:00 +0000

With latest Polling in FL - 34% subject to changing mind - Anyone's Guess as to the outcome on the 31st - image: skydandingblog

The latest national Gallup polling taken over a rolling period of January 22 -26 shows Newt Gingrich leading Romney by 32 to 24% - with Santorum and Paul Tied at approximately 15 percent each. The latest Florida polling out of Quinnipiac University shows Romney with a 9 point advantage, but – the kicker, 32% may change their mind, and 6% are undecided – welcome to Iowa and South Carolina.

In both instances Romney had been the favorite, only to squeak out a loss in Iowa to Rick Santorum and to get hammered in South Carolina by Newt Gingrich. To date it has been a 4 man race, although Ron Paul has yet to pick up a state “win” – he is picking up delegates in proportional states (Real Clear Politics), with only 4 states weighing in (including Florida) – there’s a long road ahead for the four candidates, and one cannot anticipate any of them dropping out of the race, especially with remaining primaries offering 24 proportional primary/caucuses, rather than “winner” take all delegates. This will allow the primary to play out beyond the usual Beltway’s dream of hurrying up and choosing an nominee – a tactic that did not work out so well in the 2008 election.

The concerted attack on Gingrich by the Old Guard, in support of Mitt Romney’s campaign, has done more damage to Romney than anticipated. The claims have proven to be false, and some, such as Tom Delay, is a former Speaker who left the Speakership with a moniker of “Toxic” (The Sacramento Bee). He has come out “against” Newt Gingrich, along with Bob Dole, former Presidential candidate, and a host of Washington Insiders – the barrage began with headline after headline on the The Drudge Report leading some to believe that Matt Drudge's news aggregate is in “in the tank” for the Republican Old Guard.

Of course, it took only twenty four hours for the facts to come out, noting that the claims made against Gingrich were just a wee bit false. Not unlike Romney’s ad, running in Florida in Spanish, which in Saturday’s Debate, he claimed no knowledge, until the moderator, Wolf Blitzer of CNN played the ad, where it clearly states Romney’s approval. This resulted with the usual Egg on the Face of Romney.

Gingrich, for his part, has been hammered incessantly for everything imaginable by Romney (sans the kitchen sink, but you can be that’s next) and the appearance is – desperation. No matter how one spins it, that’s the way it is playing out nationwide. Gingrich on the other hand, embraces his grandiose themes, and has solid Conservative Credentials that can be proven. He’s not alone on that stage, given his protégé, Rick Santorum’s outstanding performance in the last Florida debate.

Although there are only 3 days left before the Florida contest, with media nationwide (through a January 27th AP release) touting Republican Insiders Rise Up to Cut Newt Gingrich Down to Sizes, the article closes with those rank and file Republican’s choosing Gingrich as they “refused to be bullied” by Washington (The Herald).

What about the Florida debate performances? True, both Romney and Gingrich, from this perspective had back to back horrid debate nights, allowing Santorum to capitalize and win the debates. That said, Gingrich, who was attempting to be “dignified” (interview Fox Greta Van Susteren), came off as somewhat flabbergasted, while Romney hammered home his right to be successful – and specifically centered around the fact that both men had mutual funds which contained stock in the much maligned Freddie Mac and Fannie May. What Gingrich might had pointed out instead was the fact that Romney is surrounded by lobbyists for the same firm - (Daily Caller) which would have been, in this opinion, just as damning for Romney as his help from the Washington Insiders.

That aside, it’s anyone’s ballgame in Florida, and should those 34% of undecideds (or more accurately those who might change their minds) change them for Gingrich or Santorum, Romney may end up third, or second, to a Gingrich or Santorum win – the state, a “winner take all” will award the 50 delegates to the winner, even if it is by one vote.
From there it is off to Nevada, where Washington Logic dictates that Romney will handily win – however, again, that logic so far has won him New Hampshire only, and that is using the same scorched earth campaign tactics- a one out of three record, is not exactly the road to the White House.

The next debate is scheduled for February 26th on CNN, followed by the March debates prior to Super Tuesday: one in GA on the 1st (CNN), and one on the 5th (NBC) at the Reagan Library.

CNN 2012 GOP Florida Debate Winner – Rick Santorum – Paul Strong - Romney, Gingrich Battle – Romney Reality Check on Health Care

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:29:00 +0000

Rick Get's His Groove On - Best Personal Debate Performance of the 2012 GOP Contest - image WSJ Blogs

The last debate before the Florida GOP Primary was held last night on CNN – with applause and crowd reaction allowed, unlike the debates held on the non-cable networks. From the beginning of the debate, when Rick Santorum gave the “short introduction” he proudly pointed to the fact that his 93 year old mother was in the audience and lived in Jacksonville – he was on target the balance of the debate, looking the least flustered, the most informed – on both domestic and foreign policy issues. It was, however, a fluff question poised to all candidates by Wolf Blitzer: “Why they felt their wife would make the best first lady” – which would stand to endear Santorum to the crucial women’s vote in the Sunshine State - (paraphrased) – “She’s my hero” - he went on to speak of his wife, in terms of her intellectual accomplishments, personal sacrifices, and dedication to both family and country. (Ron Paul spoke about his wife in the terms of a man who values his partner, and one could tell he was just as pleased as punch that she authored “The Ron Paul Cookbook”, Gingrich was magnanimous in saying anyone of the women would make an excellent First Lady, followed by his obvious pride in Callistas' many accomplishments, especially in the area of the arts, and literature. Finally, Mitt Romney spoke of his wife’s dedication to family, and the illnesses she is faced with, something which, was heartfelt, however, came off as very “John Edwards”.)

After an extended and contentious back and forth between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich over the ads running by PACS in their name as well as ads run directly by the campaign, Santorum stepped to the plate and scolded everyone, speaking to the time spent going over personal attacks, rather than allowing time for serious issues, he appeared at once Presidential and authoritative. He was the most effective in the debate attack, specifically when it came to Mitt Romney and the Massachusetts Health Care Model, which is, as Santorum said, a disaster and a mandate. It was from that point forward; one understood that Santorum had risen to the top of the heap, not from any push by any specific group, but by growth in strength in the debate forum. One could see Newt Gingrich, on more than one occasion, looking at Santorum with pride – it was Gingrich’s teachings and personal aid that brought Santorum to the political arena – and, although, at this point, Gingrich, (who obviously had a less than Gingrich night) remains the best in the debate forum, Santorum is closely on his heels, and if there is a win in Florida, and this is quite possible, it will only serve to make Santorum stronger.

Although CNN noted there was no clear winner in the debate, and suggests that Romney even benefited, it is difficult to buy into that line of reasoning, when one reviews the debate tapes.

Gingrich clearly has an off night, on the defense consistently due to an onslaught of attacks, not only by Mitt Romney’s PAC and Romney himself (of which they play fast and loose with the facts), but by former Washington DC foes, and members of the Elite who fear nothing more than a Gingrich nomination. Although Gingrich’s life is a public record, and the majority (personal life aside) that is absolutely defendable, it is to his credit that he continues to stand strong, given the continuous and most often false assertions made against the Speaker. Nancy Reagan, in an address in the mid-1990’s noted (paraphrased) that Goldwater, (who began the conservative movement,) passed the torch to Ronald Reagan, who then passed the torch to Newt Gingrich – Nancy Reagan would never have been so magnanimous to Gingrich had he not been held in high esteem – her reputation for cutting off ties to those who would speak ill of her husband, is legendary. Therefore, the obvious all-out assault on Gingrich by the Washington Elite, in order to further Mitt Romney, or perhaps Jeb Bush should Romney fail to get the nomination, would have made it difficult for a lesser man to withstand.

Romney was the attack dog, and sounded on the one hand petulant and on the other, consistently angry – as if overcompensating to reassert himself as front-runner, after having won the State of New Hampshire only.

Ron Paul’s performance in the debate has also improved, to the point, where is the most approachable of the candidates, and when one stays very clear of foreign policy (in a Republican debate) he does extremely well, last evening was one of his best performances as well.

Notes: Neither Santorum nor Paul invested in advertising in the Sunshine State, however, the two Debates alone, would have given them enough exposure, plus the grassroots work, to compensate for the negative ads run by both Gingrich and Romney – he is in a better position today to pull a surprise victory in Florida than he was in Iowa, where he was polling slightly lower, and came up within days to take the state from Mitt Romney.
Suggested: Watch the entire debate to gain one’s own perspective rather than the “talking points” offered by those who would form an opinion for each individual (and that includes this blog)

Notes on the debate and GOP race in general

As far as the Hispanic vote will go in Florida and the nation, of the two candidates running, Santorum and Gingrich have the most appeal, regardless of the “endorsements” that any one candidate may make, it is the candidate that speaks to the variety of situations and understands there are clear differences between the Cuban’s, the Puerto Rican’s, the Mexican’s, the Costa Rican’s, the Guatemalans, and so on. Without a well-grounded understanding of each group and the problems faced by each homeland – and a strong emphasis of family and faith- one cannot begin to seriously court this very crucial vote in Florida. Both Gingrich and Santorum appear to be the most heartfelt when it comes to immigration, with the most reasonable approach, as well as foreign policy. American’s of Spanish decent are, for the most part, conservative.

Santorum would be the first Italian-American, Catholic, to become the nominee of the GOP, and in winning the White House, would hold that Distinction. The great Geraldine Ferraro, to date, is the only Italian American to rise to the political height as a nominee in the general election (Vice Presidential Candidate).

On the absurdity of Newt Gingrich’s NASA Plan – Gingrich’s plan for NASA is neither as “crazy” nor a “burden on the taxpayer” as portrayed by his detractors. As bizarre as it may sound to build a colony on the moon, it sounded, in retrospect just as crazy in 1960 when one John F. Kennedy suggested that there would be a man on the moon! What is the twofold immediate result of the concept of NASA in conjunction with Private industry working on such a project: first, jobs, not only in Florida, but when one considers the aero-space industry, one must consider New England, given that from the very large, to the very small “mom and pop” machine shop would be hiring, those hundreds of thousands to millions of jobs, created, from the sciences to technology, would translate into taxpayers. At a proposed tax rate of 15% (just for example) and a government investment of 10% (just for example) it would be a win-win for both the United States, in terms of advancing technology and cutting the deficit while reducing the unemployment rolls, and raising the bar for those students who have no goals. In his outline in Florida, Speaker Gingrich was accused of bang off the wall, and many resent spending one red cent on this type of program, without clearly understanding the ramifications: large program, mostly funded by prevented industry, creates millions of jobs, and increases the revenue, thereby cutting down the deficit, and increasing education and technology. That is the realty; therefore, Gingrich remains, despite the attacks, despite the fear of technology and or misunderstanding by some, the most brilliant guy on the stage. Just to clarify one very salient point he mentioned that if he were elected, this would be something instituted in his second term. Therefore, he was not promising immediate results, rather, giving a sound solution for future job creative in an industry that has continued to deliver since the 1960’ (before if one considers the fledgling program under President Eisenhower.

Video:
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Michael Steele: New GOP Entrant “Stupid”, Pollsters Asks The Question, People Answer – It’s That Simple

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:52:00 +0000

It’s the same old story, everyone wants a headline, and since there are so many polls, competition is getting tough, especially with a GOP field that is both contentious and solid – add to that mix, a Washington Elite fear of New Gingrich, and one gets the impression that those on the “right” including pollsters, who might take advantage of the situation, plant some doubt across the field and grab a headline. This is especially true of the Rasmussen Reports release yesterdayof a poll where 33% (34%) of “GOP voters say it would be good if new candidate enters the race”. Of course, when someone is asked a question, they tend to give an answer – it’s not a bad question, it’s just an odd question, considering the field began with eight candidate and has winnowed down to four. The problem with the four current candidates is obvious if one is in Washington and wants everything to remain the status quo.

Mitt Romney is imploding by now he should have been the front-runner, everyone said he would be the front-runner, from the pundits to the media, but that circumstance changed when Rick Santorum came out of nowhere to win Iowa by a handful of votes, (Romney at first was declared the winner), Romney won one of his home states (New Hampshire), and then Newt Gingrich, the most feared of all candidates by the same pundits, won by an historical margin in South Carolina. They are now in Florida where it appears the polls are either Romney or Gingrich neck and neck, or Gingrich leading Romney. It is the RNC’s worst nightmare, a candidate that will buck the system, and who is not perfect in the shinny, brand new toy at the age of 60, practically inhuman way one in that arena would expect. Perhaps that’s why Gingrich appeals to most of the electorate (even nationally), to Republican’s to Tea Party Leaner’s, to Independents and yes, to Democrats. Which, if one were rational and not so heavily vested in holding on to some “power”, would consider the perfect candidate?

Understandably, there are those who find the field weak, from the perspective of a Democrat operative, if one doesn’t’ say the most ridiculous things – then one isn’t doing one’s job.
Finally, someone with a bit of knowledge figured out that the four left standing, Paul, Gingrich, Romney and Santorum, are all just fine, and that any one of them (and by that this blog means any one of them) would be able to best the President and take back the White House. That individual may not sit well with country club Republican and pundits, but – in a word – tough.

In a piece by the Daily Caller Michael Steele, former Chair of the RNC, made some pretty smart points – (par usual), one, a late entrant would not be on the ballot in several states, (see Andrea Mitchell and insider knowledge that the Republican Elites will foist whoever they want on the rank and file at a brokered convention), and that the rank and file, would abandon the party if they felt that a candidate was being “foisted” on them.

No kidding, the Romney 24/7 shove down one’s throat coverage, has, if one wants to be realistic, pushed Romney down to a repeat performance of 2008 –which, those elites should have seen that coming – anyone with any sense of logistics understands that to win the White House, one must perform well in the South, and Romney just does not do it. If he somehow manages to squeak out a win in Florida, it is not predictive, due to the fact that a) it’s a big state with a 50% of the population from northern climes, and b) they have lost half their delegates in holding the primary earlier than allowed. Frankly, it might be, at this point, difficult for Romney to win Nevada.

