Masterful.

That’s all I can say about a piece by the Weekly Standard’s Yuval Levin that Michael Barone pointed out in the Washington Examiner as a must read.  It really highlights the technical problems and solutions we must take for our country as a whole.  It practically gives Mitt Romney the clear, positive alternative and narrative he needs to draw a contrast with himself and Barack Obama and for the people to make a choice between.  It is a comprehensive piece that touches on all the core issues that need to be addressed to turn this country around from fiscal catastrophe.  A catastrophe that would result in an unimaginable nightmare that would follow that I don’t even want to comprehend and when I try to, it greatly troubles my heart and frightens me.  Levin’s piece is so good that there is really nothing to cut out and highlight on this post.  It is that good.  However, the key point that he makes is Romney hasn’t really given Americans a clear reason, an understandable vision, and a direction that he is going to take the country.  In his article, he points out just what Romney must do and the likely fight he is to face in his words from a dying, institutional order consisting of…

Economic policy is increasingly dominated by an ideal of state capitalism, in which regulators prefer to work with a few large players in each industry—functioning essentially as public utilities—while making the lives of smaller competitors and innovators next to impossible. This is where the health and insurance sectors are being driven under Obamacare. It is where Dodd-Frank wants to take American banking and finance. It is a vision suited to managing stagnation—with big government, big business, and big labor dividing responsibilities and benefits and keeping outsiders out—rather than to enabling growth.

All of this makes it very difficult to see how America can take the necessary steps to return to a trajectory of growth in the 21st century. The way is blocked by the partisans of the status quo, who are sternly opposed to any reforms that would enable innovation and efficiency at the cost of undermining the spoils system built up over half a century.

I couldn’t agree more.  The government is no longer for the people, but for career policitians, lobbyists, and other entities that have created a corrupt racket and free-spending government agencies that are spending this nation’s people into slavery to foreign countries at best, putting us in the terrible prospect of having to go to war with angry countries uniting against us that would quite likely be the result if we default on our debt if we don’t turn this around at worst.  Don’t think this can happen?  If the economy is destroyed, how can you sustain the military infrastructure to protect our country?  We have had at least one military official state that debt is the greatest danger to our national security.  Ben Franklin stated that “”Think what you do when you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty.” Actually, I would highly recommend reading Ben Franklin’s works and autobiography on this subject.  Here is one such post I picked off of a search engine.  It is a socialist’s worst nightmare.  Any politician that openly campaigns on higher tax increases (ahem, Mr. President) and is resistant to cutting out wasteful government programs and entities is to keep this corrupt, dying racket in place and to rob you more of your freedom and liberty.  This is always the predictable end that socialist death spirals come to. It is no coincidence that establishment politicians and media on both sides would like the Tea Party to be labeled as terrorists or other bad names.  A freedom loving people is a threat to government and arrogant politicians that inhabit the halls of Congress.  That Ben Franklin, what a terrorist.

Some like to blame the rich or “evil” business owners for the state our country is in.  We have such a vast array of resources and innovative ideas that are out there.  The problem is not the entrepreneurs, it is the regulators, environmentalists, politicians, special interests, bureaucratic red tape that seemingly wants to do everything and anything from the people being able to work, make a living for themselves, and prosper.  Why?  I just told you earlier.  As Ronald Reagan so aptly pointed out “Government is the problem, not the solution.”  It’s just a few people who are arrogant enough to think they know what’s best for the nation, regardless of how much pain and hopelessness it causes those people.  The majority of Americans want to work and work hard to provide for themselves.  But there is a significant portion of the population out there, perfectly illustrated in the Occupy Wall Street movement, that doesn’t want to.  If we can create the economic climate for job growth by sweeping away the factions that are so hell bent against creating it, our country will be much better off.   I have been heartened to see how business owners and the majority of Americans confronting the Occupy movement, taking to task their entitlement mentality and laziness.

