Newt should have been able to hit another home run on that exchange about lobbying last night. Here is a very simple formula for setting the record straight.

1. Mitt either doesn’t know what lobbying is all about or is taking advantage of the fact that most of the public doesn’t know what lobbying is all about.

2. Newt’s company was engaged in teaching its clients how Washington works so that those clients could operate within the complexities of the system.

3. For example, Newt’s company would teach its clients how a particular government office works, or about how twenty years ago a particular U.S. Senator had a formative experience that will affect his decision making in a particular way, or how a particular regulator is really a rubber stamp for some other person or organization of influence.

4. It was then up to his clients to make use of that information in the course of their operations.

5. To call Gingrich a lobbyist would be akin to calling Bill O’Brien the quarterback of the New England Patriots.

6. It is just a unfortunate reality today that any large organization needs to understand how to work within the bureaucracy. Barack Obama has only grown that bureaucracy, making it even more necessary for firms to hire consultants who understand those complexities.

7. If Mitt really cared about reducing the need to “work the system,” he would join Newt in enthusiastically talking about a conservative vision to replace the current Federal behemoth.

Heading into South Carolina and Florida, the media is pushing the narrative that those primaries will allow Romney to seal his victory. For the remaining viable challengers to have any chance, this narrative needs to change.

According to RCP, the SC and FL polling currently looks like:

SC: 31.3 Romney, 20.7 Santorum, 19.7 Gingrich, 10.7 Paul, 5.0 Perry, 2.3 Huntsman
FL: 33.0 Romney, 25.0 Gingrich, 11.3 Santorum, 7.3 Paul, 4.5 Perry, 1.5 Huntsman

The question is whether Romney will be able to win nationally based on such a small plurality in the early contests, or whether the other campaigns will fold into each other to produce a national 2-man race. I tend to think that the latter case offers the best preparation for the eventual nominee, no matter who that may be.

So I’d like to throw out a request for redstate.com readers. If we want South Carolina and Florida to be about narrowing the race as opposed to confirming the front-runner, how can buzz be generated about the race to be the Romney alternative? What can the candidates do to shift the focus so that coming out of these contests the nation is looking at the results of the Gingrich-Santorum-Perry race?

We’re always hearing about the failures of modern civics education. Well here are a couple of anecdotes to give you a glimmer of hope.

On Thursday evening, I brought home Chinese food. My five-year-old daughter’s fortune cookie read “Go above and beyond your duty. You will benefit from it.” She smiled and said “that’s what we learned about for Veteran’s Day.” She also told us about the special guest who spoke to her kindergarten class. It was her classmate’s father, who “served in the Air Force and fixed the planes to help us win the war.”

Then on Friday, I was in the car with my third-grade son. Somehow, the subject of the Christmas tree tax came up. He asked “How can President Obama do that? Doesn’t Congress have to pass a law to make a new tax?”

So at least in my little corner of New Hampshire, maybe there is hope for the future.

Perhaps we need an administration in which Newt develops the ideas and works the mechanics but Cain keeps the administration grounded and sells the vision to the masses. It’s too bad they’re both from Georgia.

There is one line of political attack in this primary election that all RedStaters should unite against — the poison pill.  The Democrats control the Senate right now because Republicans allowed Republicans to wage and tolerate the waging of poison pill attacks.  If any of us allow our strategy to be that of making a particular opponent “damaged goods,” trusting that disqualification will follow in the course of the primary process, then we risk sowing the seeds of our own doom.

Is Herman Cain becoming a Christine O’Donnell?  Is the current news cycle giving his campaign a path of least resistance to a primary victory that precludes success in the general election?  Right now Mr. Cain’s biggest enemy is isolation.  He needs to do all that he can to gain visibility outside the bubble.  So far, his campaign has not shown signs of understanding the nature of the terrain in front of them.  Critical pieces of his team are missing and time is short.

Meanwhile, what are Republican activists doing in general?  Are we allowing this manufactured nonsense to consume our nominating process?  We certainly are, and many of us are hoping that our particular candidate will benefit in some way, or that it will take out a rival.  This is not the game we should be playing — if we do, we all will lose.

