They're All Team Romney (Sort of)

And you thought we were done hearing from these guys.


Even when he drops out of a race, he has to do it his way. The former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich will soon be the former Republican presidential candidate- when he drops out next week.
Exactly what is the point in announcing that you will drop out in a week? How is that different from dropping out now?
When you are Newt, these things just happen. He claims it is because they are working out the details of his endorsement of Mitt Romney. Again, what is the point in announcing you are working out your endorsement, when obviously you will be endorsing?
Oh Newt, we might actually miss some of your antics. Or not.

In the meantime, someone who did not have to announce a week in advance that he would be endorsing Romney, former Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry is no longer Team Gingrich (now that Gingrich will be Team Romney (eventually)).
Here’s the full Perry statement:

“Mitt Romney has earned the Republican presidential nomination through hard-work, a strong organization, and disciplined message of restoring America after nearly four years of failed job-killing policies from President Obama and his administration. So today I join the many conservative Republicans across the nation in endorsing Mitt Romney for President and pledge to him, my constituents and the Republican Party that I will continue to work hard to help defeat President Obama. American jobs, economic stability and national security depend on electing a new president. Mitt’s vision and record of private sector success will put America back on the path of job creation, economic opportunity and limited government.”

He could have just said, "He beat the rest of us, and this is what good Republicans do who ever want to have a political future in the party," and that would have sufficed. 

Speaking of which, former Utah Governor and former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Jr., apparently doesn't want a career in the GOP. 

In a recent speech to the Harvard Kennedy School he said, "The party is not in a good place right now, given its recent rhetoric on immigration." (Source: The Crimson) Comments like that don't go over well when a few folks are still annoyed over a comment he made in March to MSNBC. "I think we’re going to have problems politically until we get some sort of third party movement or some voice out there that can put forth new ideas. We might not win, but we can certainly influence the debate."

Silly me for thinking that a nominee emerging from the pack would mean we wouldn't have to hear from the other guys anymore. I guess everyone had to get one last word in!

Who Said What?

Meanwhile, here are the top stories on Drudge this morning.

Can you guess which of the GOP candidates said what?

1. The idea that the Republicans have to be organized before [the convention] or they will be out of the race I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of television, the internet, you know YouTube, all the things we now communicate with. A very exciting Republican Party that actually talked about ideas and actually had a fight over the platform based on real ideas, I think might be a more interesting party than one which nominates somebody who's boring for five months.

2. And that is that English needs to be the principal language. There are other states with more than one language, like Hawaii, but [for Puerto Rico] to be a state of the United States, English must be the principal language.

3. There will not be a brokered convention.

4. Yadayadayada, gold standard, federal reserve, yadayadayada.


To be fair, the first one was said in 2008. [source]
2 Source
No source for #3 because I heard it live on air this morning.

Delegate Math- how Santorum won the states, but Romney won the delegates

Here is what the headlines all say-

CNN

Fox News

Yahoo Conglomerate

 And my absolute favorite-

Daily Beast/Newsweek

Now, I don't mean to make this site completely 100% pro-Romney. But yes, my biases show through. I don't apologize for that, since apparently I'm not the only one incapable of not showing bias.
All of the major news outlets ran headlines promoting Santorum. And yes, Santorum did win two states last night. But there were 3 states and a territory in play! But when you count up the delegate vote, guess what? Santorum DID NOT WIN!
Romney took home the 9 delegates from American Samoa. (I am very biased when it comes to Samoa. After all, I lived there as a child, and my father played a part in them becoming a territory. So yes, again, I am biased, and unapologetically so.) American Samoa, which, for all of you haoles, is pronounced SAW-mo-uh, not suh-MO-uh (not one pundit got that right last night), is a little island nowhere near Hawaii, hanging out on the international date line.
About 70 people turned out in AS to vote for Romney. Only registered GOP could vote in the caucus, so few attended. It's rare in American Samoa for anyone to officially register as a Republican or Democrat because local elected officials don't run on party lines.

American Samoa
Romney 70


Mississippi
Romney 88,619 (31%)
Santorum 94,909 (33%)

Hawaii
Romney 4,250 (45%)
Santorum 2,369 (25%)

Alabama
Romney 180,184 (29%)
Santorum 214,493 (35%)

Now for basic math-
Romney = 88619+ 4250+180184+70= 273,123
Santorum= 94909+2369+214493= 311,711
Santorum lead by 38,648.

Now, for those of you who like to call out my bias- look I just showed you how Santorum won the popular count.

But back to the delegates- here's last night's haul.
41 Romney
35 Santorum
24 Gingrich
1 Paul

Now we can't possibly have an election in the United States without someone complaining about the electoral college, delegates, and apparently now the delegate system. The delegate system is based on the electoral college. The electoral college goes all the way back to Constitution Convention of 1787, and before that to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic (your random fact of the day, your welcome).
The GOP convention and delegate system has changed a few times since it began in 1856. We've been using the current state by state delegate system for about 40 years (early 1970s).
This is me going rogue here. My gut tells me that professor of history Newt Gingrich is up to something. He's a smart man. Yes, he's as egotistical as they come. But he is smart, and he knows better than anyone else that he has no chance of winning. So why is he staying in the race? My gut says he wants to change the delegate allocation system. I don't know what he wants to change or how he wants to change it. But he's not running on a platform (like Ron Paul) where he wants to bring some specific issue to the convention and get it noticed. In fact, other than his current gas price stunt, and the moon colony thing, I can't think of any specific issue he has really talked much about. But he has to be up to something. And my gut says it is going to be something to do with changing the delegate counts. Again, this is a man who is a professor of history, with a mind that knows details and procedures like no other. It fits. I think he will stay in the race right up till the convention, so that he can make a threat or ultimatum to change the system.
Anyone want to argue with me on that?

