After his great win in South Carolina, his campaign now according to various polls out of Florida today show Newt Gingrich in a nosedive.  Though I love Newt’s clear and forceful articulation of conservatism, it’s things like this and other things he has said in the past that make me doubtful of anything he says.  I am alluding to an article given by Elliot Abrams to National Review.  Mr. Adams worked in the Reagan adminstration and cited a very key time in our nation’s history and Reagan’s presidency where one of Reagan’s chief critics was Newt Gingrich.

But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.

But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Some other notables highlighted by Drudge are that in 1983, Gingrich stated that Reagan was responsible for national decay and in 1988, Gingrich stated that if George H.W. Bush ran as a continuation of Reaganism he would lose.

I thought Newt wouldn’t be able to win a general election because women wouldn’t vote for him because of his infidelities.  However, this recent revelation is something that just cannot be ignored.  This is just as bad as Mitt Romney changing political positions he has taken in the past.  When throwing support behind a presidential candidate I always look at the man, character and convictions first.  This is why I really wanted Rick Perry to get the nomination.  He had all that plus the record of accomplishments.

For all the faults that both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have, though I have serious issues with where Romney has stood and flipped on over the years, he is a solid individual (exception being political convictions).  He is a generous charitable giver by looking at his tax returns, earned his success with hard work, and doesn’t have all the personal baggage of marital infidelity.  I admire that.  Sure, we can be ticked off at the establishment for their gutless watering down of conservative principles and fiddling around while our country burns.  We can continue to change Washington by nominating and electing solid conservative candidates for Congress to keep Mitt Romney in check should he become president.  It does look like Mitt Romney will win Florida and like the nomination unless Newt has a standing ovation moment tomorrow night.  However, given the fact that Marco Rubio scolded Gingrich for immigration ads that Gingrich has been running and Romney hammering Gingrich on his Freddie Mac ties, this looks like it is not going to turn out well for Gingrich.  The Rubio remarks will really hurt Gingrich’s chances. Not to mention that Romney will no doubt use this and some other potent ammunition tomorrow night in the final debate for Florida.

However this shakes out,  bottom line conservatives should get behind wholeheartedly whoever the nominee winds up being.  Staying home in 2012 means casting a half vote for President Obama.  I’m willing to give Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt if he does get the nomination.  That may make some people in here angry and it’s okay to disagree with me.   I would also hope that Mitt has received the message that we want a fighter who will take on President Obama with some passion and purpose, inspiring the GOP.  We cannot have a wimpy candidate for this election.  I don’t want to go through a repeat of a wimpy candidate like we had last time not taking the fight to Obama.  We also cannot afford to not show up in November.  That is what President Obama is counting on.

P.S.  Sure wish Mitch Daniels had run for President.

I speculated after the South Carolina debate where Newt took out Juan Williams that the South Carolina race would be turned on its head.  The brushfire that I envisioned that could happen among conservatives turned into an inferno.  What happened?

EYE OPENER #1 –  The unorthodox attack from Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry of hitting Romney’s record at Bain Capital and his tax records

Using arguably a lefty talking point to attack Romney’s work at Bain Capital backfired somewhat but Romney’s response was good but….uninspired.  I liked the fact that Romney stood for himself saying he had worked hard for his fortune.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  However, there was no passion or visual fight from Romney.  It reminds people too much of John McCain.  Maybe this is what happens when a person who has run for public office in the past and has moved on both sides of the issue.  It neuters any cajones, guts, grit, fight, whatever you want to call it.  I am left wondering

“Mitt, where’s the balls?”

Sorry, maybe that is a crude thing to say but it is the only thing I can think of.  Then there is his tax records.  What’s the problem with getting them out there?  If you’ve made money, paid your taxes both through a 35% corporate rate and 15% capital gains tax, what are you afraid or ashamed of?  Why not get everything out there and say “Here is what I made and I am not ashamed of it.  I have had to pay taxes twice in some instances on what I have made.  And I would hope that anyone who has the work ethic, determination, and a great attitude can reap greater blessing than I have been given.”  These attacks showed that if Barack Obama had hit Mitt with these, he would have curled into a fetal position or been caught in analysis paralysis of trying to figure out what the best response is as his polling numbers tanked.

Eye Opener #2 –  No matter how much baggage a candidate may have, the majority of GOP voters wants someone who is going to take the battle to Obama by means of promoting conservatism.

Erick pointed this out in his post earlier tonight.  People are sick of having watered down, status quo candidates shoved down our throats by the establishment in Washington.  Sure, Mitt Romney looks the best in head-to-head matchups with Obama and has done so for quite some time.  The narrative that the Obama campaign is going to run with is demonizing success stories like Mitt Romney and keeping the focusing light of scrutiny upon Obama’s absolute failure of a record while he has been in office.  Maybe the Obama campaign can do this best with Romney as the nominee.  Afterall, no Obamacare millstone would come into play with Romney on the ticket among most notable things.  Newt’s personal past worries me greatly.  It is littered at times with adultery and brazen hypocrisy, most notably during the Clinton impeachment.  Heck, I didn’t think that Newt would win because of women and I still feel that his personal past will be a tough thing to overcome regarding the women’s vote.  I really hope that Newt has changed here and in regards to a host of his other faults.  He has played both sides of the fence like Romney has, most notably his global warming couch moment with Nancy Pelosi, his right wing social engineering comment in regards to Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity, Al Sharpton, etc.  And yet despite all these misgivings, the majority of GOP voters in South Carolina sent an undeniable message.  They want a fighter who will fight for conservatism and Obama, can articulate it, be unashamed of it, no matter the baggage.

Eye Opener #3 — If Democrats are so anxious to face Gingrich, then why is the MSM trying to take him out before he gets the nomination?

Gingrich’s unfavorables are quite noticeable in polling.  Yet I have to wonder what regions in the United States are these polls being taken and what is the polling weights?  Why did ABC try to take out Newt with Marianne Gingrich two days prior to the South Carolina primary?  When Newt became the frontrunner the first time, why did the MSM dig up all this dirt on Gingrich regarding Freddie Mac?  And when Mitt Romney became the frontrunner, why was there only the sound of crickets from the MSM?   And Democratic leaders in congress and in the blogosphere are ecstatic at the possibility of facing Newt?  I have to speculate that Democrats inwardly are worried about the possibility of Newt getting the nomination because of his fighting demeanor, his debate and oratory prowess, and the unpredictability of what may happen if Newt embarrasses Obama in the debate format.  It also provides a very real contrast and distinctive direction for America to choose.  Newt would most undoubtedly point out “Here is the direction President Obama has taken the country during his term, here is the direction I want to take the country…”  You all can fill in the rest.  However, this is an issue that the Democrats will lose and they know it.  Bottom line, the Obama campaign is going to try everything to distract the public from focusing on Obama’s record during his time in office.

Going forward to Florida and beyond, the deck is really stacked against Gingrich.  However, Romney is going to have to show a whole lot more fight and decisiveness if he wants to win this thing.  He of all people should have known that people want a fighter and when Tim Pawlenty had the chance earlier in the year regarding Romneycare, he wimped out.  He’ll have to throw the John McCain impotence overboard and show that he is willing to get in there and rumble.  No wimps this year, whomever the nominee may be.  Early voting in Florida most likely has given Romney a big running start.  Combine this is with a great Florida organization and the money to blanket the state of Florida with ads puts Gingrich at a significant disadvantage.  However, Gingrich does have some big momentum after tonight’s win in South Carolina and more debates this coming week in Florida.  Will more strong debates and the result tonight in South Carolina be enough to make up the head start that Romney has?  It’s going to be tough.  Gingrich needs a lot of money.  Rick Perry likely is helping him with his Florida organization that he had built but I am not sure if this is enough to compete with Romney.  It’s going to be very interesting leading up to January 31st.