Right now, Mr. Cain needs to simply say “put up or shut up” and leave it there.  Unless someone can present a specific individual with a specific accusation, then it is time to move on.  Hopefully tomorrow’s “Lincoln-Douglas” debate in Houston will be an opportunity to get out of the mud for a few seconds, not because the mud will be gone, but rather because Speaker Gingrich will be offering the first really substantive test of Cain’s economic vision.

I would much rather have such a test be what determines which candidate stands as an alternative to Romney.

The sexual harassment story has now diverged into two distinct lines.  Aside from the reports of the various allegations, there is this notion that the past week should serve as some sort of exemplar of Cain’s ability to handle a crisis.  It is the latter storyline that is clearly the most damaging.

It is clear that Cain’s opponents have seized upon him at the most dangerous time for any campaign.  Despite his frontrunner status, the Cain campaign still has the infrastructure of a lower-tier candidate.  On top of that, he is an outsider, which makes it all that much more difficult to bring in experienced political consultants.  Absent the internal limitations of the Cain campaign this story is old news.

It is time for Herman Cain to admit something publicly.  He needs to get out there and change the story to one of campaign reorganization.  Times like this pit loyalty vs. accountability.  Many of us were quite frustrated when George W. Bush consistently erred on the side of loyalty.  Will Cain do any better?  After all, isn’t accountability really all about being loyal to your supporters even if that conflicts with loyalty to your inner circle?

One final note:  a public campaign reorganization is an opportunity to send a clear message that one is not about to fold.  It is an opportunity to grow into top-tier status.  It is an opportunity that should not be ignored.

The Constitution states that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”  In the months following the passage of Obamacare, many have remarked that while the “revenue bill” may have improperly originated in the Senate, the courts have established the precedent that most origination clause arguments are out-of-bounds because enforcement is the prerogative of the Legislative branch.  I would argue that there is a slight difference in this case that makes the origination of the legislation relevant to another key question.

Central to the argument in the Virginia and Florida challenges is the question of whether the individual mandate was enacted under Commerce Clause authority or under Taxation authority.  I would contend that the fact that the House acquiesced to pass the Senate bill is compelling evidence that it was the intent and understanding of the legislature to pass a regulation under Commerce Clause authority.

So even if we accept the precedent that the courts should show deference with regard to the self-regulation of the legislature’s internal workings, that does not preclude interpretation of legislative intent based on the manner of those workings vis-à-vis the Constitutional design.  If such a precedent could be established, it would be an important step towards reestablishing the notion that enumeration of powers means something.

So today I’m out chopping wood, and I see some people cutting through the yard. They are back in the woods a bit, and I figure they are just the neighbor’s kids. A bit later I hear what sounds like a shot. Then I walk around the front and find their van.

These jerks were cutting through what is obviously a residential area and hunting in the neighbors’ backyard.

Now I just moved in and never bothered to put up “posted” signs because the frontage was obviously settled residential all up and down the street. I suppose they may have been able to cut through six or seven backyards to get past the residential area, but I doubt they even did that.

And those jerks — they could see me chopping wood — they just hurried back into the woods. They didn’t even have the courtesy to ask permission to cut through.

We’ll I’ve now ordered a bunch of “posted” signs on E-bay, but let me just point out to any RedStaters that might be willing to listen that it is that sort of jerk that is ruining things for the rest of us.

We are losing our rights because fewer and fewer of us are mindful of even common courtesy. We’ve become so darn self-centered. That is why so many people are looking to impose more and more regulations.

If we cannot address this degeneration of our culture, then we are doomed to tyranny.

Many of us have been carefully watching for McCain to move ahead in this year’s national polling. However, we must realize that based on the turnout assumptions underlying all of these polls, it is nearly impossible for McCain to move ahead. That does not mean that the election is out of reach.

This year’s polling assumes a turnout model that, if it were to hold true, would require McCain to win upwards of 25% of Democrats in order to just pull even. Note that if such a thing were to happen, the actual voter turnout could not possibly look like what is assumed by the model. The model assumes that McCain is doomed to lose, and only seeks to explain why.