Rick Santorum Beat Chuck Norris, but Romney Beat Santorum

Chuck Norris can count to infinity twice, but he can't beat Rick Santorum.
The previously unconquerable Chuck Norris made robocalls for Newt Gingrich in Alabama this week. But not even the roundhouse kicking icon was enough to score Gingrich a win. Or did Rick Santorum beat Chuck Norris??
Or did Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum?
Rick Santorum managed to sweep the South with victories in both Alabama and Mississippi. Gingrich took second, and Mitt Romney technically took third. If Ron Paul even knew there were primaries tonight, I'd be surprised.

While this is a major feat for Santorum, it doesn't actually help get anyone anywhere near closer to victory in the end. Because both states were proportional states, and the wins were nearly 30% splits, the delegates will get divided up equally. There were/are 107 delegates up for grabs today/last night. (We're still waiting on Hawaii and American Samoa to come in right now.) 47 in Alabama, 37 in Mississippi, 17 in Hawaii caucuses and six more in caucuses in American Samoa. It will probably divide up Santorum 29 delegates,  Gingrich 24 and Romney 22.
-- Corrected--
That was the AP prediction last night. Here are the updated, corrected numbers.
After Tuesday votes in Mississippi, Alabama, Hawaii and American Samoa:
DELEGATES WON
41 Romney
35 Santorum
24 Gingrich
1 Paul

CNN Delegate Count, Source:http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html?hpt=hp_t1

Uh, yeah, so Santorum may have won two states, Romney walked away with the most delegates (again). So I stand by my earlier declaration. Rick Santorum may have beaten Chuck Norris, but Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum.

And while it may seem crazy that Alabama and Mississippi even managed to be important in a GOP primary, it is even crazier that Puerto Rico is in play this week as well. In fact, Santorum mentioned it several times in his victory speech that he's headed there next. It couldn't possibly be because no one else is headed there, Romney just won all those [almost forgettable] other island protectorates, and PR has 23 winner take call delegates.

Residents of Illinois can look forward to a long week of negative ads and robocalls until their primary next Tuesday.

Santorum continues to fight the mathematical projections (that say he can't win), and Romney still has more delegates than everyone else combined. Depending on which news outlet you listen to, Romney may or may not amass enough delegates before the convention.
Gingrich's spox (Hogan?) said some disturbing things on CNN tonight. He really insinuated that Gingrich is sticking it out to the convention just to mess with the way the process currently works. It left me with a very uncomfortable feeling. Gingrich is a die-hard Republican. I trust him to not do anything to truly hurt the party. But I have no trouble picturing him wanting to change the primary process and doing all of this just for that purpose.

Media Bias and What Happens Next

A look at this evening's "top of the fold" cover on the Huffington Post is a sad look at media bias in politics. From the "Hiel Hitler" pose to the "hostile takeover" headline, there is nothing but bias in this image. And since when was a five year bid a "hostile takeover?"

I stopped watching Fox News years ago because of the hatred and vile on the network. Sure, maybe it is conservative friendly (it isn't fair and balanced, that's for sure), but I don't care to hear hatred for any party. I only read the Huffington Post to get a true liberal slant on stories for something to compare my own beliefs against. I prefer CNN because I think they actually spend more time on looking pretty and sleek graphics and theme music than they do on bias. (And because they are the only American network I can rely on to give me human rights stories.)

But if there is one thing to be learned from this political cycle it is that Mitt Romney has not won over the media. The news stories today have all been about how Romney has failed to win all Republicans. Or how the base is not yet behind him. And if I hear one more story about how the GOP doesn't have a strong candidate and may have to go to a brokered convention, I may pull my hair out.

Let's look at the straight up facts.
Romney now has 429 delegates, compared with 169 for Rick Santorum, 118 for Newt Gingrich and 67 for Ron Paul. Add it up, kids. That is 429 delegates for Romney, 354 for the other three guys combined. That is a majority of Republicans behind Romney. The other three guys put together can't outdo him. Yes, I've seen the stories about not getting enough delegates and a potential brokered convention. And if that happens, so be it. There's no point in saying "Well, historically..." anymore. This campaign cycle hasn't followed any historic patterns, so we can stop pretending it will in the future.

The plain and simple truth is that Gingrich needs to step down. He has 118 delegates, which in theory is impressive. Except 53 of those came from his own home state last night. He only got 79 delegates total last night. He came in third or fourth place in every single state except for his home state! He's not winning. His money is drying up. And he will have no momentum to move forward. He has no chance of suddenly winning at a brokered convention, although I suspect that a brokered convention would be a daydream of his. He loves history. He probably relishes the idea of a shouting match on the convention floor and the thought of being carried on the shoulders of his men through the room to the stage. But the truth is, if he hadn't been absolutely vile to the competition up to this point, if he were to drop out now, he would make a good VP. But he shot himself in the foot when it comes to that.

No one is more surprised than I am that Rick Santorum is a strong contender. And the truth is, I don't actually think he is that strong on his own merits. I think what he is is the poster child for the anti-Romney vote. I don't believe people are behind Santorum as much as they are against Romney. I believe if anything were to happen at a brokered convention that it would be a dark horse who could usurp Santorum support. And if that person were charismatic and surprising enough, he/she could really compete against Romney.