That aside, the fact that the race continues is contrary to the notion that one must wrap it up early, get the nominee that’s approve by the Bush’s and the Coulter’s and the rest of whoever thinks they know better than the rank and file, is also outright stupid. The longer the race goes on, the more attention these nominees get, and if the battle goes on, it readies the eventual nominee for the assault coming from the left. To date, the one candidate that appears the least rattled by attacks and most sane when it comes to answering charges is one Newt Gingrich. Gingrich, by the way, is getting blamed for running ads (his super PAC) against poor Mittens Romney, when Romney’s PAC ads began in Iowa and decimated Gingrich – it’s the same scorched earth policy Romney employed in 2008 and was partially responsible for his campaign imploding by February of that year, and yet, the media ignores Romney and goes after Gingrich as if he were the anti-Christ of Republicans for answering false charges brought by an increasingly desperate Mitt Romney!

Therefore, let the chips fall where they may – for example this blog supports a Gingrich candidacy, for the following reasons: his baggage is old baggage, and it’s all public record, he is the smartest guy in the room, contrary to Matt Drudge and Ann Coulter, he hasn’t had a meltdown as predicted although they continue to try their best to help out Romney. Lastly, he got things done, in every field he choose, a Renaissance man, if one will, that was successful in Congress, until he bucked his own party, and then became so powerful that the Democrats had to trump up charges (all of which were dismissed, and he paid not a fine, but legal fees – he actually reimbursed the government then he fell on the sword and left the office (it is in the public record) Compare to Democrats Charles Rangles and Barney Frank – for how not to behave. Finally, someone who can literally unhinge the country club elitist of the RNC so badly has to be just right. It’s just an opinion of one conservative who has had to hold their nose and vote for candidates that were not perfect, in the sense that they were bound to lose the race – (Dole, McCain, perfect examples – who the Elites wanted versus anyone else who would have been a better choice.) One who wants someone who will turn on both parties when wrong, correct the media, reach across the aisle and get things done, and who's the smartest guy in the room. (This is worth repeating and repeating, and repeating)

Does this mean that if Rick Santorum or Ron Paul becomes the nominee that they will not have full support? Not one bit, however, coming from Massachusetts it may be difficult to cast a vote for the man who drove up the fees on every single service (from the DMV to fishing licenses to dog licenses), put into place a medical plan that drove personal premiums up over 60% in the last 5 years, and well, has positions that are not that much different than the current occupant – that vote may be hard to cast, if not impossible.
A third person entering the race, be it Jeb Bush, or pick anyone, would further drive the likely voter over the edge, and a third party candidate just might end up with a hefty amount of votes in protest.

Therefore, it’s not just stupid, it’s dangerous, as it would split the field and alienate the group that is not: the Beltway elites and pundits.

State of the Union – Obama Strong Delivery – More Government, Bigger Government, What Government Can Do For You. Analysis and Commentary on Full Text

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:26:00 +0000

Obama State of the Union 1 24 12 - image:iowarepublican.com

In what has to be one of the oddest State of the Union Addresses I have been privileged to either hear or see (yes radio then television) in the past 50 years, President Obama, to his credit, is able to deliver a lyrical and pointed speech, with a straight face, no less, that invites the listener to understand that the government will be doing everything and the private sector is just along for the rides. Jobs will be created, good union jobs, education needs to be expanded (again union jobs), and of course, the government is responsible for any successes in the business community since Obama took office, prior to that, it was Bush’s fault.

The fact that the Navy is investing in “green” industries might give one pause, as now one has the military vested in business at the behest of the President – does this differ from the usual civilian contractor – a bit – considering that a single industry, supported by the government, appears to be the sole resource for the Navy to invest. In the world of defense contracts, intense bidding (including underbidding) is the norm, with oftentimes a concern making billions (after all is it a government contract they are bidding on) and sometimes, pushing defense contract employees to play “MacGyver” in order to meet a slim budget.

It is the combination of government – invested in all phases of business, education, finance, and when one might be allowed to sneeze that may have set up the extremely tepid applause (with the exception of the hard-core progressive members of the Congress, who were extremely enthusiastic. It is a question of ideology – between those who feel that the Government must invest itself in every aspect of one’s life, or those who feel the Government should invest itself in the Constitution – returning power to the states and getting the heck out of the way – the later being the more popular at this point in time.

There has to be credit where credit is due – as the Republican “rebuttal” delivered by Governor Mitch McConnell of Indiana, noted: the President did get Bin Laden, and he also holds up an example of the family that is one to be applauded. (From a fashion perspective, the highlight of the evening was the arrival of the First Lady, who looked stunning, and has, for all intents and purposes, gone through a major transformation (as quite honestly, some first ladies are compelled - to change the hairstyle, style of dress, etc.), however, Michelle Obama, politics aside, made a grand entrance and looked lovely, a perfect complement to the President.) Then the Governor began to point out where the President left the track and took a sharp turn to the left, delivered in a monotone so uninspiring, it was difficult not to fall fast asleep and catch the balance on the 3 AM news.

(Note to Washington GOP Elite, who feel they should pick the GOP nominee: a) it won’t work, and b) it can’t be a Bush (won’t fly) or Mitch McConnell, in other words, regardless of who wins the nominee fairly and squarely, butt out, you’ll only screw it up out of some sense of entitlement and power that you can surely exercise somewhere else). The last thing the nation needs is yet another “national sleeping pill”.

As to the realty of the State of the Union, if things are getting better, then tell that to the millions of unemployed who do not have access to Union Jobs – (of course, there is the theory that one can more to a more balanced state – such as Texas!) –

The full text via CBS News, with areas in bold that refer to Government as the sole provider or “solution” and comments in parens.

“Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought -- and several thousand gave their lives.
We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. (Applause.) For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. (Applause.) For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. (Applause.) Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.
These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America's Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.
Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. (Applause.) Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we've done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. (Applause.) My grandfather, a veteran of Patton's Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.
The two of them shared the optimism of a nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share -- the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.
The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. (Applause.) What's at stake aren't Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.
Let's remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren't, and personal debt that kept piling up.
In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people's money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn't have the authority to stop the bad behavior.
It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hardworking Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these: In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. (Applause.)
Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we've agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we've put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like this never happens again. (Applause.)
The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we've come too far to turn back now. As long as I'm President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place. (Applause.)
No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last -- an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.
Now, this blueprint begins with American manufacturing.
On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number-one automaker. (Applause.) Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs. (Ford Alone took no U.S. Stimulus Money)
We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back. (Applause.)
What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can't bring every job back that's left our shore. But right now, it's getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. (Applause.) Today, for the first time in 15 years, Master Lock's unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity. (Applause.)
So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed. (Applause.)
We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. So let's change it.
First, if you're a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn't get a tax deduction for doing it. (Applause.) That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home. (Applause.)
Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. (Applause.) From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America. (Applause.)
Third, if you're an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you're a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers. (Applause.)
So my message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away. (Applause.)
We're also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements we signed into law, we're on track to meet that goal ahead of schedule. (Applause.) And soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago. (Applause.)
I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules. We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration -- and it's made a difference. (Applause.) Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It's not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It's not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they're heavily subsidized. (COMMENT: The Green Industry, the Auto Industry, etc.)
Tonight, I'm announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. (Applause.) There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing financing or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you -- America will always win. (Applause.)
I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can't find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that -- openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work. It's inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.
Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie's tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.
I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train 2 million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. (Applause.) My administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, and Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers -- places that teach people skills that businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.
And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help that they need. It is time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work. (Applause.)
These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.
For less than 1 percent of what our nation spends on education each year, we've convinced nearly every state in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning -- the first time that's happened in a generation.
But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.
At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced states to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies -- just to make a difference.
Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. (Applause.) And in return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn. That's a bargain worth making. (Applause.)
We also know that when students don't walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. So tonight, I am proposing that every state -- every state -- requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18. (Applause.) (Comment: Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education does consider firing bad teachers, which is not popular with the two Teachers Unions, that said, students currently enrolled as seniors in High Schools are 18, and they are, in some instances, encouraged to drop out and take a standardized test (GED) in order to go directly to college)
When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. (Applause.) (When the Omnibus Bill was passed, at the same time as the Health Care Act, the government inserted a slight paragraph taking over the Student Loan Industry, therefore, they could, since it is a government owned entity, actually raising the interest rate)
Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves millions of middle-class families thousands of dollars, and give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years. (Applause.)
Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid. We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Laying this mandate at the foot of states that are in bankruptcy, will increase state taxes on those same middle class – see Massachusetts as a shining example
Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who've done just that. Some schools redesign courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it's possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. (Applause.) Higher education can't be a luxury -- it is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford. (Find a college that in not unionized, good luck)
Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: the fact that they aren't yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.
That doesn't make sense.
I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office. The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. (Applause.) (fact check, there are fewer crossing because there are no jobs)
But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away. (Applause.)
You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. (Applause.) It means we should support everyone who's willing to work, and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs. John F. Kennedy signed the equal pay act; of course, it has gone largely ignored by one entity in particular, the Federal Government
After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed.
Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. (Applause.) Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year. (Applause.)
Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don't gut these investments in our budget. Don't let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.
And nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. (Applause.) Right now -- right now -- American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. That's right -- eight years. Not only that -- last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years. (Applause.) (No mention of an immediate opportunity to build a pipeline with Canada?)
But with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, oil isn't enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. (Applause.) A strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.
We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. (Applause.) And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. (Applause.) Because America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk. ( The EPA will stop these projects in their tracks)
The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy. (Applause.) And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock -- reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground. (Applause.)
Now, what's true for natural gas is just as true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled, and thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. (Solyndra?)
When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it's hiring workers like Bryan, who said, "I'm proud to be working in the industry of the future."
Our experience with shale gas, our experience with natural gas, shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away. Some technologies don't pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. (Applause.) I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.
We've subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. (Applause.) It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs. (Applause.)
We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there's no reason why Congress shouldn't at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven't acted. Well, tonight, I will. I'm directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes. And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history -- with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year. (Applause.)
Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here's a proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs. (Applause.) (i.e. more regulation)
Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We've got crumbling roads and bridges; a power grid that wastes too much energy; an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.
During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.
In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. (Applause.)
There's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren't the only ones who were hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who've seen their home values decline. And while government can't fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn't have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.
And that's why I'm sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low rates. (Applause.) No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won't add to the deficit and will give those banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust. (Applause.)
Let's never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.
We've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them. That's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. (Applause.) Rules to prevent financial fraud or toxic dumping or faulty medical devices -- these don't destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.
There's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. (Applause.) I've ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don't make sense. We've already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill -- because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk. (Laughter and applause.)
Now, I'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. (Applause.) Absolutely. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. (Applause.) I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your coverage, or charge women differently than men. (Applause.)
And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system's core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, or start a business, or send their kids to college.
So if you are a big bank or financial institution, you're no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers' deposits. You're required to write out a "living will" that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail -- because the rest of us are not bailing you out ever again. (Applause.) And if you're a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can't afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices -- those days are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them. (Applause.)
We'll also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people's investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there's no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That's bad for consumers, and it's bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count. (Government Oversight, more committees, etc.)
And tonight, I'm asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. (Applause.) This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.
Now, a return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.
Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. (Applause.) People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let's agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay. Let's get it done. (Applause.) ( One might point out that he is either referring to the Bush Tax Cut or Obama’s Social Security Tax Cut – which had a 12 month approval in the Congress, but was shut down by Harry Reid and the President
When it comes to the deficit, we've already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we're poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. (and GE Paid Zero)
Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else -- like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both.
The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I'm prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.
But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. (Applause)
Tax reform should follow the Buffett Rule. If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up. (Applause.) You're the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You're the ones who need relief. ( 2006, 2008, 2010 Revisited)
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get a tax break I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference -- like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet. That's not right. Americans know that's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's an America built to last. (Applause.)
Now, I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt, energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right about now: Nothing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.
Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?
The greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year didn't come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?
I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad -- and it seems to get worse every year.
Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let's take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow. (Applause.) Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can't lobby Congress, and vice versa -- an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.
Some of what's broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything -- even routine business -- passed through the Senate. (Applause.) Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. (Applause.) For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days. (Applause.)
The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it's inefficient, outdated and remote. (Applause.) That's why I've asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy, so that our government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people. (Applause.)
Has he been listening to the Republican Debates? Especially Ron Paul?
Finally, none of this can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common-sense ideas.
I'm a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. (Applause.) That's why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and states. That's why we're getting rid of regulations that don't work. That's why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program. Abraham Lincoln was, historically, the President who suspended the Constitution, jailed newspaper editors, etc.)
On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about government spending have supported federally financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home.
The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there's nothing the United States of America can't achieve. (Applause.) That's the lesson we've learned from our actions abroad over the last few years.
Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can't escape the reach of the United States of America. (Applause.)
From this position of strength, we've begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America. (Applause.)
As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana'a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qaddafi was one of the world's longest-serving dictators -- a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change cannot be reversed, and that human dignity cannot be denied. (Applause.)
How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it's ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings -- men and women; Christians, Muslims and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.
And we will safeguard America's own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Sounding very much like Ron Paul
Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. (Applause.)
But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.
The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our ironclad commitment -- and I mean ironclad -- to Israel's security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. (Applause.)
We've made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we've built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we've led against hunger and disease; from the blows we've dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.
Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about. (Applause.) unless one reads newspapers and articles outside of the U.S.
That's not the message we get from leaders around the world who are eager to work with us. That's not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin, from Cape Town to Rio, where opinions of America are higher than they've been in years. Yes, the world is changing. No, we can't control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs -- and as long as I'm President, I intend to keep it that way. (Applause.)
That's why, working with our military leaders, I've proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I've already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber-threats. (Applause.)
Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. (Applause.) As they come home, we must serve them as well as they've served us. That includes giving them the care and the benefits they have earned -- which is why we've increased annual VA spending every year I've been President. (Applause.) And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our nation.
With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we're providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I'm proposing a Veterans Jobs Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her. (Applause.) (Cops and Firefighters? Government, Unionized jobs, what about Doctors, Lawyers, Chemists?)
Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who've been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn't matter if you're black or white; Asian, Latino, Native American; conservative, liberal; rich, poor; gay, straight. When you're marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you're in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind.
One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates -- a man who was George Bush's defense secretary -- and Hillary Clinton -- a woman who ran against me for president.
All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn't deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job -- the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other -- because you can't charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there's somebody behind you, watching your back.
So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I'm reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other's backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)”

(Source: CBSNews.com)

To be fair, it is again, a question of differences in ideology, where on the one hand, the government takes credit for, and takes care of every single aspect of one’s life, without a way in which to pay for it, except increase the deficit. On the other hand, the overall applause was, for the most part tepid. If this is his opening salvo against his Republican Rivals, one can see why Ron Paul is besting the president in National polling.

