Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The Conservative Movement has always prided itself as the conscience of America which stands up for character, morality, and constitutionalism. Conservatives were therefore disgusted with President Bill Clinton's actions in the White House, outraged at Barack Obama's participation in Jeremiah Wright's church, and Obama's friendship with terrorists like William Ayers.
We are now in the midst of a GOP primary where conservatives are given the choice to choose amongst several candidates to represent them in the future. We've got to choose someone who can serve as a role model for the conservative movement, whose record, ideas for the future, and values mirror those of our own. And if no one is an exact spitting image of The Conservative, we've got to go for as close to the original as we can get.
Several days ago, Rick Santorum's young daughter was rushed to the hospital with double pneumonia, and he rushed there as well. Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and many many others showed that they are men or women of character and morality. They personally or publicly expressed their support for the Santorum family during their difficult hours and asked people to offer prayers for Bella Santorum.
One individual was missing from the list, and glaringly so. Newt Gingrich was busy running from radio show to TV show, intent on selling himself to Floridian voters. Despite Santorum having cancelled most of his events in Florida due to his daughter's condition, Gingrich thought it was an opportune time to loudly hint to Santorum to back out of the race and to ask Santorum supporters to vote for him.
How audacious! What a chutzpah! Besides for the fact that all polls have clearly illustrated that if Santorum wouldn't be in the race Newt would still be far behind Romney (since Santorum voters split equally for the two) why couldn't Newt contain himself from his shameful calls on the day the other candidate was attending his sick daughter? Nor did he find it necessary to express prayers and support? Is such behavior a model for conservatism? Has he got no decency?
In truth, though, we shouldn't be surprised. After all, what can one expect from a guy who cheated on two wives? This is a guy who served as a "historian for Freddie Mac" and whose contract clearly involved talking to members of Congress yet sees no wrong with it. In fact, he challenged his opponent, Romney, for having had bonds in Freddie and Fannie without mentioning that he too owned stocks and profited from them both!
Newt has palled around with and praised Al Sharpton as though Al isn't a first-class thug whose hands are dirtied with the blood of over a dozen innocent individual, but a guy worthy of respect.
Defenders of Newt, which side have you taken during the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Which side have you taken in the argument about Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers? Conservatives had said they opposed Clinton's actions and Obama's past not because they were Democrats, but because they lacked morality and character. Now is the time that conservatives can prove they've spoken the truth in the past and weren't merely engaged in petty political slandering as the left is known to do.
Say no to immorality, flip-flopping inconsistency, lack of character and lack of values.
Stand up for character, consistency, conservatism, values and morality.
There is only one candidate who conservatives can support with a clear conscience and without engaging in a shameful abandonment of conservative values and a leftist-style double standard!
Vote for Rick Santorum!!
Monday, January 30, 2012
Below are several excerpts of an article I've written which appears today on American Thinker.
Please click here To read the entire article.
Teaming up with even one liberal in order to promote a single aspect of liberalism is usually reason enough for conservatives to dump and despise a candidate. Newt has palled around with, teamed up with, and praised the vile Al Sharpton as one who "did a lot of good things" despite Sharpton having organized riots which resulted in the deaths of at least a dozen innocent individuals. And Newt's chummy behavior with a liberal like Al wasn't a one-time occurrence. He's joined a whole lot of liberals, including Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Arne Duncan.
Yet, contrary to the norm, Newt isn't despised for his love of liberals and their big-government ideas.
Regarding his vote under Carter in support of the creation of a Department of Education, Newt can't say that he was merely following the will of the conservative voters in Georgia, whom he supposedly represented. Nor can he throw back at the Georgians his vote as speaker for an additional 3.5 billion dollars for the Department of Education, which was the largest single increase that department has ever received. Ditto for his Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, co-sponsored with Nancy Pelosi, which declared that climate change is "a major threat to political stability, international security and economic prosperity." Similarly, Newt's co-sponsoring the 1987 Pro-Fairness Doctrine was the result not of pressure from his constituents, but instead of his own big-government beliefs.
Even after he resigned, Newt spent hours persuading and cajoling fellow Republicans to vote for government-expansion bills. He supported individual mandates as late as May of 2011, Bush's amnesty for illegals in '04, government intervention to control global warming, and TARP, to name a few. In 2003, Newt demanded that "[e]very conservative member of Congress should vote" for Bush's prescription drug bill despite the fact that it added $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Prior to the 2010 midterm elections, Newt melted the phones of conservatives to ensure that social issues wouldn't be discussed.
There is another candidate whose record is far more conservative than the others despite having represented a purple-blue state. He didn't flip-flop his positions to please voters or garner media attention; instead, he remained true to his family and ideals because of inner convictions. He was and is a proud pro-lifer and a supporter of traditional marriage, lower taxes, and smaller government. He actually listened to the voices of those who sent him to Washington prior to voting and didn't originally support amnesty for illegals or federal action to curb global warming, as Newt and Romney have. And unlike Newt, this candidate actually supported some Tea Party conservatives over RINOs in the 2010 primaries.
This candidate is none other than Rick Santorum, who, as a newcomer to Congress, joined six others and fought corruption in both parties in what became known as the Gang of Seven while Newt -- the old-timer -- said nary a word. Rick Santorum has never linked hands with the left to destroy conservatism or grow liberalism, as Newt has. As a freshman in the Senate, it was Rick Santorum who led the fight for welfare reform and has been credited for its success, and it is Rick Santorum who continues to champion for entitlement reform. On the flip-side, although Newt supported welfare reform in the House, he also led the successful fight against entitlement reform, and again, he expressed his ardent support of Medicare in Florida this past week.