(As for Ron Paul, do I think he should bow out? Yes. But I don't think it would make any difference. I don't think his supporters would then fall behind someone else. I think they would follow him out of the party. However, I do think in the tightest races like Ohio last night, it would make a difference if there had been one less "anti-Romney" option available.)

So really, it all comes down to Romney at this point. He either has to finally, convincingly win over more voters, or we're going to a brokered convention. He's a by the book kind of guy, so I don't think we'll see any surprise moves come out of him. But if it were me, and I wanted to shake things up, I'd buck convention completely at this point and do something crazy like start talking seriously about VP possibilities. If you can't get the voters to love you, get them to love your ticket. (For instance, a Romney- Nikki Haley ticket? Who could argue with that?)

Just a little interesting moment from Twitter last night. Judging by the surprising number of retweets, I'd say I'm not alone. 

Super Tuesday Predictions

Spoiler Alert! If you don't like knowing what to expect on Super Tuesday, you have been warned.
Here's what to expect tomorrow- the polls and my personal predictions. (Note- I am making my predictions without taking the time to see how the states divide up the delegates (winner takes half? by congressional district? truly proportional?) Nonetheless, I feel confident overall.)

Alaska- 27 delegates, proportional (caucus) - There are no available polls for this state, so I'll base my predictions on the national polls- Romney 39%, Santorum 26%, Gingrich 14%, Paul 12%. Except in this case, my gut says Alaska would be a Paul friendly state.
Prediction: Romney 12 delegates, Paul 8, Santorum 5, Gingrich 2.

Georgia- 76 delegates, proportional- Last week's polls (2/26) showed Gingrich 34%, Santorum 25%, Romney 21.5%, Paul 8.8%. But this week Gingrich has actually increased that lead to about 40(ish)%, and Romney has taken second place.
Prediction: Gingrich 36 delegates, Romney 15, Santorum 15, Paul 10.

Idaho- 32 delegates, proportional (caucus)- no available polls. But I'll call it more than 40% for Romney.
Prediction: Romney 20 delegates, Paul 10, Santorum 2, Gingrich 0.

Massachusetts- 41 delegates, proportional- expect Romney to win by a landslide (polls indicate a 40 point lead)
Prediction: Romney 30 delegates, Santorum 5, Paul 5, Gingrich 1.

North Dakota- 28 delegates, proportional- no available polls, so again, I'll go with the national polls, but this time straight across the board (as compared to my Alaska feelings).
Prediction: Romney 12 delegates, Santorum 8, Gingrich 5, Paul 3.

Ohio- 66 delegates, proportional - Santorum and Romney are neck and neck. Most polls have them tied or within a point of each other. But this is a meeting in the middle at the moment. Santorum is sliding down, while Romney is climbing up. Expect it to be close, with a tie for delegate count.
Prediction: Santorum 25 delegates, Romney 25, Gingrich 10, Paul 6.

Oklahoma- 43 delegates, proportional - most recent polls are over 2 weeks old. At that time Santorum had a 20 point lead. I'll call it for Santorum, since no one else has invested any time or resources there.
Prediction: Santorum 25 delegates, Romney 10, Paul 8, Gingrich 0.

Tennessee- 58 delegates, proportional- a last minute poll shows things are almost tied up in a state that had been expected to be Santorum and Gingrich friendly.That poll shows Santorum 35%, Romney 31%, Gingrich 20%, and Paul 9%. And again, this is a Santorum on the downhill, and Romney on the uphill situation. But there has been early voting that gives Santorum the advantage.
Prediction: Santorum 22 delegates, Romney 18, Gingrich 10, Paul 8.

Vermont- 17 delegates, proportional- most recent poll is 2 weeks old, but had Romney with a modest lead.
Prediction: Romney 10 delegates, Santorum 4, Paul 3, Gingrich 0.

Virginia- 49 delegates, proportional - Only Romney and Paul are on the VA ballot, because the other two candidates failed to meet requirements. Romney leads currently with 69%, Paul 26%. Write-in votes are not allowed.
Prediction: Romney 40 delegates, Paul 9. 

My total prediction-

Romney- 192

Santorum- 111

Paul- 70

Gingrich- 64

Yes, I am giving Ron Paul more delegates than Gingrich. Call me crazy. But I really do think tomorrow will be Gingrich's swan song (which will sound a lot like a dying duck). I also predict some serious whining on Santorum's part about how Romney spent SOOO much more money than he did and only BARELY beat him.
Tonight I heard a Santo surrogate talking about how Santorum has won more counties than Romney, which is some of the most ridiculous spin I've ever heard. Winning a sparsely populated county in Iowa is not the same as winning a densely populated county in Detroit.
The math is simple- to date, Romney has won 52% of all delegates so far. My math for tomorrow has him winning 44% of the delegates. And really, if Georgia wasn't so heavily for Gingrich (which it rightfully is voting for the native son), the numbers would skew more in Romney's favor. Even in the states where Romney doesn't win (with the exception of Georgia), he's going to walk away with close to 40-50% of the delegates in that state.
Of course, as I type this, I am watching CNN, where John King has just said that now Oklahoma might be closer than I am giving it.

I watch the CNN debate so you don't have to!

I'm back! With another round of "I watch the debates so you don't have to!"

The first hour recap-

The "table method" of having everyone sit next to each other is definitely blocking a little bit of the physical posturing. 