If there is one thing Newt Gingrich’s recent debate performance taught us, it showed that any candidate who has the courage and conviction to unashamedly, unabashedly, articulate conservatism with conviction and passion, that candidate will always win.  Today’s polling from Rasmussen confirms that.  Of course, this is only one poll so even though I highly regard Rasmussen, it still is only one poll.   However, I believe a Gingrich surge is happening in South Carolina and this is confirmed by the Romney campaign and his supporting SuperPAC opening up an artillery barrage of ads in South Carolina targeting Gingrich.  However, as this surge toward Gingrich that apparently must be Santorum voters is happening, a hanging axe from Newt’s past, his second wife, will unload on him tomorrow night after the SC debate in an ABC segment of Nightline.  This will likely quash the surge dead in its tracks.  Everyone always has their own side of the story but the damage this will do to Newt’s chances will be irrevocable as GOP women are reminded once again of Newt’s infidelities.  This brings us back to an important and fundamental political lesson:

The candidate who has strong character in his private life, effective, courageous articulation of conservatism will always be a formidable candidate

This is why Rick Perry would be an incredible candidate.  And he has a fantastic record in Texas as well.   None of the other candidates except Gingrich recently have inspired people in the debate format.  Mitt Romney because of his lack of convictions, playing everything safe, and not forcefully defending the Bain and tax record issues.  Rick Santorum?  He has all the qualities.  It’s hard to figure out why Santorum doesn’t inspire.  Maybe it is because everything that comes out of his mouth is negative.  There is no optimism in his countenance and too much a focus of what is wrong in this country and how government can solve everything.  I really like Gingrich but the problem is whenever he gets a head of steam, his personal life skeletons and other political mishaps always come to haunt him.  Anytime he makes a jump in the polls whether it be in the general election or a primary, draws out another skeleton to remind people.  Which brings me to the next question:

How Would Obama and the MSM be able to attack Rick Perry?

Governor Perry’s record in Texas is nothing but success and Obama’s tenure as president is riddled with nothing but failure and misery.  Of all the candidates that are in the GOP field, Obama would have the hardest time attacking Rick Perry.  Romney fits Obama’s campaign narrative and they will try desperately to keep the light of scrutiny on Romney rather than Obama.  Gingrich will be attacked for his personal past and his fumbles as Speaker.  Santorum will be attacked as a theocrat who is trying to shove religion and morals down the throat of Americans.  Paul?  He’s not going to be the nominee.  Governor Perry’s record of success in Texas would magnify Obama’s failures, the Obamacare millstone, and give the people a clear choice:

America, do you want to start to succeed or do we want to continue failing with our current president?

Realistically looking at everything, it would appear that the Perry campaign should fold up its tent.  Personally, if things go as they are looking to go after Saturday’s primary, then I would like Perry at least to go out tomorrow night and give an enthusiastic, passionate performance that will inspire the conservative base and other GOP voters.  If the battle for South Carolina is Perry’s last stand, make it a memorable one Governor.

Of course I am referring to the famous line, “I paid for this microphone Mr. Green!” that Ronald Reagan delivered to a high-minded moderator in Nashua, NH in 1980.  This response drew a boisterous response from the crowd and some out of their seats.  The moderator tonight was Juan Williams on Fox News whom tried to play the race card on Newt and here is what happened:

My apologies for not being computer savvy enough to embed a YouTube clip.  However, I think Allahpundit over at Hot Air sums it up nicely.

Between this, the exchange with Ron Paul on Bin Laden, and the zinger about 99 weeks being an associate degree, I’m thinking he might have turned South Carolina from a solid Romney lead into a nailbiter. Has any candidate at any debate had the crowd more riled up than this?

Here’s the bit with Williams plus, via Breitbart TV, the OBL question. I hope Juan is reporting this as an in-kind contribution to Gingrich 2012. Exit quotation from Tom Bevan of RCP: “Newt really is the Honey Badger.”

My take on this is I think Newt has turned the South Carolina race on its head with this performance.  It’s the kind of nightmare George H.W. Bush had to endure in 1980 that may unfold for Mitt Romney in the days to come.  Even though Romney is up huge in Florida, if Gingrich pulls off a win in South Carolina with Santorum and Perry (it pains me to say that regarding Perry) likely bowing out, there will be a real two man race for the nomination.  It would startle the voters in Florida and they would get curious as to why Romney lost South Carolina when everyone thought he had it wrapped up. Even worse for Romney, the excitement that Newt generated in that crowd in South Carolina could spread like a brushfire among conservatives.  I’m not saying this is going to happen, but it very well could.

Newt might be the Honey Badger but I think he’s a political Lazarus.  He keeps rising from the dead.

Can’t sleep tonight…and then I caught this:

In 1980, when establishment moderates were still clinging to power in the GOP, a devious plan was hatched to prevent conservative Ronald Reagan from winning the Republican nomination: George H.W. Bush, it was proposed, would drop out of the race. He would then instruct his delegates to vote for Gerald Ford.

The “Stop Reagan” plan, of course, fell through. But it might have sparked an idea — this time for the conservative wing of the party. Today, a prominent conservative, Morton Blackwell, has suggested a new candidate may emerge. Blackwell’s idea is for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal to replace the man he endorsed for president — Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Blackwell believes that — for a variety of reasons — Gov. Jindal is “almost a perfect candidate.” For one thing, he says, “[Jindal is] a font of ideas at least as fertile as Newt Gingrich — but without the wackiness.”

But considering some candidates are already missing filing deadlines to get on ballots, how could such a swap work?

According to Blackwell — who sits on the RNC’s Standing Committee on Rules — if Rick Perry drops out, “People could run as Perry delegates — with Perry being a surrogate for Jindal.” Perry would essentially say to the public: “Vote for me; my delegates will vote for Bobby Jindal.

You know, when things look as bleak for my preferred candidate, Rick Perry, you have to consider sometimes these out-of-the-box ideas.  Bobby Jindal is a very experienced governor who is the combination of the conservatism of Perry with the speaking and debating skills, full of ideas like Newt Gingrich.  He would be a fantastic candidate.  And what I like most about him is his steadfast support of Governor Perry even though things look so bleak right now.

When Romney looks like he has a big lead in South Carolina with a very bitter and increasingly unlikable Gingrich and Santorum whom voted against National Right to Work legislation, things are real bad.  I really want Perry to catch fire but with each passing day its looking more and more unlikely.  He needs a miracle.  If Romney wins South Carolina, that will seal the nomination for him.

There would have to be a lot of things fall in place to make this Jindal idea happen and the chances are highly unlikely Perry would go for something like this.  It would be one of the most selfless acts on political record.  On top of that, Jindal would have to want to do this or be persuaded by a lot of people to take the plunge.  It would also be kind of funny that conservative leaders would take a tactic that the GOP establishment back then tried to use to stop Reagan could be used to take out their candidate.    One thing that makes this idea feasible is the majority of GOP voters don’t want Romney but the rest of the field is just so bad in their minds.  Jindal’s entry would change all of that.  I’m willing to bet there is a strong likelihood that if this happened, Jindal would blow by Romney in the fashion that Perry did back in late summer.   It is worth consideration though, pipe dream that it may seem on the surface.

Now that Michelle Bachmann has exited this race, this is fact.  I don’t think it was a coincidence how quickly Perry’s announcement came that he was staying in the race after Bachmann announced she was suspending her campaign.  With Bachmann out, Perry can claim this mantle for himself the remainder of the race.  If there is any silver lining off of last night’s disastrous result in Iowa, it certainly has to be this.  Makes for some great campaign ads.

I am wondering if Perry’s stance regarding the elimination of ethanol subsidies prevented him from really getting any movement in Iowa.  Romney and Santorum are clearly in favor of them.  After all, he had just as much evangelical creds as Santorum.  This probably tipped the scales in Santorum’s favor, along with an prominent evangelical leader giving rise to suspicion of subtly shopping an endorsement for a hefty donation.  I hold Santorum innocent in this matter as he had stated that was the impression he got when this endorsement was being discussed.  Ah well, politics is typically never pretty.