Newt can best be characterized as the Rod Blagojevich of the Republican Party: a smooth talker wearing a righteous mask who loves attention and makes a lot of noise. When removing his outer layer, though, one discovers a corrupted, immoral individual who has never met a liberal idea he hadn't tasted, liked, and then clothed in conservative clothing.
Three states have held primaries/caucuses so far, and three separate candidates won, so the race is still wide open. Floridian voters, cast your ballots wisely.
Please click here To read the entire article.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
As Nicole Coulter pointed out yesterday the mainstream media has been feeding rumors for the last several days that Santorum was “quitting the race” and leaving Florida immediately after Thursday night’s debate despite Rick having made it clear that he was continuing to campaign until the night prior to the elections and was nowhere near quitting.
Unfortunately his special-needs daughter, Bella, had been rushed to the hospital and Santorum has rushed there as well. Although he’s canceled his appearances at several events for today, his eldest daughter Elizabeth and members of the famous Duggar family will represent him at various events. He also appeared today on “Meet the Press” and will be holding two tele-town hall meetings later today.
The quitting rumor which is being spread to discourage his supporters from sticking to him, is not the only obvious lie being thrown about Santorum across cyberspace and media channels.
During the debate Thursday night Santorum made a very strong case detailing why Romney, the author of RomneyCare, will have great difficulty taking on Obama on ObamaCare if he is the ultimate nominee. Santorum explained that in order to successfully challenge Obama one must provide a clear contrast to Obama’s policies, and reminded the audience that he had never supported individual mandates. You can watch their exchange over here.
Over the weekend media headlines announced that Santorum too had endorsed individual mandates during his career. The only problem though, was that they all linked to one source which was based on a third party with no direct quotes from Santorum.Well, guess what? Consistent Rick has opposed ObamaCare in concept way back in 1994 and continues to oppose it in 2012. The Daily Caller’s article has found a video dated October 31, 1994 in which Rick Santorum while running for Senate in the purple state of PA had clearly denounced any and every form of individual mandates. Here are some excerpts from The Daily Caller’s article and you can watch the video over here.
Running for the U.S. Senate in 1994, however, Santorum actually said just the opposite of that, as a video from CSPAN shows. The Oct. 31, 1994 video has Santorum saying government shouldn’t “dictate” anything on health care.
“I think what the role of the federal government is to provide opportunity for everyone to get what they want, to live their dreams and not to dictate what everybody should have,” he said.
And he explained why, which is even when certain things are mandated by the federal government, they often don’t work and added it simply is “not the American way of doing things.”
“You can’t force every American to do something they don’t want to do,” Santorum explained. “You can force people to be in Social Security, yet I think it’s only about 96 percent of Americans that are in Social Security. There are lots of mandates we put on people and they don’t obey. That’s wrong. That’s not the American way of doing things. The American way of doing things is getting people to live their dreams to make their choices.”
Nice try, LSM. Keep trying.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
About a month ago, many conservatives pounced upon Nikki Haley when she endorsed Mitt Romney and branded her as a traitor and RINO as though she is failing to govern South Carolina in a conservative manner.
I’ve asked it at the time and I’ll ask it again; where had Newt Gingrich been when these very conservatives including Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio challenged establishment Republicans in primaries in 2010? Why, he was busy endorsing others like Dede Scozzafava over tea-partier Doug Hoffman, Robert Bennet over Mike Lee, and so on. Not only has Newt chosen to support left-leaning candidates over Tea-partiers, he had repeatedly supported liberal legislation first as a Congressman and later as a private citizen.
The Drudge Report has become the number one news source for millions of conservatives who are refreshed to see news which the mainstream media fails to report. Drudge has linked to and helped make viral many liberal-exposures including Breitbart’s explosive Acorn videos.
I remember listening to the Mark Levin Show October 5th when he stunned us with Governor Palin’s letter informing us she won’t be seeking the nomination. A bit later, after Governor Palin called into his show, Mark informed her and the audience that Matt Drudge had sent him an email saying “It’s a sad day for America.” I wasn’t the slightest bit surprised to hear him echoing the precise sentiments I and millions of others had felt, for The Drudge Report had always been from the handful of sites that reported the truth about the Governor and refused to participate in the liberal hateful slander machine which spread ridiculous lies about Palin.
Last week, Drudge had a headline about a network’s upcoming interview with a presidential candidate’s ex-wife; a news that would under normal circumstances be featured on every website. Although divorces are usually a messy business and many ex-spouses seek to slander their former spouse, it is only reasonable that voters will still want to hear what the candidate’s ex-wife has to say (taking it perhaps with a grain of salt) especially since the court documents regarding his first divorce have shown that Newt and not his wife had requested the divorce, contrary to his claims.
Drudge had come under heavy attack from Newt supporters for reporting this news, and Saturday night after Newt had won South Carolina, twitter was loaded with messages proclaiming Matt Drudge had lost. What has he lost? He owns a news site, and reported this piece news as he does with all other news.