In order for me to write about all of the country’s huge problems and what actions must be taken to avert the unimaginable nightmare would take hours, if not days of thought.  Failed nations result from failed leaders in government getting elected over and over again by a lost people to solve our problems with these leaders having a horrible record of bad solutions that were to treat these problems.  Case in point.  The elections in France, Germany, and Greece.  The people of those nations are having to live with the financial decisions and consequences of corrupt, socialist politicians.  The hard road that is required of them is to cut back on government spending.  This of course when you have a huge public jobs sector as these nations have that is in gross imbalance with the private sector.  Private capital takes time to come back into the markets as free market reforms are attempted to be enacted as socialist government officials do anything and everything to prevent them from going into effect.  How awful a predicament these people are in.  They have to live in the bed that their politicians have made for them.  So what do they do?  Go back to the ideology and political parties that got them in the mess in the first place.

And guess who is at the forefront with waiting arms?  Barack Obama at the G-8 summit talking.  I won’t get into the details but that segment really was appalling in its misdirection and deception.  In an ABC News segment I saw last night, ABC News highlighted a very misleading graphic showing how the United States went one way with enacting economic stimulus (of course they didn’t talk about the debt we accrued and kicking the can down the road, the amount of people that have dropped out of the workforce, etc.) and other countries pursued austerity programs.  Austerity, free market programs suck to go through at the beginning as most change is painful at first but they work if you see them through to the end.   If the people give up, they are only ensuring themselves a longer period of misery.  The end result of this is talked about later in the post.

And this is where all power for any socialist/communist/Third World government always originates: 

When a nation’s people surrender their responsibility and independence of government to solve the problems of the day, socialism lives.  This usually happens as a result of people no longer believing and trusting in their neighbors to do good, caring for each other, and working together to solve those problems at the local and state levels.  Once people stop depending on a centralized, federal government, socialism dies.

Want to see a prime, living example of socialism’s ultimate end?  Look at North Korea.  Socialism in the end always winds up being a centralized government for the privileged few and impoverished, demoralized, brainwashed, stripped of spirit masses if it lives, or a country that becomes desolate by warfare resulting of people who are fed up with the misery they live in.  Winston Churchill stated it best “Socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”

Is this all making sense to you?  Because this is the destiny that is staring us and our children’s future right in the face, RIGHT NOW.  Ultimately, everyone in this nation as a whole is responsible for the state our country is in.  After all, for decades we apathetically elected these “leaders” to our government again and again.  We let our guard down and fell in a stupor, chasing after “financial independence” and expensive things rather than things that are important like freedom, taking care of our families, being responsible for the decisions and choices we make.  It happens when we as a nation become more concerned with what is in our bank account than doing good unto each other and staying watch over what is happening in our government.  It is what happens when we feel entitled to things rather than working hard for those things we want and live with the results that our efforts get us.  It is what happens when we stop being one nation under God and instead be a nation giving lip service to God.  It is what happens when we abuse the freedoms that our ancestors fought so valiantly for and instead become an ungrateful, incredibly self-absorbed nation.  For many years I was a model example of this attitude and am ashamed to admit that.  I have tried really hard to do my duty of working hard, being grateful for the freedoms I have, and being content with the wages that my work pays me. How self-absorbed are we becoming?  People renouncing their U.S. Citizenship to avert paying taxes is an unconscionable act of selfishness that has come to the forefront lately.  Profiteering with pretended patriotism is what George Washington called something like this in his presidential farewell speech.

You want a good model for getting the country back on track?  Look at the World War II generation.  It took living in incredible scarcity during the Depression and World War II to teach them that living selflessly unto each other, being grateful for what they have, and seeing what forces and horrible figures of evil can take shape when people in a country, impoverished and to the breaking point, put their hopes in someone who will feed them, manipulate their pain to motivate them to take them down a path the world should be alarmed at.  Can history like this repeat itself?  It just might.

One choice is either to take on what Levin suggested, do the hard work selflessly, without complaint, faithfully keeping our eye on the end result with our children in mind, and diligently holding our elected officials to account every election…or…keep on the same road we are on and reap the horrible whirlwind very soon.

Mercy.

When you read Holder’s response, the complete contempt and lack of respect toward judicial authority is so brazen that I was reminded of a football coach who once told a player I knew “Either you have a lot of balls, or you’re stupid!”  A couple of key excerpts:

The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government’s brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.

