I’m going to keep this post short. Tonight is another debate but it is the first debate in which Newt Gingrich is the clear front-runner for the Republican nomination.

Yea, I called Hades they assured me it was not snowing.

There are two ads running against Gingrich sponsored by the Iowa Christian group. Now, those of you who know me, know I am not a religious person, but these ads portend what the Democrats will do to Newt in a general election.

I am at a loss for words.

I know it’s hard to believe, but I am.

Newt Gingrich is surging in the polls and I am stunned. It is possible that people have simply forgotten who is the real Newt Gingrich  and are just impressed with his debate performances.  I have tried to adhere to Reagan’s 11th commandment: “thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican,”  although there are times when it is unavoidable. When I have had an intense dislike for a candidate, such as Rick Perry, I admitted the fact straight up. A dislike, I must add, which has waned quite a bit since his “brain freeze.” Since then, he has shown a strength of character one can only find admirable.

A strength of character those of us who have been paying attention to politics over the years knows Newt Gingrich does not possess.

I understand the Mitt v the not Mitt battle and while I think Mitt is the only candidate who can defeat Obama in 2012, I always maintained I would support the Republican candidate. Not If its Gingrich. My principles will not allow it. I will not reward Gingrich’s past with my support. For me, his past numerous tax issues alone are enough to disqualify him.

When the Republican primary began I stated I wanted Gingrich on the stage for his ideas. I had hoped his ideas would influence the direction of the campaign. I never imagined the Republican party would forget the man he is. Yes, he is the same man he was 15 years ago despite his performances. Every now and then you get a flash of the arrogance the man possesses.  Newt Gingrich embodies the phrase ” a leopard never changes its spots, it just hides in the bushes for a while”

It would appear I was not at a loss of words, like I thought.

I’m going to end this with a quote from Rammesh Ponnuru recent piece:

Gingrich’s fans say that he isn’t the same man he was then; he has “matured” in his 60s. Maybe so. But he’s still erratic: This year he flip-flopped three times on the top issue of the day, the House Republican plan to reform Medicare. He’s still undisciplined: He went on a vacation cruise at the start of his campaign. He still has the same old grandiosity: In recent weeks he has compared himself to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and said confidently that the nomination was his.

He still has the same need to justify his every petty move by reference to some grand theory. Plenty of politicians competing in Iowa come out for ethanol subsidies; only Gingrich would proclaim that in doing so he was standing up to city slickers in a culture war invented in his own mind. He still has a casual relationship with the truth. In recent weeks he has said that Freddie Mac (FMCC) paid him to condemn its business model, only for reporters and bloggers to find out that he had in fact shilled for the organization in return for about $1.6 million.

He still has the same penchant for sharing whatever revelation has just struck him, as with his recent musings about getting rid of child-labor laws. “He goes off the deep end and throws things out there,” says Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the Manchester Union Leader, which has endorsed Gingrich. He means it as a compliment, but it doesn’t strike me as one of the top traits to seek in a president. Many voters may have the same reaction.

The race for the Republican nomination appears to have come down to two intelligent, knowledgeable men in Gingrich and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Neither of them has a history of down-the-line conservatism. Gingrich can match Romney flip-flop for flip-flop and heresy for heresy. He has supported cap-and-trade legislation, federal funding for embryonic stem- cell research, the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs and a federal requirement for everyone to buy health insurance. He has been neither more consistent nor more conservative than Romney.

I’m glad it’s December, because if this trend for Newt continues, I’m going to need lots of eggnog.

Again, I was planning on taking a little time off from posting but circumstances are conspiring to make me throw in my two cents. Now, according to our new front-runner, Newt Gingrich, who has proclaimed himself the nominee, he is the most conservative candidate. Interesting article from Bloomberg with a remarkable quote from Gingrich. Here is the most telling part of the article:

Newt Gingrich in 2007 extolled the virtues of Freddie Mac (FMCC), saying he would be “very cautious” about changing the way the mortgage-finance company’s public- private business plan operated.

In an interview placed on Freddie Mac’s website, the Republican presidential candidate said the U.S. government sponsored enterprise, or GSE, could serve as a guide for rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf of Mexico, improving health care and funding space exploration. For decades, Freddie Mac collected profits while benefiting from an implicit taxpayer guarantee of its debt,

“I’m convinced that, if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today,” Gingrich said in the April 24, 2007, web post.

“While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself,” he said. It “marries private enterprise to a public purpose.”