Romney - I'm going to take programs that are important but that could be better run at state level, and send them back to states. 

Ron Paul calls Santorum a fake conservative issues. 

The most interesting thing I have learned so far is that Santorum is so passionate on abstinence/birth control issues that he wanted to pass legislation to pass federal funding for teaching abstinence to counteract Title 10 Planned Parenthood legislation. Ron Paul, of course, is against spending money period, but he makes the point that Santorum voted for Title 10. Santorum was willing to pay twice for social programs, rather than not vote for the first one (Planned Parenthood) at all. Santorum loses big time on the fiscally conservative count, and backs up Paul's "fake" label.

Second hour-

Heading in to the second hour we're discussing both birth control and apparently Romneycare/Obamacare. 

Santorum still lacks finesse at debating. He's bringing his A-game tonight, but he lacks the ability to regulate his emotions and channel his energy. (something Romney has perfected, and Gingrich exploits). 

Romney says Santorum supporting Arlen Specter led to ObamaCare.  He supported Specter over the Republican Toomey.

Santorum says he supported Specter because he thought Toomey was too conservative to win. Umm...

Apparently Gingrich still doesn't have an angle except for dropping Reagan's name. To which, I'd like to remind everyone what it is Gingrich has said about Reagan.

Ooh, after the commercial the candidate get to define themselves using one word. What word would you pick? I'm sure they are all scrambling to find a synonym for conservative right now. I would pick-

Newt- Grandiose. 

What I think he will pick- Leader

Romney- business leader

What I think he will pick- Leader

Santorum- moral extremist

What I think he will pick- Conservative (he's not creative enough to find a different word)

Ron Paul- crack pot

What I think he will pick- liberty activist (because he won't play by rules)

Their actual answers- Paul: Consistent 

Santorum: Courage 

Romney: Resolute. 

Gingrich: Cheerful.

I spit out my drink when he said cheerful. 

From Twitter, Ralph Reed says "Good, spirited debate. Best by Mitt yet. Santorum folded contraception Q into broader need to strengthen the family. Well done. #CNNDebate"

It absolutely kills me that women in combat is even an issue. I am 100% in favor of women being equal with men in combat. If men have a problem with that, fine, they can quit and let the women take over. 

How out of touch with social media is Rick Santorum? Well, he still has his endorsement of Specter up on youtube -http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9cXPSyLNgYk.

And we've moved on to Iran.
Santorum's stance- take the opposite view of VP Biden.
Romney- We simply cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. No greater obama failure than this.
Paul- We don't know if they really have a weapon.
UM??? You mean other than them showing the footage this week of Mahmoud looking at the technology???

No Child Left Behind Act Question-
Santorum voted for it. However, his answer explaining why (party politics dictated that he should). But why he doesn't believe in it now was a believable answer. He gets a pass from me (and a flipflop), but the audience boos. The reaction here sets apart anyone who has actually worked in real politics versus the armchair quarterbacks. If you've worked on the Hill, you understand where Santorum is coming from on this one. NCLB passed by a majority because the party leader said so. Before it got passed though nobody liked the final product because both sides put in too many caveats and regulations. It was not the bill the POTUS started with or wanted. But no one could back out by then. Santorum may very well have never believed in it (we'll never know), but had to vote for it, because as he said, "politics is a team sport." Boo if you want, but if you've worked in the real trenches, you know what he means.

The Twitter feedback really looks like people feel Santorum didn't do his best tonight, and that Romney has really made a comeback.
I'm looking forward to the AC360 recap after the debate to see what the "experts" think. 

What to Expect from the GOP Debate Tonight in Arizona

The view from my seat at the SC GOP debate

We've had 3 weeks and 6 beautiful days between GOP debates, but that all changes tonight when John King and Wolf Blitzer take to the CNN stage again.
A lot has changed in the last four weeks. First and foremost, Rick Santorum grew a spine, and Newt Gingrich drifted off into irrelevancy. Mitt Romney has lost his favored status, and Ron Paul continues to be, well, Ron Paul.
Tonight the candidates won't be trying to appeal to just one state, but instead will be trying to appeal to both Arizona and Michigan- two very different states, with very different issues. On top of that, there won't be another debate before the real Super Tuesday next week. So chances are good we won't see pandering to any one state like we did with Gingrich and the moon colony in Florida.
Rick Santorum has the most to lose tonight. He has been running on a social conservative platform since day one. And now, he's finally turned the tide and made everyone else talk about it too. But considering the extremist views he has, the real question is how long can that last?
Santorum has not performed well in any of the debates so far. He hasn't performed badly, he just has failed to connect or make an impact. And because debating hasn't been his strong suit, expect both Romney and Gingrich to capitalize on that.
If it is Santorum that wins, it will be considered Romney that lost. Romney absolutely has to connect with the voters, and he needs to re-establish his Superman-bullet-deflecting-Teflon-armor persona where the attacks just bounce off of him. I predict we will not see Romney engage with Santorum or vice versa. Both will go after Obama instead. Gingrich, as always, will be the wild card. Will he attack Romney and Santorum, or go after Obama? If he goes after Obama, we may be in for one really dull debate where no one is willing to confront each other. But Romney and Santorum would both be wise to take on Gingrich if he's not too much of a loose cannon. Taking on each other is too risky and admits the other is the competition. Shutting Gingrich up just makes people like you more.
Gingrich has everything at stake. If there is anything we have learned in the last 4 weeks it is that he fails to be relevant or interesting if he's not fighting on stage. I expect he will come out swinging, and that we may see the return of Grandiose Newt tonight. Some would suggest that he would be up for an image change right now. Gingrich doesn't do that, he refuses to change. He will definitely be the unknown factor tonight.
Ron Paul- why does he even show up at these things?
Some interesting other notes-
Tonight the debate will be held at a desk and everyone will be sitting. This may put a small damper on Gingrich's literal posturing and strutting.
The debate is being held in Mesa, Arizona, a VERY Mormon friendly town, on a Catholic holy day. It will be interesting to see how religious attitudes effect the proceedings.