Telling a judge how to do his job Attorney General Holder?  Very persuasive!

 In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Com1 has stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.”…..

In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional.

Wow!  You can’t help but laugh at the tone of this response from the Attorney General.  This is exactly why I believe the founders created the judiciary branch.  To act as a check and balance against an arrogant executive and legislative branch that creates unconstitutional laws by throwing them into the Constitutional crucible of scrutiny that comes by judicial review.

It is interesting to speculate what is causing Obama and the White House administration to engage in intimidation tactics that we see in union leadership and Chicago politics.  Either somehow they know that the hammer is about to be dropped on Obamacare or at a minimum, they are extremely worried about it.  Observing the momentum of the three days of Supreme Court arguments, the direction was all one way and it wasn’t the direction that Obama wanted.  Any casual observer could see this.  The Supreme Court, even justices Ginsburg and Breyer, seemed to be resigned to the fact that the individual mandate is gone and the discussion turned to what parts of the law might be saved.  If Obama was confident that the law would be upheld as he stated, he wouldn’t have launched his pre-meditated and unprecented attack on the Supreme Court.  The mainstream media has followed in lockstep with Obama’s public attack.   Whipping the Supreme Court in public like congressional leaders do on Capitol Hill to cobble votes into a majority just isn’t smart.   I don’t see the point of this attack other than 1.) They are trying to manipulate public opinion (a strong majority want Obamacare thrown out mind you) in a toxic manner against the Court.  2) They are trying to dilute the potential political damage that this will do to President Obama and his re-election chances if the hammer comes down.

I have no idea how the Court will rule.  Looking at how the arguments went I was very encouraged but you can only read so much into those.   I really do hope that the Court deals a heavy-handed blow to the White House’s arrogant defiance.

I have to laud some of the posts I have seen on Redstate today regarding the day’s happenings on Obamacare.  I am also amazed at the knowledge shown by the legal parties whom are arguing both sides of Obamacare and the judges that sit on our nation’s highest court.  There are some incredible minds out there.

I have been wondering about a question that popped in my mind after reading an article in the American Spectator and some passages that caught my eye in that article:

Strangely, however, the very people who have for two years insisted that the mandate was the essential ingredient that made Obamacare palatable have changed their minds. They claim to have reexamined the recipe and discovered a way serve ACA à la carte. The government lawyers tasked with defending Obamacare have filed a brief with the Court saying the law can still work in the absence of the mandate. They now claim it can be safely severed if a couple of other provisions are also removed. Specifically, only the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions are not severable from the mandate according to the latest fallback position adopted by the Department of Justice.

The DOJ is not alone in its sudden discovery that the law will work without the mandate. Most of Obamacare’s advocates have had similar epiphanies. And, to justify their brazen flip-flops, many have twisted themselves into interesting rhetorical knots. Doctors Samuel Sessions and Allan Detsky, for example, offer this hilarious analysis: “Arguing that the mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause requires taking the position that it is ‘essential’ to the statutory scheme, whereas arguing that it is severable dictates the seemingly opposite position that the ACA is ‘capable of functioning without it.’ Politically, making both arguments may be awkward.… Legally, however, the positions are consistent.”….

Loyola, Epstein, and Shapiro, who have filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in the ObamaCare case, write that even removal of the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions from the law will not justify severing the mandate. They hold that the “minimum coverage provision,” as ACA’s advocates refer to it, is inextricably connected to the law’s so-called insurance reforms, Medicaid expansion, and premium subsidies. “The better the Court understands the vital interrelation of those provisions with the mandate in the original legislative design, the clearer it will be that these core provisions are wholly interwoven with the mandate and must be struck down with it.”

They ominously add that “implementing those other core provisions without the mandate is likely to result in a financial meltdown. The reason lies in the unyielding economics of health insurance.” Essentially, the law’s various provisions remove all incentives for healthy people to purchase coverage and make it illegal for insurance companies to refuse coverage to the seriously ill. Without the individual mandate, therefore, this will lead to an “adverse selection spiral” that will cause the health insurance industry to implode: “In the end, the only people who enroll are those with known medical conditions, such that premiums approach the actual cost of health care, and the insurance industry collapses.”