Also, what’s wrong if he personally doesn’t support Newt (although I haven’t heard him say so)? It has come to the point that anyone who says anything not so complimentary of Newt, even when it’s the truth, is branded as in the camp for Romney. I, for instance, support neither Newt nor Romney. I support Rick Santorum. I’ve found it quite disturbing, though, to have been told by Newt that supporting Santorum is equivalent to supporting Romney. No, it isn’t and being told so won’t change that. I don’t support many of Romney’s policies of which Santorum has always held contrary views. I’m of the opinion that I will support the person who appears to me as the only principled conservative still in the race and I also feel that supporting Newt is similar to supporting Romney since they’ve held similar views on a majority of the issues. You may disagree with that, but don’t say I’m not allowed to support someone other than yourself.
It’s true that a huge chunk of conservatives are currently supporting Newt. However, that doesn’t mean one isn’t a conservative if he supports another candidate, including Romney. Furthermore, disagreeing with Newt doesn’t automatically mean the individual supports Romney; he may be supporting an alternative candidate such as Santorum or has not yet made up his/her mind.
Conservatives have already dumped Nikki Haley. They’ve blasted Matt Drudge for the past week. Now Rubio has become the target of attacks. What has Rubio done? Rubio hadn’t questioned Newt’s conservatism or dared discuss Newt’s past. He simply responded to an analogy that Newt had made which included Rubio. Also, after having been questioned about a specific ad, he responded that it was more befitted for a liberal with its false fear-mongering message to Hispanics (much in the manner Obama has engaged in the 2010 midterms). The Newt team apparently felt Rubio was in the right for it responded quite quickly and promised to pull the ad.
Newt is beloved by many for his sharp responses and hard-hitting answers. At times, though his remarks seem to follow liberal tactics or deliver a punch which is contradictory with conservative values, and he’s admitted as much. Just as he’d apologized for his fear-mongering comments on the Paul Ryan Plan as “right-wing social engineering” which hurt conservatism at a time when the left attempted to portray conservatives as throwing grandma off the cliff, so too, his portrayal of Romney as anti-immigration without differentiating between legal and illegal immigration has struck the wrong balance.
If we’re going to throw under the bus every conservative who utters anything anti-Newt I think we’ll need super-long tractor-trailers to fit everyone under. We should be able to understand that conservative opinion will be split in a primary and that not everyone will agree with your choice of candidate. That’s what primaries are all about. Let’s stop the trashing and bashing of conservatives solely because their opinion conflicts yours.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
As a Jew and a grandson of Holocaust survivors, I had been horrified to discover an interview in which Ron Paul had stated that if he would’ve been president during the holocaust he wouldn't have intervened despite the tens of millions of men, women, and children the Nazis had slaughtered.
Paul’s shocking remarks had not been an isolated incident complete with profuse apologies. They are one tiny chapter amongst countless similarly vile comments. Just a couple of days ago, in an interview conducted last Friday, Paul had announced that one must have empathy with … Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! He then went on to “explain” that Ahmadinejad isn’t seeking a fight with the Western World, and that it’s merely a concoction by those who wish to engage him in war. Has he never heard Ahmadinejad blast America and the free western world, clearly stating his intentions to wipe out Israel and all infidels?
Many view Ron Paul as simply naïve or as nuts and dismiss him and his rhetoric in the manner one does to a buzzing fly. It must be clear that he is not simply naïve or nuts, but evil. He led racist and anti-Semitic newsletters for many years, with the intentions of his actions to be so. He has often told aides that he “wishes Israel didn’t exist.” Sounds like Ahmadinejad himself, no? No wonder he feels empathy for him!
Ron Paul’s warped sense of good and evil seems to manifest itself amongst his supporters who’ve adopted a weird line of attack against Rick Santorum. They warn voters in ominous comments that electing Santorum to the presidency is a guarantee for a World War III, while voting for Ron Paul will bring peace upon the world.
They appear utterly ignorant of the events which had caused World War II to have become the monster war that it was - having led to the deaths of over fifty million people. When Hitler rose to power and built a powerful army despite it having violated the Treaty of Versailles, the world, weary of war, pretended not to notice, hoping to avoid a confrontation.
Even after the Nazis intentions became clear after the annexation of Austria, the European leaders attempted appeasement via Sudetenland instead of halting them in their tracks. Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, explained his avoidance of war saying that war results only in losers and in no winners, while the U.S. engaged in isolationism and turned a blind eye to Europe. Only after the Nazi beast has grown to monstrous proportions, gobbling up country after country, did Great Britain and France declare war on Germany. At that point though, the German army had already morphed into a strong and organized force which couldn’t be defeated so easily.
The U.S. continued to remain out of the war while watching the world turn upside-down until it came under direct attack by the Japanese, Germany’s ally. The Pearl Harbor bombings resulted in 21 Navy ships sunk or damaged, over 188 U.S. aircraft destroyed, over 2,400 Americans dead, and many more injured. This jerked the U.S. out of their isolationism, declaring war against an enemy whose size and power had vastly increased during the five years it faced zero or little opposition.
The U.S. had followed exactly the type of policy that Ron Paul promotes and promises to enforce, and that has led not only to the deaths of thousands at Pearl Harbor but to an extended and extremely difficult war to fight. Instead of defeating the German army in their homeland and having to liberate one or two countries they had invaded, battles were held across three continents, spanning most of Europe, chunks of Asia, and portions in Africa.
And Paul supporters say that precisely a Santorum presidency, who will not allow evil to mushroom out of control, will lead to a World War III?