Time to put Romney through the wringer from all sides

If there is one candidate who needs to have a big bullseye on himself now, it is Mitt Romney.  This typically happens with the frontrunner and Romney is right now.  Something that has bugged me for awhile is that all the conservative candidates for the most part (exception being Newt Gingrich) have been at each other and let Mitt Romney walk by to the front with pretty much a smile on his face.  Time to really air Romney’s less than stellar governorship of Massachusetts and every progressive, anti-conservative position that he has ever taken for the sake of attaining and staying in political office.  Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Perry, Mr. Santorum, even Mr. Huntsman.  Leave each other alone and stop fighting to be the top conservative dog.  It will never be enough to beat Romney in the end and by the time there is one conservative remaining, it will be already too late. I have seen many people say that Rick Perry staying in the race helps Romney.  Well of course it does, so long as Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum are at each other, fighting the wrong targets instead of hitting the very big one that they should have their sights on.   The result of being focused on the wrong target allowed Romney to win Iowa without a whole lot of effort.  There is the lesson we should learn from.

I have seen a lot of comments on Redstate about taking Santorum out when South Carolina rolls around.  Why?  He hardly has any money or organization.  What’s the use?  If he for some freak reason winds up with the nomination if he is let alone, it will be just that.  Something completely unexpected.  I agree with Santorum being a pro-union, big government conservative.  That’s probably what he had to be to stay in office being from the state of Pennsylvania.  But the problem with this type of northeast Republican wing is bigger government always leads to more spending.  It’s fiscally disastrous from a long-term standpoint. As of today, I have to ask myself if the choice is between Santorum and Romney “Who should I choose?”, I want to put off having to make that decision until all options have been exhausted.

If Romney is going to get the nomination, he shouldn’t be allowed the privilege of cruising by conservatives whom at each other’s throats in a brawl.  He should have to go through a bruising vetting just like the rest of the candidates.  If he makes it through a vetting that nasty and gets the nod, he’ll be very tough for Obama to beat.  Of course the Fox News stuffy political analysts and the GOP establishment will get real angry when this starts happening to Romney.  They’ll say how this is useless and by battering in this fashion it will make him weaker for the general election fight against Obama.  How silly of them.

Romney has shown to be very thin-skinned in some instances when he has been challenged in interviews and at times on the debate stage.  Throw out all of his progressive, pragmatic dirty laundry of a record in the ads and debates and let the voters in South Carolina determine if they want Mitt Romney as the nominee.  Whomever is remaining as the leading conservative candidate after the South Carolina fight?  The others should throw in the towels and their backing behind who remains after South Carolina and let that remaining contender compete with Romney for winner takes all Florida.  As was stated earlier, if Romney comes out of this multiple front battle as the winner with having every possible conservative bullet emptied against him, he will be much tougher skinned and far more formidable of an opponent for  Obama.  He should earn the nomination by having to go through a gauntlet to get it.  If he survives, good for him.  If he doesn’t, he isn’t presidential material.  However, the end goal must be kept in mind.  Kicking Barack Obama out of the White House.  If Romney comes out of it, I’ll support him and he’ll even earn some respect from me.

This will be a short diary but one that may give way to an unorthodox yet interesting possibility.

As you all know, Newt Gingrich is to put it lightly, very sore regarding what the Romney campaign has been doing to him with negative advertising that has been leveled against him in Iowa.  Also, quite a few GOP establishment congressmen have publicly aired their misgivings about Newt Gingrich being the nominee.  So, in a way, though Newt has at times has taken some big government positions, he in a strange sort of way has become an anti-establishment candidate.  A Perry/Gingrich ticket?  Hmmmmmmm…..

I am wondering what would happen if for some strange possibility Newt might have his precinct leaders encourage their voters to put in their lot for Perry.  This of course invokes visions of that famous scene in Star Trek II of Ricardo Montalban as Khan uttering that Moby Dick quote “From hell’s heart, I stab at thee.” or whatever that line was.  Gingrich gets his revenge on Romney and could get some cake out of it too.

The only way Romney could counter this would to have Bachmann or Santorum to throw in their lot with him to counter this.  However, if this happened, it would leave Bachmann’s and Santorum’s social conservative voters utterly confused and angry.

Will it happen?  Probably not.  But it does temporarily delight the senses to think a Perry/Gingrich ticket would be the biggest middle finger imaginable to the GOP political class that I could think of.

A side benefit to all of this.  Romney and/or Paul would be fighting to stay out of 4th place in this scenario.

Last night I wrote a post requesting Iowans unite around a conservative standard bearer that will take the fight beyond Iowa so Mitt Romney doesn’t run away with the nomination.  As everyone has seen, the Rick Santorum surge at least on the surface is real according to polling that has come out in the last couple of days.

However, if the crowds that are showing up at each candidate’s stop are any indication, the top 3 are going to be in no particular order Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  I haven’t seen any pictures on Twitter or elsewhere showing that crowds are jam-packing to the rafters to hear Santorum speak.  If anything, Santorum’s stops are only marginally better than Michelle Bachmann’s.  Crowds at stops reveal enthusiasm and/or motivation to hear a candidate speak because they are considering a vote for them.  Something seems amiss between what the polling is reporting and what is being observed on the ground.

Given the size of the crowds that are showing up at Perry campaign stops in Iowa, it could be that Iowans maybe getting over the “heartless” comment that Rick Perry made regarding the immigration issues in Texas.  I really don’t know.  Perry improved greatly in the debates that followed the most publicized “senior moment” ever recorded in political campaign history.  I really don’t know what Iowans are thinking.  I have to agree with what most pundits are thinking.  They, you, or I have no clue how Iowa is going to shake out.

It has puzzled me why Perry hasn’t gained more ground in Iowa than he has in the last few weeks.  He grew up a farmer, is very familiar with agricultural issues and has served as a public servant in the agricultural department of Texas, is a staunch social, fiscal, and limited government conservative.  I cannot think of a more in-common candidate that could connect better with Iowans and be the prohibitive favorite to win a state like this than Rick Perry.

I think this nomination fight for who gets the GOP nod comes down to a fundamental point that has become apparent to me today.  2010 was a year where the majority of people finally said enough with the old political guard of past politicians, both Democratic and Republican, that had been corrupted by interest groups that served only the interest of those groups and not the people, and are financially ruining our country.  The only candidate that has said that government is the problem and threatens to upset the apple cart of the corrupt racket that is up on Capitol Hill is Rick Perry.  All the other candidates (with the exception of Michelle Bachmann) have been tainted by Washington or have had past histories that proclaim and believe that government should be the solution to our country’s problems. The fundamental flaw that these candidates don’t see is that most of the time when the government wants to solve a problem, it grows in size.

Will 2012 prove 2010 to just be a flash in the pan, a pipe dream?  Or will the people get behind a candidate that is openly calling for overhauling the monster that got us in this mess.  I for one hope and pray that 2010 wasn’t just a fluke.

Your choices?

Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum.

If any of you comment in the thread below why I haven’t included Ron Paul, you are one sick puppy.   Wait, what about Michelle Bachmann?  Well, it looks like her campaign is out of financial gas and a SuperPAC that was supporting her very quietly put its backing behind Mitt Romney’s campaign today.  The first question in my mind when I see this is why did this have to be quiet?  The obvious answer is to keep the conservative vote splintered between Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann.  One has to wonder if Bachmann is staying in the race to keep the vote fragmented enough to prevent any other conservative candidate from threatening Romney.  Her recent campaign stops have been practically void of crowds hearing her speak.  (Update:  Bachmann’s Iowa chairperson endorses…PAUL?  WHAT THE….?????)

Romney’s nightmare scenario as everyone knows is to have Iowan conservatives unite around a conservative candidate which would leapfrog that candidate to a likely victory in Iowa.

This would obviously springboard the winning candidate’s chances greatly in South Carolina and if South Carolina went to the conservative candidate, Mitt Romney would be in a do-or-die situation in Florida.

The fact is, if the conservative bloc in Iowa stays splintered, then Mitt Romney wins Iowa and coasts to the nomination.  I have seen others try to suggest that a candidate like Perry could win in South Carolina.  However, it is difficult to envision this as the money would pour in for Romney from the big money GOP donors.  Romney would be next to impossible to beat because of the momentum and his very effective campaign organization.  Hey, I have to give credit where it is due.  For the most part, Mitt Romney has built and run a very disciplined campaign.