Romney Tax Return (PDF) 2010 - Pays 6.2 Million Tax on $45 Million

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:45:00 +0000

There is certainly nothing wrong with Capitalism, nor the Free Market, and Mitt Romney, who claims to be a self-made man, has earned significant sums in order to pay significant taxes. The full tax return is available at Romney's Campaign Website. This is a 2010 release - there is also a 2011 estimated release available. What is not available are tax returns showing his income under his firm, Bain Capital. Romney is under no obligation to release his returns from Bain, however, it is that income that has comes under the most scrutiny during the campaign. Romney's tax state is not listed (or blocked) - if he had filed in Massachusetts, he would have had to provide proof of health insurance under the State's Mandated Health Care Program, and if he did not provide proof, would be assessed a fee equal to the state-run Commonwealth Care's policy, or for a family plan, approximately $400 per month. This fee is paid directly to the Massachusetts D.O.R., and if not paid, individuals face wage garnishment and or heavier fines. That would be his signature program from his Govenorship.

NBC FL 2012 Debate Winner: Santorum and Paul Steady, Gingrich Calm, Romney 2008 Redux, – NBC’s Mitchell: RNC will Not Allow Gingrich Win

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:55:00 +0000

The 2012 GOP Candidates - image the Daily Beast

The NBC 2012 Florida Debate was billed as a shootout between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich – however, Gingrich did not shoot back – leaving those looking for “red meat” out of luck – the former Speaker, who to some appeared flustered by the Romney attacks (See: National Journal: Gingrich Lost His Crowd Pleasing Groove in Tampa” an article which belies the fact that the debate was held in a more controlled environment vis a vis NBC versus CNN) to Gingrich appearing more “Presidential” as a “Frontrunner” not “rising to the bait” and besting Romney (abridged see video below from NBC News Post Debate Analysis for exact verbiage).

From this perspective Gingrich appeared over cautious, professorial and not at all on the defensive, rather, almost bored with Romney, whose attacks were overlong as he hammered home Gingrich’s work with Freddie Mac (Gingrich released his contract with the mortgage giant yesterday), and charged him with “influence peddling”, which Gingrich, after a prolonged attack simply shook his head at Romney and noted that Romney had used the same tactics in 2008 with Huckabee and McCain and the American people saw through him. Gingrich brought up the fact that he is supported by former Congressman, J.C. Watts, who was the Conservative watchdog for both Freddie and Fannie during the time Romney refers to – and is a staunch supporter of Gingrich. To wit, Romney overstayed his attack, which is not unusual given his obvious frustration with his loss in Iowa to Santorum and his huge loss in S.C. to Gingrich – It was a panicked Romney that was on the podium last night.

Rick Santorum, however, calmly waited out both Romney’s long diatribe and Gingrich’s, short, pointed rebuttals, and came in with a focus on Obama – later in the debate he attacked both Romney and Gingrich, without either man answering the charges completely. Ron Paul, when given the time, was on point on economics, and to those who are more hawkish – “off the reservation” on national security. Case in point, both Paul and Santorum appeared as winners in the debate, along with Gingrich (depending, on if one is a moderate and or independent, or if one is seeking a “red-meat, rough and tumble” character in the office.”)

The fact that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the podium cannot be disputed, given the obvious attention paid to him by the post debate team at NBC, leaving one to believe they were watching an episode of the twilight zone, as the Republican Debate analysis gave Gingrich the nod as previously stated, and that included local NBC news affiliates airing footage that characterized Romney’s as a “billionaire who’s taxes will be released tomorrow, and Gingrich as one who was “calm” throughout, as if there was a cosmic shift in support of the speaker – not quite.

In the NBC post debate analysis, Andrea Mitchell brought up an interesting point, one which, if true, will mean the end of the modern Republican Party as it is known – an aid close to the Romney campaign indicated that the elite who control the party will not allow Gingrich to be the nominee. (he was credited with the failed bid for a second term by George H. Bush, hated by the moderate Bob Dole, who felt Gingrich was a competitor, and feel on the proverbial Republican Sword (he was not “ousted from the Speakership as implied), for not producing Congressional wins large enough to please those who would see an “insider” not Gingrich as Speaker.)

Apparently, the Republican elite plan to go to a brokered election should Romney fail in Florida and put up, of all people, Jeb Bush or a “Mitch Daniels”, going the route of the Democrats Super Delegate Convention that led to the election of Barack Obama. Therefore, those who run Washington and the GOP will throw a hissy fit if their chosen candidate “Mitt Romney” does not perform and will simply negate the votes of the people, and put in whomever they chose – a losing proposition no matter which way the wind blows and they know it. With no love lost on Republicans, Andrea Mitchell appears to know it as well, almost gleefully quoting the source.

As this blog is obviously supporting Speaker Gingrich, it was the “red meat” that was lacking, but with the knowledge that Gingrich is an astute politician and that he would appeal to the independent Florida vote, he would have been credited with a win, if it were not for the best debate performance to date by his protégé, Rick Santorum. Indeed, Ron Paul, who this blog strongly disagrees with on foreign policy issues, suggests that his performance outshone the speaker when, again, Paul was given a chance to weigh in – therefore a tie.

The next debate will be held on this Thursday, January 26t at 8PM on CNN The network offers an option to submit a question for a candidate in an on-site form here . the Florida primary will be held on January 31st, and Gingrich currently holds the lead in polling in both Florida and nationally (*See New York Times overview)

The Florida Primary - If Romney repeats his performance in this upcoming debate, one can be sure he will under perform in Florida and it is likely that given CNN in Jacksonville (on the Georgia Line), as the Debate arena, Gingrich should produce an even debate and will over- perform in the primary with the distinct possibility that Rick Santorum may pull second to Gingrich. (Given his debate performance) Ron Paul, made the decision not to heavily campaign in Florida, and will likely pull 4th – This depends on how much damage Romney’s debate performance, couple with the release of his tax returns, and his consistent negative campaigning, will do in the Sunshine State.

Final caveat, what one must understand is that this blog is centered in Massachusetts and as such, one might think that the blog should support Mitt Romney, however, one must be assured that after careful consideration, one has chosen to support the candidate that will best perform against the President, in both debates and with the general electorate, and one who has the history behind him to prove just that. One apparently little known tool available to all is the Library of Congress, where one can fact check all day long. It can be a slog, but it is worth knowing what the candidates supported, who they worked for and specifically what occurred during the time Gingrich was Speaker. The records are indisputable: the Speaker was under assault from the Democrats, who wanted (literally states) to “get even” with the Speaker, which was followed by Ethics charges, etc., all of which again, is available at The Library of Congress. During that time he worked in concert with the House and the White House, did indeed balance the budget, put forth the contract with America and reformed Welfare. One must look at the mettle of the man, regardless of the somewhat misleading charges brought by his opponents, (given facts), he had survived one of the most brutal assaults on a Speaker in the history of Congress, by both Democrats bitter over a loss, and Republican’s vying for power – he survived by accomplishing for the American people regardless of the personal loss he suffered. This not withstanding he is willing to do so again – which makes a tried, tested, and brilliant man this blogs choice. The chips should therefore, fall where they may, be it a Gingrich nominee, a Santorum Nominee, or a Paul nominee with no meddling from those in Washington or the GOP who think they know better than those who support them. (The rank and file).

NBC Post Debate Analysis

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The NBC Full Debate

Newt Gingrich Raises 1 Million in 24 Hours with Money bomb ups it to 2 Million. Mitt Romney is calling Massachusetts for Donations?

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:50:00 +0000

According to Newt Gingrich’s Facebook Page, the 1 Million Dollar Money Bomb to help defray the costs of the battle for Florida, was so successful that they upped the amount to $2 Million (or the amount suggested necessary to advertise in all Florida markets). Meanwhile, Mitt Romney’s campaign is calling Massachusetts voters, several emails to this blog noted that this was the first time they had received calls for campaign donations from any Romney campaign, not in his quest for the Governor’s office, nor for the 2008 campaign. One individual, is not, however, supporting Romney rather Speaker Gingrich for the nomination, which is a rising sentiment among Massachusetts voters.

In addition, Romany as decided to release his 2010 income tax returns on Tuesday according to the National Journal Online After waffling this question in the debates prior to the South Carolina primary, it may behoove the former Massachusetts Governor to do what every candidate besides Ron Paul has done, release his returns.

This would put to bed any unanswered questions regarding Romney’s Tax returns and make it a non-issue – The real questions are his document dump upon leaving office in Massachusetts, something none of the campaigns left standing have, to date, brought to light.

There are two debates prior to the Florida primary on January 31st – via: 2012presidentialelectionnews.com

January 23, 20129pm ET/8pm CT and 9pm PT on NBC – Live Stream
Location: University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida
Sponsor: The Tampa Bay Times, NBC News, the National Journal and the Florida Council of 100
Participants: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul
January 26, 20128pm ET on CNN
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Sponsor: CNN, CNN en Español, The Hispanic Leadership Network and The Republican Party of Florida
Participants: TBD

Newt Gingrich and the Mainstream Media – Press Complains that Gingrich gives them Access, while Romney and Obama limit and control Access - Analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:34:00 +0000

Newt Gingrich surrounded by the Press image from the Pro-Romney Blog: Relationshipexposed.com via AFB Getty Images

It first started with an article from Politico entitled: “Newt Gingrich and the Press: Secret Pals” an article that first appeared January 20th and immediately made Drudge Headlines – the Headline of Course, changed a bit to ensure that Newt Gingrich held a double standard, by beating up the press, then embracing them. The article outlines how Gingrich is accessible to the press, to the point where he jokes with reporters, remembers birthdays and is always ready to answer a question. In other words, he is treating the press, (as the article explains) unlike both Republican Candidate Mitt Romney, who tightly controls the meetings with the press.

This article was followed by a similar article in the UK’s Daily Mail (also put on the Drudge Report with the Headline “Newt Eats the Press”, the actual title is just as misleading Newt Gingrich’s Big Slobbering Mutual Love Affair with the Elite Media.

The problem with both of these pieces are a) the fact that they are designed to alienate those who may have suspicions of the “elite” media and consider Newt Gingrich a hypocrite, for blasting the media on the one hand, and then playing nice on the other, and b) complaining because no other candidate gives them access!

How smart is Newt Gingrich when it comes to the media? That question is worth a one-word answer – Very. There is a difference, though many may not be aware, between the reporter and the editorial board or editor at the paper/news-outlet, for whom they are employed. A reporter may write a very accurate and comprehensive positive article on a given individual, however, it then goes through the editorial process, where it may end up three hundred and sixty degrees different.

There are several acquaintances of this blog that are employed by the “mainstream media”, and although they all are, to a man or woman, either independent or conservative, they are also holding onto one of the few jobs left in the media. They take their marching orders from the Editorial Board, and they know that what they actually write will not appear in print verbatim – or even resembling what they wrote. There are instances where, when complaints were made to an editorial board, that individual ended up on the unemployment line.

It is a collective mindset that has pervaded the us versus them, that does not take into account that not all reporters are “in the tank for the socialist/communist/Obama Machine, etc.” (Feel free to add an adjective), but there are more than a "handful" of just ordinary Joes and Jill’s trying desperately to hold onto a job in an industry that is seeing mostly downturns. (Which, blame the Internet all they want, but it is their editorial stance that has caused them to lose half their subscriber base.)

Therefore how refreshing to have an individual who approaches them with goodwill when they are, after all, just doing their jobs, and/or blasts them to smithereens (a la John King of CNN) when they do something ridiculous (i.e. opening the debate with a question regarding a year old personal story (first printed in a magazine article) that was re-aired on ABC the night of the debate, regarding Gingrich’s 2nd wife’s assertions that Gingrich was not so nice to her.)

Therefore, unlike other candidates and or Presidents for that matter, in this opinion not only is the former Speaker being smart, he’s being kind and he understands the relationship between those who have (the editorial boards, and eiders) and those who are hanging on by a thread (the rank and file reporters). It is much ado about nothing on the one hand, and on the other, much ado about everything – the everything: Gingrich will have access to the Press, and by establishing a bit of good will, will be able to get his message out – over the airways especially, but will also have the won the hearts and minds of those reporters assigned to cover his campaign. Also, consider that his is genuinely a genial type of guy. He is neither afraid of or intimidated by the press – that is something that is necessary in both a candidate and a President – so if he remembers someone’s birthday – or is eager to answer questions – it only proves one thing – he’s the smartest guy on the 2012 Campaign trail.

Gingrich Wins South Carolina, all Important Republican Nominee Predictor By Double Digits – Praises all GOP Candidates In Classy, yet Fiery Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:19:00 +0000

Newt Gingrich with his wife, Callista, at his side, delivers outstanding speech after S.C. Victory

GOP Presidential Candidate, Newt Gingrich, wont the Palmetto state yesterday by a commanding margin – with 99% of the precincts reporting in – Gingrich had a lead of 40% to Romney’s 28% (his closes opponent) (CNN News). Santorum finished 3rd, and Ron Paul 4th in this, the third contest of the GOP General Election contest.

Gingrich, in his acceptance speech, had kind words for all the GOP contenders, including Mitt Romney, and gave a fiery speech to the crowed ballroom. This is what is become known as “Classic Gingrich” – he has both the gravitas and the will to speak to a specific situation without missing a beat – making him one of the most, if not the most astute politicians today. In addition, in exit polling done by CNN, over 50% of those casting votes felt that Gingrich was in the best position to defeat President Obama in the fall.
Gingrich won across all categories, including Evangelicals, Men, Women, Urban, Suburban and Rural, making it a sweep – South Carolina, one might note, is considered the gateway to the south in terms of Presidential races, and has yet to vote for a candidate that did not win their respective political parties nomination – since 1980.