Notable amongst the many indefensible remarks made by Ron Paul was his sharp rebuke to the military and Obama administration after news of Osama Bin Laden’s death was publicized and celebrated across the country. Instead of joining the jubilant masses, Paul bemoaned the successful operation and criticized the government in performing an act which didn’t respect the rule of the law according to Paul’s interpretations, asking whether we would’ve done the same had he been hiding in London.
Is there even hope to penetrate Paul’s skull that evil people are in existence very much like good people, and that evil needs to be handled differently than good? It doesn’t seem like it. Never mind that he hadn’t felt it necessary to express his condolences to the families of the 9/11 victims, save perhaps when he used them to condemn the U.S. government as responsible for the heinous actions of the terrorists. Ron Paul’s conscience, if he has one, was more disturbed over the death of Osama Bin Laden than that this evil monster’s life hadn’t been brought to an end a couple of decades earlier before he would’ve had a chance to inflict death and damage to thousands via 9/11 and other bombings across the world.
Ron Paul’s thinking is terribly wrong, for he considers those who sympathize with evil as unrelated to evil. The truth though, as Bush had outlined in his state of the union speech, is that one cannot be neutral in the fight against evil. One is either for evil or against it. If one’s sympathy for evil overrides the sympathy he feels for the victims, than that person is evil itself. Ron Paul has never decried acts of terror performed against ambassadors, children and innocent civilians who were riding busses, walking streets and minding their own business. Nor has he felt it necessary to condemn the Texas Fort Hood shooter or similar incidents. His behavior had been quite the contrary. Ron Paul has always taken the side of evil and terrorists, finding ridiculous excuses to explain away their horrific actions and for turning the villains into victims.
When Ron Paul preaches his anti-war rhetoric, he’s not simply against attacking other countries before they attack us. He promotes closing the CIA and FBI leaving a nation with no intelligence to gather information about possible attacks. That’s not defending liberty, despite his claims. Such action is irresponsible behavior which can result in the infringement of liberty and life of many U.S. civilians on American soil through acts of terror our intelligence regularly intercepts.
Simply put, Paul wants to shrink and weaken the entire U.S. defense, leaving the greatest bastion of liberty defenseless in the face of evil.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
One of the most important indicators when studying primaries and elections is whether the candidates have exceeded, met, or underperformed according to expectations.
Romney’s victory in New Hampshire was a given and his performance therefore met, yet did not exceed, expectations for a non-victory would’ve shocked the entire political world. His victory, although considerable, has not changed the script of how people assumed it would be from the start of this primary season.
Romney’s performance is contrary that of the New Hampshire primary in 2008 where expectations similarly originally expected for the then not-so-established Mitt Romney from the neighboring Massachusetts to win the primary. McCain, Romney’s opponent, had received several strong endorsements including that of Independent/Democrat Joe Lieberman, The Boston Globe, and The New Hampshire Union Leader which swayed lots of Independents over to the McCain camp. Romney’s support slipped shortly before the primary, and he ended up coming in second behind the more established McCain. McCain’s victory was thus extremely significant since he exceeded expectations, and he ultimately ended up beating Romney as the Republican presidential candidate.
The script for the upcoming South Carolina election was very much that it’s up in the air. As a Southern and strongly Conservative state, it was assumed that the candidate who assumes the position of Not-Romney will probably be victorious. Since three candidates are still vying for that title thus splitting up the conservative vote, and because Romney won New Hampshire with a considerable margin, the dynamics have changed for South Carolina and it is now expected to go for Romney. The media and all political pundits have declared it so, and even Jim Demint, the Conservative Senator from South Carolina, had announced that he would be surprised if anyone but Romney wins the state next Saturday.
Romney is currently leading the pack in South Carolina with an RCP average of 29% while the two conservative contenders who can possibly create a change in the dynamics, Santorum and Gingrich, are both currently polling at the 20% range. Although the scene may appear bleak to conservatives, a Romney victory is not yet guaranteed.
The current high expectations for Romney in South Carolina will color anything less than a full-fledged Romney victory in a very negative light. These raised expectations are extremely beneficial for conservatives for with the new dynamics, if a conservative ends up beating Romney in South Carolina, their victory will carry far more weight than previously expected. It will be seen as a serious defeat of Romney and an incredible strength of the conservative, and will result in a greatly weakened Romney going forward.
In a sense, it can be compared to the Democratic primaries of 2008. Obama had all the momentum on his side prior to the primary in Pennsylvania after beating Hillary in a majority of the previous primaries. After Hillary’s surprise victory in Pennsylvania, though, Obama’s momentum had come to a halt and many questioned whether he would be able to regain the lead. Ultimately, since it was the end of April and a majority of the states had already held their primaries, there wasn’t enough leeway for Hillary to overcome the overwhelming majority of delegates Obama had already picked up prior to Pennsylvania and Obama became the nominee.
A South Carolina upset can similarly halt Romney in his tracks, and since it is only the third state, an unexpected Romney defeat can have a powerful enough effect to sway the ultimate outcome of the Republican primaries. If Romney isn’t dealt a significant blow early enough in the primary, it seems quite unlikely that the Republican nominee will be anyone but Romney.
Despite Romney’s lead in South Carolina, here are several factors to keep in mind, which can lead to contrary results.
Romney has sailed to victory Tuesday night in the purple New Hampshire, a state which identifies with his moderate positions, with 39% of the votes. If he hadn’t topped 40% in New Hampshire there is no way he can get too much more than 30% of the votes in the southern red state of South Carolina whose views are aligned further to the right than Romney’s. Thus, if a conservative can garner 40% or more of the South Carolinian vote, he will virtually be guaranteed to beat Romney.