Sure, Ron Paul could win Iowa with the help of an Operation Chaos play by Democrats and left-leaning independents registering as Republicans.  This probably would be a lifeline for a conservative candidate who could last into South Carolina and have enough money to compete.  However, in this scenario, it is hard to see how Romney could be derailed in this scenario.

As many of you know, I am a Rick Perry supporter like many on here.  However, I just want a conservative candidate be able to make a fight of it against Romney and the GOP establishment.

Newt Gingrich is a magnificent speaker and debater.  However, organizationally, his campaign has been terrible.  By observation, even with his boomlet in the polls, his fundraising looks to have been very tepid at best.  Forget his personal infidelities.  If he couldn’t defend himself against the barrage of well-constructed attack ads against his record and past statements because of a lack of cash, he will not be able to make a fight of it beyond New Hampshire because he undoubtedly has hardly any organization or money to compete elsewhere.

Rick Perry is the only one who hasn’t had the misfortune of being tainted by a voting record in Washington like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have had.  He still has a large campaign chest and organization and he could make it very uncomfortable for Mitt Romney if he were to place well, maybe even win, in Iowa and win South Carolina.  He’s the only candidate who could compete with Romney in a protracted nomination fight.  He’s also the only candidate that makes me fold my hands tightly in squint my eyes hard in prayer any time it is his turn to answer a question in a debate.

Rick Santorum doesn’t have an organization outside of Iowa really.  Now, if the CNN poll that showed him leapfrogging Newt Gingrich into 3rd place today verifies, he clearly has momentum and this does seem to be the case by reports on the ground and by Erick earlier today.  Yeah, I am aware of some of the baggage that Santorum has with his voting record but he has significantly less baggage then Gingrich.  He also is a feisty debater and speaker.  Hypothetically, if Santorum were able to generate enough momentum to sprint to the top in Iowa, his campaign would really have to scurry for fundraising dollars and build an organization in South Carolina in a very short amount of time.  This looks to be next to impossible to accomplish.  Could it be done?  Well, anything can be done.  Santorum would have to pull off something unprecented and Herculean in nature.  Should we give Rick Santorum that chance with our donations?  If he wins Iowa, why not give him that chance and reward him for the fortitude that he will have demonstrated?

Bottom line, I don’t want this race to be over after New Hampshire and there are no conservative candidates left out there.  Each conservative candidate has their drawbacks.  However, the only way conservatives to have a voice in the nomination fight beyond Iowa?  Iowa conservatives…..

UNITE OR DIE

Yeah, that is the question that is bouncing around in my head right now.  Maybe it was the fact that after watching this whole thing play out some things have become apparent to me.  With Harry Reid playing Mitch McConnell like a fiddle again, it is obvious that the GOP House approach to working with the Senate must be changed.  I don’t blame John Boehner for the most part in this horribly gummed up payroll extension “tax cut” fight.    That may cause a great deal of disagreement among many of you but the bottom line is that McConnell cut Boehner’s legs off again (Remember the debt ceiling fight?)  It seems as if these GOP senators whom were revealed in this fight as weak sucks.  Some likely unknowingly because they were anxious to get home for Christmas.  Some whom we have come to expect this from and you probably can guess who those are.  Maybe this is just a way for the Senate to try to enforce its will the GOP-controlled House.  Maybe….Boehner told McConnell that he could get easy passage of the Senate bill in the House, causing the GOP Senators to jump aboard…Houston, we have a problem.

Anytime any politician or media start talking about government “increasing revenue, enhancing revenue, increasing fees, etc.” it is a synonym for new taxes or increasing taxes

I am going to reference an article that the National Review wrote yesterday that I thought really nailed the whole fight on the button:

Yesterday the House voted to reject a Senate plan for temporarily extending the payroll-tax cut and subsequently moved to recess, and they deserve credit for doing so.

This move does not eliminate the possibility of extending the tax cut, which expires at the end of December: The House previously passed a bill extending the cut for a full year, and that bill is good policy. It doesn’t increase the deficit. It forces a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. And it’s President Obama’s major year-end priority. So why is the Democratic Senate blocking the bill’s path between Capitol Hill and the White House signing desk, and pushing the bill the House rejected instead?

Because Harry Reid doesn’t like how the House version is paid for. Having failed — not once, but multiple times — to offset the payroll-rate cut with a new surtax on job creators, Senate Democrats were forced to huddle with Republicans to find common ground. What they came up with were enough offsets to fund a 60-day extension, mostly via increased fees on Fannie and Freddie. (This makes a certain amount of sense: Republicans abhor the government-sponsored enterprises, Democrats adore fees.)

The Senate plan, then, was to pass the temporary extension, send it back to the House, and enjoy a lengthy Christmas holiday. The New Year, they seem to believe, will bring with it fresh opportunities to kick the can down the road. But the 60-day extension is both irresponsible and unworkable, and House Republicans were right to hold the line against it, even if it keeps Congress in Washington through these holy nights.

Any time the offset in government revenue must be made up somehow, the Democrats mean to do so with new or more taxes.  The GOP means to make up for the offset in cutting spending.  The fact is, Harry Reid didn’t want this going to conference because he knew that it would be a losing fight.  Debating publicly in conference the choice between increasing or creating new taxes versus cutting government spending is an argument the Democrats will lose every time in the public’s eyes.  The worst part about this whole thing is even though the GOP and conservatives hate these GSEs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is still a tax increase on people who want to purchase or refinance their homes.  These taxes….errr…fees, penalize people who want to purchase or refinance a home.  The result is a portion of people will wait until this two month tax extension expires before they apply to purchase or refinance a home.  Of course for a short time, this depresses an already very depressed real estate market and mortgage finance market. It’s incredible that Mitch McConnell got this many GOP Senators to go along with this.

I guess what the GOP House and John Boehner will have to do from now on, particularly the next go around when this comes up again, is simply pass their legislation and send it up to the Senate.   The key here will be John Boehner telling Mitch McConnell that whatever and any bill comes out of the Senate after Harry Reid has tabled the House bill without a vote, the Senate bill will be rejected by the House and go straight to conference.  Of course it will be up to us to bring the heat to the GOP senators whenever a House bill goes up to the Senate and let them know in no uncertain terms to come out publicly in support for the House bill.  The good part about this new approach is that the GOP House will have a good starting negotiating position in the conference.  This will of course make Democrats scream and GOP moderates moan and groan in the Senate.  What will always be amazing to me is why the Democrats always want to keep Americans unemployed and miserable.  What is even more amazing than this is why we have such weak-willed public servants in the GOP.

As much as Mitch McConnell deserves to lose his leadership post in the Senate, he certainly at minimum deserves a vote of no confidence from the GOP House.  By demanding any bill that comes out of a Democratic-controlled Senate go to conference from now on would be a very good start.  The GOP House will just have to be careful in the future to not let Harry Reid corner them with an impending deadline for political advantage.

I have seen a lot of consternation Nikki Haley’s endorsement of Mitt Romney has caused among conservatives.  Now all I am going to offer is my observations and insight on how this whole thing is playing out and could play out.  Of course, this could have been all orchestrated a long time ago by the Romney campaign.  This is politics after all.

Nikki Haley’s approval rating in South Carolina is currently at 34% overall, with garnering only 52% among Republicans!  Now, I have to admit, I don’t follow what has been happening in the state capitols of all 50 states.  Therefore I am quite unfamiliar with how or why Governor Haley is apparently so toxic right now in the great state of South Carolina.

Time To Pay The Piper

When Haley’s campaign was getting started and in the beginning stages of the primary fight, Mitt Romney was arguably her first big endorsement.  At the time, tea partiers, conservative bloggers including Redstate, had been behind Haley’s candidacy prior to Romney’s endorsement.  I remembered how pleased at least I was that Romney was the first to get behind a conservative candidate like Haley.  Romney donated quite a bit, directly or indirectly, to the Haley campaign.  This was a bold, yet shrewd move by Romney.  If Haley wound up winning the governorship, he would undoubtedly be in the best position to get her endorsement in a very important state in the GOP nomination fight for the presidential ticket.  This did end up happening.