That’s quite interesting.  So if the mandate alone is severed, insurance companies will scream to have the entire healthcare law repealed only to see Democrats put another Chuck Schumer grin on their faces like we saw when the markets melted down in the fall of 2008 and basically stonewall anything happening.  They will want the situation to become so bad that the people will go crawling back to the government.  The Democratic Party today loves any moments when the people of this country are willing to forfeit their freedoms and liberty so government can solve the problem/crisis.  They are not interested in free market solutions at all of course because that means that people wouldn’t be dependent on them. James Carville seems to think that overturning of Obamacare or the mandate would be the best thing ever to happen to Democrats.  He could be proven right if the Trojan Horse scenario plays out like they hope.  The majority of Americans are still strongly against Obamacare but that could flip if Democrats try to keep other parts in the law intact so premiums skyrocket and cause the entire health industry to implode.  Will America try solving this themselves through free market solutions with their ingenuity while maintaining their freedom?  Or will they run to Big Government Mommy crying for her to help them and pay the price of further forfeiting their liberty, freedom, and less money in their pocket?  Government involvement typically comes with an expensive price tag.

The answer to this enormously difficult problem lies in the states, not the federal government.  I don’t have any problem with states enacting health care solutions, even states who try to have government run healthcare like what Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts and Tennessee and some other states have tried.  Heck, the people wanted it in Massachusetts.  Let them have it then.  In the end, the fallacy of government run health care at the state level reveals itself by creating too large of a fiscal burden.  The legislation either must be dumped or the tax burden must increase on that state’s society and eventually, facing bankruptcy, the legislation must be dumped in the end and free market solutions must be looked at.  However, doing this at the federal level isn’t constitutional for a numbers of reasons.  The most basic of all is this problem belongs to the states, not the federal government.

Now I am no health care expert.  I know there are a lot of doctors out here on Redstate who have much more knowledge about this subject than I do.  But I have to wonder as someone speaking just from common sense why I don’t hear anything about why health care costs have been going up.  The government’s idea of solving the problem is to force everyone to purchase health insurance so insurance companies will have bigger pools of money to pay claims that care likely to result from a larger pool of people.  Thus, health care prices will go down as a result.  The fallacy of this logic is well documented and I won’t delve into it here.  Yet, back to original question at hand:

Why don’t I hear questions to doctors of why health care costs are going up?  What are the causes?

It seems that all I have heard at least in the media is that something must be done about this.  However, the media seems to forget that doctors have their own medical practices, also known as a medical business, to service their clientele who see them to ensure them better health.  What expenses are doctors having to pay as their overhead that causes health care to rise in its cost?  I know one cost out there that has really driven up prices is the cost of malpractice insurance.  Another is the huge checklist of tests doctors give their patience out of fear of missing something and having a lawsuit filed against them.  This would suggest the huge need for tort reform and less regulation.  Of course that wouldn’t be agreeable to Democrats since the legal lobby are some of their most prominent campaign donors.  We have already seen how nasty they will fight if a key campaign donor segment is threatened.  Just look at what happened in Wisconsin with the collective bargaining fight.  This is part of the big political game.  More on that later.  However, I have never understood why anyone, particularly some money hungry lawyer, should ruin by means of a lawsuit, someone whose livelihood is to improve someone’s health and in some instances save their life.  Human error will always be part of the medical profession or any other profession.  As people, we maybe get used to the idea that a doctor is incapable of screwing up.  Doctors are human beings, imperfect and don’t have all the answers.  To expect that would be to put them on the same pedestal as the Lord God Himself.  There will always be a case where a doctor will ask themselves “How did I miss that?” and have many sleepless nights of a patient who could have lived, who may have endured a sickness for a shorter amount of time, etc.  The malicious doctor is probably deserving of this but the number of doctors like this is so small that I don’t see the justification for financially ruining a noble doctor who was only to help a patient. Democrats the party of the little guy?  I have my doubts.  With Democrats serving the legal lobby, ironically it’s the little guy that gets stuck with the higher prices in the end.  The little guy is nothing more than someone who has been ensnared by the Democratic long marketed belief that the little guy is getting shafted and they need your money and vote to get into Washington so something can be done.  What is the ultimate end of this?  Politicians in Washington cease to be public servants and become rulers, mini monarchs representing a state or congressional district.  Freedom will live so long as people in their local communities and their state tackle the problems of the day head on by themselves,  without help in the form of higher tax burdens and lesser freedoms that almost always result whenever the federal government becomes involved.