This has the establishment GOP a bit on the worried side, and according to the National Journal and several news accounts, the national GOP is prepared to go to a brokered convention, and oust Gingrich by virtue of nominating someone along the lines of a Jeb Bush. The fact that Gingrich will not play into the party line, and was blamed for George H. Bush’s defeat to Bill Clinton, is the main reason that the Party is prepared to pull this stunt if Gingrich is the rightful winner.

See Screenshot of Article above from National Journal

Should that happen the backlash of support for the RNC would take a nose dive – they do not have the power of the media behind them to protect them from the same situation that occurred at the Democrat Convention in 2008 when the rightful winner, Hillary Clinton, was outs ted in favor of Barack Obama through Super Delegates. That would, in any event, hasten the formation of a third party, possibly a third party that runs a candidate in 2012 – a Tea Party candidate is not out of the question. These are big “if’s”, and the “sources” that are telling news organizations that this option is a possibility may be opting for wishful thinking rather than reality.

At this point, with only three contests underway, Gingrich, Romney and Santorum have won a primary or caucus each – that said, going forward, with the momentum out of South Carolina, it is impossible to see Romney gaining more than the twelve states he won in 2008. It is the debate arena, and there is not one candidate better equipped in that venue than one Newt Gingrich.

What to do about Newt? The word from pundits is that Newt will be batter with the fact that he is unstable, there will be attacks on his character and especially questions regarding Freddie and Fannie, as well as his ouster by Republican’s from the Speakership and the host of ethics charges brought by the Democrats, also while he was speaker. This tactic, in the face of facts which are handily available to Gingrich, will, in all likelihood, fall flat. One need only speak to JC Watts, who will vouch, along with others, that Gig rich never lobbied the Congress on behalf of the Mortgage Organizations; in fact, he testified that they should be given zip. Additionally, as a consultant he personally earned approximately $35,000 annually, which is a pittance as far as consultant fees are concerned. The ousting by “Conservative” was truly an ousting by vindictive Republican’s tied to the Bush family.

There is a fabulous History Channel program that ran several months ago on Gingrich as Speaker, treating his rise from a “backbench “Congressman to the man who would be third in lien to the Presidency as Speaker. In this film, one learns that Gingrich was relentless in bringing about a Republican majority in Congress for the first time in decades. IN addition, and perhaps the most interesting, is the segment on the relationship with the Bush’s – during a time when George H.W. Bush, faced with huge deficits, was going to levy a large tax increase on the nation, Gingrich was invited for a “photo opp” with then President Bush, where the President and his advisors planned to announce that Gingrich was on board with the President’s plan. Gingrich reminded Bush that he had committed to “no new taxes” promptly left and headed straight to the Halls of Congress where he brokered a deal for a better package with the Congress, including both republicans and Democrats, and basically “stuck it to” George H.W. Bush – Bush lost the election, and there was no forgiveness from the elites for Newt Gingrich – it remains the same today.\

On the Ethics charges, there were the usual 80 plus charges brought against Gingrich, however, the only thing they could prove was that Gingrich neglected to sign off on one piece of paper – that was the charge he was convicted on – failure to sign off on a document.

In his entire Career (which is available in the Congressional Record, granted a slog if one is not into reading legislation for a decade plus, and or roll call votes, but worth it), Gingrich proved through the legislation he wrote and sponsored, through the votes he took and through the number of “grandiose” plans, such as welfare reform and balanced budgets” that he has what it takes to lead a herd of Republican’s, half of which wanted to destroy him vis a vis Bush – to do great things for the American people.

In other words, those who will attack Gingrich truly will have to bend the facts in order to achieve their gains, which will be easily disproven. Which is why, the idiots at the RNC who still harbor this grudge against the man who is best equipped to bring sanity back to our nation, may be prepared to pull a nuclear convention, and elect say, Jeb Bush?
It clearly is a subversion to the process of our Republic that the Republicans’ would even consider doing something so despicable – what should happen: the winner of the most states, and most delegates goes on to the main contest, regardless of whether that person is Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul – and let the chips fall where they may. After all, had the Democrats let the people have their say, Hillary Clinton would have been president, and chances are this entire GOP field would be a moot point, as one can imagine her decisions would have been far different that those of the President, and she would be looking forward to an easy run in 2012 and a second term.

Gingrich should do well in Florida which has changed from am moderate to a “Tea Party” Conservative mindset – should Florida fall to Newt Gingrich, and then Nevada (don’t discount), Super Tuesday should be divided between Gingrich and Romney with Romney taking a portion of the states, while Gingrich takes the balance. This sets the stage for a repeat of 2008, with Santorum the survivor (playing the role of Mike Huckabee).
There are two debates scheduled next week for Florida, one of which will take place on CNN networks, ahead of the January 31st Florida primary.

Final PPP South Carolina Poll 1 – 20 – 12 – Gingrich Up by 9 Points Over Romney - Romney Lowers Expectations.

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:48:00 +0000

Public Policy PollingJanuary 20th S.C. poll shows Newt Gingrich with a significant lead over Romney in the Palmetto State. The poll here has Gingrich leading Romney in all key Republican demographics. One note, however, although ID is required to vote in S.C., it is an open primary, where anyone registered voter may cast a ballot. Gingrich, in national polling, is leading among independents, so it is likely the same can be said for South Carolina. On the issue of ABC’s release of Gingrich’s ex-wife’s interview days before the primary, the polling conducted shows that it is of little to no consequence, in, fact, if anything; it has pushed the electorate behind Gingrich.

With the state of Florida and then Nevada weighing in prior to Super Tuesday, it is not without some merit that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts should be polled – this would end any questions as to how the electorate in Massachusetts feels about Mitt Romney as opposed to Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. In simple “supermarket surveys” conducted by this blogger, (absolutely unscientific), Gingrich is the first choice, followed by Ron Paul, then Obama and then Romney (This is Western Massachusetts). It is hoped that a firm such as PPP will poll Massachusetts prior to Super Tuesday.

That aside, South Carolina has accurately predicted the nominee since 1980, and the Romney campaign is lowering expectations. In a video via Breitbart.tv - Romney notes that “Newt Will Win a Few Big States”. In the 2008 election, Romney followed a similar patter, losing Iowa to Huckabee, he lost NH to McCain but the margin as not as great), and then McCain won SC, Romney was out by February (immediately following losses across the south and Midwest, which are key to a Presidential Victory, regardless of the party.).

CNN SC GOP Debate Winners: Gingrich – He Dominates - Romney, Paul, Santorum – In Order – Gingrich Get’s Second Standing Ovation.

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:30:00 +0000

Gingrich - Commanding, Clear and Concise through-out the Debate - Image CNN

The second GOP South Carolina debate hosted by CNN last night was billed as the “Fight for the South” – it was, from the start, a large and boisterous crowd, and the CNN crew was ready – excellent format, and a moderate and balanced approach as far as the distribution and control of the flow of discussion.

The opening questioned posed by CNN”s John King, regarding the allegations Gingrich’s second wife was making on national news outlets CBS and the Washington Post (a story, which had run in length a year prior and summarily dismissed as old news), in an “interview” just prior to the South Carolina primary – elicited a lecture by Newt and a righteous scolding of King and the media as a whole – it was greet with extreme applause and a standing ovation by the crowd. The support for Newt was indicated upon introduction of the candidate, what some in the media have taken for “booing”, is actually enthusiastic, “Newt, Newt, Newt” – which, was heard at several points throughout the debate – there was no doubt that Newt Gingrich was comfortable in him role – and as he is now in leading Romney in South Carolina Polls, and in a statistical tie in national polls, he can be considered one of “the front-runners”. He also was able to deflect criticism, specifically charges from Rick Santorum, who was obviously trying to knock down both Gingrich first, and then Romney.

Gingrich continued as usual, with smart, concise answers to questions and attacks by his peers, which were mostly directed by the new winner of the Iowa Caucus, former Senator Rick Santorum. Santorum won Iowa in the final vote tally by 25 votes – giving Romney second place. Therefore, Romney can no longer be considered the front runner. Should Gingrich win the south, and given the reception and display of support for Gingrich, and his first debate performance on Fox, it is more than likely he will carry the Palmetto state, the stage is then set for a more lively primary with the ability of those who are at all interested in an alternative to President Obama, an opportunity to fully vet the candidates as they stand on the stage and are called out on issues by their peers.

Romney, perhaps, gave the best performance to date, yet waffled heavily on the question of the tax returns, and also managed to somehow leave the impression that he was brought up as a poor individual, who clawed his way to the top through his own entrepreneurial skills, rather than be given a better start in life – nice narrative, however, not exactly accurate. He did however, jump on his Mexican heritage, which may be a tad late due to his stance on immigration – not exactly endearing him to those who may be of Spanish heritage be it from the mother country, or Central, South America or the Islands. Overall, however, he appeared more genial, with his smile more genuine, and had several interesting exchanges with Newt Gingrich which were congenial, both men being attacked by Santorum in a lengthy and hot-headed statistical manner. One charge leveled by Santorum on Romney, however, is to be noted: the fact that his ability to debate the President on the Massachusetts Mandated Health Care might be compromised due to the failure of the system (One need only check the Massachusetts budget, the fact that the State Run arm: Commonwealth Care” is so overburdened they cannot accept any more enrollees, and the fact that insurance premiums in Massachusetts have risen above the national average due to the Romney’s plan, is, in Massachusetts, a given) – Romney continues to support the plan, and looked somewhat uncomfortable with that line of questioning. Ron Paul, was on target on all points, and managed to give as good a performance I the debate arena as any to date. Frankly, it was difficult to choose a second on virtue of sheer debate points, between Romney and Ron Paul.

Rick Santorum, although passionate in his delivery (which is an improvement over his dry delivery in the past), played the “party line” regarding Newt Gingrich and his contentious history with the Republican Party – with the basic story line of someone who has big ideas yet is inconsistent and does not follow-through. He addressed the fact that the Speaker was ousted by his own Party, laying the framework as being Gingrich’s inability to lead, which led to his ouster rather than relying on facts. Facts, which, if one was present, or watched the History Channel from time to time, would understand that Gingrich not only had big ideas, he also managed to force his programs on both the Republicans and the Democrats, while working in concert with President Clinton – It is known that Gingrich refused to support former President George H. Bush, when then President Bush wanted to raise taxes, Gingrich was considered to have “stabbed Bush in the back” as Bush announced the plan, Gingrich had left to rally, across both sides of the aisle, to put a bill through that would not allowed for Bush’s tax plan, thus making an enemy out of the Republican hierarchy – Bush blamed Gingrich for his loss to Bill Clinton, and the rest, as they say, is history – woe the successful speaker who is able to work with both sides of the aisle to get things done for the American people, even if he is bucking his own political party. The fact of the matter was, Gingrich was then caught between an angry GOP and a Democrat Party who saw the opportunity to oust the Speaker who was able to twist the arms of their own members, and therefore, ethics charges were brought up against the speaker, which led to his ouster, it was the Democrats, joined by those Republicans who felt he was not “loyal” to his party, (rather than the American people), who ended Gingrich’s career. Santorum was one of those “party loyalists”, therefore, Santorum’s suggestion that character counts, should be taken to heart. Especially when he has re-written historical fact (there are video’s, 8 X 10 color glossies and an entire treatment at Thomas.gov (the Congressional Record), to support the facts, rather than Sen. Santorum’s narrative.

Romney and Gingrich post debate: congenial, balanced - image LA Times

Therefore the only two candidates that can stand on that stage and claim outsider status, are Gingrich and Romney: Ron Paul is a sting Congressman, although to be fair to Paul, he has bucked the system all the way, and Santorum would still be in the Senate had he not lost his seat in the wave of losses suffered by the GOP in 2008 in the wake of an 8 year media narrative that destroyed George W. Bush and anyone associated with the Republican Party.

Gingrich, to his credit, has a long history (which is verifiable) of writing legislation and supporting sound legislation, oftentimes from those across the aisle – of all the candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul, he has a public record of achievement that is both outstanding and available.

Santorum, for his part, is fighting for the South, the Pennsylvanian, therefore, must use everything necessary, including a bit of deception, in order to prove he is equal to the other candidates.

Gingrich for his part, deflected and delivered, and, as is his usual, answered each question poised, and each rebuttal with conviction backed by fact.

Overall, those in South Carolina have choice to make between now and Saturday when they go to the polls. It will be these last two debates that will give to take away from each candidate, not only in South Carolina, but in national polling as well.

Best Headline: Chicago Sun Times, Lynn Sweet (not exactly a fan of Conservatives) : ”Newt dominates South Carolina CNN debate; deflects "open marriage" charge”

The second comes from CNN: Gingrich Delivers Show Stopper at Beginning of CNN Debate

Complete with video:

Gingrich deflects the charges made by his ex-wife, as well as the fact that Gingrich had sent evidence to the fact that his second wife’s chargers were false, and the fact that his daughters had personally tried to intervene on his behalf. To his credit, Gingrich did not make assertions regarding his ex-wife’s well-known bitterness and vindictive character that has led to her telling abstract tails over the years regarding the speaker. ABC, which aired the interview, was also being touted by one Barack Obama while in Disney Word, in a joint presentation on tourism. The timing could not have been more perfect for those on the outside comparing campaign tactics. It is evident now, that the Obama campaign and the media feel that Gingrich is the greater threat to Obama. A fact that, if one has to go back and grab a bitter ex-wife to make claims that, that frankly, have been repudiated before, as well as summarily dismissed, and run them through every major news outlet (and they are), it speaks volume about the threat level Gingrich presents to the Presidents reelection campaign.

Full Debate Video:

2012 GOP Update - Perry Out! Will Endorse Gingrich

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:57:00 +0000

Breaking: Rick Perry will be dropping his bid for the 2012 GOP nomination today (CNN) and will then endorse Newt Gingrich (Politico) - article here at Hot Air .

