Some things I am hearing or reading this morning have been interesting. On Fox, they did some fact checking on some of the candidates statements from last night, and I’ve heard a few times that when Newt said that Bachmann didn’t have her facts straight, and that he never did any lobbying, that was found to be totally false. He did in fact call Republicans in Washington to influence their votes for the Medicare Part D bill. He was at the time working for Astra Zenaca and Phizer (sp). Because he has often gone after Bachmann saying that she didn’t have her facts straight, that has been seen very negatively, especially with female voters, and last night he turned people off with his treatment of her.

Enough with the lectures and history lessons from past centuries Newt. And Newt has now used Reagan many times. He did it in last nights debate, and in some speech clips I’m seeing of his recent speeches, he always brings up Reagan’s name. Does he think that if he says Reagan enough, people will think he is the reincarnation of Reagan?

Even before last night, Gingrich has been getting slammed and hammered because of a speech he did in October, where he indicated that he would subpeona judges based on their rulings, and pull them into Washington and drill them on why they decided as they had. So if he, or the Congress don’t like a ruling, they can be drilled and then fired. Some have argued that the judiciary is one of the three co-equal branches of government, and Gingrich is indicating that he and the Congress can grab power over the judiciary, and make them less than equal. He has argued that some judges are ruling against what the people want. I believe he indicated that in the debate last night. There’s much more to it, but it appears this is one of those 1,000 ideas of Gingrich’s which is one of his bad ideas. I wish one of our legal people would write a diary on the Gingrich judicial issue. I’ve heard that Iowa Gov. Brandstad (sp) said that he was concerned about Gingrich not having the discipline and focus that is required of the president.

No question, in many debates, Bachmann has been seen as the attack dog. Last night I saw her as being very childish with her- he did this, and he said that, like a tattletale school girl. I liked that she brought up Freddie Mac, but geez Michele, enough is enough. Some think she just goes to far, and that may be so. Apparently her attacks are not resonating, especially with the people of Iowa. I keep hearing they don’t like negativity. I did not consider her a winner last night.

This morning Fox had Jason Wright, who has a site called Political Derby on to rate the debate. He said that the losing statement last night came from Rick Perry with his Tebow comment. He said that “everyone was cringing” when he said that. From what I’m reading it was a winning comment by all accounts. He predicted that if Perry doesn’t come in 1st, 2nd or 3rd in Iowa, that he will be the first one to drop out, even though Perry told Cavuto yesterday that even if he comes in 4th he will continue on to the other states. If I’m not mistaken he rated the winners as Romney, Gingrich and Paul. I could have looked at the polls to see that.

I believe that the consensus is that Romney is still playing it safe, and that he is not doing anything to break out of the pack. I agree. It won’t help him.

Paul is a raving lunatic, period. Many have said that if Paul wins in Iowa, the state becomes insignificant, and will lose their impact as the first in the nation. I agree.

Who is Jon Huntsman? Oh, that guy. No thanks.

Again, I think the debate last night was one of the worst, only surpassed by the last Fox debate. Chris Wallace should never be allowed to moderate another GOP debate. He would be much better doing Democrat debates, it would suit him perfectly.

I don’t believe almost anything Gingrich says. It’s galling to hear him say that he’s changed now because he is 68 and a grandfather, and people believe that. He has been for particular issues for years, and now all of a sudden because he is a candidate he’s changed his positions? I most especially don’t believe him when he says that he is for an all of the above energy policy. He has written, and spoken out against fossil fuels, and has a sequal to his 2007 book, A Contract with the Earth, conveniently coming out in 2013.

I’m just listening to a critique of Gingrich’s comments in the debate concerning his Freddie Mac statements, which everyone should be paying attention to. He said “I have only worked for companies that held my values, and that home-ownership has always been very important to him.” He went on to say “We as American’s should be helping as many people as possible to purchase homes.” He has said in the past that he favored helping low-income people to get mortgages. That flies in the face of his prior debate comment that he worked for Freddie Mac as a historian. Most Republicans I know realize that Freddie was in big part the cause for the housing crash, and subsequent meltdown. Gingrich only stopped working for Freddie Mac earlier in 2007, just months before the crash. Now he is still supporting “homeownership for as many Americans as possible”, and we should all be in favor of that? Those comments in the debate are going to come back to haunt him big time. It is big government plain and simple. At least now he’s being honest about it.

so you are viewing his debate performance through that prism. I’m not sure what you mean by “imploding”, does that mean he didn’t just start raving like a lunatic, or have a brain freeze? The best I’ve read concerning his performance is that he “held his own.” I’m not so sure that’s correct.

There were two issues that seem to be hurting him the most from last night. One of them was his defense of his time at Freddie Mac. He originally said that he was hired by Freddie as a historian. Last night he came all out in favor of home ownership for all Americans. He has in the past said that he favored mortgages for low income people. By his statements last night, he insured, in the minds of those listening, that he still has not learned the lesson of just what those risky mortgages really did in causing the housing crash. He doesn’t seem to have learned from that. He also supported TARP which came about because of that crash, which was a government solution to a problem brought about by government to begin with. In a past debate, Newt said that Barney Frank should go to jail because of his involvement with Freddie and Fannie. Yet last night, he went right along with Barney’s push for low income home ownership.