Some of you doctors out there will have to help me.  I know that the cost of repaying the education in college has to be factored in, the lease/rent/loan payments for the office space, paying the nurses, receptionists and other staff, utilities, medicine, pharmaceuticals, equipment, etc.  The list goes on.  I would have to think that there has to be a concensus on what a doctor’s budget would look like for his practice.  That right there should identify what has caused healthcare to go up so much.

The Big Political Game

In many respects, the parties on both sides of the political aisle are no longer looking out for the people’s interest.  They are looking out for those who dump the most money in their campaign coffers so they can retain their jobs.  That’s why term limits on congressmen should be made law.  When I spoke earlier about how Democrats would be completely against tort reform because the legal lobby is one of their main campaign donor factions, that is right on point.  Because the cost of malpractice insurance and additional tests that doctors are performing to minimize any potential liability situation that could arise, if tort reform went into effect there it is very likely that medical costs would decrease (see Texas).  Tort reform is just one part of the problem but doctors would be enormously relieved and likely perform better without the legal sword poised at their neck ready to decapitate them at any moment.  Allowing insurers to compete across state lines is another I have heard.  But one should always remember there is a big political game always going on between the parties.  They are always trying to change the current political calculus into their favor.  Do you think it is any coincidence that President Obama has pushed Cap and Trade and companies like Solyndra for a reason?  It’s nothing more than to create a market for a different form of energy where the company brass if that company was successful will dump campaign dollars into the political party’s coffers and keep that party in charge of writing legislation that will benefit that company.  It also means lesser money in the opposing party’s coffers, in this case the oil and natural gas industry are inclined toward the GOP.  It shouldn’t surprise you at all when you hear the Democrats rail against Big Oil.

I could go on and on about these subjects but politics isn’t my life.  It is just important to never forget the game behind the headlines that is always being played, much to the disadvantage of the ones who our leaders in Washington should be serving instead of looking out for themselves.

Over the past few days I have watched with amazement at how anonymous GOP brass have been suggesting that if Mitt Romney loses Michigan, that a new candidate must come forward.  Huh?  So the say of the voters shouldn’t matter at all I guess because they don’t like the candidate the voters have chosen.  Or is it that Santorum hasn’t received any big money donations that would obligate Santorum to follow the establishment party line?  What does the GOP power brokers want?  Something similar to what the Democrats had at their 1968 national convention? Rush Limbaugh picked up on this as well:

I mean, folks, they’re salivating over Mitch Daniels. They’re salivating over trying to change Jeb Bush’s mind.  Oh, yeah.  But, no, look here.  In the mood I’m in it’s funny, but it’s actually very irritating.  Here you have the Republican establishment which, by virtue of this admission, that if Romney loses Michigan they think he’s gonna lose the nomination.  And that means it’s time to ditch everybody and go find somebody else.  That is a tantamount admission that they don’t care what their own voters are saying in all of these primaries, in all of these elections.  We are seeing the Republican establishment force a candidate down the throats of the Republican base.  The Republican base is obviously saying from primary to primary to primary they’re not really sure, really not all that sold on, Romney.  And so the establishment, “Oh, well, okay, well, we gotta find somebody else you don’t like that might be able to win it,” which is what it boils down to.

It seems as though Democrats and the media are starting to get nervous as well.  This was telegraphed by the Washington Post with an article titled “Is Rick Santorum too conservative to win in November?”  If I am Santorum, I would consider that one of the greatest compliments ever from a notorious Democratic friendly newspaper.  However, when you have newspapers like the Washington Post stating that is a candidate too conservative to win, you start to think “Hmmmmmm.”  It is curious that publications like the Washington post are now thinking the unthinkable in the liberal press.  Santorum could actually beat Obama.  The Democratic National Committee is starting to attack Santorum.  In response to the attacks, a Santorum spokesperson rightly pointed out:

For its part, the Santorum campaign is unperturbed. A spokesperson told CNN that Obama has to be worried about Santorum because he has credibility to attack the president on health care, the bailouts, cap and tax, and the administration’s assault on religious liberty.