In order for that to occur, the conservatives must unite under one candidate Unification will result in a combination of the twenty percent of support each of them are recipient of, and will total to a whopping forty percent.
Although it may appear as an impossible suggestion since supporters of each candidate desire for the other side to join them, it can occur in either of two scenarios. The dream scenario would be if one of the candidates back out and endorse his rival conservative. It is also possible though for both candidates to remain in the race, with one candidate imploding badly enough for a majority of his supporters to choose on their own to unite around the other viable who will be able to serve as the “Anyone but Romney” candidate. The race will thus downsize to a two-man race and will enable the conservative to win over Romney in South Carolina, gain momentum, and hopefully emerge victorious first from the primaries and ultimately from the general election.
The (multi) million dollar question is, of course, who, if anyone, should be the one to back out of the race in order to stop Romney?
Of course neither can be demanded to pull out of the race since everyone has the right to stay in for as long as they wish. Both of them have garnered far more than zero percent in Iowa and New Hampshire and even Perry who had faced a stunning loss in Iowa, had come in with less than 1% in New Hampshire, and is polling extremely low in South Carolina, has the right to continue campaigning. Besides, a Perry retreat, although it would narrow the field a bit more, would probably not be enough to propel one of the others ahead of Romney.
There is one candidate though who is more likely to pull out, and to understand why, we’ve got to go back to our original explanation of expectations vs. performance in addition to some other details.
At an overall glance, it seems as though Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were recipients of equally not-too-great results last night in New Hampshire.
Santorum received 9.3 percent of the vote which landed him in fifth place and right behind Newt who received 9.4 percent – a little over two hundred votes more than Santorum. Neither of them received any delegates and both performed slightly worse than Huckabee in 2008, who had come in third with 11% of the votes and had been the recipient of one delegate. Their performances last night, though, are seen in very different lights since the expectations for their performances had been vastly different.
Expectations for Newt were sky high. In Iowa he had been crowned as the frontrunner and even in New Hampshire he was doing considerably well. Newt Gingrich had been the recipient of The New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement, the very same influential newspaper who had endorsed McCain and many other candidates who had then gone on to win the New Hampshire primary. End of November and December polls showed a surging Newt in New Hampshire who received the support of close to and often over twenty percent of those polled. Some speculated that Newt will eventually top Romney, while all expected him to land in the second seat.
Despite the massive anti-Bain and anti-Romney bombardment Newt engaged in as retaliation, he was unable to keep Romney from rising and himself from dropping. Newt ended up barely clinging to the fourth spot and his inability to meet expectations has painted him once again as a candidate in decline.
Newt’s lackluster New Hampshire results came at the heels of his embarrassing performance in Iowa, where he came in fourth despite having been the frontrunner with a considerable percentage only weeks before the caucuses. Newt blamed the overwhelming number of negative ads Romney had run against him as the cause for his drastic drop. Immediately after Iowa, Newt retaliated and bombarded New Hampshire with negative ads against Romney and his job in Bain. His efforts, though, proved to be inadequate in stopping Romney’s momentum. At the contrary, the attacks over Romney’s pink slips had backfired and resulted in Newt having come under heavy fire from many prominent conservatives including Rush.
Newt’s decision to remain in the campaign, first after his loss in Iowa and then after his weak performance in New Hampshire, despite it being almost impossible for him to win South Carolina with Santorum in the race indicate that his goal has changed. His expansion of attacks against Bain via the airing of a 28 minute anti-Romney commercial in South Carolina despite the considerable damage it has already caused to his campaign further hints at Newt’s revised end-point.
Why else would a candidate who still hopes to win an election increase an action which has proven in the past to cause greater damage to his own campaign than his opponent’s? It is clear that Newt is aware of his slimmer than slim chances in South Carolina specifically and in the rest of the primary. Since the presidential nomination appears out of Newt’s reach, he has undertaken a new goal; to stop Romney from being the nominee. Newt’s first attempt to accomplish this is has proven unsuccessful and too remain in the race and continue this path despite his attacks being ineffective, may result in a fuming Newt after Romney wins South Carolina, Florida, and eventually the Republican nomination.
Instead of continuing with plan number one, there is another path for Newt to take which will seriously impede the Romney campaign. Newt can endorse another candidate, which will unite the conservative vote and enable for that candidate to overcome Romney in South Carolina. Newt can continue with his attacks against Romney if he so desires, which will keep Romney on the offensive without pulling down the conservative candidate. Since Perry had imploded and is polling in the Huntsman range, Santorum would be logical choice, and for several reasons in addition to polling.
Santorum had exceeded expectations in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He had gone from the very bottom of the polls to a tied victory with Romney in Iowa. In New Hampshire he came pretty much tied with Newt at over 9% despite having polled at 1 -2% in November and 3-4% in December. Since Santorum’s performance had twice topped what was expected, his national support is in an upward climb and his coffers have begun to sport a bulge. Even if Santorum comes in second, behind Romney, it will be seen as an impressive act and he will have the opportunity to attempt another overtake in Florida.
Santorum has no incentive to get out of the race. He has exceeded expectations in the first two states and will be remembered with respect and admiration for his Iowa surprise further down the line even if he comes in second or third in South Carolina and Florida. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has been branded as the former frontrunner whose support had vanished and the longer he stays in and serves as a spoiler, the harsher people’s opinion will be of him down the line. And that Newt the historian wishes to be remembered fondly in history is a given.