One week till Arizona/Michigan- a look at the polls

(CLICK ON ALL IMAGES TO ENLARGE TO READ THE POLLS)

Arizona and Michigan hold their primaries next Tuesday, February 28. Here is a quick look at the polls in those states. Mitt Romney has a very modest lead in Arizona, with Rick Santorum as the strongest challenger. Just last week the story was that Romney faced big challenges in Michigan and Arizona, and that it was Newt Gingrich who was focusing on Arizona. Now? Well, I'm sure Gingrich will let us know that he had no such intentions of going after the state that has 29 winner-take-all delegates, and it was all just media tripe.
The delegate count currently stands at-

Romney- 106
Santorum- 37
Gingrich- 35
Paul- 27
(These numbers can change depending on how you count superdelegates and the non-binding caucus states. Today I am using the CNN delegate counter because it seems most logical. The numbers do change a tiny bit, putting Gingrich 1 vote ahead of Santorum, if you use the Republican Party Scorecard.)

Arizona's 29 winner-take-all votes could make a massive difference in Santorum's ability to go forward. But can Santorum really beat Romney in the very Mormon state? To get an idea of just how many Mormons really are in Arizona, take a look at Slate.com's Mormon Population Map. I normally get angry when people suggest that all Mormons vote the same and vote for Romney just because he is Mormon. And I still do take offense at that remark. We're not lemmings. However, I don't think many Mormons will vote for Santorum because of his extremist views that go beyond what most socially conservative Mormons believe in. In my opinion, it isn't that they will "vote Mormon" as much as it is they won't "vote Santorum."

Now, on to Michigan, Romney's native state.
Santorum has the lead there, but again, only a modest lead. It isn't strong enough to say he's got a foothold there. With another major debate going down on Wednesday (really, CNN? Another one?) things are definitely still up for grabs in both states.
Nonetheless, Gingrich (who let's remember is losing 35 to 106) is calling for Romney to step down if he can't win his home state. Insert Charlie Brown "good grief" here.
Michigan is a proportional state with 30 delegates. If things were to divide up the way the polls show right now, it still wouldn't put Santorum anywhere near within striking distance of Romney. They would both walk away with somewhere between 9-12 delegates each.

Meanwhile, the national GOP polls still look like a scary mountain range. Too many peaks, valleys, avalanches, and long roads up. This week Santorum's brown line is on the vertical ascent, and Gingrich's green line is headed for the avalanche.And Romney is still riding around a few knobs and hills, but he hasn't fallen off a cliff yet. Ron Paul is still just Ron Paul.
We'll revisit the national polls after AZ/MI next week.

"Gingrich assumed that he's the whole Republican Party"

Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich

I'm not going to pretend that if I was a college student in one of Professor Newt Gingrich's classes, I'd be one of the first to drop out. I would recognize his brilliance, but have to admit that I couldn't follow him when he says things like, "The Reagan failure was to grossly undervalue the centrality of government as the organizing mechanism for reinforcing societal behavior." After reading it ten times to make sure I understood the words correctly, I would still be confused because why would a conservative Republican be criticizing someone who didn't want the government to control societal behavior?

Gingrich is a very complex, confusing, and at times, flat out contradictory man, which is showcased in a unique and fascinating way in a headline story on the Washington Post today. "Gingrich archives show his public praise, private criticism of Reagan," is about much more than his back and forth statements about Reagan, and instead a glimpse into what kind of man he is behind the scenes.

After statements like, "Gingrich “assumed that he’s the whole Republican Party," "That is my job. . . . It is not my job to win reelection. It is not my job to take care of passport problems. It is not my job to get a bill through Congress. My job description as I have defined it is to save Western civilization.," and "And Republican leaders who were resisting additional funds for science, he said, were “idiots” and “so incredibly stupid," you start to wonder if Gingrich suffers from a several case of narcissistic personality disorder.

But above all, this very interesting article isn't actually negative. It is just a look into a very complex man. Well worth the read!

Newt: Do as I say, NOT as I do!

Today's Golden Flip Flop Award Goes to Newt!

Newt Gingrich has a bad case of "do as I say, but not as I do."
His campaign has been sending out letters to TV stations warning them against airing a commercial paid for by a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney that make Gingrich look bad. According to the letter, the campaign claims the ad is "fundamentally NOT TRUE."
Whether or not a political attack ad is wording things in such a way as to bend, meld, or spin the truth is not the point here. 
The point?

Newt doesn't like it when someone attacks him and he can't (afford to) rebut it! And he really hates it when someone uses his track record against him.
So what is the big bad ad Newt doesn't want you to see?