Newt Pulls Ahead in SC Polling – Romney Unhinged, Right/Left Attack Gingrich – Gingrich best positioned, as of now, to Beat Romney/Obama - Analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:56:00 +0000

S.C. - A Clear Choice - from bbet.com

According to Newsmax, a yet to be released Insider Advantage Poll taken last night, shows Gingrich ahead of Romney by 32 to 29% with Ron Paul and Rick Santorum both losing ground dropping from the last poll which had Romney up in a significant, double-digit lead, and Governor Rick Perry pulling 3%, 10% were either undecided or had chosen another candidate, marginals are not yet available. Internal polling must be showing the same statistics or perhaps a wider margin or New Gingrich in the Palmetto State, as Mitt Romney has gone on the attack. From the Bellingham Herald’s Headline”Romney Unloads On Gingrich As Polls Show S.C. Race Tighteningto Romney’s PAC over which he has no control, running ads that depict the former Speaker as “unstable” the former Governor of Massachusetts appears to be losing his cool. Should this be the case, then one can anticipate a 2008 repeat of Romney’s performance after his SC loss to McCain and Huckabee; Romney’s PAC ramped up the ads, and he pulled out after Super Tuesday, after winning a dozen state caucus and primaries.

Romney is not going to go down without a scathing fight, however, and he is getting help from both the left and the right media. Last evening the Drudge Report headlined an ABC Nightline Interview with Newt Gingrich’s second wife – in which she allegedly unloads on her ex-husband, the former Speaker. Interestingly, Matt Drudge first “broke “the story which was picked up by the AP in seconds, that he interview would air after the primary –allowing the innuendo to hang out over the week, which would have possibly planted some seeds of doubt in some S.C. voters minds – however, ABC, not to be outmatched by Matt Drudge, decided to run this particular segment on Thursday night, directly opposite the highly billed CNN Republican debate. It is, from this perspective, an old story – and if dragging a bitter second wife on camera to speak to the problems she had in a marriage that ended in 2000. Gingrich’s daughters released a statement noting that oftentimes marriages end and there is some bitterness attached. The only thing missing from this latest attempt to air all of Gingrich’s laundry (which is well-known and has been brought up repeatedly during the eight hundred debates thus far) is something current. Apparently, as the saying goes, they’ve (Romney, Left, and Right) have got squat.

Not to be outdone in controlling the message of the race, and to bolster Rick Santorum, a group of evangelical leaders, the same leaders who told their congregations or anyone who would listen, not to vote Republican in 2008, let loose with a press relapse to this blog outlining their radical hard-line stance and interpretation of Christianity. Excerpts from the press release (warning: disgusting):
Source: Email Press Release (Return-Path:
Received: from imp08 ([10.20.200.8]) by mta42.charter.net
(InterMail vM.8.01.05.02 201-2260-151-103-20110920) with ESMTP
id <20120118154535.WPPR3909.mta42.charter.net@imp08>
for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:45:35 -0500)

Subject: S. CAROLINA EVANGELICALS REJECT ROMNEY ON HOMOSEXUALITY
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:45:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="WINDOWS-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 2012.0.1901 [2109/4752]
X-AVG-ID: ID4792E11A-291C9B1A

S. CAROLINA EVANGELICALS REJECT ROMNEY ON HOMOSEXUALITY

MEDIA CONTACT:
Rod Mitchell 281 350 5506

PRINCIPAL CONTACTS:
- Rev. Huey Mills 803-320-0770
- Rev. Ray Moore 803-691-9007
- Molotov Mitchell 919-760-3556

S. CAROLINA EVANGELICALS REJECT ROMNEY ON HOMOSEXUALITY

Santorum gets another endorsement

Columbia, SC (MMD Newswire) January 18, 2012 -- Days before Saturday's GOP Presidential primary here, there are signs that South Carolina evangelical Protestant leaders are starting to follow the lead of peers in Iowa and Houston who have rejected Mitt Romney, a Mormon, in favor of Rick Santorum, a Catholic. The driving thrust of the evangelical argument: Homosexuality.

The Rev. Huey Mills, pastor of Fellowship Bible Church in Lancaster, said, "In obedience to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, most South Carolinans and I have a sane and healthy homophobia, while Mitt Romney has a very bad case of homophilia; the man very clearly endorses dangerous, unhealthy homosexual conduct. Romney actually proclaimed gay youth pride days as governor of Massachusetts."

Lt. Col. Ray Moore, a retired U.S. Army Reserve chaplain who lives in Columbia, said, "With President Obama, Gov. Romney favors the homosexualization of our U.S. military. While heading the executive branch of his state, Romney caved to the co-equal judicial branch on same-sex marriage, signed wedding licenses for gay couples, and embraced homosexual civil unions. Romney is so liberal that he even spoke against the right of the Boy Scouts to screen-out homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals. His positions are simply unacceptable."

Mills said, "The Word of Almighty God, from the Books of Moses to those of the Apostle Paul, commands faithful Jews and Christians to be homophobic. Carolinans have a God-fearing homophobia, while Mitt Romney wrongly endorses homosexuality as a good choice for our young people. Mitt Romney proved during the recent Meet the Press debate that he's just as liberal on the gay agenda as he always has been. In 1994, he said 'I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party,' while at January 8 debate, Romney proudly announced, 'a member of my cabinet was gay. I appointed people to the bench regardless of their sexual orientation.' When asked when he last stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights, Romney said 'Right now.' That Yankee is hopelessly left-wing on homosexuality."

Today, following the example of pro-family leader Bob Vander Plaats of Iowa and national Christian radio host Dr. James Dobson, Pastor Mills announced his endorsement of Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania Senator who came up just a few votes short of defeating Romney in the January 3 Iowa Caucuses. Vander Plaats endorsed Santorum as a function of the latter's signature on The Marriage Vow, a political pledge document also signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) last year. Dobson endorsed Santorum last Saturday at a gathering of prominent U.S. evangelical leaders in Houston, Texas which voted 75% in favor of Santorum over shortfall contenders Perry and Gingrich.

No offense to the very Catholic Rick Santorum, but he is hardly capable of sustaining the type of campaign necessary to defeat Barack Obama, therefore, the only thing one can imagine is that these “church leaders” are once again, meddling, in a misguided attempt to shut down the process, ensure a weak candidate and see Obama reelected. In 2008, when this same bunch (see interview with Dobson and near hysterical Sean Hannity available hereon YouTube, refused to support any candidate from the GOP – the premise, things would get so bad that people would just flock to their point of view.

Apparently, this has not happened and they are giving it one more shot.

It is the point that all news outlets from the New York Times piece on Newt Gingrich as a Racists for suggesting the young people work in schools, to the Drudge Report, rewriting headlines (notice this happens all the time) in order to push a narrative (when one clicks on the article, it is far from the innuendos complicit in the headline), to the usual suspects from the left, including MSNBC who went over the ledge on Gingrich’s daughter having a job, questioning if it were legal?!!!

It is, frankly, no secret that Mitt Romney is the favorite of the media (from the left and right) and the Beltway, and he is not the favorite of those who are voting, and that situation is likely to remain unchanged – if those that push the narrative against Gingrich (who is literally the most vetted candidate in this campaign), find him out of the race, hoping against hope that Romney will prevail, they had better watch how fast, anybody but Romney (Perry, Santorum or Paul) rises – especially going into the south.

Laying it out from a pragmatic and historical point of view, and the point of view that one should be able to have an opinion that may deviate from those who feel they are endowed with the ability to tell others what to do (i.e. pundits, and preachers and the left and right media): some quick takes: Newt is right about South Carolina: if he does not win South Carolina, then Mitt Romney will gain momentum and win the nomination. It is not out of bombast or arrogance, but out of a deep understanding that Romney, who relies on a teleprompter, and has iffy debate performance at best, and frankly, little to differentiate himself from Barack Obama, will be a candidate not unlike: Bob Dole or John McCain. It is the writing on the wall. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, the opposition has more research on him than any other candidate, and that is significant in and of itself. Romney, like it or not, is the preferred candidate of the Democrat Machine. That leaves the balance of those who would run for the GOP nomination in SC. The insider advantage poll, has been accurate in predicting the outcome of southern political contests, be they Republican or Democrat, so we are now aware, a few days prior to the primary, where the standings are: a tie for first between Gingrich and Romney (statistical) and the balance of the candidate without the support to push past Gingrich, unless there is interference. With interference in the shape of “breaking news” or right wing crazy men, then Santorum and or Paul, or Perry may pick up 10 points – the result, they lose, Gingrich loses and Romney wins. The nation loses. Should Gingrich prevail, then Santorum, Perry and Paul live to go to Florida and continue the vetting process there, having successfully knocked Romney off his perch, and off his stride. When this happens to Mittens, he lashes out, his PAC overreacts, and he will, eventually drop out, leaving the balance to “duke” it out for the nomination.
It is hoped that those who think they have significant influence (Drudge, and all media), either through innuendo or hate, are largely ignored, and the CNN debate tonight, allows the field to develop naturally.

This Debate at 8pm eastern promises to be a free for all – in other words, CNN, who offers the best debates and return of votes coverage, will let the candidates attack or retreat on their own.

Should Romney prevail, so be it, should Santorum be suddenly impressive and rousing, so be it, should Perry or Paul rise to the top so be it, and if the Speaker should deliver yet another brilliant debate performance – so be it. Let the natural order and the people of South Carolina make up their own minds, before calling one man the leader after only 2 states have cast votes, or to have another bolstered by a group that is clearly jumped over the hedge and down the rabbit hole.

It is no secret that this blogger prefers Newt Gingrich, simply because he is the smartest guy in the room, has made mistakes – and admits they were mistakes, (compounding his intelligence with common sense), and who is positioned to be the best individual to take the presidency - it will be the debate arena, along with all those negative ads, that will decide this election. It will be the clips and the attention paid to each candidate as the race progresses, and if the candidate is weak (in a John McCain sort of way), they will not insert themselves into the American’s Public Eye, in spite of the media. One has to ask themselves, which one of the aforementioned candidates appears least intimidated by the media? The last question: why would they who pundit and press are so against one man? The answer may lay in the fact that this man cannot be bought or sold, is not defined by one group be they Republican or Democrat, and is polling gangbusters with the all important Independents – in every poll. This is the scenario – and this is the fight that conservatives and those who feel their country is of value need to understand – one man or woman, one vote (ok, not in Massachusetts where the dead vote), should decide who the nominee will be, state by state, for as long as it takes, but in this instance and to stop the next Bob Dole or John McCain, it is in the nations and the balance of the candidates best interest to see Gingrich take the lead in S.C.

Mitt Romney Opposition Research from 2008 (PDF) - Does Not Include Docs Released by Mass. SOS Office 2011. More Dirt on Mitt Romney

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:40:00 +0000

Romney & McCain - McCain Opposition Research 2008 to Endorsement in 2012 - image: NYDaily News

The Daily Caller has released a PDF document here that outlines 200 pages of opposition research on former MA Governor, 2008 and 2012 GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

After a four-page introduction and timeline of Romney’s personal and professional life, the file’s next six pages cover what the authors called “top hits.” The last six pages are an appendix describing a “Boston Video Archive.”

The biggest portion consists of a detailed and heavily sourced exploration of Romney’s evolving positions on social issues (22 pages), economic issues (21 pages) and domestic policy (48 pages).

A 33-page section details his business record at Bain Capital, and 16 pages cover political issues that the authors believed can be exploited against Romney.

(Daily Caller)

It is apparent, from this limited research that Romney would have issues with Conservatives, however, one has to consider that up until recently no one had access to his documents from the Massachusetts Governor's office. Those were made available in late 2011 by Secretary of State William Galvin. Dirt of Romney - Shovelfuls.

The above referenced document can be downloaded at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/102095500/The-Romney-Book

2012 GOP Race - SC State #3 – Sarah Palin” “If I were a South Carolinian, I would vote for Newt” – Flashback: Palin’s Endorses SC's Haley Aanlysis

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:50:00 +0000

Palin and Gingrich, the endorsement and it merit - image from ap via politico

Last night on the Fox News Program, Hannity, Sarah Palin made a salient point about the Republican nomination process, as well as an endorsement of Newt Gingrich as a good choice for those South Carolinians. (See video below).

In understanding Palin’s statements, one has to look beyond South Carolina for her reasoning – she is suggesting that a lengthier primary season, with full vetting of candidates, is necessary to prevent the nation finding one man elected who does not exactly represent his campaign platform. She knows whereof she speaks.

Flashback 2008:

It is no secret that Barack Obama ran to the middle in 2008, sounding more moderate by the month, with the exception of a few instances where individuals managed to tape events at which he was speaking to his base. For example the comment made at a San Francisco fund raiser noting (Paraphrasing) “conservatives in Pennsylvania were clinging to their guns and religion…”, a comment that did not go unnoticed in most conservative outlets, but got zero traction from what has become the “mainstream media”. The fact of the matter, the President was not fully vetted – by anyone, other than a few conservatives, who, although they were loud, got very little attention in the grand scheme of things. It was the fact that Obama was “untouchable” by virtue of his ethnicity, by virtue of his intellect, and the problem with John McCain and the GOP in general, - they were polite enough to go along – to tone down attacks – in other words, point out facts. It is a pattern of the elite arm of the Republican Party, not unlike the elite arm of the Democrat Party (which one has to credit with more smarts when it comes to street fights), that everything must be politically correct and if the media or someone is slightly offended – retreat! McCain, in the style of Olympia Snow, (for those who are not familiar with the Senator from Maine, she is the feminine equivalent of a John McCain), did not stand for his principles, rather caved to the pressure from the media and advisors to “play nice”. In the end, it is not so much that McCain would have made a better President, it was the fact that he stood zero chance of getting elected – it was not only the Republican Brand that was poisoned by years of media hype, it was McCain’s retreat in the face of facts that allowed the Democrats to run roughshod over the man. He was, in essence, a weak candidate that was chosen by the RNC early, because he was slightly more moderate than Mitt Romney! One Mike Huckabee, who was doing fairly well, was inappropriate because he was an astute politician who was willing to say things that might make people uncomfortable. He was also stellar in the debate arena, not a national sleeping pill (see McCain).