The other issue that hurt him, even before the debate last night, was his position of the judiciary. In the past he said that he wanted to eliminate appeals courts, and wanted to subpoena judges to answer for their decisions. That puts the president, and the Congress in a bully position, and more powerful than the judicial branch. He said something last night about judges making decisions that the people didn’t like. Unfortunately, judges make decisions every day that are not popular with the people, but many times are the correct decisions. The solution to that problem is to have a conservative president, who appoints conservative judges that rule according to the constitution, and to nominate constitutionalists for the SC. Some of what he has suggested isn’t even constitutional. Then again, Newt said at one time that the constitution is outdated and needs to be revised to reflect modern days.

Doesn’t any of that bother you?

for misleading the government on their backing of risky loans. The story is just developing.

Uh, not a good thing for Newt, especially when he said last night that he supported home loans for low income people, or all Americans.

what VA Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli said after the Huckabee debate, which was the best debate. He was asked the next day if he was satisfied with Gingrich’s answers, and he said that Gingrich never did answer some of the questions. He opens his mouth, and Newt has never been at a loss for words, but he just proceeds to say words that have no meaning. As you said, he tries to change the subject, and bring a focus on what he wants to focus on. If only we had more debates with people who are not willing to allow any of them to babble on and on, just to evade the question, and are smart enough to know it, and say it.

From what I’m hearing, the SEC is suing 6 former executives from Fannie and Freddie, 3 from each GSE. They mentioned Dan Mud, and Dick Siren, don’t know if I spelled those names correctly. They are being sued for fraud when they misled investors on the number of sub-prime mortgages they were holding. I’m sure a whole lot more will come out on this in the coming days. I’m quite sure that many will want to see someone pay for the housing collapse, and we have already heard of the shenanigans that went on with Franklin Reines in cooking the books for larger bonuses. I don’t know if Reines will get smacked or not.

Newt’s involvement in the Clinton push for low-income home loans. He was the Whip I believe, and then the Speaker during that time period. There were already warnings of the disaster that could befall the housing market, but Clinton just pushed forward, and further relaxed the regulations. Where was Newt on that initiative? From his comments last night, where he said that he has always been for home-ownership for “all Americans, I have to believe that he was right there with Clinton on the issue.

Here is an article which picks up some of Gingrich’s comments from an archived speech Gingrich gave to Freddie Mac, in 2007, just months before the housing crash. From that article-

“There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE’s charters from Fannie and Freddie, and it’s clear why. The housing GSE’s have made an important contribution to home-ownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have had without the GSE’s.”

When I think of Gingrich saying, in a debate I think, that Barney Frank should go to jail for his role in the housing crash, he apparently thinks that no one has or will look into his involvement with Freddie Mac, that I believe is much deeper than he is admitting to.

this morning, and they were gushing. She is going to be attending some big event this afternoon where the real big time endorsement will be coming, major media in tow, no doubt. I think it is supposed to be her family, and Romney’s family at the event.

This is exactly why the Tea Party is all but over and done with. Sad that it wasn’t the leftists, who have been trying to destroy the Tea Party, or the Republican elites in Washington, it is being destroyed by some of the very people who in part won their elections with the majority of support from those Tea Partiers. It’s sickening to see that some just can’t resist the promise of higher office, or some sort of pay-off while selling their souls to the devil to get their. There is something in this for Haley no doubt.

The Republicans had always been known as the silent party. Never protested anything, never got involved in anything, they just simply showed up on election day, voted for the republican, went home, and went back to sleep until right before the next election. The elites in Washington knew that, and just kept moving more and more to the left.

Take a deep breath, or a day or so off from political news, and then come back swinging against this exact kind of thing that sadly does happen, still, more than it should. If you walk away, they have won and will continue to wreak havoc with this country. Post your displeasure at what those like Haley have done in endorsing a clear and definite moderate, at best, for the Presidency. Perhaps you can find an online newspaper from SC where you can comment on your displeasure. I’m going to search for some of those sites and do the same.

Just heard that on CNN. It was also said that Haley had a lot of Tea Party support, and that her endorsing Romney gives him more credibility with the Tea Partiers. Uh, I don’t think so. It gives her less credibility with the Tea Partiers.

John King asked him how he felt about that endorsement, and in his typical style, with a smiling face he said that was fine with him, and that was one SC vote for Romney. He brought up the fact that he was endorsed by Gen. Livingston just a week ago, who heads up the veterans in SC. He said that he prefers the endorsement of those who have been serving for a long period of time, and he considered Livingston’s endorsement above all others. I’m paraphraising here. I’m sure the transcript will be available soon enough. He also said he was taken aback at Dr. Paul’s seeming dismissal at the goals of the Iran Mullahs, and that Paul said there is no proof that they are close to the bobm. He said that he talks to John Bolton on a regular basis and that Bolton is very concerned about the nuclear program in Iran.