So whether by returning the favor as an expression of gratitude and obligation or pre-orchestrated payback, Haley did what Sarah Palin did for John McCain’s re-election campaign last year in Arizona.  She loyally endorsed the person who had given her a boost onto the big stage.  I don’t see a problem with this on the surface.

However, Governor Haley may have unknowingly as a matter of misfortune become a very important pawn in Mitt Romney’s campaign.  As you have all noticed, Mitt Romney has been more than willing to keep his distance from the conservative bloc of the Republican Party.  His campaign strategy apparently is to adopt and hold to most moderate stances that he has had to hold onto to keep the moderate and independent voters.  To get the conservative voters, getting endorsements from people like Governor Haley and other prominent conservative figures seems to be the strategy here.  If Romney can accomplish this, he stands a very good chance of winning the nomination and beating Barack Obama.

An Unexpected Twist

However, the unforeseen factor, the poison pill, has taken on a very unexpected face.  Once again, Nikki Haley is quite unpopular in South Carolina nowadays.  Tea party groups in South Carolina feel betrayed:

Immediately after Haley announced her support Friday morning on “Fox and Friends,” her Facebook page lit up with accusations that the first-term governor was selling out her principles. Rush Limbaugh followed with a blistering broadside against her on his radio show Friday, leading a charge of conservatives nationally, in addition to locally, who accused her of selling out.

Tea party leaders in the state suggested that Haley will pay for Friday’s move with a primary in 2014 – provided she doesn’t win herself a spot on the ticket or another post in a Romney administration, as tea partiers and Republican operatives say must be the explanation for the decision.

“The overwhelming sense that I get from talking to people is deep betrayal,” said Karen Martin, the founder and organizer of the Spartanburg tea party, who has not endorsed a candidate. “She’s not going to be able to come back from this with the tea party. If there’s anybody credible who will run against her, I believe the tea party will support them whole-heartedly.”

Martin predicted that Haley will face trouble even before then in trying to push through a governing agenda that’s already put her at odds with her former colleagues in the GOP-controlled legislature.

“She’s just lost her credibility,” she said. “Anything that she tries to propose, most people in the past might not have looked too carefully at her, believing that she is a credible conservative. We’ve given her a pass on a few things, but that won’t happen any more.”

Limbaugh mocked the Haley endorsement, saying that it was more about her ambition than about conservative principles.

That last sentence uttered by Rush Limbaugh could have a point.  The Tea Party is strongly hinting at a primary challenge to Nikki Haley in 2014.  Her endorsement could have secondary motives given her unpopularity.  The voters, particularly conservatives, both Tea Party and non-Tea Party could deliver payback in a much more immediate way.  If a viable not-Romney conservative candidate wins Iowa, those voters could deliver a blistering rebuke of Haley by voting for that not-Romney candidate and likely end any covert ambitions she may have had of advancing up the political national ladder with the Republican establishment.  One thing I get from this is quite certain.  The Tea Party is going to do everything in their power to derail Mitt Romney from getting the nomination.  If they do this, Mitt Romney will be up against the wall momentum wise and be in a must-win situation when winner-takes-all Florida comes up soon after that.

Some of you from South Carolina are going to have to enlighten me on why the relationship between Nikki Haley and a GOP controlled legislature isn’t exactly cordial nowadays.  Why has Nikki Haley become so toxic?  I don’t know.  One thing is clear.  The Tea Party in South Carolina may make Nikki Haley look like a sacrificial pawn that yielded no benefit for the Romney campaign before all is said and done.

Ron Paul’s campaign self-destructed tonight.  The way to trip up Ron Paul is to always bring up foreign policy and then he goes off the hinge.  He may have a loyal following but they will be very hard-pressed to persuade anyone to come over to them.  He’ll start falling in the Iowa polls within a week.

Rick Perry given the somewhat shortened time he had tonight, was very, very good.  As a Perry supporter I was very pleased.  Bringing in Tim Tebow was a nice touch.  His answers regarding Fast and Furious, limiting government and judicial intrusion, border security, even classy deference to his opponents in the end.  Each debate he has become better.  Probably the most revealing thing I see is just how much the Fox News’ analysts venom they have toward him.  Why in the world do they have Democrats critiquing Republicans? Pat Caddell hates candidates that remind him too much of Reagan’s conservatism.  He is also very anxious as well as the rest on the panel to bury his candidacy.

Newt Gingrich was really put through the wringer tonight and I thought survived it well.  If Gingrich didn’t have all the personal baggage he has, he would be running away with the nomination.  As always, he gives very well thought out and detailed answers.  I also thought he handled Bachmann’s attacks very well.   However, he took a beating on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Mitt Romney had a good performance as well.  He got hammered by Chris Wallace on his flip-flopping and some responses weren’t so impressive.  His response on the GM bailout sounded like a defacto endorsement of the bailout.  His answer regarding his experience in the private sector and creating jobs I thought was his best moment of the night.

Bachmann and Santorum had good performances but their lack of executive experience will probably keep them out of consideration.  It’s one and done for both of their campaigns.  They have invested everything in Iowa.  I don’t see anything that tells me their campaigns will last beyond New Hampshire.

The Fox News panel stating that this was such a great performance of Newt is true, though I don’t believe it will reverse his downward momentum.  The personal and political baggage of his past is hurting his campaign a lot.  The lack of infrastructure in Iowa and a lack of presence from Gingrich (he won’t be back until the 28th) tells me that Gingrich will not win Iowa.   There is a huge swath of conservative voters that are still undecided in Iowa.  I can envision a late break for the Iowa winner the weekend prior to January 3rd.

Just my take everyone.  You don’t have to agree with it   The race is down to Perry, Gingrich and Romney.  It’s going to be fun until January 3rd.

(Update:  Rasmussen has come out with a new Iowa poll:  Romney 23, Gingrich 20 (!) Paul 18, Perry 10.  I’m shocked by the Gingrich free fall.  Seems like a lot of Iowa voters that were supporting Gingrich went back to the undecided pile)

Let’s just say….I don’t want to get prematurely excited.  I have seen the polls from the American Research Group and Insider Advantage showing Rick Perry gaining a lot of momentum from November until now in Iowa and South Carolina.   People and operatives on the ground in Iowa thought that Perry’s advertising and messages were starting to take hold prior to these polls coming out.  It may be a combination of this and Newt Gingrich’s record and personal history turning off that huge carousel of conservative voters that have been migrating trying to find a home for a conservative candidate they like and trust.

Rasmussen will be due out with a poll very soon in Iowa I have to imagine.  If Rasmussen verifies the polling of American Research Group and Insider Advantage, then Perry’s momentum will be confirmed and would be very worrisome to both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.  If we start seeing Rick Perry getting 16-20% of the vote before Christmas, then I really am going to start getting excited.  This will indicate potentially breakaway momentum and he may likely win Iowa.  Keep in mind that the coalition of Iowan conservative leaders  haven’t come out with an endorsement of a conservative candidate they are going to get behind.   If Perry gets this endorsement while on the big Iowa bus tour he is about to embark on, this could potentially propel him to get that breakaway momentum.  Heck, even a Redstate endorsement wouldn’t hurt (sorry Erick, I couldn’t resist )

Looks like this isn’t going unnoticed elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere.

Leaky Buckets — Status quo GOP candidates

I have seen so much chatter about electability in this election.  More than ever, we want a candidate who we know will beat Barack Obama.  The GOP establishment has been wanting to push Mitt Romney on us for some time.  Newt Gingrich isn’t really all that attractive to the GOP establishment but he would likely hold the status quo of government somewhat together given his recent statements, most notably in his interview with Glenn Beck, and his past history of playing both sides of the fence like Romney does.  This creates the problem of a lot of GOP conservative voters staying home.  The erroneous belief is to skim as much votes from the middle while trying to minimize the loss of voters in your base.  This is done by muddling your positions.  Hence, this is why I think that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich can be considered as leaky buckets because of each of their unique deficiencies.  Newt Gingrich said it best that you don’t try to go get the voters in the middle, you get the voters in the middle to come to you.  You don’t have to worry about that with Rick Perry.  The past issues regarding immigration and Gardisil have been addressed.  His debating has vastly improved.  I don’t see any leaks with Perry now.