Therefore, Palin became the “cause” of McCain’s demise, yet the truth of the matter was, she had, one her own, brought more excitement to the debate, and spoke to the heart of issues that were on the minds of those who were not caught up in slogans, and or were trying to be overly politically correct. It was McCain’s weakness as a candidate overall, his moderate tone, that gave Obama the edge.

It was the process of a left of center candidate, moving right just enough, mostly through television advertising and some appearance, to appeal to the independents that will ultimately decide an election. This is exactly what Palin is speaking to: avoid nominating an individual who is not fully vetted, or perhaps a candidate in the vein of a moderate who is so strikingly familiar to a McCain that one of two things would happen: Obama and the Democrats would be overjoyed at the prospect of besting Mitt Romney (already prepared, already noted and by DNC operatives who have the dirt on Romney and no other candidate, as well as Nancy Pelosi’s “endorsement” of Romney as her favorite candidate.) Instead of pushing for one candidate so early in the process, and this includes all media – right left and center – the process should continue in order to ensure that not the party, necessarily, but that the people have been able to fully vet these candidates in order to ensure that he public has a Presidential Candidate that is ready to take on the monumental task of running a campaign against a machine, and to clean up the mess left behind, by not one, but two administrations.

Palin on the stump for S.C. Governor Haley, one of many she "endorsed" who went on to win their respective seats - image: election republic dot com

Palin, love her or the alternative (how’s that for my politically correct readers?), she has the power to move mountains when it comes to the fortunes of those seeking public office by virtue of a call to arms of conservatives to bring aid, cash, and work to a campaign. In 2008, Palin was single-handedly responsible for the election, and in some cases, reelection of individuals who were on the verge of defeat. One of the more notable in this instance was the stumping she did for South Carolina Governor Haley, who endorsed Romney – Palin, who is a Republican after all, will endorse a Moderate to move a seat from one side of the aisle to the other, but for the most part, looks for the most conservative and honest politician to endorse. Her success rate is legendary – she might not have won all of the House and those Senate seats and Governors office in 2010, but she did take the majority – no mean feat.

Palin stumps for Perry image fromtexastribune.com

Therefore, her signal to those who would have preferred she be on the debate stage, and there are millions, and to those who respect her, especially in South Carolina, most likely recall the help she gave to their Governor Haley, and with the suggestion that a vote for Newt is her preference for South Carolina, will speak volumes. She is underestimated at every turn, and that is to a great extent problematic to those who choose that route. She is also keenly aware of the rift she causes within the “mainstream” media, who will see her endorsement of any candidate as a negative, regardless of the reality, therefore, her endorsement of Newt Gingrich in South Carolina was coached in language that suggested an endorsement for one state, so far. She, like many Republicans and Independents and those Tea Party affiliates are not ready to nominate any one individual, rather there are several candidates that are worthy of the opportunity to prove that they deserve the nomination. The process of just giving a “pass” to those who are pre-qualified, and pre-chosen by the “party”, obviously has not worked to the best advantage of country.

Individuals like Haley, and Rick Perry (who was in a heated race with Kay Bailey Hutchinson, former Senator from Texas), saw Palin swoop in and snatch them from the jaws of defeat, best remember that she has that capability. Numbers don’t lie, and Palin has the numbers to support her ability to move candidates as well as issues.

Will she continue, State by State, to endorse Newt Gingrich – perhaps – as the fact of the matter is that in order to best Obama, one has to be smart, savvy, politically astute, and not terribly afraid of being politically incorrect and/or offending the media. In addition, one has to have the debate skills necessary to go toe to toe on a stage with Obama – that leaves one candidate. To those who are wavering between Romney solely based on someone telling them a poll said he was the most likely to best Obama – need a reality check. In order to best Obama, the individual that is the nominee, needs to be able to best Obama in the debate, to draw a contrast that will both assure, encourage and win the hearts and minds of the American voting public. Therefore, one has to ask: who is most capable of both governing, debating and standing on ones records, no matter if it is business or government or both? Is that really Romney, is anyone really sure?

Coming from Massachusetts, and having experience as a constituent only, it is the constant warning sent forth regarding changes of opinion from campaign to office, change of opinion while in office, and less money one one’s pockets due to fees, fees, fees. Mitt Romney may have lowered taxes – he touts, 19 times, but he raised fees, mainly on the backs of the “so-called” middle class. On his website he attempts to explain why a fee is not a tax. Frankly, one has to be honest, when one is paying even one red cent to the state (or Commonwealth in this instance), then one is being “taxed” no matter what language is used.
It is the very few differences in the manner in which Romney governed Massachusetts between campaigns (one for the senate and then the 10 year run at the White House (starting in 2006, one must remember), and the manner in which Obama has governed. Perhaps not in terms of ideology, some of the time, but in terms of “which way the wind blows” governing. It does not serve the public well.

Therefore, thank you Sarah Palin for endorsing Newt for South Carolina – perhaps she will take it upon herself to hold back endorsing one candidate, or endorse that one candidate state by state, giving time to rally her pack and her massive group of online followers.
Let the late night jokers, and the pundits that have already crowed Mitt Romney as the nominee take notice that it is not over until the people have cast their ballots, and only one person, to date has made that loud and clear one Sarah Palin.

Video via www.newt.org

Food for thought: To reiterate the issues of debates and the import see PAC video below: (Nancy Pelosi Approves this Message see: Politico article on Pelosi looking forward to a Romney nomination – why? The Obama Campaign prefers Romney over any other candidate (initial source: Boston Globe).

Fox WSJ SC GOP Debate – Romney Flops, Gingrich Standing O! – Winners In Order: Gingrich, Perry, Weak: Santorum, Romney, Paul – Analysis, Full Video

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:56:00 +0000

Gingrich surrounded after 1-16-2012 SC GOP Debate - image: daylife.com

Mitt Romney, the heir apparent to the GOP “throne”, flopped last evening at the South Carolina GOP Debate hosted by Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the South Carolina Republican Party – assailed on all sides, most particularly by Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, Romney had one of his worst debate performances since he began running for President in 2006. Perhaps the most painful segment to watch was his non-answer to releasing his tax returns, which was first posed by Rick Santorum, then by a WSJ moderator – Romney dodged the question until finally settling on the “historical date of April” to release his tax returns. There was a deafening silence from the crowded room, which had up to that point, been enthusiastic on most Romney Q&A’s, of which there were many due to the his status as “front-runner”.

Santorum’s performance was solid, but a repeat of the previous debates, his attacks on Romney and the balance of the candidates pointed, but chock full of the usual statistics. Rick Perry, on the other hand, proved formidable, and had perhaps the best “laugh line” of the entire debate in referring to Romney’s over-long answers and Fox News’ decision not to have either a bell and or other time reminder, noted (paraphrasing) “They should bring out a gong”. Perry also delighted South Carolina Governor Haley, who had endorsed Romney earlier, by pointing out the struggle she was having with the Justice Department over a host of issues, including the labor board’s push to pull Boeing from building in South Carolina due to their “right to work” laws.

Ron Paul was – Ron Paul – he is solid in his position on economics, yet appears somewhat weak when attempting to voice his anti-war stance versus his defense stance. Paul clearly is an isolationist, yet looks at the fine points of between spending on the nation’s defense, and what he considers wasteful spending – his prime example was spending billions on an embassy in Iraq instead of spending that money to build bases at home – citing the massive base closures during the 1990’s and beyond. Paul is on the right track, but tends to get flustered, which was most undoubtedly frustration with the inability of the moderator to understand his point of view. Online polls after the debate, including one on the pro-Romney Drudge Report shows Paul the clear winner of the debate with 57,000 plus votes, followed by Gingrich, Romney, Santorum then Perry. The problem with any online polls is the “American Idol” factor, where there can be multiple votes for a single candidate, either by poll design or clearing one’s cache to “trick” the poll and vote multiple times. Paul has a huge internet presence, and therefore is expected to win every poll online – Paul is currently, according to the Real Clear Politics running third, behind Gingrich and Romney in Carolina’s.

Newt Gingrich simply stole the show, and proved, despite the near shut-out by Fox News on Q & A’s compared to the other candidates, why he is the best man in the debate forum, hands down. Gingrich began with a so-so attempt to address the issues of the Romney/Gingrich PAC battle, and specifically Romney’s record at Bain Capital, a sore point for Beltway Romney fans – after this point, Gingrich hit his stride, and knocked the debate out of the ballpark, drawing what was characterized as the first standing ovation at a political debate. This occurred when Fox News moderator, Juan Williams accused Gingrich of being racists over suggesting that students work while in school. Gingrich laid it out in no uncertain terms that the point he was making was not racists, but addresses poverty overall, and the fact that instilling a work ethic, puts pride into a community. He noted that although certain facts make some people uncomfortable, such as the highest number of individuals in this country on food stamps under this administration, it is – a fact. Gingrich suggestion that our youth be given jobs, is perhaps best supported by several video’s, including one dedicated to the”EBT” card - here on You Tube”. An EBT card is the politically correct version of food stamps – lest someone be embarrassed by the older paper version, credit cards are distributed that can be used at a variety of locations, not all of which include “food”. There is no doubt that hunger and poverty affect a broad spectrum of American’s today, regardless of race, and that the heavy reliance on government versus self was the point Gingrich made. It is a question of background and age, and political ideology that muddies the water on Gingrich’s excellent point.

On a personal note, this blogger picked beans at a farm for 25 cents a day back in the early 1960’s, and has found ways to make a living ever since. The fact that work is a good experience was then instilled in offspring, who, instead of taking an allowance, found a job, in a weak economy, working in food service, and is proud of the work and pay received. It is the understanding that when one works, one receives money, and one is better able to support themselves, and buy that new Iphone, pair of sneakers, what-have-you. This is what is lacking across the spectrum, a work ethic instilled in our youth, and it crosses, racial, ethnic and socio-economic lines. There is also the factor based on a dependence on government and the “ownership” of an individual by a political party, based upon fulfillment of their needs, rather than a literal hand up. Telling the truth and presenting solutions to poverty, regardless of race, is what drives those who would opposed Gingrich politically over the ledge.

Gingrich followed with a series of quick witted, yet well thought out thorough answers on everything from No Child Left Behind, to issues of national security, and extension of unemployment benefits. The later drawing again a huge surge of applause, given the former Speakers suggestion that those who are on 99 week unemployment benefits, in a scenario where a training program in return for benefits were in place, would have earned an Associate’s Degree.

Overall, after watching this debate, it is clear why Mitt Romney, between his Super PAC’s (which did damage to competitors in 2008 as well), and his weak showing in debates (again revisit 2008), is not the clear front-runner at this point in the primary cycle. In fact, there are choices in this group of five candidates, that allows for one or more to break out and pass Romney, and the obvious import of the South Carolina primary, given the shortened primary calendar, will make that clear. Romney to date has won the Iowa Caucus by 8 votes (the recount is due out today, the 17th, so that is still not a clear win, if it ever was, more of a tie). He won New Hampshire, period - there are 48 more states to weigh in, but that said, the nation and the GOP should have a clear idea of who the frontrunner(s) are once past Super Tuesday on March 6th. It is at that point where realistic projections can be made. At this point, all the hype regarding Mitt Romney may have hurt him more than helped him – and, the media, the beltway and those who would see a true moderate as the nominee, should have not raised expectations too high and too soon - expectations that clearly cannot be met nor explained away.

Gingrich’s overall demeanor and debate performance was stellar, commanding, even toned and perhaps the best performance to date. Perry as well, given the time allotted, gave the performance of his campaign to date. Although this blog makes no secret of the fact that Gingrich is the preferred candidate, based on extensive research of his record, both inside the legislature , and out, it is policy to give a devil his due. Had Romney won that debate, then Romany would have been given credit. It is important to note that polls at this early stage, showing Romney leading the President, and then Romany being touted as the best for the job, are disingenuous at best. Polls are subject to change given time and circumstances. It is not secret that the 2008 election was won by Obama in the debate arena, if that is the case, then why would the party push an “heir apparent” regardless of talent, when there is an individual who clearly would rule in that arena, and that individual is one Newt Gingrich. He owns the debate forum, despite the distortions of his remarks this early in the game. One post debate Fox commentator noted that people would (paraphrase) “pay to see Gingrich debate Obama”, understanding the outcome. It therefore, defies logic, to this mind, to push a frontrunner that is weaker in the debate arena, as well as in other areas as proved by last evening’s answers by Romney).

The next debate is Thursday night, CNN is the network, and the time is 8PM Eastern: for more information refer to CNN pressroom.blogs

Gingrich Standing Ovation

Full Video Fox News Debate

Huntsman Ends Campaign, to Endorse Romney, the Consequences - Right Media Vs.Mainstream Media Now Resembles MSNBC – Romney vs. Gingrich - Analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:02:00 +0000

Former Utah Governor, Jon Huntsman has decided to end his campaign for the GOP nomination and will endorse Mitt Romney as of Monday the 16th. The fact that the Utah Governor failed to secure a stronger finish in the New Hampshire primary, and his extremely low poll numbers going forward, has not been lost on some media – excellent article to be found at the The Christian Science Monitor.

In reviewing the most recent poll numbers in SC at Real Clear Politics Gingrich is fast on the heels of Mitt Romney, and from the pollsters results, one can find that the race is shaping up similarly to the Iowa Caucus where one finds poll numbers erratic, and Romney, Gingrich and Ron Paul leading the pack – all within a variety of margins of error (depending upon the pollsters marginal’s. In addition polling taken in recent days finds that 8 to 20% of those polled are still uncertain as to which candidate for whom they will vote. The polls thus far, are only as good as those taken a day or two prior to the primary, as anything else that has been released is akin to reading tea leaves!