If the Joe the Plumber campaign and the Sarah Palin selection have indeed won McCain some votes, then we would expect to see a small effect in the numbers reported in the major polls. However, the greater actual effect to expect is that the actual turnout will ultimately look very different from the current assumptions.

If GOP turnout is within a few points of Democratic turnout in the swing states, then McCain wins. If Democratic turnout is ten to fifteen points greater, then McCain loses. If the assumptions hold true and young and single voters turn out in record numbers while older and married voters stay home, then Obama wins. If turnout is more conventional, then McCain wins.

It is very hard to develop a turnout model based on polling. It is even harder this year, in which Obama supports will naturally tend to want the talk about their support, while McCain supporters are naturally more reserved.

McCain may very well win on Tuesday. If he does, we will eventually learn that all of the polls were indeed right, but that the data was incorrectly interpreted because the pollsters based their assumptions on an erroneous reading of the dispositions of the American electorate.

If Obama wins, America is simply receiving the leader she deserves. Those of us who choose Obama’s neo-Communist vision do not deserve to live in a free society.

If Obama wins, Republicans are simply receiving a well-deserved judgment. If only took two years for the 1994 new GOP majority to turn to incumbency protection games and corruption. How many good people were pushed out? How many Republican leaders simply sought to play the same power games are the Democrats had for decades before?

If Obama wins, Conservatives are simply receiving a well-deserved judgment. How many conservatives have allowed themselves to ride along with a corrupt Republican leadership without attempting to take a stand? How many of us have allowed our beliefs to get watered down into constructs lacking intellectual depth or perception of the world around us? How many of us have accepted bogus arguments that moral issues are best buried or diluted so as to maximize the prospects of electoral victory?

If Obama wins, even the Joe-the-Plumber types among us are reaping what they deserve. How many won’t put up a lawn sign for fear of vandalism? How many avoid water cooler conversation opportunities for fear of the derision of co-workers?

Let us not only pray for a victory. Let us examine ourselves and our faults. Let us don sackcloth and ashes and pray for forgiveness. Let us resolve that whoever wins we will put ourselves in the service of the higher calling that we have received to preserve, protect and defend a society which maximizes our freedom to choose and do what is good, and that allows us to realize the benefits of a hard life chosen when comfort is in reach.

An if McCain wins, let us also realize that it is only by God’s forgiveness that we have been granted a reprieve. All of us deserve Obama. All of us deserve even worse. We need to build a new conservative movement that is more than an empty Reagan nostalgia club, and more than a temporary confluence of interests. We need to form a vision of how a free society can exist and thrive in a modern infrastructure-dependent world. We need to form a vision of how a society that respects life can persist in a world where so much is to be gained from choosing death. We need to form a vision of a world where religion is at the center of a science-based society.

God will allow us to suffer an Obama presidency if we cannot honestly commit to such a cause. For under Obama such things must and will happen in the shadows, someday to emerge from the ashes of a fallen empire. But let us repent and commit ourselves to prayer and service despite the outcome, and maybe He will favor us with His mercy.

Only 51-49? What is going on here? Kerry won four years ago, 56-44.

Recently, a group of Harvard political science students conducted a mock election for local 7th graders in the Boston area. The only catch was that the two candidates were identified only by a description of their positions on various issues. Their names were unveiled only after the votes had been counted.

The results: the 7th graders were in tears. McCain won a solid victory.

There is hope for the future, but we must understand that we have allowed ourselves to fall into our sorry state. We are the ones who supported the gamesmanship over principle that has utterly destroyed the GOP brand. We are the ones who have discouraged the pursuit of careers in policy, public office and the media. Yes, other pursuits are more directly beneficial, but we have left a void for the left to fill.

And we are the ones who have allowed those who have filled that void to define us and ours.

Obama’s “tax cut for 95% of working families” is baselined to the tax rate after the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. I.e. taxes will be raised, then he will lower them partially and selectively.