The Social Issues Red Herring that Obama and the Media intend to use to distract voters from Obama’s disastrous tenure in the Oval office

I don’t think it is much a coincidence with the spinning of Santorum’s position on government mandating prenatal care and framing it as “Santorum is against prenatal care”.  This is a precursor of things to come should Santorum win the nomination.  Obama cannot stand on his record, so he has to somehow deflect attention away from it.  If this is how the Obama campaign will run against Santorum, I really like Santorum’s chances…so long as Santorum doesn’t allow debate moderators and media to suck up all the time talking about social issues in debates and interviews.  This is how the Obama loving media will try to protect their guy. Keep the public’s eye on Santorum’s social issue “extremism” and keep Obama’s record as president out of the spotlight at all costs.  A simple smile from Santorum with a following statement/redirect to what the election is about stating that “people know where I stand.  Now let’s talk about how Obama has stagnated our economy, heaped up mountains of debt for future generations, and prevented jobs from being created like the Keystone Pipeline, Obamacare, etc.”  or whatever other countless undesirables that Santorum can highlight for the voters.  So long as Santorum does it with a smile, not a whine, with optimism of what things could be like under his Presidency, he will be just fine.  He would only lose if he allows the Obama campaign and the media to define the race on social issues, making Santorum look like a preacher who is forcing Americans to act like he think they should act or believe, and not the state of the economy and Obama’s awful stewardship during his time in office.

The Electability of Rick Santorum

The anonymous GOP Senator I alluded to earlier feels that if Santorum were the nominee, he would lose 35 states in the general election.  How in the world does he or any other GOP higher up know that? National head-to-head polling shows Santorum within 3 points of Obama, 47-44 according to Rasmussen which is a tick better than Romney.  In a recent Des Moines Register poll, he bests Obama by 4 points (a couple ticks better than Romney and a cold watershock to the Obama campaign), 48-44, in the state of Iowa.  The idea that Santorum cannot do well in swing states is silly.  I had speculated that Santorum had a lot of crossover appeal to social conservative union voters, the Reagan Democrats and how this would be a very, very big problem for Obama.  Obama already has enough problems with independents but this is a nightmare scenario for them.  That is why Santorum is up right now in Michigan and why he could be so competitive in the key Rust Belt states come November.  If Santorum picks off just one of the typical Democratic reliables like Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, he will win or at the very least, make a victory path to 270 next to impossible for Obama.  The South is decisively coalescing around Santorum if fresh polls out of Texas and Oklahoma can be considered an indicator.    Taking all this into consideration and imperfect as Santorum may be, I am left with a conclusion:

When Both Sides Of The Political Establishment And Media Are Openly Expressing Their Concern (Fear) About A GOP Candidate, We May Have Found Our Guy

The more I look at this, the more I believe this is it for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential run.  The state he was born in will determine if he falls by the wayside of this presidential election cycle.  With neighboring Ohio looking like Santorum is running away with that state, evidenced by a prominent endorsement switch, the stakes couldn’t be higher for Romney.  A Michigan loss would be catastrophic from a public perception standpoint

My guess is currently Santorum is in the lead by 5-7 points 11 days out looking at the polls with no evidence of any momentum either way since the first polls after Santorum’s tri-state sweep.  Santorum’s time until February 28th consists of living in Michigan with an Ohio visit or two sprinkled in.  Though Romney may drop a ton of negative ads in Michigan, Santorum actually is quite attractive to the people of Michigan with his ideas for jump-starting the manufacturing sector.  His record in Washington though some positions he has taken tick conservatives off, are actually appealing to people in Michigan.  Also, Santorum has been on a fundraising tear which allows him to be able to adequately respond to Romney attacks and expand his organizational infrastructure.  In essence, Romney is needing Santorum to trip, or Newt Gingrich to siphon off votes from Santorum, keeping Romney within striking distance.  Speaking of which:

Ten million bucks could give Gingrich a last shot at the nomination. Though he’s writing off the February 28 votes in Michigan and Arizona, he  could fare well in some of the ten Super Tuesday states that will vote on March 6, many of them southern states, including Newt’s home state of Georgia. But it’s possible that Mitt Romney is the real beneficiary here. The more the anti-Mitt vote is split, the better off he is. His nightmare is that either Gingrich or Rick Santorum drops out and the remaining candidate consolidates the conservative base and starts drawing majority votes in the primaries. Divide and conquer is Mitt’s winning formula.