Is it really all that bad?
Or is it as he says "fundamentally not true?"
Let's take a look-
The ad states that Gingrich co-sponsored a 1989 bill called the "Global Warming Prevention Act," with  Nancy Pelosi "that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China's brutal one-child policy."
The bill was introduced while Gingrich was in office, but it never passed. The bill was never about China's one child policy. As the title states, it was a bill about global warming measures, including fuel standards for cars and alternative energy, and sending money developing countries to promote clean energy standards.
The bill also proposed sending money to the U.N. Population Fund, some of which would go to China, but the bill specifically stated that no funds should go towards backing involuntary sterilization, abortion, or family planning coercion (in other words, China's birth control policies).
Gingrich did co-sponsor the bill with Pelosi. 144 House members who also sponsored the bill, according to PolitiFact. Considering that is nearly half the House, it is surprising the bill never passed.
The Gingrich camp is calling this ad libelous and false. And is threatening to sue the stations for defamation if they do air it.
Pretty tough words for a man who's own PAC ran this ad-



Really what it comes down to is Newt's trying to get some attention, because everyone has forgotten him and moved on lately. He's attempting to do something shocking and daring again, and it probably won't work. It will most likely backfire, even if the stations do remove the ad, as people go to YouTube to see what it is all about. And then the news channels will be forced to run a story, showing the ad, talking about whether or not it was true. Sure, Romney won't look good either, but does Newt really want the climate and Pelosi issues to come back up?
Maybe he does, because in Newt's world, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Romney to face big challenges in Arizona and Michigan

Michigan

Some people feel former Governor Mitt Romney has Michigan and Arizona (the next two primary states) in the bag. Others think he's in for a bigger fight in both states than originally expected.

Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich claim they could beat Romney if the other guy (Santorum or Gingrich) would just drop out. Well, the other guy may not drop out, but they may get close to their wishes in AZ and MI. Arizona has 29 delegates while Michigan has 30, and both states are in play on February 29.
Because Romney is "the son of Detroit," and Arizona is heavily Mormon, he is expected to do very well in both states. But all signs indicate that Santorum is focusing his energy on Michigan, while Gingrich has his sights set on Arizona. Since neither campaign has the resources (manpower or money) to go full force in both states, it makes sense that they would divide and conquer, leaving Romney with essentially a one on one battle in both states. (Ron Paul is not a factor in either state.) 
According to the Washington Examiner this division of forces is not intentional or the result of any sort of deal between Santorum and Gingrich. "I can assure you no such agreement exists," says a Gingrich source. It's just turning out that way- probably because it is so logical a high school government student could have predicted it.
Santorum has the "momentum" of his hat trick last week in his pocket. While Gingrich hasn't had any success since his win in South Carolina. The polls in Arizona (the state he will be focusing on) show him lagging behind Romney. That being said, he's not actually in Arizona right now, but in California trying to raise money. (Which makes sense really, after all a lot of Arizonans are actually wealthy Californians with vacation homes in Scottsdale.) By the end of the week Gingrich will be in Georgia which is both his home state and a Super Tuesday state. In theory he is strong in Georgia, and rumors of Gingrich going for a "Southern States" campaign strategy are strong since his only win is in the South and makes sense. (in the "if you think he has any place still in the primaries" sense of the word.)

So what is there in Michigan for Santorum, besides a lack of Gingrich?
Well, it turns out Romney may not be as popular in Michigan as once expected. For starters, the bailouts that saved Detroit were opposed by Romney. His biggest problem is that thus far he has campaigned solely on his business and economic strengths. But now suddenly the auto industry (that he wanted to let go bankrupt- a Bain Capital move if there ever was one) has rebounded on Obama policies, and the economy is making a comeback. Romney's "I can save us now" rhetoric is going to fall on deaf ears that are turning back to Obama. Meanwhile, Santorum appeals to the middle class, and Michigan really takes pride in their blue collar roots. Santorum may not have Romney's war chest, but he does have enough money to spend to really bring a fight in Michigan, so he will. And let's not forget there is another CNN debate on February 22. The difference between this debate and the others? There's enough time between the debate and voters going to the polls that the candidates may get to recover or return fire for anything that goes down there. And you better believe that Gingrich (who again, isn't even in Arizona) is banking on "winning" the next debate as his strategy.

In the 2008 Arizona primary, more than 500,000 Republicans voted. In Michigan, it was nearly 900,000.
A candidate needs 1,144 delegates to win the nomination. Currently Romney has 105, Santorum 71, Gingrich 29, and Ron Paul 20. Unless you get into the whole pledged/unpledged/super delegates/charade state thing. In which case the numbers change to-
CNN: Romney 127, Gingrich 38, Santorum 37, Paul 27.
Or you can ask Real Clear Politics and get-
Romney 98, Santorum 44, Gingrich 32, Paul 20. 
Either way, really Romney is leading, Santorum is in second, and Gingrich and Paul are not.

National Review Magazine Pulls No Punches

National Review Magazine, in an editorial piece entitled "Santorum's Turn," is calling for Newt Gingrich to exit the GOP primary race in no uncertain terms, and in one of the strongest pleas for the former Speaker to exit.