At the time of his comments, Freddie Mac and its larger rival Fannie Mae were under fire from Republicans, who said their government charters allowed them to make profits for shareholders while putting taxpayers at risk. Gingrich, a former U.S. House speaker, has voiced criticism of the companies in recent years.

The companies’ government backing made home loans artificially inexpensive and allowed the companies to squeeze private players out of the mortgage-lending business, their critics said.

Don’t you just feel the conservatism from Newt?

I know. I know.

I have not posted in over a week, but it was holiday weekend.

Guess what.

I wasn’t going to post this week , but sometimes things happen and I have to throw in my two cents.

It appears the latest polls have Newt Gingrich firmly in the front-runner spot and now to paraphrase Herman Cain; ” There is a big target on his back.” 

Well,  Ron Paul just hit the bullseye on that target:

I am sick of the debates.

My only hope after watching this “foreign policy” debate is for my antacid to kick in, bringing me to full strength so I can enjoy my Thanksgiving feast.

Last Night was ‘The Ron Paul Show.” I suppose CNN wanted to make up for the lack of coverage he has been receiving and decided to give him time to light up the stage with his unique brand of nonsense.

Dr Paul says we are not at war.

Dr Paul says Al Qaeda does not want to attack us on our land.

Dr. Paul says legalize drugs.

Okay, let us get this straight. Dr Paul, Congress may not have declared war against a particular country, but there is a group out there that has declared war on us. Therefore we are at war.

Living a mile away from ground zero, your statement about Al Qaeda not wanting to attack us here in America grinds me to the point where I cannot civilly respond.

Finally, your desire to legalize drugs simply explains your loyal following from a certain sub-group of the youth vote.

Now, I can give the standard rundown on the debate, because nothing really changed last night. However, these two paragraphs from a piece written by Ronald Brownstein in the National Journal sums up this debate nicely:

The candidates disagreed on an array of other issues, but apart from immigration none of them appear likely to move many Republican voters. Like an earlier national security-debate co-sponsored by National Journal, Tuesday’s encounter revolved less around contrast than competence: that is, the test for the candidates was not so much drawing distinctions with each other as in convincing viewers that they could cross the threshold as a credible commander-in-chief. On that front, Gingrich, Romney and Jon Huntsman probably scored the highest. Perry still looked like someone trying to remember his note cards, and Herman Cain provided several vague and gauzy answers that seemed designed to consume his sixty seconds with the least possible risk either of a mistake or imparting any actual information. (He still had one: misstating moderator Wolf Blitzer’s name.) Ron Paul gave his faction in the party more reason to cheer with a spirited affirmation of libertarian McGovernism (Paul did everything but cry “Come home America”), but also deepened the gulf that separates him from most Republicans on most foreign policy issues…….

The debate captured Romney’s approach on most domestic and foreign policy issues — an approach that resembles the strategy of “drafting” behind the leaders in a cycling race. On issues such as Pakistan and Iran, Romney consistently took positions slightly less conservative than the most ideological of his rivals. Consistently it appears he settles in a position not so conservative that he provides an easy target to President Obama if he wins the nomination, but not so moderate that he provides his opponents an easy target in the primaries. The big exception of course was immigration, where Romney moved immediately Tuesday to outflank Gingrich on the right, just as he did Perry. How Gingrich handles the tumultuous reaction that his qualified legalization proposal will almost certainly ignite will determine whether he can hold his position as Romney’s major challenger any longer than the previous aspirants for the job — Bachmann, Perry and Cain.

I will add this one last observation, Rick Santorum had his best performance to date.

Now, I’m going to take some Pepto-Bismol and get ready for Thanksgiving.

This is a quick follow-up to my last post. First, I want to thank everyone for the thoughtful responses. Second, I wanted to post a picture of what the electoral college map would look like in a 270 Obama victory. Alas, the best I could do is provide the link to the map I created, here. After looking at the map, COME BACK, I know it is an ugly picture and I hate to think what would become of the country if this scenario played out. Now, after looking at the map the good news is obvious, all the Republican nominee needs to do is peel away one state and Obama is a one term president. Which blue state do you think would be the most likely to vote Republican? Conversely, which red state do you think Obama may be able to win? Personally, I think I have maxed out the states Obama can win. Unfortunately, they also happened to be the states I think he will most likely win.

There are many on the right who believe if the Republicans nominate a ham sandwich, it will defeat President Obama in 2012. They believe President Obama’s re-election will be a redux of President Carter’s attempt in 1980. President Carter won five states( and DC) in his attempt to be re-elected: Minnesota, West Virginia, Rhode Island and Georgia for a total of 49 electoral college votes.

