Rick Santorum for Third Place??

You look away for just one minute, thinking Iowa is going to go to either Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, and suddenly, out of nowhere, Mr. Next-to-Last-Place Rick Santorum surges ahead in the pack!
It has been confirmed by more than one credible national poll that Santorum is a strong contender for third place in Iowa. A CNN/Time poll taken just last week (you know, during the days that the wheels began to fall off the Gingrich bandwagon) shows the former Senator from Pennsylvania jumping NINE POINTS UP in Iowa. And that craziness is confirmed in an NBC/Marist poll (info down around p7).
I have spent little to no time talking about Sen. Santorum. I've actually met him and have been following his career since he was a freshman Congressman. He was riends with the Congressman I interned for many moons ago. I was just a young intern in someone else's office, and yet, he took the time to be genuine and kind to me. Trust me, that was a rarity on the Hill. I think he is a very good man, with very good morals and ethics. He's a good leader and someone who will rise to the top with time. But is he Presidential Material? I'll stop several feet short of saying yes, but whole heartily and adamantly say he would be great VP material!

I'll let his campaign do the rest of the "talking."

Bachmann, Huntsman, and Santorum will not be on the Virginia Primary Ballot

Looks like Newt Gingrich will be on the ballot in Virginia after all. But the ballot will be missing a few other names, specifically Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Jr., and Rick Santorum. The three campaigns failed to make the 5 pm filing deadline Thursday with the Virginia State Board of Elections, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Can I say what we are all thinking anyway? Did anyone really expect those 3 campaigns to still be in the race come March? 
Mitt Romney was the first GOP candidate to turn in his names. On Tuesday, none other than the Virginia Lt Governover Bill Boling himself, filed the necessary paperwork. Romney submitted 16,026 signatures, (hey, I got about 100 of those signatures for him!), Ron Paul 14,361; Rick Perry 11,911 and Newt Gingrich 11,050. Each candidate had to turn in at least 10,000 signatures, with at least 400 from each of the 11 Congressional districts.
Next, all of the signatures must get quickly vetted over the weekend. For reasons not explained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the VA GOP decided that candidates who submit at least 15,000 signatures of registered voters with at least 600 signatures from each of the 11 districts will be deemed to have met the qualifications. Why this is more than the requirements laid out by the State Board is what I don't understand.
The parties have until Tuesday at 5 p.m. to tell the State Board of Elections which candidates qualify for the March 6 primary ballot. The order of names will be decided by lottery on Wednesday.
Sidenote- when I went to the VA GOP homepage to try and find some info on why the change in numbers, I discovered that today Newt Gingrich was their guest speaker for a brunch. That probably does make it a little easier to get the signatures of registered voters turned in on time!

Let's Talk Debates!

Fox News 2012 GOP Debate, Linked to Source: ABC News

I watch the debates so you don't have to!
Here's what you missed by watching "Bones" last night (Was it good? I haven't seen it yet! No spoilers!)
I could really tell this was hosted by Fox News. The candidates were hit from the right about their conservative positions. For instance, abortion and right to life were made an issue, as was gun control. These haven't been issues in this campaign at all, so it was surprising to hear how much time was spent on those subjects.

"MOM! He keeps interrupting me!" "Am not! "Are too!" (linked to source)

Apparently Michele Bachmann ate her Wheaties yesterday, and came out fighting. At several different points it felt like it was Bachmann v. Everyone Else. She reminded me of an angry Yorkshire Terrier, barking and nipping at Newt Gingrich's heels. She also had a very memorable heated exchange with Ron Paul on foreign policy. She flat out said she had "never heard a more dangerous answer" than Paul's positions on Iran. (Which is to say, he doesn't think they have a nuke.)

"My name is Ron Paul, and until we open free trade with Iran, I won't be able to find a suit that fits." (linked to source)

Ron Paul doesn't back down in a fight, which is amusing considering his pacifist position on other issues. He really spent sometime standing up for his positions on Iran. "Why are we flying a drone over Iran?" He apparently thinks Iran sings kumbaya at night and prays for our peace.
I can finally sum up how he feels about Iran and Israel. "Our neighbor have guns, so we don't need to worry that we'll get attacked." (My words, not his.) His most memorable quote of the night was, "I don't want to run the world. I don't want to police individual activities or people's lifestyle, and I don't want to run the economy." Strange talk for a man running for the most powerful position in the world. It doesn't matter if anyone thinks he won or lost, because his supporters will think it was all rigged anyway.
In other news, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ali Khamenei endorse Ron Paul. He finally gets some big name, national endorsements!