Although a newly released Insider Advantage poll of South Carolina from this morning has Newt Gingrich at 21%, just two points behind Romney and 7 points ahead of Santorum, the current poll isn’t such great news and is actually a massive slide from the previous Insider Advantage poll from 12/18 where Newt polled far ahead of the rest having come in at 31%. The current Insider Advantage poll thus reflects a whopping 10 point drop for the former frontrunner while indicating a 4 point jump for Romney (from 19 to 23) and a surging 10 point gain for Santorum (from 4 to 14).
Newt tweeted the poll and his entire camp is touting the poll as proof that he can beat Romney, not realizing that he is once again setting himself up to extremely high expectations. A Newt victory in South Carolina will be seen as having finally met expectations. Anything below first spot though, won’t reflect too well for someone who had led the pack a month earlier with double digits and had failed to live up to expectations for the third time. A Santorum victory will cause a momentum many times stronger than his Iowa surprise had, and will propel him ahead across the country. Santorum coming in as a strong second or third will also reflect positively on him since he was never touted as the frontrunner and definite winner.
Another feather in the hat for Santorum is his being the only candidate who refused to attack Bain Capital for having engaged in free market principles such as firing unproductive employees. Newt, Perry, and Huntsman have attacked Romney for having lain off employees in companies Bain has managed, ignoring minor details such as that laying off unproductive workers benefits the business and that shrinking the staff of a failing business is often necessary in order for it to turn around and be able to generate a profit once again. Isn’t it better for a business and the economy for it to operate with fewer employees rather than it keeping the entire staff only to go bankrupt and close shop? Besides, how do these candidates who attack firing employees plan to shrink the size of government and close entire agencies, as they promise they will, without handing out pink slips?
The accusation that Bain’s actions were wrong because they had received a federal bailout is similarly flawed, and in two accounts. Firstly, although the government shouldn’t be bailing out companies, companies that have been bailed out should use the money to make a profit, as Bain did, even if it includes the firing of employees. They shouldn’t waste the bailout money by keeping employees employed for as long as the money lasts and not attempting any positive reform, only to shut the doors when the money runs out. Secondly, it turned out that the bailout accusations were false and that Bain Capital hasn’t even received a government bailout.
Newt’s general criticism of a business who profits from flipping other businesses appeared foolish and contradictory when voters discovered that he conveniently forgot to share the fact that he invested in and served on the advisory board of Fortsman Little, a competitor of Bain in the leveraged-buyout industry.
Santorum’s strong defense of the free market was and is a stark contrast to the others and especially from Newt who had adapted the role of Attacker in Chief. This resulted in many renowned conservatives who have never previously admonished Newt or shown true support for Santorum, to suddenly do so. Newt had come under nuclear fire from Rush Limbaugh and many other prominent conservatives for his left-wing socialist style against Romney, while Santorum was praised for standing up for basic conservative principles.
If Rick Santorum can continue to build his momentum by citing his pro-free market principles and unite the conservative base in South Carolina, he will beat Romney in South Carolina. A defeated Romney will continue forward, albeit with a greatly weakened image and no surety for victory.
No longer will he be able to walk away with a victory simply because the crowded primary resulted in the conservative vote having been split in three. He will have to tout a record and a plan to convince voters that he’s the right guy and unlike Santorum, Romney’s record is filled with inconsistencies and discrepancies. While Romney will be busy explaining his anti/pro conservative record and Paul will explain his anti/pro earmarks amongst many other inconsistent statements, Santorum will be able to tout a consistent and steady record.
Santorum has received above average ratings as a staunch conservative despite his having run in the blue-purple state of Pennsylvania. Whether on social issues such as pro-life and traditional marriage, economic issues such as his sponsorship of BBA, anti-tax increases and a line veto, or foreign policy issues, such as facing reality and calling evil by its name, Rick had always been consistent with is positions for he chose them because he felt they were right. Shifting along with the wind or prior to an upcoming reelection were never serious options for a person who believed in the correctness of his positions.
Monday, January 9, 2012
I've had it with Ron Paul and his shameful rhetoric.
Paul pretends to fight for life and liberty above everything else. At every debate, appearance, and interview he repeats his alignment with liberty. Pretty noble sounding. However, if he is allowed to speak a little longer, his own words often reveal his hypocrisy. With equal passion he fights for the liberties of vicious terrorists and radical Muslims across the globe, and protests their death at the hands of freedom-fighting troops. He defends their liberties despite the fact that if they are granted liberty they have used it and continue to use it to snatch life and liberty from others.
At the debates Paul decries the deaths of the many innocent civilians killed by U.S. troops despite it being far from the case. In truth, far more innocent civilians have been terrorized and brutally murdered by terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere only because they have belonged to a different ethnicity, religion, or opinion. On the other hand, US troops focus solely on rooting out terrorists and civilian casualty are few and far apart.
Paul's defense of evil is not a new one. In an interview in 2009, Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro questioned Paul whether he would've been president during World War II, whether he would've intervened and stopped Germany from annihilating tens of millions of innocent. Paul's shocking response was “No!” he “wouldn’t have risked American lives to end the Holocaust.” Is he not aware that we had kept out of war and were rewarded for our isolationism with the Pearl Harbor bombing?