But won’t much of that $10 million just go into negative attacks against Romney, who, it’s possible, can’t sustain much more damage before collapsing entirely himself? That’s not clear. Adelson was not thrilled with the Mitt-bashing his money funded in South Carolina, and it’s possible that he’s giving on the condition that Gingrich’s camp doesn’t disembowel Romney. As I wrote recently, Adelson likes Romney fine, and is comfortable with the idea of a Romney White House. His support for Gingrich has been a matter of friendship, not anti-Romneyism. And to hear the Wall Street Journal tell it, it’s Santorum whom Adelson thinks should not be the nominee.

You can imagine, then, the logical deal he might have struck with Gingrich backers: Here’s another ten million. Spend it on positive ads. Spend it slamming Santorum–especially in Michigan, please. But go easy on Mitt.

I don’t think this is so far fetched.  Personally, I think Gingrich’s goose is cooked.  His favorablility ratings have plummeted and voters in his camp and are stampeding to Santorum.  The only reason for him to stay in the race would be to help…Romney?  Last time I checked, Newt Gingrich wasn’t Mitt Romney’s greatest fan to put it lightly.  Strange bedfellows to say the least.  When the race gets down to a two-person race, Santorum absolutely cleans Romney’s clock.

There has been much made about an reverse Operation Chaos in Michigan by liberals helping Santorum win in Michigan which I think is kind of absurd.  If Obama is so confident of creaming Santorum in a head-to-head matchup, why this?

The campaign sent an e-mail asking Obama’s Keystone State supporters to submit their most damning “recollections” of Santorum, who served as a congressman and a senator from Pennsylvania for 16 years before losing reelection in 2006.

Santorum became a favorite target of liberals with his passionate statements against homosexuality and abortion, but despite his deeply conservative take on social issues, he has shown some ability to connect with blue-collar voters in the GOP presidential race — voters who have been a hard sell for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and could be crucial in a general election.

“Folks across the country are just starting to learn about Rick Santorum as he enjoys his newfound wave of popularity,” says the note, which was signed by Bill Hyers, Pennsylvania state director for Obama for America. “But people here have known him for some time. .?.?. And it’s on us to make sure the rest of the country sees Rick Santorum’s true colors.”

Will they start asking the “bitter clingers” in Pennsylvania, too?  Team Obama seems very worried about that blue-collar vote, and they should be, especially in PA, to whom that “bitter clinger” remark was directed in 2008.  Hillary Clinton beat Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio by winning that demographic, and Santorum would be better positioned than Romney to do the same in a general election.  Obama cannot win the White House if he loses both states in November, plus Indiana and possibly Wisconsin, where he’s already in trouble.

This was one of the chief advantages I was alluding to when I speculated what challenge as a candidate Santorum would pose to Obama.  Those Reagan Democrats, blue collar union social conservatives.  The talk all the time is who will get the independent swing voters where Obama has been hovering in the 35% range since 2010.  However, Obama absolutely needs the backing of this very important group.  If he doesn’t, Santorum will win in a walk in November.

Aside from this big problem, Obama has to worry about Greece defaulting, throwing Europe into a deeper recession and thus adversely affecting our economy, skyrocketing gas prices in the summer and the fall, and a debt ceiling fight that apparently is going to come up before Election Day.  And people are worried that Obama is a shoe-in to get re-elected less than nine months out?