Instead of wringing our hands in the hopes of winning by nominating one who may poll the best in head to head matchups with Obama, I have a different suggestion.  Why not do what we did in 1980?  Nominate a conservative candidate who is campaigning on reforming Washington/government that will assure the GOP base comes out and take our chances with independent voters which Barack Obama has a 35% approval rating with?  It would be so nice to not have to hold our nose to vote for the GOP nominee in November 2012.

Newt Gingrich has conducted a brilliant campaign strategy since he stumbled back in late spring regarding Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity Plan.  He has been masterful in debates and shown an eagerness to take on and fight the media elite.  He has owned up to his personal and political mistakes and stated candidly what his positions are, though many may disagree with them but still live with them.  He hasn’t shown the brash ego and self-centeredness that reared its ugly head so many times when he was the Speaker of the House.  He certainly seems to be a changed man.

BUT…..

Though Gingrich has engaged in his own political cronyism and playing both sides of the fence on political issues like Mitt Romney has in the past (which the Republican voter seems to be willing to overlook), there is one thing that will stop him from winning the general election:

A considerable majority of American women will not vote for him because of his past marital actions of betrayal

Most American women whether they be Democrat, independent, or Republican will not vote for a man who cheated on his previous wife(s).  Among women, men like this cannot and will not be trusted.  People like to point out that Ronald Reagan had two wives.  The key thing is Ronald Reagan never cheated on Jane Wyman, his first wife.  She left him because there was nothing left in common between them as she claimed.  That is a very big difference. 

The dangerous trap that the conservative and Republican voter may be falling into is that we want to beat President Obama so badly that we’re willing to overlook a very serious character (and likely fatal) flaw that is considered to a bridge too far for a huge portion of the voting electorate. We are mesmerized by the fact that we have someone who has incredible ideas and is able to articulate and debate them so effectively.  We relish the thought of Newt Gingrich taking on Barack Obama in a debate.  No matter how badly Newt might hand Barack Obama’s lunch to him, women voters will not forget that this man cheated on his life partner(s).  And that, ultimately among that huge number of our population, prevent them from pulling the lever for Newt Gingrich in a general election.  Traps like this are lethal because people are so anxious right now to beat Barack Obama.  Unfortunately, this anxiousness is blinding us to the peril of compromising a core principle of character that is not open for compromise historically in the Republican party.

I will vote for Newt if he is the nominee because I want Barack Obama out of office. However, Newt Gingrich will never be president for this one simple reason.  Gingrich supporters may think this may not be fair, but it is what it is.

Most women in this country will not trust Newt Gingrich

Dark days.

Rick Perry has been rolling out an incredible platform over the last few weeks in his still rather young presidential campaign.  Unfortunately, the prevailing opinion among the GOP base is getting a man who can go toe to toe in a debate with Obama and look good doing it.  Have we become obsessed with the optics of what may happen in a future debate that rather than making our choices on a proven candidate that runs on a platform that oozes conservatism and limited government?  Let’s talk a look at Rick Perry’s negatives:

• Immigration — This is the one that has hurt Perry the most.  Granting in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants has not sat well with the conservative base.  I have to ask one question.  Between Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Herman Cain, which candidate touts a voting record or position is to the right of Rick Perry’s?
• Debating — The ability to engage in debate, selling the candidate’s platform and parrying the opposition’s attacks effectively is a must have.  Perry has been getting better and had a wonderful performance in the most previous debate.  Tonight will be key again.  If Perry can have a performance like he had in the last one, he may start generating a little momentum.  I want everyone to keep something else in mind.  Rick Perry got into this race in August.  To put together a platform of what you will run on, build fundraising networks, put together a team, putting together a ground game, doing opposition research on your opponents, debate preparation and hone your message to sell to the American public in as little as six months?  Rick Perry is practically trying to do the impossible.  In retrospect, I might have told Rick Perry that he was biting off a little more than he can chew. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have had years to get ready for their runs and polish themselves up.

Bottom line, we have a candidate in this race who has a proven track record of conservatism, executive experience, strongest and eye-popping record in the areas that are the most important issue to the elections, whom is a man who listens, is a good human being without any personal baggage, has strong character, and who, I think most importantly, is by far the most consistent in sticking to his core principles.

The two lingering questions in my mind sealed it up for me last night.  In an interview with Fox’s Special Report, they dealt with immigration issue and the apparent flaw that Krauthammer asked him relating to Perry’s flat tax plan that was on my mind.  Perry’s answer was good and he made a point I had not even thought about.  View the interview here and make your own judgments.

It’s our own fault if conservatives and the Tea Party don’t nominate Rick Perry for the presidency.  He’s almost everything we want.  Sure, I would like him to be more hardline on immigration.  We can whip congressmen if Perry decides to get out-of-bounds just like we did when George W. Bush was in office.  But I can’t let one negative destroy all the positives that I see about him.  I’m cautiously confident that he is going to keep getting better in the debates.  I can see why the establishment doesn’t want Perry getting the nod.  He actually is going to make the effort to reform Washington.  The establishment is in no way interested in that.  If Perry got the bully pulpit and got this legislation constructed and did a presidential address to the nation about it, it would put those establishment politicians under the light of scrutiny.  The establishment cannot simply let legislation like this come to a vote.  It could endanger their gravy train that is set up at the people’s expense.  All the more reason to vote for him.  However, if we don’t nominate him, I am having a tougher time of who I would want as my second choice.

This will be my last post endorsing Perry.  My mind is made up.  You can donate to Perry here.

(A hat tip must be given to Mike Gamecock Devine and his post he wrote earlier.  I wanted to expand on it by highlighting some other things that have come up.  I figured if I had made this whole thing in the comments on his thread, that could pose a problem )

It’s been fun to watch some Romney supporters vent their ill-advised frustration at the conservative base not getting behind Mitt Romney.  In all reality, I think Mitt Romney has become the choice of default nominee if no other candidates are considered viable.  Now it is Newt’s turn to get thrown into the crucible.  Much has been made about Newt’s marital infidelity, most notably, having an affair while Clinton was getting impeached for his actions reeks of brazen hypocrisy.  However, I am willing to accept his apology for his past actions of this nature.

The opening vetting salvo has been in regards to Newt’s paid “consulting” work with Freddie Mac.

Newt has been adamant in his denial of lobbying ever.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let me…

GINGRICH: I do no lobbying of any kind. I never have. A very important point I want to make. I have never done lobbying of any kind.

Not so fast.  You’re not off the hook yet.  The first link cited an article written by Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner.  Fox Nation left out a very key section of that article which I want to highlight here.

Three former Republican congressional staffers told me that Gingrich was calling around Capitol Hill and visiting Republican congressmen in 2003 in an effort to convince conservatives to support a bill expanding Medicare to include prescription-drug subsidies. Conservatives were understandably wary about expanding a Lyndon Johnson-created entitlement that had historically blown way past official budget estimates. Drug makers, on the other hand, were positively giddy about securing a new pipeline of government cash to pad their already breathtaking profit margins.

One former House staffer told me of a 2003 meeting hosted by Rep. Jack Kingston where Gingrich spoke. Kingston would regularly host “Theme Team” meetings with a few Republican congressmen and some of their staff. Just before the House vote, Gingrich was the special guest at this meeting, and he brought one message to the members: Pass the drug bill for the good of the Republican Party.

Conservatives were worried about the potential for cost overruns, and about the credibility of their limited-government arguments if they passed this new entitlement bill. “Every concern that members raised,” the former House staffer told me, “Gingrich would respond with a poll number.” Gingrich invoked the American Express motto “Don’t Leave Home Without It,” and told Republicans they could not afford to go home for recess without some Medicare drug bill — regardless of the content.

Two aides to other GOP members who had been resisting the bill told me their bosses were lobbied by Gingrich over the phone, sometimes citing politics, sometimes citing substance. And it worked. “Newt Gingrich moved votes on the prescription-drug bill,” one conservative staffer told me. “That’s for sure.”

Contemporaneous reporting confirms this: The Washington Post reported in 2003 that Gingrich addressed a closed-door meeting of conservative Republicans, pushing them to back the bill.