I guarantee President Obama will win more than five states and has a lock on a lot more than 49 electorial college votes. Let us take a look at the Electorial college map from 2008:

Obama defeated McCain 365-173.

Let’s start with the good news. Due to changes in the electoral college, if this same result occurred now, Obama’s victory would be narrowed to 359-179.

I am also making the assumption every state won by McCain will support the Republican nominee. 

In the race to 270 electorial votes, the Republican nominee starts with 179.

Now, I am going to give theses states to President Obama as locked up: CA,CT,DE, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD,NY, OR, RI,WA,VT for a lock on 168 electorial college votes.

I should probably give NJ’s 14 electorial college votes to Obama for a total of 182, but I live in New Jersey and  I like to think there is a chance, so indulge me.

Now this leads me to the states President Obama has the advantage: ME, MI, MN, NJ, NV, OH, PA ,WI this brings his total to 270 and a second term.

Governor Christie warned Republicans on Monday:

Anyone who underestimates the president underestimates at their own peril …(Democrats) know how to campaign, they know politics. … People who believe he’s a shoo-in loser are wrong.

I think I just proved by the numbers, why Governor Christie is correct.

When the series of debates began, I thought they were fun.

But I’m a political junkie.

I’m suffering from an overdose.

I’m not going to mention the infamous 53 seconds endured by Rick Perry.

Okay, maybe not.

It can’t go without comment.

As I have said numerous times, I don’t like Rick Perry. I never did and I never will, but I never, EVER, wanted to see the man go through something like that. Take us to last night’s foreign policy debate and I’m pleased to say Rick Perry performed competently. Oh, I still do not like him. I never will and I certainly do not think his performance was campaign saving like many of his ardent supporters believe, but hey, anything to get rid of the taste in our mouths from the previous debate.

Now that I addressed the Elephant in the room.

Okay, maybe not an elephant. Elephants are known for their memories.

You know I had to do one joke.

These debates are now becoming charactertures of the candidates and the media. The media continues to attempt to get the candidates to slit each other’s throats and fortunately all the candidates are no longer falling into that particular trap. Last night, CBS debate moderator, Scott Pelly, seemed more intent on bullying the candidates than allowing them to answer the questions fairly.

I’m not going to do an in-depth analysis of this debate. It was the 11th debate and I think we have about another 500 more to go before the Iowa caucus.

The bottom line on this debate, Rick Perry wins because he showed the world he knows how to tie his shoes.

The losers are CBS and National Journal for producing a poorly structured, poorly moderated, poorly timed debate.

The biggest losers?

Those of us who had nothing better to do on a Saturday Night.

In the 1930′s, places like these were called Hoovervilles:

Now, in 2011, welcome to Obamaville.

Politics is the art or science of governing.

Sounds good, doesn’t it?

I learned this definition more years ago than I wish to admit.

Campaigns are meant to present voters a clear message as to why a politician’s vision is worthy of their support. 

Yesterday, was a bad day for the three Republican front-runners.

I’ll start with Rick Perry. In case this is unknown, I don’t like Rick Perry. I say this to be fair, not to denigrate him.

I want to denigrate him.

I do.

But I won’t.

See, this is me not denigrating him.

Yesterday, the Governor from Texas released a “bold” new tax plan. The day should have been about him hitting the campaign trail selling his new plan, leading to major headlines about his tax reform plan. Instead of the talk being about his plan, the headlines are: “Rick Perry: I Don’t care if tax plan helps the rich”, “Rick Perry calls Mitt Romney a Fat Cat”  and if you are not hearing those headlines, you are hearing about Rick Perry keeping alive the birther movement or mentioning President Obama’s grades.

This is called stepping on your own message.

Mitt Romney yesterday went to a Republican Party phone bank in Ohio and refused to support Governor Kasich’s reform plans. Something he previously supported on his facebook page.

This is called a mix message, something Governor Romney knows very well.

Finally, we have Herman Cain’s web ad. This, well see for yourself:

Unless this ad was a meant to be a cigarette commercial, this is called a lost message.

I’m not sure I can think of a time when three major candidates running for President committed significant campaign mistakes ON THE SAME DAY!

Congratulations candidates!

You hit the trifecta; A stepped on message, a mixed message and a lost message. What’s the pay-off: 4 more years of President Obama!

Candidates, get your acts together! If you don’t, Obama will run right over you and America’s malaise will continue.