I have seen a strange spirit of fear and anxiety throughout this nomination fight.  Those fearing that whomever gets the nod, how the vaunted Obama machine will destroy our candidates.  Then there is the hand-wringing over potential head-to-head polling matchups of each of the candidates vs. Obama.  Worst of all, the nastiness and vitriol between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich has done much damage to to their public image and makes one wonder if either of these guys is really cut out to be president.  On one hand you have Mitt Romney whom but all has the nomination shown up after Florida only to remind conservatives that he (with the willing consent of the establishment) really intends to pull the GOP leftward if he is the president.   Then you have Gingrich who after some sterling debate performances in South Carolina, reveals his very thin skin when he is attacked like he had in Iowa and he did again in Florida.   If Gingrich reacts to being attacked like he has been from Romney, just imagine his caterwauling when he gets hit by Obama.  Lo and behold, the door of opportunity has been opened to Rick Santorum who has handled himself in a dignified way, even in the face of some very cruel attacks from the media regarding his stillborn child.  When confronted about his support for earmarks that my man Rick Perry hit him with, he simply said “I’m not perfect.”  Should we give this guy a chance and unite around him?

I have my reservations about Santorum and many here have cited his past positions on votes and positions that he has taken during his time in Congress.  Big government conservatism has proven to be costly to our nation.  Keep in mind that the Tea Party movement didn’t get started until the Democrats started their push to get Obamacare signed into law.  Before then, our nation was mostly asleep to the financial peril that had been wrought by our leaders in Washington for quite some time before that.  Rick Santorum was in office when this was going on.  So long as the economy was good, things would be okay.  Then we woke up from our slumber staring at a government and legislation that would plunge our country into a financial abyss.

The one thing that I do know about Santorum is that he is a good man who takes a stand for things he believes in whether you agree with him or not.  Also, there is something truly American about how his presidential campaign has been.  Shoestring budget, little organization, dogged perseverance, tireless and grinding campaigning on the ground, hardly a presence on the airwaves but never giving up and keeping at it.  Given that his win in Iowa and his recent tri-state sweep in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado has turned some heads, people are paying attention to him.  And Mitt Romney is praying Newt Gingrich, the man whom his super PACs and campaign have been ruthlessly attacking him, stays in the race.

Santorum’s idea of going with a 0% corporate tax rate for manufacturing companies to jump start the Rust Belt is going to definitely perk some ears in Michigan and Ohio once voters there look at him which they are probably already doing.  But there is an awful omen for Mitt Romney starting to percolate.  The South is starting to look hard at Santorum too.  Santorum is up in Tennessee with the latest polling there.  Reason stands that if Santorum is up in Tennsessee, he probably is up in Ohio as well.  It will be interesting to see what polling is taking place in other Super Tuesday states in the South.  If Santorum wins Michigan (which PPP states that he has indeed pulled ahead) and pulls off a Super Tuesday sweep save Vermont and Massachusetts, he will be the nominee.  The South figured to be Gingrich territory but with Gingrich cratering everywhere in the polls, if it comes down between Romney and Santorum and Santorum takes the Midwest and the South, game over.

When I think about the challenge that Rick Santorum could pose to Barack Obama, I see a lot of advantages.  Beside all of Barack Obama’s presidential baggage that Santorum would no doubt remind voters of, Obama wouldn’t be able to go with the 1% tax the rich narrative that his campaign would love to hit Romney with, he would be hammered in regards to Obamacare and wouldn’t have Romneycare to save him, the recent debacle that Obama tried to pull with the HHS forcing churches to provide birth control as part of health coverage takes the social issue platform off the table, Obama’s weak foreign policy, I could go on and on.  Bottom line, the light of scrutiny would fall on Obama’s time in office and the shape our country economically is in.  Imperfect as Santorum is on a few things, he would be very difficult to attack in a general election.  Conservatives would no doubt be behind him, but his crossover appeal to blue collar union social conservative Democrats (the Reagan Democrats) could pose a very real problem for the Obama campaign.  There is a huge segment of this voting faction that doesn’t succumb to union strong arm thuggery. I speak as someone who has some friends and family in this faction.  The Obama campaign has to be worried about independents that he has been polling around 35% approval for a year now but if their union support is fractured, Obama is candidate for a landslide defeat.

Santorum-Rubio would be an awfully tough ticket.  So why are we afraid of Santorum getting the nod again?

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