Why? (Well, isn't it obvious?)
First, and foremost, Gingrich has only had one win- South Carolina. And second, Rick Santorum is proving to be the real contender, not Gingrich. The article goes on to cite that Gingrich is, without question, a very smart man. Someone who could be used as "resource for any future Republican president." But the longer he stays in the race, the less likely it is that anyone would ever want to associate with him. "But it would be a grave mistake for the party to make someone with such poor judgment and persistent unpopularity its presidential nominee." Pretty harsh rhetoric from a publication that is supposed to be on the same side as Gingrich!
The National Review points out that when Gingrich led in the polls, he called for Santorum to leave the race. And therefore, "on his [Gingrich's] own arguments the proper course for him now is to endorse Santorum and exit." (Of course, he could also endorse Romney the bigger front-runner, but we all know that is just laughable.)
The magazine was also fairly complimentary towards Santorum, and less so towards Romney. Regarding the former Senator from Pennsylvania-

Santorum has been conducting himself rather impressively in his moments of triumph and avoiding characteristic temptations. He is doing his best to keep the press from dismissing him as merely a “social-issues candidate.” His recent remark that losing his Senate seat in 2006 taught him the importance of humility suggests an appealing self-awareness. And he has rightly identified the declining stability of middle-class families as a threat to the American experiment, even if his proposed solutions are poorly designed. But sensible policies, important as they are, are not the immediate challenge for his candidacy. Proving he can run a national campaign is.

Well, the first half was mostly complimentary anyway.

Note the language difference between the descriptions of Santorum and Gingrich.

It is not clear whether Gingrich remains in the race because he still believes he could become president next year or because he wants to avenge his wounded pride: an ambiguity that suggests the problem with him as a leader.

With Santorum it is "moments of triumph," "humility," "self-awareness," "rightly identified."
For Gingrich it is "avenge," "wounded pride."
But that is nothing compared to the unflattering terms used to describe Mitt Romney.

Romney remains the undramatic figure at the center of the primaries’ drama. Lack of enthusiasm for him has set it all in motion. Romney is trying to win the nomination by pulverizing his rivals. His hope is that enthusiasm will follow when he takes on Obama in the summer and fall. But his attacks on Santorum have been lame, perhaps because they are patently insincere. (Does anyone believe that Romney truly thinks poorly of Santorum’s votes to raise the debt ceiling?)
Romney is a transactional politician rather than a charismatic one. 

"Undramatic," "transactional politician," "lame," "pulverizing," no really, National Review, tell us what you really think!

I read the news so you don't have to

A few highlights from around the political news circuit-
Rick Santorum is in some hot water for saying to CNN's John King, "I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country . . . but I do have concerns about women in front-line combat.
“I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” Santorum added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”
He's now trying to spin it as men are the one's with conflicting emotions about women. A woman next to them could distract them.  He's trying to convince everyone that he wasn't implying women are the ones who have emotions.
Will anyone believe that? Only time will tell.

Callista Gingrich (who we now know goes by Calli Lou at home, thanks to Randi Kay on CNN) will be taking on a more vocal role on her husband's campaign.  This is not surprising at all as the campaigns shift towards more social issues, and Newt is up against two very family-first candidates. Calli Lou took her first big step yesterday by introducing her husband at CPAC. For many people (most?) it was our first time to hear her voice, and really witness her style. She came across as dull, wooden, and not the warm, loving faithful wife the campaign most likely wanted to present. Calli Lou is up against two of the most easy to love women in Ann Romney and Karen Santorum. One has MS and is a breast cancer survivor, while the other is a home-schooling mother with a special needs child. Both look like the mom you wished you had. And Calli Lou, cute name or not, has a long and well-storied past to overcome with her document affair with her now husband, massive credit line at Tiffanys, etc. She would be better off to not position herself as the next First Mother, and instead take a page from Hilary Clinton's campaign playbook. Like Hilary, she has a great deal of professional and political experience of her own. She needs to play to her strengths, and not pretend she is something she is not.

Mini Tuesday Outlook

Minnesota Caucus tonight- should Bachmann have endorsed anyone? Would it have mattered?

Today isn't quite a "Super" Tuesday, that term being saved for a much bigger voting day next month, but 70 delegates are up for grabs today. Let's take a look at what is at stake, what might go down, and what to expect.

The States in play today are the Colorado and Minnesota caucuses (and Missouri primary(sort of)). However, neither state will award their delegates until down the road. In other words, they vote, CNN (and all the others) will declare a winner, but the states won't make it official until a more official party meeting is held next month.


Missouri has a nonbinding primary that is, for all intents and purposes, a fashion show and not much more. The state will vote in a primary, but doesn't actually award delegates until a caucus later on. Confused yet? In other words, the people vote, and the state listens, but just in case they change their minds and the guy they picked isn't favored to be the winner down the road, they can change their delegates to go to someone else. Stay classy, Missouri.

Let's not forget, Missouri is also our first chance to remember that Newt Gingrich had time to plan a moon base, but failed to hire someone to pay the $1000 fee, and turn in some paperwork, to get on the Missouri ballot.

What's at Stake
Minnesota has 40 proportional delegates. Pledged delegates follow the caucus results. But unpledged delegates are Republican National Committee delegates and official GOP members who get to attend the convention in August. They can vote for the candidate of their choice.

Newt Gingrich Wants to Change History (by editing Wikipedia page about himself)

CNN is reporting that as recently as last week, Newt Gingrich's communications director has been criticized by editors on Wikipedia for dozens of edits he has made and requested in defense of his candidate. And Gingrich is defending the actions of his communications director.


Wikipedia records show DeSantis has made over 60 adjustments to entries to biographical page on Gingrich, the  page on his wife, Callista, and a separate page on one of their books, Rediscovering Good in America.

Last week Wiki editor, Tvoz, responded to DeSantis in a public Wiki forum, "I'll raise the question in the appropriate place, but I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even here on Talk."