How important is South Caroline in a win, even if it is by say 7 votes? It is of supreme import as the Palmetto state has accurately “predicted” through their primary winner, the eventual winner of the GOP nominee for the past few decades. A win in South Carolina from a psychological point for a campaign, can be extremely meaningful, it is not that a photo finish will mean a hill of beans, but a wider margin of 2 to 6 points between the two front runners, will be the tell-tale sign of either rejection or acceptance going forward into Florida, Nevada and the Super Tuesday. Gingrich has a firm grasp on the south, and is polling well; he polls well across all demographics in most polls, with two other that are considered to be pulling votes from the same “well”, one Rick Santorum and one Rick Perry. Should either one of those drop out of the S.C. race (which is, at this point, unlikely), those votes are assumed to go to Newt Gingrich, however, should their leads diminish over the next few days (given two debates, one tonight the16th on Fox news and one on CNN on the 19th (best debate arena to date, hands down goes to CNN), then any points lost may be evenly split between Gingrich and Romney – those voting for Santorum most likely to go to Romney (who if he does end his campaign, would, in all likelihood, endorse Romney as the RNC choice). Should Texas Governor Rick Perry end his campaign, the split may be even, although the later two, along with Gingrich, allegedly have the same “base”. That said, with 8 to 20% undecided – and Gingrich within the margin of error in most polling with Romney (i.e. statistical tie), then should those undecided’s break for Gingrich, he would have a clear advantage, with or without Perry and Santorum in the race. Ron Paul should remain at his current level in SC which is at approx. 14 to 18 % of the vote.

The media influence.

With all the railing against the Mainstream Media choosing a candidate and stumping for one over another, namely Barack Obama, by the likes of Andrew Breitbart and Matt Drudge (and name a pundit, especially on Fox News) it appears they have taken the same low road when it comes to anyone who get’s within striking distance of Mitt Romney. Gingrich, to the Republicans, represents someone who will end the status quo, a man who has a past, a man whose past indicates he will work for against both parties, to push legislation that is Conservative in nature without abandoning his Conservative principles. Gingrich, who worked with President Reagan and then President Clinton, has angered more on the right, perhaps than the left, for getting things done. To Mitt Romney’s credit, he did work with the Massachusetts legislature, but handed them almost everything they requested – the excuse: “I was outnumbered.” So why is Mitt Romney being pushed so hard by everyone from Charles Krauthammer to Ann Coulter (who has yet to pick a nominee that would win)? How much are these pundits of the Beltway vested in Politics as Usual?

For example; a recent headline on the Drudge Report, touted, “FLASH: Newt Booed At Huckabee Forum Over Romney Attacks... *” (see Screenshot), which led to this link on http://tv.breitbart.cm/newt-booed-by-sounth-carolina-crowd-for-bain-attacks” with video.
Those watching the Huckabee Forum with each candidate answering questions from a SC audience, never saw any such booing taking place, and when one reviews the video, which is short in length, one notices perhaps a 5 second grumbling, the question was not as implied, regarding Bain, rather it was regarding Newt Gingrich’s views on Capitalism and he explained it quite well. The grumbling, which again, was minor (see video) started when he mentioned Mitt Romney’s claim of creating jobs, and ended abruptly as he was reminded of the rules by Huckabee (apparently no attacks on other candidates). This was not an attack rather a contrast, and by way of example – Gingrich quickly changed tactics, the grumbling had long stopped and went on to give an outstanding answer which applause given was cut off on this short video.

Screenshot of Drudge Headline: links to: video below

The problem with rushing a candidate though without vetting (and that is exactly what is happening here with Mitt Romney), is one is going to end up with either another McCain and or Barack Obama. It is clear that the left is in the “tank” for Mitt Romney, which should tell the right that there is something out there that may be problematic.

They should also be aware that Newt Gingrich most likely knows what that problem(s) may be – given the fact he has visited Massachusetts more than Romney and given the fact that Romney eradicated his email records, and then was angered by the Secretary of State, Galvin’s decision to release hard copy documents. If Romney is concerned about these documents, it follows that there may be something there that most likely runs contrary to his current “Conservative” message – he was most concerned that the Obama campaign have access, however, it is possible that other GOP campaigns have gained access to these records as well.

Again, although Romney had his staff dumped email records of his term in office, (called highly unusual by all GOP Gubernatorial predecessors) the hard copy remained:

An Associated Press examination of much of the available Romney archives holdings earlier this year suggested the material available then was far from comprehensive. More than 75 cartons reviewed by the AP included staff and legislative documents but no internal records written to or from Romney himself -- except for ceremonial bill-signing and official letters.
News organizations have pressed to view the archived Romney files. Also, the Democratic National Committee recently submitted three open-records requests to current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, seeking to learn more background about the Romney administration's purge of emails and other electronic records.
Romney's campaign, meanwhile, has asked Patrick's office for any evidence of collusions between his staff and Obama re-election officials.

Boston Globe December 6th, 2011

This is a candidate of choice? He may be, but without a fair process, (i.e. slanted news stories regarding other candidates and the constant drumbeat that Romney is the only one who can win against Obama (without, by the way, any statistics that suggest he is that capable), it will be up to those voting in the Republican Primary, including independents, who will make that decision – the innuendo’s and false claims from headlines prove that the vast right wing conspiracy is nothing more than an RNC front.

Now there are 5 major candidates left to debate and follow through with the process, with the likelihood of there being 3 or 4 after the Carolina's: Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum and Perry. One might look for an additional announcement prior to the S.C. primary of a suspension of a campaign. It is unlikely at this point, however, it has been rumored, not confirmed.

It remains to be seen if the right media will go to the lengths that he left media did vis a vis Romney and Obama – but it is likely: See Right Leaning Mediaite: headline: “Chris Wallace Confronts Pro-Gingrich Super PAC Spokesman About Gingriches Ties to Equity Firm” more of the same type of inflammatory headlines, and little substance in the actual article, other than additional right centered media making assertions. It is interesting to watch this play out, and to understand that there is little difference between FOX and MSNBC other than ratings. What is telling is that CNN is quickly becoming the choice of the moderate – go figure.

To answer the questions poised, Gingrich is being maligned with misleading and inaccurate head nines simply because: he’s in Romney’s way. Let the process take its course, and the last man standing will be the nominee, regardless of whether or not that nominee is approved by the RNC and its surrogates.

Lastest SC GOP Polling: Gingrich in Tie with Romney - Debate Schedule for SC

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:51:00 +0000

The latest Insider Advantage Poll has Newt Gingrich in a Statistical Tie with Mitt Romney. The poll, conducted on the 11th, shows Gingrich leading among Independents, and statistically tied with Romney for the Republican vote. The balance of the placements: Santorum and Paul tied, Huntsman and Perry one point apart in single digits, with 15.2% undecided. the complete marginals are available here in pdf from realclearpolitics.com.

There are three debates in SC: First Fox with Mike Hukabee's Forum tonight at 8PM, on the 16th of January 9 PM Fox News, and on January 19th, CNN at 8 PM.

Romney’s PAC Attacks Gingrich Again - Runs Same Inaccurate Ads from Iowa in SC/FL GOP/Mainstream Defends Romney – Handing the election to Obama -Oped

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:45:00 +0000

The Players: Romney, Paul and Gingrich - image: Houston Chronicle

Mitt Romney’s PAC is now running ads in Florida and South Carolina that are either the same ad or similar in scope to those run in Iowa (Time Magazine) The problem with the ad is that is it far from accurate, and this is ok with both the candidate Romney and those who remain silent in the media. Time after time, from the very beginning of the Romney’s machine’s attacks on Gingrich for being ahead in the polls, Gingrich ask Romney to denounce the ads run in his name, but to no avail – therefore, the gloves came off and a pro-Gingrich group began to run ads touting the former Govenor of Massachusetts’ record as a principle player in Bain Financial Group. It was not Capitalism that the group targeted in their 30 minute ad, rather Mitt Romney himself and the decisions he made to gut companies, sell their assets and make a profit for investors and those principles in the Bain firm, including Romney. Watching both ads is similar to taking a trip to the dentist to have a tooth pulled. However, one has to ask the question, regardless of the fact that Romney’s Camp came out gunning first, and despite the fact that their ads are targeted Gingrich to the point where he lost 20 points in the polls, and regardless of the fact that Mitt Romney merely smiled at Gingrich when he was asked to put a halt to the ads – why do those Romney supporters and the media continue to claim Romney as “innocent”, while Gingrich, who has done nothing more or less than Romney after the fact, is tarred as anti-Capitalist?

The most ridiculous assertions are those coming from the Romney surrogates that it is simply not OK to question Romney’s business decisions – no matter what the charge – this coming from newly elected Govenor of S.C., Nikki Haley, (on Sean Hannity on Fox last evening). Yet at the same time it is fine to make assertions that are false against the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

If Romney is not responsible for the ads run by his PAC, then Gingrich is not responsible for the ads run by his PAC - regardless of the levels of truth involved in either PAC’s advertisements.

There should be questions raised about the way in which Mr. Romney ran the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as well as the way in which Mr. Romney behaved during his tenure at Bain Capital. It is unfortunate that the media and those power brokers are able to target an opposition candidate with falsehoods (proven), while giving Romney a complete pass (sound familiar?). What makes Romney so different from President Obama? Obama has the Chicago Machine, true, he was merely a Community Organizer before running for the State Legislature and the Senate, holding terms that were not lengthy, and he was ideologically left, while presenting himself as ideologically moderate in his ads against Hillary Clinton and then John McCain. However, one has to ask which one of the candidates, Romney or the President appears to be more ethical, both in their choice of businesses as well as their commitment to their political ideology. When one examines, without rose colored glasses, both mens measures, then one has to wonder why the GOP and those pundits believe Romney to be the better of the two to run the country. When elected as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney ran on a variety of platforms contradicting him once in office, for the short period of time, before beginning his run for the Presidency in pre-2006. His record at Bain Capital can surely be explained in simple terms - you win some, you lose some, however, one has to ask – why a firm that basically liquidated the assets of a company to make a fast buck? That did not always happen, which is true, he has two examples that he constantly uses, the largest being “Staples”, but those jobs created at Staples are retail jobs, not manufacturing jobs – if one has to be honest, the President has created more jobs in manufacturing that Romney did at Bain in his career, regardless of whether one agrees with the Presidents ideology - or the manner in which the Government has changed to a European model under President Obama’s tenure.

Therefore, drawing a contrast between Romney and the President, regardless of how low the President’s approval ratings are at the moment, does not favor the favorite son of the GOP. It is that simple, and that is why the number of those showing up at the polls to vote in Republican primaries are mainly independents and democrats, rather than the core conservatives – their hearts are not in the race – they have no candidate they feel they can back, and this lays at the feet of the Romney campaign and his attacks on Gingrich. Gingrich has baggage, but the father and grandfather, also has gravitas, the ability to debate, and ideas that are the core of the American system of free enterprise and exceptionalism. There is a sharp contrast between the President and the former Speaker, while no such contrast exists for the Governor.

Yet, it is apparent that no one is listening, and the feeling that another John McCain is being shoved at the Conservatives, again, is pushing those individuals away from the polls. The question is has Romney damaged Gingrich to the extent that both men are unelectable? That remains to be seen – Romney is the status quo and Gingrich, not so much (even if he was a former Speaker, a position which, when one is honest, is of extreme import, requires a willingness to work across aisles in order to get things done, and involves compromise, something that is anathema to those who work for the money machines that are the GOP and DNC campaigns and organizations.
The aforementioned is how it appears, it appears as dirty politics, and politics as usual, and the player primarily responsible for this apathy and the tone of the camp gin is one Mitt Romney. One hears that Romney is the one who is best suited to take the White House from the President – where is the data to back that up? One or two polls perhaps, however, those same polls show Ron Paul in a similar position. The GOP is also dismissive of Paul to their own peril. His message and his website are, indeed one of isolationism, but those who would not have looked at Ron Paul in a lifetime are now taking a second and third look.
The strongest contrast between any mainstream Republican and the Democrats is one Ron Paul, and frankly, should Romney continue to attack Gingrich with falsehoods, while he must be aware that the Gingrich camp has just as much information on him during his tenure as Govenor of Massachusetts as the Obama campaign, and the mainstream media chastises Gingrich for drawing the contrast between himself and Romney, the last man standing may well be Ron Paul.

There is it – although Romney and his staff destroyed every smidgen of electronic communication available form his tenure as Governor, the hard copies were left behind and they were released by the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under the Freedom of Information Act. To those who were not watching, Gingrich was in Boston at approximately the same time this occurred – if fact, Gingrich has spent more time in the Bay State than Romney, something one might question since no GOP candidate campaigns in this wasteland. Therefore, it is more than possible that Gingrich and his camp are quite prepared to back up their assertions against Romney, just as much as Team Obama.

Writing as a moderate, and having lived in Massachusetts under Romney’s very short tenure as Governor (viewed by moderates and others in the Commonwealth as being used as a stepping stone to run for President, nothing more nothing less), it was evident, jobs were lost, the backs of the middle class were burdened with fees and taxes, and it was glaringly apparent he would not win reelection. Coming from Massachusetts one does not are what religion one might subscribe to, one does not care particularly which party one aligns themselves with either, one only cares about how one conducts themselves when governing or in the legislature, whether one agrees or disagrees with the Governor, Senator or President’s actions . One only need look at Scott Brown as a shining example, ask a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent about the upcoming race for reelection, and Brown is normally the choice, not Warren, and the reason is simple: Brown is doing, as Senator, exactly what he said he would do from the very beginning – his constituents would agree and sometimes disagree with his decisions, but that he would make them for the people of the state using his best judgment.

That’s honest.

That’s what the people want in a Mayor, in a Congressional Representative, a Senator and yes, the President, honesty – therefore, one has to ask the final question, and put this question to those who have not voted in a primary or general election. Which of the GOP candidates is the most honest? About their past, and about their records – is there enough contrast with the President? Will those moderates and especially those conservatives come out in droves (and it is known to happen), for a candidate that does not have a sharp contrast? Judging from the turnout to date, that answer is no. However, one may find that during the general election, should Romney be the GOP Nominee, the GOP had better hope they can promise the people a majority in both houses, otherwise, the gains made by the Tea Party will have been for naught. There simply is no positive contrast between the President and one Mitt Romney.