Ron Paul's response to the holocaust proves the man is a scumbag and evil monster who sides with evil over good. Nazi Germany killed tens of millions of innocent including elderly, infirm, men, women, and babies only because of their religion or ethnicity. Ron Paul, though has no issue with their actions o the actions of terrorists but with the actions taken against radical Islamists who promote violence? He then blames the terrorists' calculated schemes in which they seek to wreak the greatest number of casualties they can conjure of, on the action of those who try to protect themselves and protect others from being on the receiving end of their devilish plans?
How many times must history repeat itself for Paul and his supporters to realize that when evil arises it chooses to perform evil acts because of an inner desire to be evil? What will it take for Paul to realize that evil will fight to spread its evil icy fingers across the globe and can only be stopped through the use of the one language it understands; a tough hand?
Not surprisingly, Paul also takes the side of evil in the war of drugs, all in the name of liberty of course. He ignores the many lives it has ruined and ended including that of innocent non-druggist due to drug-related crimes, and instead expresses his sympathy for those poor drug addicts. Does he actually expect normal people to sniffle along with him?
It is no accident or error that Paul had led an antisemitic and racist newsletter, for Paul personifies evil, identifies with evil, and will not let an evil go by without it receiving his approval.
He's a poisonous snake who spreads his venom on those who fight evil, from those who fought Nazism to terrorism. Shame on you Ron Paul and shame on each and every individual who supports Ron Paul.
After the Santorum Surprise in Iowa many individuals are seeking information about Santorum’s past and record only to discover that most articles are focusing on his handful of drawbacks without mentioning his positives since the writers are supporters of other candidates.
I have come across the following on the Youths4Palin website a while ago, and am of the opinion that many of you would enjoy seeing a clear and concise article focusing on his many accomplishments.
This article has been republished with permission, and here’s a link to the original article.
Former Senator of the United States of America
Applying for President of These United States of America
As a husband and father, Rick Santorum knows the importance of protecting and providing for your family. He believes that at the core of the American experience is the family, and that without strong families, we cannot have a strong and vibrant nation.
During his time in elected office, Rick Santorum fought for the preservation of the traditional American family and for the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. Rick was the author of legislation outlawing the heinous act known as partial-birth abortion and he championed the fight to pass the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” and the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.” He also authored legislation to advance adult stem cell research, so that ethical research could take place to fight debilitating diseases without the moral implications associated with embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life.
Rick Santorum not only believes but cherishes the ideal of a culture of life. As a member of the United States Senate, Rick fought for the passage of the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), and the “Combating Autism Act” to fight this devastating disease that is affecting more and more of our nation’s children.
When activist judges took it upon themselves to redefine marriage, and with it the underpinnings of the traditional American family and our First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion, Rick spearheaded the debate in favor of Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. Rick successfully fought even members of his own Party and had the amendment brought to the Senate floor for public debate in two successive Congresses. Even though he knew he would be labeled a bigot or worse by members of the liberal elite, Rick Santorum understood this issue was far too important to the future of our society not to be debated before the American public.
Rick understands that our freedom to practice our faith is not just under attack through the redefinition of marriage, but in nearly every facet of the popular culture. As a member of the United States Senate, Rick authored the “Workplace Religious Freedom Act” to ensure individuals of all faith could not be discriminated against while on the job. Rick also founded the Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom to ensure that the principle of Freedom of Religion would not be infringed upon.
From the moment he was elected to public office, Rick Santorum worked tirelessly to ensure the hard-earned tax dollars of all Americans were being spent wisely.
Along with John Boehner and Jim Nussle, Rick was a member of the “Gang of Seven” who targeted the waste and fraud of the House Post Office and Bank. This did not make Rick Santorum a popular man in an old boy’s club like the House of Representatives, but Rick knew that the only way to make a positive difference in the lives of his constituents was to challenge the corrupt norms that had seeped into the People’s Body.
Being elected to the upper-chamber of the United States Senate did not slow down Rick’s passion for government reform. Two of the first bills Rick sponsored were the “Balanced Budget Amendment” and the “Line Item Veto,” because Rick knew the importance of reigning in a government drunk on spending.
Rick Santorum knew that reforming Congress was a great start, but our nation’s entitlement programs were the cancer to the long-term fiscal health of our nation. This is why he was one of the lead sponsors of the landmark 1996 Welfare Reform law that has helped more Americans transition from the government welfare rolls to work than any legislation before or since.
In 2005, seeing our Social Security system on the brink of bankruptcy, Rick led the charge to reform the broken entitlement system. Along with South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, Rick was one of only a handful of legislators who stuck their head out of the foxhole and fought to save the Social Security system for future generations by offering creative reforms focused on empowering the individual.
Rick also fought to ensure that all Americans kept more of their hard-earned tax dollars. He spearheaded the passage of President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, because he believes that reducing the tax burden on businesses and individuals is the key to spurring economic growth.
Since leaving Congress, Rick has been a vocal opponent of the Wall Street bailouts and stimulus programs instituted by both President Bush and Obama. Rick believes that by having our government choose winners and losers, both Administrations are setting America on a course to crony western European capitalism that will lead to a weaker future for our children.
Rick was rewarded for his hard work on behalf of the American taxpayer, consistently being named as a “Friend of the Taxpayer” by the National Taxpayers Union and endorsed by pro-business organizations like the National Federation of Independent Business and the United States Chamber of Commerce during his political campaigns.
Rick Santorum understands that the events of September 11, 2001 brought to our front door the uncomfortable truth that attacks on our soil are not merely a distant possibility, but a harsh reality.