"My name is Mitt Romney, and I wear better ties than you!" (linked to source)

Mitt Romney was Mitt Romney last night. In many ways it was his night to lose, and I don't think he lost. But I don't think he "won" either. My favorite quote for him last night was, "Timidity and weakness invite aggression on the part of other people. This is a president, the spy drone being brought down, he says 'pretty please'? A foreign policy based on pretty please? You got to be kidding."
When attacked (by the moderators, and then Santorum) about his changing positions, his response essentially sounded like, "I used to favor flip-flopping, but now I'm against it."

Tim Tebow 'tebowing' (linked to source)

Rick Perry- what do I say there? I think he will gain a fan or two. It was definitely his best debate so far. But probably too little, too late. Calling himself the Tim Tebow of politics was pretty funny. Other than that, he wasn't all that notable or quotable. He did suggest that we should limit Supreme Court terms. That was sort of interesting.

I read the Iowa debate coverage news so you don't have to

Newt Romney at the Iowa Debate. Linked to Source at NY Daily News.

Having read nearly all of the Iowa debate coverage news (and having not seen the debate yet myself), I hereby give you the summary without any hidden bias-

Rick Perry attacked Mitt Romney by saying, "I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of the reprint of the book. But, you know, I'm just sayin', you were for individual mandates, my friend." In return, Romney denied such a thing, and went so far as to bet him $10,000 Perry was wrong. Romney haters (also known as Southern Baptists, Texans, and Democrats) are saying a wager of so much money makes him out of touch with real people. Romney supporters love him all the more for it.

The facts? In the first version of Romney's book, a line referring to a universal health care mandate reads: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care." In the later paperback version, the line was edited to read, "And it was done without the government taking over health care."

Apparently Twitter loved this moment, and Romney stole the Twitter show. Analysts report that out of 43,000 messages about the debate on Twitter, Romney was most popular with 30 percent. The rest: Gingrich at 22 percent, Bachmann at 19 percent, Paul at 13 percent, Santorum at 10 percent, and Perry at 5 percent.

Michele Bachmann's big zinger (and she does love her zingers) of the night was aimed at Newt Gingrich's lobbying past (ahem, present), saying that his office was located on "the Rodeo Drive of Washington, D.C., K Street." (A great way to make sure the deeper pockets of DC don't donate to your campaign. Also, K Street? Not that impressive to us local girls. We prefer to do our shopping on M Street.)

The Washington Post's political blogger, "the Fix," proclaimed his winners of the debate to be Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry. And solely put Mitt Romney as the only candidate in the loser column. The Fix feels that Gingrich had a few good moments, wasn't condescending, and was approachable. He commended Bachmann for her ever so popular soundbites and zingers, particularly, "Newt Romney." And for pandering to the former Herman Cain fans. And he lauded Rick Perry for his now popular line, "If you cheat on your wife, you will cheat on your business partner." Oh, and for Perry's attack on Romney about the health care mandates, which we've now learned are incorrect. So strike 1 for The Fix. Interesting to note that the winners and losers (Romney was considered a loser for his wagering), had nothing to do with policy and accuracy.

So how did Gingrich respond to Perry's (and others) attacks on his three marriages? (Let's not forget both Perry and Romney have ads out right now touting their fidelity. And Perry's is an unforgiving pandering to the religious right.) “I think people have to render judgment,” Mr. Gingrich said. “In my case, I said up front openly, I’ve made mistakes at times. I’ve had to go to God for forgiveness. I’ve had to seek reconciliation.” How can all those evangelicals turn their back on a penitent sinner? Well played, Mr. Speaker, well played. Of course, I'd like you more if you hadn't cheated on your wife and married the mistress, but that's not the point now, is it?

Gingrich, who has promised to take the high road and not resort to mean or personal attacks, lobbed one at Romney anyway, "The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is that you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994." Oh and Romney started it by calling Gingrich a career politician. (Well, duh.)

Not to be left out of the Gingrich attacks, Ron Paul reminded us that Gingrich received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. (Gingrich was paid up to $1.8 million in consulting fees.) “By the way, Newt, you probably got some of our taxpayer money.” He added, “You were a spokesman for them and you received money from them.” Gingrich again denied being a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, (he claims he was an historian), “I offered strategic advice — I was in the private sector.” To which Romney replied, “K Street is not the private sector!” Wow, K Street was popular last night.

In no-brainer news, all of the candidates attacked President Obama and the economy. And yet, they are split down the middle on who supports extending the Social Security payroll tax cuts (Romney, Gingrich, and Paul), and who are against it (Bachmann, Perry, and Rick Santorum.) (Jon Huntsman was not present.)

CNN didn't really have anything different to say from the other news outlets, but was the only site to explain that Huntsman opted out on his own accord. They also mentioned that Huntsman immediately sent out press release announcing he'd purchased the website 10kBet.com, after the Romney-Perry wager. 