There is a contrast however, between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul and Mitt Romney (those are the most reasonable choices for those voting in the GOP primaries and caucuses, in this opinion - Santorum is a weaker candidate backing down quickly when challenged, and delivering a rather lackluster performance, even though the man appears to have good intent, and the same can be said for Huntsman, Governor Perry, who is a stalwart conservative appears to be more comfortable as Governor of Texas, perhaps a disservice to the Governor, but nonetheless, the impression.) Those who are not taking part, out of apathy, or out of disgust, one hopes will come to their senses and cast their primary and caucus votes according to the one or two or three men left standing, and then in the general, do the same. It is indeed a dark time for the Republic of the United States of American and there can be revisions, but it has to be with a candidate that one can implicitly trust to deliver the legislation necessary to right the ship – even if that candidate has baggage, or may be a outside the mainstream, as long as the message they have delivered in their roles as Congressman, Speaker and Governor has been consistent.

For one, all the pundits in the world, all the endorsements from supporters, regardless of candidate, mean nothing, what means something in the end game is the mettle of the man (woe there is no woman), who can stand on their record for good or for ill (politically), in all honesty. That candidate will gender goals. From this Massachusetts Concrvative Moderate is it my wish for the nation (having already warned about Massachusetts legislation and certain players form this state being exported to the other 49 for years)that New Gingrich has the backing of the voters to stop Romney in both South Carolina and in Florida. To those those individuals watching Romney's PAC's ads, understand they are what they are- rehashed form Iowa and above all - dishonest.

The Romney Bain Story - a Must See Video

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:58:00 +0000

A Super Pac supporting Newt Gingrich has produced more than a few ads that have been very positive in nature. This was prior to Mitt Romney's ridiculous assault on Gingrich during the Iowa Caucuses and continued in NH and now in SC and FL, where the advertisements are, for the most part, personal attacks on Gingrich's record - and they are simply false.

After the onslaught Gingrich's friends, in a PAC decided enough was enough and started running,first positive then contrast ads - finally a full documentary that addresses the time Romney spent at Bain Capital. The PAC, winning our future.com who produced the 30 minute documentary that every voter should watch - King of Bain. The video draws the distinction between capitalism and what is legal, but, speaking as a moderate, purely amoral. It is also personal, knowing and living in an area where jobs lost had a direct impact on those who are close - in all truth, this blogger had no idea it was Romney at Bain who caused so much heartache and destruction in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - being somewhat prejudiced against Romney for more reasons than having chosen other candidates, asking those affected and double checking was imperative. There is a low opinion of the man who personally oversaw the destruction of jobs, lives, families, the gutting of business, and the human capital thrown to the wayside, in the name of a concern that produced nothing but profit.

The full video is available here at http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/ and worth watching - at least this will allow one to see a side of Romney that is, in a word from one who most recently viewed this video: "disgusting is an understatement".

Clips and previews of this PACS ads are shown below.

Positive

Stating the Fact on Offense

The Story of Mitt Romney - Trailer

Again, watch the entire video at http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/

Latest SC Poll Shows Gingrich Tied with Romney – Romney Woes - Dishes it out, but Cannot Take the Heat -2008 revisited - Open Secrets & Endorsements

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:43:00 +0000

Mitt Romney - may fall back to earth after SC - image weaselzippers.us

A new Insider Advantage poll taken on Wednesday shows Newt Gingrich in a statistical tie with Mitt Romney, the establishment “favorite”, followed by Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, John Huntsman and Rick Perry. Romney is back in his 23% zone, where it is expected he should stay in the balance of the states should history repeat, and there is no indication that it will not. The only southern state, Virginia, where Romney may pull out a victory, has only two Republican’s on the ballot, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, given the large urban population and Romney’s finish behind Paul in 2008, the Virginia battle may be won by Dr. Paul – it is not out of the question given Paul’s strong finish in New Hampshire.

Romney continues to assail rivals with barbs and his Super PAC is running ads in South Carolina noting that Gingrich is not pro-life, which is flatly – false – it is Romney who was pro-choice, pro-life, pro-choice, and ensured that Massachusetts taxpayers footed the bill for abortions under the Commonwealth’s Universal Health Care system that Romney designed. It is on face value, typical of Romney’s campaign.

On Temperament: When visiting Romney’s site under endorsements is an article demeaning Newt Gingrich, one has to wonder why the angst over only Gingrich on the Romney campaign site. Apparently, broad shoulders do not extend the Mr. Romney – who, when confronted with compare and contrast ads from Gingrich, cannot take the heat, so he cries foul to the press.

Also several readers have suggested that endorsements from “those in the know”, Congressmen and the like, we recipients of large cash contributions from Romney’s PAC. For example, in the New Hampshire Primary, Kelly Ayotte endorsed Mitt Romney, she also received funds from Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC, (Open Secrets.org). Open Secrets only tracks donations to Federal candidates, therefore, those endorsements by mayors, former public officials are most likely based on a moderate political ideology. If your U.S. Congressional Representative or Senator endorsed Mitt Romney - check it on Open Secrets dot org.

More On South Carolina and the Romney "myth" that he can do well in all 50 states:

From Springfield Mass, WHYN morning show, a chat with a sister station in South Carolina yesterday morning, underscored the fact that Romney, although almost popular in Iowa (taking 8 votes give or take over Santorum), then winning New Hampshire, means very little to those in South Carolina, even in the Urban Areas, where one would expect Romney to do well. One can pretty much be the house that Gingrich and Paul, and Possibly Santorum or Perry will finish above Romney in the Palmetto State.

The balance of the primary and caucus states: Regardless of Romney’s war chest, there is more than a better chance that he’ll command a lead in 8 to 9 other states, tying or exceeding his showing in 2008.

Should that occur watch Super Tuesday: Shock and Awe from Pundits in the media and the RNC who will be dealt a blow should either Paul or Gingrich (likely both) pull the balance of the states. It may take at least 24 hours for them to turn around and being to extol the virtues of another candidate, and the fact that Romney was expected to do well in certain states, but just could not break above 20 in the balance.

Romney Compares His Work at Bain to Obama's GM Bailout!

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:16:00 +0000

In a this 2012 general election there are certain comparisons that should not be made, not even in jest, especially by "establishment" GOP Candidate - Mitt Romney, and that is to compare himself to the President. Not only is Romney known as a progressive (who would lose the 60 plus vote in Massachsuetts in a heartbeat - that's another story), but he's gone on the record (CBS not Fox) as running Bain just like Obama ran the Auto Bailout. This is why it is sensible not to crown a frontrunner after only one mediocre win in the first caucus, and one fair win in one of the man's home state's.

Complete video and more from http://thehill.com/video/campign/203497-romney-likens-work-at-bain-to-obamas-auto-industry-bailout

Romney Wins New Hampshire, Paul Strong Second, Romney's PAC Heads South - Analysis and Commentary

noreply@blogger.com (Tina Hemond) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:00:00 +0000

Romney Takes 86,000 of 186,000 votes in New Hampshire Primary – Romney Super PAC Moves to FL – Ron Paul Strong Showing, Gingrich & Perry Move to Friendly Territory

Romney, Gingrich and Paul at a debate, the Debate will be the national Ad that makes or breaks the General Election Race - image: Huffington Post

The full New GOP Hampshire Primary Results are in at the New Hampshire Union Leader, placing first was Mitt Romney taking over one in two votes casts in the Granite State, where he has campaign since 2006. Romney was expected to win New Hampshire, along with Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman who had strong campaigns on the ground for extended periods of time. Ron Paul came in a decisive second with 48,000 plus votes, followed by Jon Huntsman at 35,000 (approximate) and Newt Gingrich 4th, besting Rick Santorum by fewer than 100 votes, Rick Perry, who had not set foot in the state, with the exception of the debates, came in 6th.

The big story was Ron Paul’s strong showing – although Paul was not physically present in the state for the same amount of time that Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney (by virtue of having one of his homes there), were, it was his massive organization that brought the strong second place finish to the Paul Campaign. CNN (who had the best comprehensive and unbiased coverage of this debate), offered several bells and whistles for political junkies, including a focus group from South Carolina that judged each candidates speech, allowing viewers to watch a “line” of approval or disapproval, separated by gender, as the candidates each gave their post primary results speech, along with demographics as to how well each candidate did among specific voter groups. Paul, who did not gender great enthusiasm, but respectable enthusiasm from the focus group, also attracts the highest percentage of independent voters, which would be a large plus in a general election. Romney’s speech was spot on, more meat than policy; however, he cannot garner the enthusiasm that projects any charisma whatsoever, coming off more as flat and more boring that Rick Santorum’s sweater vest. The Focus Groups dial moved erratically up and down as he was speaking. It was anticipated that Romney would win New Hampshire, he had placed second in 2008, against John McCain, and therefore, it was the 2nd, 3rd and 4th placements that were most interesting.

Jon Huntsman, while giving his speech, basically “flat-lined” with the focus group – garnering almost zero enthusiasm with those South Carolinians who were watching the post debate speakers, while the greatest enthusiasm came for Newt Gingrich, who spoke after Santorum (who also did not do well with the focus group) - Gingrich knows where his territory lay, and it was never in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Of note, in Romney’s speech he not only attacked the President (as he has all along) but also those rivals who he characterized as “desperate Republican’s”, specifically targeting Gingrich for running ads against Romney. To set the record straight from a Massachusetts point of view: (Read Romney’s Super PAC goes in for the Kill) Romney’s Super Pac is a large part of his campaign, and under the PAC a destroy Newt Gingrich approach was taken in Iowa and it worked. The ads were not overly factual however, very effective as Gingrich took a higher road, and responded only after the Caucus was over.

Once the group of candidates were headed to New Hampshire, the gloves came off, and Gingrich began to take a different tactic – as well as having a Super Pac of his own that began to target Romney – As Romney was the favorite in New Hampshire and with the beltway pundits, which now include, of all people, Rush Limbaugh, (A startling revelation to understand that Rush Limbaugh is not an independent right ring conservative, rather a cheerleader for the party dogma - thus giving Hilary Clinton points for being right in part- it was not a vast right wing conspiracy, it was just the GOP learning that the airwaves were very effective.) Gingrich hit a populist tone going into New Hampshire, critical of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, and how these types of leverage buyout groups work. This may “sound like a Democrat” to Romany fan, but it is a simple fact that in some instances, corporations raid other corporations for the money, and leave human capital in shambles. This is not an issue for Democrats alone, and one can bet the house that the Obama campaign will focus on Bain and the personal disasters the group caused – they merely need to pull out the old Ted Kennedy 1994 Senate Campaign ads, to do just that.

That is Romney’s baggage, that and his record on taxes, along with his record of no job creation in MA, and no one knows what was released when the Attorney General of Massachusetts, gave full access to Romney’s sealed gubernatorial papers. Romney tried hard to block that action but failed. One has to understand that Galvin would give that information gladly to the first Democrat operative that came calling. The problem with Romney in taking the fight to Obama is that he does have baggage, just like Gingrich, but his baggage spans from 1990 to 2008, while Gingrich’s record is up for review from the 1990’s. This battle will continue in South Carolina, where it should get interesting. The fact that some pundits are noting that Gingrich’s sole purpose in the camping is to stop Romney have been drinking the GOP Kool-Aid, Gingrich is in the campaign, like Santorum, Like Perry, like Paul and like Huntsman because it is clearly evident those candidates feel they were called to run. In the case of Romney, one wonders if he is there to serve his ego or the nation.

It is evident this blog is not a huge fan of Romney, but one must consider that this blog is generated from Massachusetts, and by a Conservative Moderate, who leans both right and left at times, depending upon the issue. As a resident under Romney, it was evident he balanced the budget on the backs of the taxpayers, instituted social programs that were anathema to anyone who has an ounce of Conservatism in them, and the only thing that one positive that one can remember is the fact that he refused to give state security to an Al Queda sympathizer who was speaking at Harvard.

Therefore, one understands, within the state, the extreme moderate that makes Romney the perfect John McCain. Does the GOP really want John McCain’s doppelganger to head the ticket? Possibly, they are more interested in taking back the senate that actually taking the White House and Romney fits that bill to a tee.

As the candidates head to South Carolina which is truly the gateway to the Presidency, on January 21st (or in 9 days from now) it will become apparent which of the candidates will remain standing through Super Tuesday. Romney, who placed 4th in the Carolina’s in 2008 with 15% of the vote, the big winners were Mike Huckabee and John McCain who placed 2nd and first respectively. The candidate the pulls out of South Carolina in the lead, has predicatively become the Party’s nominee, which is why those who finished in 2nd through 4th in the first two contests out of 50, are not overly concerned at this point. That may or may not change in 9 days, however, it is doubtful that certain candidates will be able to carry forward going into South Carolina, where they may lack organization in the Palmetto State, chief among them is Rick Santorum, who rose swiftly in Iowa, and expected a better showing in New Hampshire.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry will be the two to watch going into that particular state, given the fact that they have invested in the Carolinas, and have southern roots. The Paul campaign will most likely focus on more eastern/western states where they can, in all seriousness, do well enough to take this race to the Convention. It’s still anyone’s game, despite the drumbeat. With all due respect to Mitt Romney, who one can be sure is a very smart guy, and one who is patriotic, offers nothing concrete in a comparative way to the President, and, in addition, appears to take great umbrage at criticism, coupled with lackluster debates performances, he would be the weakest of the candidates, besides Jon Huntsman to put up against the President. In addition, a strong social conservative, might also be in the same boat. This leaves few valid choices, chief among them the former Speaker of the House.

It will be the individual that the voter’s trust in this election, more than any other factor, despite the polls and despite the pundits, that will win the day, as to who that individual may be – no-one knows at this point, with only two small contests, although titled as the “first”, past, it is far too early to crown a front-runner in terms of the entire election. Once the dust settles on Super Tuesday (March 6th), then the front-runner (or front-runners as the case may be) will be glaringly apparent.

Article of note from Politico: ”Newt Gingrich leaves New Hampshire on high note, despite primary loss”