It is kind of like when a store marks up all of its prices, then has a big sale.

What a rip-off!

Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. Joe the plumber can articulate free market principles better than most GOP politicians. We need a movement to draft him as a candidate, either for Congress or for state office in Ohio.

History will remember this era as a time in which many of our largest and most well-established institutions were crushed by their own weight. Complaints that a cop is tasering a kid, that a priest is making moves on the altar boys or that those with fiduciary responsibility are stealing from the kitty all seem to lead to similar frustration. Ethics rules and investigatory procedures always seem to come down hard on those seeking to end the abuse.

The last question of Tuesday’s debate was submitted by Peggy Silva, a high school teacher from Amherst, New Hampshire. The question was “What don’t you know and how will you learn it?”

According to today’s Nashua Telegraph:

Tom Brokaw is a friend of Silva’s daughter’s father-in-law, who e-mailed Brokaw right away to tell him who asked the final question.

Small world?

Silva also has been selected to question presidential candidates in 1991 and 2000. (At New Hampshire primary events, candidates are very accessible and usually still need to take lots of questions.)

I am worried that the GOP is on the verge of misplaying the Ayers issue. This is something that should be a big liability for Obama. However, many of the persuadable voters out there want to believe in a political messiah who will bring us back to the mythical fat dumb and happy 90′s. People are looking for a reason to give Obama a pass on Ayers. Most of the electorate does not want to believe that a candidate that they feel a personal affinity toward might harbor extremist views. That is why going at associations can easily be spun as an unfair or even racist attack.

Here is a way around that spin.

Begin script:

As a community organizer, Barack Obama worked with Acorn, an activist group that believes that it is so important for liberal politicians to win election, that they are willing to sanction voter fraud when it helps their cause.

As an aspiring Chicago politician, Barack Obama allied himself with Bill Ayers, a 60′s radical who believes that domestic terrorism is justified if it is in service of a left-wing agenda.

Now does Barack Obama share these extremist views? Probably not. But how can someone who sees nothing wrong with allying himself with such extremists be expected to unite the country?

We need someone who has consistently sought to me mindful of the sensibilities of mainstream America, even when he had to take an unpopular stand. We need John McCain.

Blue collar worker: Year, I know Biden told some whoppers in the debate. But you know when he gets in there, he’ll be our liar.

Angry middle America Voice: For years we have elected liars, thieves and B.S. artists thinking that we’ll at least get some piece of the take. What did we get? Congress set up Fannie and Freddie and let it be run by their former politician buddies, and now look what we’ve got.

A different blue collar worker: This year I’m voting for someone with a track record of giving us straight talk. I’m tired of sweet talkers pushing nothing but lies and empty promises. What about you?

Blue collar worker: Year, I know Biden told some whoppers in the debate. But you know when he gets in there, he’ll be our liar.

Angry middle America Voice: For years we have elected liars thieves and B.S. artists thinking that we’ll at least get some piece of the take. What did we get? Congress set up Fannie and Freddie and let it be run by their former politician buddies, and now look what we’ve got.

A different blue collar worker: This year I’m voting for someone with a track record of giving us straight talk. I’m tired of sweet talkers pushing nothing but lies and empty promises. What about you?

Here are a few thoughts regarding upcoming opportunities for McCain:

• Use a good phrase

“Obama thinks America’s hate of George Bush runs so deep that he can sell a cr*p sandwich of tax increases and surrender.”

• Continue with an appeal to the middle

“Bush has made some huge mistakes, and many times I’ve called him on it, but if you are consistently opposed to someone who is wrong half the time, then you are wrong half the time. In a two party system we are often stuck going back and forth between two sides who are wrong half the time. Mr. Obama has towed the left’s party line consistently. Any American who thinks my track record is towing the party line has either had his head in the sand all these years or has been drinking the Kool-Aid.”

• How about a high road attack

“Even though it would have benefited my campaign, I’ve been holding my fire until the emergency economic measures passed the House. Now that we’ve taken action, I’m going to name names and tell you how we got into this mess…”