With all of the news sources titling their articles with "Newt Attacked!" I was surprised at how few of them actually listed what those attacks were. Here is what I could find amidst the wreckage-

Romney to Gingrich: "We could start with this idea to have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the moon," referring to a Gingrich proposal to mine for precious minerals on the moon.

Paul on Gingrich, "has taken some positions that are not conservative."

Bachmann's big zinger, "if you look at Newt-Romney, they were for Obamacare principles. If you look at Newt-Romney, they were for cap and trade." Apparently she was going for a 2 for 1 attack.

No quotes on barbs from Santorum. In fact, the only quote I can find from Santorum in any article is where he defended Gingrich's marital woes. Marital character is important, but added, "I would not say it's a disqualifier." Wait, wasn't Santorum running on the pro-family first ticket? Has he dropped his one and only platform idea to run for Gingrich VP?

CNN also brought back their debate analyst, Todd Graham. Graham is a professor of debate at a small, no-name university in Illinois. I bring this up, because I don't get why they keep going back to this guy. He doesn't even have a professional head shot next to his byline which bugs me for some reason. After every debate, Graham has written lengthy diatribes about how he doesn't like Romney's style. Not that he doesn't like Romney's policies (although, I suspect he doesn't), he doesn't like Romney's stage presence. Seriously, that's what he wastes 1,000 words to tell us. This week was no different, so I'm not feeling compelled to repeat him. But let it be known, CNN ran a piece saying Romney lost the debate.

Also, I felt like sharing this little cutout from the front page of CNN. Apparently their editors slept in on Sunday morning.

How many spelling errors is that?

Want to see the whole debate for yourself? ABC News already has it up and running on their site.


Sources:
ABC News: Iowa Debate: Republican Candidates Clash Amidst Newt Gingrich Surge, Mitt Romney Attacks
Washington Times: Gingrich assailed by rivals, fires back
ABC News: Bet On It: Twitter Loves Romney's Wager
NY Times: In GOP Iowa Debate, Rivals Target Newt Gingrich

Should Trump moderate a debate?

Donald Trump Speaks at the Faith and Freedom Coalition in June 2011, Source: E McBride

Back in June 2011 I had the opportunity to hear Donald Trump speak at the Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting. At the time rumors were still flying that he might run for president. I sat in the second row, center aisle, right in front of him, and listened to every word. I went into it a complete skeptic about what this millionaire playboy of casino and reality show fame could have to offer a meeting of mostly Tea Party activists. (I am not a Tea Party activist.)
Here is how I described him back then-

He's pro-life and Catholic. He hates ObamaCare. He is still proud of himself for making Obama produce "that excuse for a birth certificate." He occasionally refers to himself in the third person. And a few quotes, "OPEC is laughing at our leaders." "Our leaders are stupid, you know, right? I'm not a politician, I can say stupid." The thing he said that really bothered me was regarding the war in Iraq. "To the victor go the spoils." He believes that the U.S. (and Allies) have the right to take over the Iraqi oil fields, and take the oil from them. He also wants to give a million dollars to every Iraqi family hurt by the war, and to every American soldier wounded or killed in the war, from the profits of those oil fields. This is one of those huge ideas that non-politicians come up with who truly don't understand international laws. This made me a little mad to hear, because people will like it, and it is not something that could ever actually happen.
But over all, I would say he's a smart guy and he knows his stuff. I'm starting to understand his appeal. And I'd be really surprised if we don't see him pull a Ross Perot towards the end.

That all being said, let's discuss whether or not he should be a moderator of a televised debate.
Reasons against it-
I don't find it appropriate that someone who may enter the ring as a third party candidate should be given the chance to moderate a debate where he can sabotage his opponents.
If he were moderator the attention will be on him instead of on the candidates.
He lacks the political and news authority to be recognized as well-informed on the issues.
His mere presence turns things into a 3 ring circus, again taking attention away from the candidates and issues.
He's a loud mouth and outspoken on the issues. Can he actually "moderate?"

Reasons in favor of a Trump moderated debate-
A Trump moderated debate will be widely watched by an audience that probably hasn't tuned in for previous debates, giving candidates the chance to reach a previously uninformed audience.
Maybe the general public doesn't realize it yet, but he is very smart on the issues.
Likely to be far more entertaining than some of the previous, incredibly dull debates.

At this point in time Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman Jr. have all respectfully declined the invitation to participate in the Dec 27 Newsmax Debate hosted by Trump. That leaves only Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum appearing. Of the debate, Gingrich has said, "If the candidates can’t handle Donald Trump, why in the world would anyone think they can handle [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez or al-Qaida?"