Ah yes, influencing conservatives to sell out their principles in the hopes of getting re-elected later and to retain the GOP’s majority.  That didn’t work out so well in 2006 and 2008 did it?

So Gingrich can be considered a non-lobbyist only by the same narrow definition of “lobbyist” President Obama uses: someone registered with the House and Senate under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. This is how Obama can claim to reject lobbyist contributions while taking money from vice presidents of government affairs and the like.

But that still doesn’t excuse Gingrich’s false statement that he has “never done lobbying.”

The law that defines “lobbyist” also defines “lobbying activity,” which includes all “lobbying contacts.” Someone makes a “lobbying contact” when he makes “any oral, written or electronic communication to a covered official [such as a congressman] that is made on behalf of a client with regard to … the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal legislation.”

So if Gingrich is going to rely on a legalism to claim he’s not a lobbyist, that same legalism defines him as engaged in “lobbying,” which he has denied.

His only conceivable out: Yes, he was a consultant helping drug companies pass this bill, but when he was persuading conservatives to back the bill, that was on his own time, and out of his own personal convictions — and it had nothing to do with the drug industry cash he was receiving at the time.

This is an ancient political tactic of telling the truth “technically”.  My definition of lobbying is you’re simply paid to influence public servants by a select consortium of companies/lobbying firms whom represent companies that want legislation written to benefit them and in many cases, suppress their competition.  This is what happens when government stops being a government for the people and starts being a government for sale to the highest bidder.

Newt is telling the truth.  He didn’t do any lobbying for them, he only identified lobbying targets for Freddie Mac.  Maybe the statement should be “I never did any lobbying, I only showed them how to lobby.”

Washington isn’t broken.  Washington is abominably corrupt on both sides of the aisle and Newt certainly seems to have been a part of that. What is clear is Newt is worried about his standing with the conservative base.  Something like this has the potential to derail his candidacy.

Term limits for congressmen anyone?

It would be apparent that this is the choice that we’re going to have to make sometime very soon before the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd.  I hope this is sooner rather than later.  The most recent polls indicate that Newt Gingrich is skyrocketing,  Herman Cain is falling, Mitt Romney is wet wood that can’t catch fire, and Rick Perry still in the doghouse with most conservative voters.

Something that has been troubling me that I have noticed, particularly the conservative blogosphere, how everyone seems to love to magnify how a candidate might lose their train of thought as a sign of stupidity.  That is just not the case.  I cannot imagine the mountain of information that a candidate for the presidency has to process for both debate and to present on the campaign trail.  Sure, the ability to articulate and sell a platform to the public with the aims of winning the presidency is an important and quite necessary skill.  However, I have to wonder sometimes if we have all become so completely focused on the optics, the appearance of the candidate, that we are blinding ourselves to what is really important which are the records, character, and the candidate’s current stances on important issues.

When Election Night 2012 comes around next November, I will vote for whomever the GOP candidate is.  They may not be who I would have preferred but it is my duty to vote.  If we as conservatives are not happy whomever winds up with the nod, we can vote for the next most conservative candidate.  We then can whip our elected GOP congressmen and leaders that represent us to keep them in check and let them know that we’re no longer laying down.  Bottom line, if I don’t vote, then I am doing a dishonor to those whom have fought, bled, and died to give me that freedom to.

Back to the topic at hand, we have four candidates.  I might argue three since Herman Cain’s comments regarding supporting collective bargaining rights for public sector employees should put his candidacy to rest.  However, let’s say four.

Mitt Romney – Solid family man, great debater and speaker, record indicates he takes both sides of the issue to whatever the political climate or winds demand, been involved in politics for some time.  There are some issues he has taken that are not conservative at all.  I won’t highlight those here but many of you are well aware of what those are.  Probably most importantly, particularly with the recent news out of the Supreme Court, is that aside from jobs and the economy, Obamacare looks to be a big issue in 2012.  Judging by the overwhelming approval of Issue 3 in Ohio, this would be a very potent weapon for the GOP in 2012 that would get neutered with a Romney candidacy.  This is because Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare and thus, is a de facto justification of passing the legislation.

Newt Gingrich – Great speaker and debater, incredibly knowledgeable, been proactive at advancing conservatism ideas, long career in politics.  He has had extramarital affairs and has been divorced twice.  There was the ethics charges and violations that he had while in Congress.  The famous Nancy Pelosi couch scene in a global warming ad and the undercutting of Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” rollout with his right-wing social engineering comment.  Then of course there are the other watered down compromises he made while he was in Washington that I won’t get into here.

Herman Cain – Strong family man(?) –Thanks David 123   with an alleged and in some cases, documented (settlements) wandering eye, successful businessman, cancer survivor, great debater and speaker, quite green from a knowledge standpoint outside the subject of economics and business as the foreign policy debate showed.  Too impulsive to defer answering questions by saying “I would hire the best people.”

Rick Perry – Strong family man, not a very good debater, great speaker at public gatherings/campaign events and one-on-one interviews, very conservative with the exception of immigration and the Gardisal issues, in recent weeks has led the field of candidates on bold ideas in the areas of tax reform, foreign policy and Washington that are wonderful for conservatives to see but put sheer fright into liberals and the political establishment on both sides of the aisle.

In summary, by looking at this, there are some things that pop out.  Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich look like they have struggles with being prudent men.  They have an apparent history of putting themselves of situations they have no business being in.  If Newt or Herman wind up losing the nomination or if he winds up winning the nomination, either winning or losing the general election, it will be because voters do not want a man with that kind of history in office and justly reject them or they will be gracious in forgiving them.  Either way, the voters’ choice will be justified either way.  I think the mountain will be quite tall because half of this country is women.  Women don’t really care for men like that.  Newt also may have a problem with people identifying him as a business as usual Washington politician from the past thus making it hard for them to believe him.

In regards to Rick Perry, if I could put Rick Perry’s record, his character, and his conservatism and blend them with Newt Gingrich’s debating skills, we would have one knockout candidate.  However, that is not the case.  His debate skills took a leap forward after having a bad trip.  He is getting better and better as he becomes more comfortable.  The immigration and Gardisil issues have been explained and Perry has apologized for his “heartless” comment.  Perry also walked back his executive order in regards to the Gardisil issue.  He felt like it was the right thing to do but listened to the public as well.  The problem is a combination of the conservative voters willing to forgive him and having a lack of confidence in him because of his debate results.

Mitt Romney shows to match up head-to-head with Obama best according to polling match ups. (Update:  This new Marist poll actually has Newt polling the best against Obama.  This is the first poll that at least I have seen where a candidate other than Romney polls best against Obama.) He has been solid in the debates and has run a good campaign.  The problem is though the conservative bloc really doesn’t want him to have the nod apparently.  So long as there is a candidate out there that they feel will represent them and has the record to do so.  This explains the chaos we see in the polls.  Conservatives are not coming to a decision yet between Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Herman Cain yet.  However, I think it is down to Newt and Rick.

My choice is sticking with Rick Perry.  I have to admit again, and you all saw, I thought his goose was cooked after his brain freeze.  I couldn’t imagine him coming back.  And how did he and his campaign handle this adversity?  Masterfully, with grace and humor, and kept going forward as if nothing had happened though the weight of the whole world may have crushed him.  That’s presidential steel right there.  How can you not want to follow a guy like that?  He’s getting better with each debate as he becomes more polished with his platform, has a well funded campaign and infrastructure, has an incredibly bold conservative agenda, and has hit on a winning campaign them that he rolled out today.  It’s reforming Washington, understanding that the majority of people in our country are as his book states “Fed Up.”  And when I think about my concerns I have in regards to Perry’s immigration stances I have to ask myself “Are any of the other candidates immigration stances better than Perry’s?”  If we have to whip congressmen to keep Perry in check here, I think this shouldn’t be too hard of a task.  At least I know where he stands and he is the most consistent of any of the candidates.