If I am not mistaken, wasn’t it the veterans in SC that pushed McCain into the win in that state? Isn’t there a large veteran population in SC?

is co-equal with the Presidency and the Congress. Can the judiciary call the Congress into court to explain the laws they passed all on their own without someone bringing a lawsuit arguing against a law, such as Obamacare? Can the judiciary call the president into their chambers or courtrooms to answer for a position he has pushed the Congress to pass, or EO’s that have been signed all on their own because they disagree with that position? No. What Gingrich is proposing is that he will haul, by subpoena, their arses into Washington to answer for their rulings. He doesn’t have the power to question decisions by the judiciary, no matter how egregious some of those decisions may be. Gingrich is in essence trying to elevate the presidential and congressional powers over that of judges, and courts. He has proposed doing away with some appellate courts in full. Sure, it sounds great to an electorate that finds some decisions appalling, and with that he gets major applause, because it is a populist position, but, Gingrich has no more power to change the judicial branch, than requiring that the sky change color every day of the week. It all just sounds good, but it is actually not constitutional. Not surprising as Newt has said that the Constitution is outdated, and needs to be changed to reflect modern times. It is also so much pandering from a guy that once said the era of Reagan was dead, but now invokes his name in most every one of his latest speeches.

I guess in addition to her already failing state approval ratings she seems to have committed political suicide. It will be interesting to see where her approval ratings go after this. She must be bleeding Tea Party supporters. Hey, maybe she doesn’t care, or, maybe she thinks Romney will do something to resurrect her political career perhaps by promising her an administration appointment. Who knows. There are usually reasons for someone to go so far off the reservation, and it usually isn’t for laudable reasons.

what you are saying correctly, you agree that judges should have to explain why they made a particular decision. I’m not versed in all judicial procedures, but from my limited knowledge, don’t judges have to write an opinion explaining why they came to that particular decision. I’m thinking about the decisions reached in the Obamacare lawsuits, by various courts. Haven’t they explained why they decided as they did? Some have ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional because the government can’t force people to purchase anything, such as the government can’t force you to purchase broccoli. If we go down that path, the government will in fact be allowed to force you to purchase whatever they want. Some have decided that the government can force you to purchase items because of the commerce clause. I don’t believe that those judges have simply said yes you must, or no you don’t have to. Judges already must explain why they made the decision they have. If a decision is made in a lower court, and it isn’t acceptable to the one bringing the suit, then the option exists to go to the next higher court on appeal. Aren’t there already checks and balances with the requirement for explaining the reason for a decision, and the option to take the case to a higher court for a further review and ruling from additional judges?

In the context of Gingrich’s reason for wanting to bring judges into Congress to further explain their decisions, after they already had explained their decisions when they ruled, what is his purpose and intent for doing that? He had cited a case in a Texas court, where it was ruled that “under God” was not allowed, and that children couldn’t pray in school and etc. He didn’t agree with that ruling, and said that he would eliminate that entire court. Many didn’t agree with that ruling, but some obviously did. There are always people on both sides of the issue. Yet Gingrich decided that the side he is on was not correct, so let’s abandon the court. Rather than being the populist that he is, and saying what he has to try to incite the electorate against what many refer to as “run-away judges” , his solution is to eliminate the court, or haul them into Congress to brow beat them for deciding against his ideas/opinions. Saying what he has, he is trying to tap into the emotions of people, as his first speech against the Texas ruling was given to a group of evangelicals in Iowa. In the debate, again in Iowa, he got much applause for again saying he would haul the judges into Congress because he, and obviously the evangelicals, don’t agree with the decision. I am unaware that he made those same judicial pitches in any other state that may not have as many evangelicals as Iowa is reputed to have. I believe every time he has talked about “judicial activism” it has been in the context of religious issues. Has he said that he would haul the judges into Congress to explain why they ruled that Obamacare is constitutional? His “solution” to reign in judicial activism is to grab more power for the presidency and the Congress, and to try to weaken what is a co-equal branch of our government, as has been designed by our founders. It is yet another indication that Gingrich is all about big federal government solutions, as his idea would affect every judge in every state. This is one of Gingrich’s bad ideas, that he is often known to have.

I really wish that people would not only listen to his voluminous amount of words, but would think about what he is saying, and realize that Gingrich is pandering to a particular block of voters, the religious, because he is having a hard time convincing them of his ethics and morals.

is that she said she would not endorse ahead of the SC primary, but she broke that promise. Even Rush said that this was not an endorsement as much as it was an outright call for her political future aspirations, which I believe are dead and done, if Romney doesn’t put her in his administration. Remember all of us fighting the pay to play game with the elitists? Haley obviously is in the pay to play game. Are there no politicians that don’t get caught up in the big boy game, and wind up caving on what principles they promise to adhere to if we just all get together and elect them.

Got an email last night and she has been spending time with family members, her granddaughter is currently home from the Army. She will be pretty busy until after the holidays and probably won’t be here much until then, if at all. She is fine though, so don’t worry about her.