With only Gingrich and Santorum left in the debate, you have to wonder what the point will really be? The leader versus the most distant trailer? In many respects this is good for Santorum. People will finally hear his message - if he actually steps up to the plate and delivers. (And I do believe he's a good man. I hope he rises to the occasion and take advantage of the situation.) I think it will make or break Gingrich's campaign as well. Even though he's right on target with most of the GOP, he is a little bit out of line in a few areas. And those are exactly the same areas that Trump disagrees with him. The debate may very well end up Gingrich v. Trump on the war, how to fix the economy, and foreign policy. Don't underestimate how persuasive and convincing Trump can sound on those issues. Trump could end up crowning Gingrich on live TV, or burying the guy with his own shovel.

The more I think about it, Rick Santorum is the only person with something to gain from this debate.

Source:

NewsMax: Trump Debate: Candidates Should Jump at the Chance.

CNN: Bachmann will not take part in Trump debate

Pin It

Who won the GOP National Security Debate last night?

GOP National Security Debate, Photo Source: NY Times (linked)

I read the news, so you don't have to!

So who won the GOP contenders National Security Debate as hosted by CNN? Let's do a quick recap of what the major media outlets are saying! (And in some cases what the different reporters at each outlet are saying.)


Washington Post's Stephen Stromberg - "Romney and Gingrich won. Romney because he is still the putative frontrunner and the likely nominee, and he did not mess up tonight. Gingrich because he held his own in the spotlight, unlike some of the previous anti-Romneys in this primary campaign. Otherwise, Perry still looked tired, Bachmann still sounded kooky, Huntsman was still too moderate, Ron Paul was still Ron Paul, and Cain still gave no sense he belonged on stage, even among this cast of characters."

Washington Post's Jonathon Bernstein - "I don’t think Gingrich has any plausible chance of winning the nomination... Beyond that, I agree with what seemed to be the Twitter consensus during the debate that Mitt Romney wasn’t doing especially well. He didn’t offer much to convince reluctant Republicans to resign themselves to him, but he didn’t do much to hurt himself, either. Given that he’s well in the lead, that’s probably an acceptable enough outcome for him. I do think that Perry continues to improve."

Washington Post's  Jennifer Rubin- "Both Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Jon Huntsman were predictably buffoonish, calling for pullout from Afghanistan, cuts in the military and other positions far to the left of the Obama administration. To sum up, then, the winners tonight: Romney, Bachmann, Romney, AEI and Heritage, and Wolf Blitzer. The losers: Cain, Huntsman, Paul. Potential problems: Gingrich on immigration."

Todd Graham for CNN - "Knowing your arguments and facts is one way to gain credibility. Mitt Romney fattened his credibility bank account at the expense of Rick Perry, who supported a no fly zone over Syria."
"on Huntsman made a similar deposit when he stated that sanctions on Iran would not work since "the Chinese aren't going to play ball and the Russians aren't going to play ball," and Iran has already decided to go nuclear."
"Another way to maintain credibility is to cite proof for your arguments. Michele Bachmann has said things in previous debates (President Obama wants Medicare to collapse) and in last night's debate (suggesting that the CIA cannot interrogate terrorist suspects any longer because the ACLU is in charge) that were not very credible. These frequent ATM withdrawals hurt Bachmann because a lack of believability spills over."
"Bachmann called Pakistan "too nuclear to fail," and chastised Perry for being naïve when he said he would not give Pakistan one penny until it proved it had America's best interests in mind."  (her naivety accusation was truly a highlight of the evening - in my humble opinion)
"Ron Paul is an enigma. He can provide such thoughtful answers at one time and later interject completely unsubstantiated statements."
"Answering questions with non-answers simply isn't credible. For example, Herman Cain twice last night reached into a very old bag of tricks to answer questions with the standard "I'd consult the experts" line."
"Finally, to save credibility, you should be prepared to defend your position when giving a potentially unpopular answer. Newt Gingrich had two answers that the conservative wing of his party might not like, but he defended them well."

GOP 2012 Nomination Race Polls Nov 14, 2012

SOURCE: Real Clear Politics
(Click images to enlarge)

The polls released today may not look like they are showing any significant losses for Herman Cain after last week's sex scandal allegations until you look at the CBS News polls from the week prior- (but first, do you see that huge Perry blue line nosedive? OUCH!)

In the week of 11/6-11/10 Cain is polling at 18. In the week of 1019-10/24 he had a 4 point lead over Romney at 25. A 7 point loss is fairly significant.

It is also worthwhile to note that Romney did not gain those 7 points from Cain. Romney also went down 6 points in that time. The 13 points lost between the leaders appear to have been spread out fairly equally among the other candidates, but with 5 of the points going to Gingrich. It is significant to note that these polling numbers would have been taken before Perry's huge gaffe at the debates. Or maybe this is just an indication that the debates really don't impact voters' opinions as much as the media likes to think they do? Or maybe we just really learn from this that the CBS polls and debates are biased?