He won’t have problems with the women’s vote like Newt and Herman will have.  Though polls show that Perry is anywhere between 6-10 points in match-ups with Obama, the more people hear Perry out, what he stands for and has done as governor or Texas, the more appealing he will become.  The differentiating contrast with what he has to offer with what Obama has to offer from an all-around standpoint will be quite striking.  That will make the greatest impact on the voters’ minds and I am willing to bank that the polls will bear that out in a positive way.  They will never have a more clear choice to make and the choice has never been more clearer in my mind.

I can’t believe anyone hadn’t reported on this here at RedState.

Good grief!

On the issue of collective bargaining, Cain said he supported the right of public employees to bargain collectively.

“But not collective hijacking. What I mean by that, if they have gotten so much for so many years and it’s going to bankrupt the state, I don’t think that’s good. It appears that in some instances, they really don’t care.”…

In an interview with the Journal Sentinel last month, Cain said that he was “right in the corner of Gov. Scott Walker 100%” in Walker’s battle with public employee unions.

Cain also appeared to be unclear on the issue of collective bargaining as it involves federal employees. Asked if he thought federal employees should have the ability to bargain collectively, Cain said: “They already have it, don’t they?”

Told they didn’t, he said, “They have unions.”

Herman, was your candidacy just a great big joke?  Seriously?  Supporting collective bargaining for public sector employees?

I’m speechless.

I smell a Cain endorsement for Gingrich sometime in the not so distant future.

There apparently is some much watering down and MSM spin being attempted to dilute the performance of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich last night.  Make no mistake about it, these were two men among boys and a girl last night.  The key point in this debate and all the talk and focus is about Rick Perry’s zero-based foreign aid of all nations America contributes to, including our allies.  This is the reason why along with Perry’s simple answer of shutting down Iran’s central bank as a means of severe sanction was why I thought Perry won the debate last night.  As I mentioned in my last diary entry, all the candidates were following Perry from that point on. Perry was a foreign policy modern day pioneer last night.  Though this new position might have startled the MSM, it makes common sense to ordinary Americans like myself.  More on this in a bit.

It was interesting to watch reactions on Twitter from Politico, The Washington Post, and others regarding Perry’s new ground.  The spin began almost immediately with The National Journal selecting a question from a viewer whom asked if Israel would also have to start from zero.  This is a common tactic of Democrats, and establishment Republicans.  They take a sound policy, position, or idea and then try to nitpick, dilute, or engage in cut-and-paste politics to try to soak down the great idea before it takes root in the American public’s mind.  There was much talk that I saw about how Perry’s idea was bad and much hand-wringing among the MSM, and incredibly a couple of candidates on the debate stage of what might happen because of this strong policy stance.  Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum conveyed weakness in their responses by openly worrying about how cutting off aid to Pakistan might cause a nuclear state to fail and cause nuclear weapons to fall into the wrong hands.  While their concern might be founded, it negotiates from a position of weakness.  It also tells me that you’re not a leader of strength and you give into fear too easy. This might be harsh, but our enemies and allies only are agreeable when we aren’t afraid to wield America’s very big stick.

You always negotiate from a position of strength.  Our strength is in our economy which provides those foreign aid dollars, our military might, and our resolve.  Ronald Reagan encapsulated this “peace through strength” approach.  Our foreign aid, a strong card of negotiation, should be used so that what we give to a nation must come with contingencies.  This is smart diplomacy.  Who cares if it might upset some foreign nations?  Can you imagine the mullahs’ shock of cold water they must have felt when they heard Rick Perry talk about shutting down their central bank and economy?  Can you imagine how all those nations who have been getting aid without yielding much of anything on their part sat straight up in their chairs?   Nations respect strength and action that shows you will use that strength whenever necessary.

Ron Paul?  Not worth talking about.  His foreign policy always has been a disaster.  Huntsman?  He does have some foreign policy chops but he’s just flat out bland.  Herman Cain was a huge disappointment here in the fact that he didn’t reveal much of anything.  He just deferred and never gave a clear idea of where he might stand except the fact that he would have to talk it over with his cabinet and military brass.  Talk about being indecisive and unprepared.

Mitt Romney had a big stumble today, or I should say the Romney campaign.  Now Mitt I thought had a very solid performance last night and he conveyed strength in his positions of what he would do when the moderators posed questions to him.  However, a very curious thing happened.  When the MSM tried to twist the brilliance of Perry’s ideas that were affirmed by Gingrich by throwing a question like “Does this mean Israel too (wink wink)” and then talking all about it on Twitter afterward, guess what happened.  Via Erin McPike of Real Clear Politics:

Rick Perry forcefully reasserted himself in the GOP presidential contest Saturday night during a foreign policy debate here, an event that came on the heels of a string of sloppy — and even embarrassing — debate performances by the onetime front-runner….

They also discussed at length how foreign aid should be dispatched going forward, with several of the leading candidates backing a new idea that Perry put forth.

Two of the Texas governor’s chief rivals for the nomination, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, agreed with him on what appeared to be an off-the-cuff, but conservative, approach to foreign aid: Start all countries at zero and then make each explain why it deserves more. A follow-up question, however, forced Perry to backpedal somewhat on U.S. aid to Israel. (I wouldn’t call that a backpedal.  Of course Israel is a reliable ally.  Perry’s position forces examination of our foreign aid to “allies” who may be suspect.)

“Obviously, Israel is a special ally, and my bet is that we would be funding them at some substantial level. But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case,” Perry said. His campaign followed that comment by issuing a seven-paragraph statement detailing the candidate’s commitment to Israel, something he has been consistent about throughout his political career.

Still, Gingrich backed up Perry’s principle. He pointed to Egypt and questioned why it should receive $3 billion before it even starts thinking about how the money will be used. Each country should be told, “Explain to me why we need to give you a penny,” he said.

Later in the program, Romney also agreed with the proposal. But after the debate, his advisers backtracked and insisted he only meant he agreed with respect to Pakistan, in part because it is a divided nuclear power that necessitates a careful approach.

That was not the only exchange that required some clarification from Romney’s team. He’s also struggled to explain his stance on the war in Afghanistan. In the past, he has said he wanted troops to come home as soon as possible, and he later said he disagreed with President Obama’s call to begin pulling them back in the fall of 2012, blasting it as a political decision. And he’s also decried the use of timetables for announcing any drawdown of U.S. troops abroad. During Saturday’s debate, though, he said he agreed with a 2014-based timetable.

Romney foreign policy adviser Rich Williamson, a former Reagan administration official, clarified that the former Massachusetts governor opposed any kind of initial timeline that would notify the Taliban as to when American troops would leave their country and simply suggested that he would defer to military leaders regarding an exit timeline.

I would argue that the boldfaced snippet shows that Romney’s foreign policy would be based on what political impact it could have on his Presidency.  The most recent president we had like that was Bill Clinton who let Osama Bin Laden get away because of the political ramifications it could have had on his presidency.  Still, this is consistent with Romney the man.  He’s a politician first.  If something threatens his job as a politician, he’ll likely kick the can down the road to the next president that is elected just to keep his job at that present time.  “I’ll take action so long as I can be guaranteed that my approval ratings won’t go below 50%.”  That’s some serious backbone there (sarcasm of course).  Being president means you make hard decisions, even if some might be unpopular or could be.

There are only two strong leaders in this presidential contest as the foreign policy debate showed last night.  If they are strong abroad, they most certainly will be regarding domestic policy.  That would be Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.

I was very pleasantly surprised by Rick Perry’s handling of a subject tonight that I thought he would have been weakest in.  His first two answers in response to questions regarding shutting down Iran’s central bank and starting from $0 in foreign aid to every country set the tone.  After that, all of the candidates were following Rick Perry.  His answers indicated that the U.S. would delegate from a position of strength and no longer being business as usual with countries we give aid to.  His answer also related to zero-based budgeting with all government agencies was another home run.  That’s a strong leader that was on display tonight.

It is only one debate.  But I must say, thank you Rick Perry for that performance tonight.  I really needed that.  Now, to quote Harrison Ford from Star Wars “Great kid!  Don’t get cocky!”  One debate at a time.

I hope and pray Rick Perry builds some much needed momentum with future debate performances like he had tonight.  May the Perry campaign rise like the phoenix from the ashes.