Newt Gingrich Needs to Shut Up and Sit Down

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich

The last week has been extremely volatile for the GOP candidates. Dick Armey may have said it best on CNN over the weekend regarding Newt Gingrich, "I think he's digressed into a state of taking a second rate campaign and turning it into a first rate vendetta."

If the GOP nomination race were a 'Girls Gone Wild' movie, Gingrich would be the angry, drunk chick knocking over the happy, dancing girls, just to give the camera the bird.

Gingrich brought same party politics to a new low in his post-Nevada speech Saturday night. After multiple meetings with advisers, donors and supporters, (and pleas from the general public at large) to stop attacking on Mitt Romney's character with a chain saw, Gingrich held an unprecedented press conference (in lieu of the much more traditional "election night party" with supporters) where he pummeled Romney.

Gingrich is a very talented historian (and paid handsomely to be one as well). He has shown multiple times that he has an ability to recall facts, figures, and obscure references from ancient writers. And yet, he expects us to believe his version of events and that he cannot recall certain quotes of his own, when the proof is right in front of him. (Including going so far as to have edits made to the Wikipedia page about him!)

His inability to control his anger when he cannot control a situation is frightening. The accusations he will make that other people are dishonest when he, Gingrich, doesn't get his way is worse than a 4 yr old's temper tantrum to Mommy. He cannot just walk away with his head held high from any situation. He instead chooses to insult and discredit the event, in one case calling Romney's Florida win a "fundamentally dishonest campaign."

It is frightening and foretelling to revisit his candidacy announcement from August-

"No one person in the Oval Office can get this done. We Americans are going to have to talk together, work together, find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those forces that don't want to change. There are some people who don't mind if America becomes a wreck as long as they dominate the wreckage... Let's get together, look reality in the face, tell the truth, make the tough choices, and get the job done."
(Need proof he said that? Visit Newt's official YouTube page and watch "Newt Gingrich is Running for President."

Former Speaker Gingrich, it is time for you to shut up and sit down. You, and you alone, are going to divide and ruin the Republican party if you continue with the inability to be honest with yourself and others, and face defeat like a man.

It's Not a Party Without Donald Trump. It's Not the Media Without a Circus.

The Donald at a GOP/Tea Party Event in June 2011, Photo Credit: E. McBride

Yesterday, without question, Mitt Romney made a mistake.

It was a stupid mistake, a simple case of a misplaced pause as he was speaking, and a poorly phrased sentence in a live interview.

By now we all know what he said (but I'll repeat it here for future reference when in a few weeks we can't remember what the hullabaloo was all about today)-

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich; they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90%, 95% of Americans right now who are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation."

Unfortunately he made an unfortunate pause after he said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." It instantly skyrocketed into the headlines- but not really.

Grandiose Newt: A Space Oddity

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - 2012: A Space Oddity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Mitt vs Newt, Pragmatic vs Epic

There is an excellent article running in the Washington Post today entitled "Romney's and Gingrich's ideas mirror their personalities: Pragmatic vs. epic."
While I am at the point in time, 100% in the Romney camp, I was very vocal about supporting Gingrich for most of the fall. I was determined to stay open-minded, and to not be another Mormon choosing Romney without considering all of the candidates first. I was torn between Romney and Gingrich for a very long time, finally landing on Romney for much of the reasons stated in this article- he makes more sense. Gingrich makes radical, huge, even epic statements, and they can be attractive. But once I stopped and thought about it, I just couldn't follow his lead anymore. Whereas, it is easy to believe, even reassuring to believe, that Romney is capable of fulfilling his ideas and promises.
When Gingrich says, "I'm more of a conservative than Mitt Romney," he really isn't. He's really just more of an extremist. Their ideas and promises (minus moon colonies) are side-by-side similar. But Gingrich just takes everything beyond capable and believable, and moves it into radical extremism.


From the article-

If he were elected president, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney says, he would cut companies’ tax bills. But former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) would cut them more than twice as much.
Romney would eliminate some people’s capital-gains taxes. But Gingrich would eliminate everybody’s.

And Romney would build more Navy ships to project American influence into the Middle East. Gingrich would build a moon colony, projecting it into outer space.

Gingrich has vowed to  overthrow the communist government in Cuba and ban embryonic stem-cell research. Romney? Merely wants Castro to go to Hell (and to try to negotiate with Cuba).


Both candidates (actually all four candidates) want to repeal Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulations. They all want to repeal the estate tax, tougher dealings with Iran, and they are all in favor of a same-sex marriage ban.

But back to the epic vs the pragmatic-

Romney’s plan would lower a corporation’s tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. For individual taxpayers making less than $200,000 per couple, he would end taxes on capital gains and interest. The cost? Probably about $180 billion less in government revenue per year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
But Gingrich would do far more. He would cut the corporate rate to 12.5 percent. He would eliminate all taxes on capital gains and interest. And he would allow individuals to opt out of the current tax code, giving them the option of a 15 percent “flat tax” with limited deductions.
On Social Security, the two men exhibit a similar pattern. Romney would raise the age at which future retirees could collect benefits, adding “a year or two,” he said in a debate. And he would tinker with formulas so that wealthier retirees would see their benefits grow less over time.
Gingrich, by contrast, wants to create a new kind of Social Security. He would keep the old system but allow people to opt into a separate system, in which they could keep their money in private, personal accounts. The same private-account plan has worked in Chile, Gingrich is fond of saying.
But it was installed while Chile was run by a military dictator.

 And that last line, says it all.