To combat this threat, Rick refused to back down from those who wish to destroy America. Rick Santorum understands that those who wish to destroy America do so because they hate everything we are – a land of freedom, a land of prosperity, a land of equality. Rick knows that backing down to the Jihadists means that we are only putting our foundational principles at greater risk. As an elected representative, Rick knew that his greatest responsibility was to protect the freedoms we enjoy – and we should not apologize for holding true to these principles.
That is why Rick refuses to call this a War on Terror, because, like Blitzkrieg, terror is a tactic. Rick believes our nation’s leaders must be honest with the American people and call this war what it is, a War with Radical Islam. Rick saw firsthand during the Bush Administration that without clearly defining who we are fighting and why we are fighting, the American people will never understand the great threat posed by our enemies.
Rick did not simply use his position in the United States Senate to fight rhetorical battles, he used every legislative tool at his disposal to combat rogue regimes that wish our nation harm. Rick spent 8 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he fought to strengthen America’s military in the face of the Clinton Administration’s attempt to downsize our fighting capabilities.
In 2003, Rick authored and successfully fought for the passage of the “Syria Accountability Act” to combat the terrorist threat posed by Syria. By 2005, Rick was one of our nation’s first leaders to understand the threat posed by Iran, so he authored and passed the “Iran Freedom and Support Act” in the face of Democratic and Bush State Department opposition, which authorized Federal monies to support pro-democracy movements in Iran and keep the tyrannical dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Though the war in Iraq was unpopular in 2006, Rick refused to shy away from his belief that we need to confront our enemies. Though ridiculed by many in the mainstream media as a chicken little for talking about the threat posed by Ahmadinejad and Iran, Rick spent much of his campaign focused on the gathering storm that our enemies pose. In an election that was a referendum on the war, Rick was defeated.
Though he lost at the ballot box, Rick has not stopped fighting for the defense of our nation. Since leaving the Senate in 2007, Rick created the “Program to Protect America’s Freedom” at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he worked to identify, study, and heighten awareness of the threats posed to America. Through his work, Rick spoke at dozens of university campuses and to thousands of college students about the threats to our nation and how it is critical that the next generation of leaders not back down, but defend our nation.
Penn Hills, Pennsylvania
Senator Santorum became one of the most successful government reformers in our history, taking on Washington’s powerful special interests from the moment he arrived in our nation’s Capitol. He was a member of the famous “Gang of Seven” that exposed the Congressional Banking and Congressional Post Office scandals. It was this record of reform that prompted a Washington Post reporter to write in a recent article that “Santorum was a tea party kind of guy before there was a tea party.”
Mr. Santorum has many accomplishments but is most proud of his role as a husband and father. Rick and his wife of 21 years, Karen, are the parents of seven wonderful children.
United States Senator, 1995-2007
United States of America, Penn Hills, PA
• Served as Chairman of the Republican Party Task Force on Welfare Reform, and contributed to legislation that became the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.
• From 2001-2007 he was the 3rd Ranking Republican in the Senate.
• Sponsored “Workplace Religious Freedom Act” with Sen. John Kerry.
• Supported partial privatization of Social Security.
• Strong ally of Israel and American Jews.
• Believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman.
• Tried unsuccessfully to insert into the “No Child Left Behind” bill language which came to be known as the “Santorum Amendment” that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design will questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools. Though not included in the final version of the Act made law, the language from the amendment was included in a report attached to the Act and known as the Conference Report.
• Opposed the Senates immigration reform proposal. Instead, he stated that the U.S. should act to enforce currently existing laws. He strongly opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants. He supports the construction of a barrier along the U.S.–Mexican border, an increase in the number of border patrol agents on the border, and the stationing of National Guard troops along the border. He also believes that illegal immigrants should be deported immediately when they commit crimes, and that undocumented immigrants should not receive benefits from the government. He also believes that English should be established as the national language in the United States.
U.S. House of Representatives, 1991-1995
United States of America, Penn Hills, PA
• A key member of the “Gang of Seven” that was responsible for exposing congressional corruption by naming the guilty parties in the House Banking Scandal.
• High School: Carmel High School
• The Pennsylvania State University
• Maters of Business Administration
• University of Pittsburgh
• Dickinson School of Law
• Married, Karen.
• Father of 7 children.
• Roman Catholic.
• Is an advocate of “compassionate conservativism” which he says, “relies on healthy families, freedom of faith, a vibrant civil society, a proper understanding of the individual and a focused government to achieve noble purposes through definable objectives which offers hope to all.” He is known for his “confrontational, partisan, ‘in your face’ style of politics and government.” “I just don’t take the pledge. I take the bullets,” Santorum said. “I stand out in front and I lead to make sure the voices of those who do not have a voice are out in front and being included in the national debate.”
• Endorsed by Iowa Secretary of State Matt SchultzNote by Abie: He has received multiple of additional endorsements since this article was written. Additionally, this article is obviously not a 100% complete list of all he’s done, though it provides a great overview.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
At the start of the 2008 primaries Obama was portrayed as unelectable, and understandably so.
He was a Chicagoan thug who was in the midst of his first term as Senator and had ties with extreme radicals. It was no wonder that he polled low in the polls with a Hillary in the race.
Conservatives were so convinced Obama wouldn't be able to win, they even urged Republicans to vote for Obama over Hillary in the open primary states.
Despite Obama's low polling, he exceeded expectations in Iowa and won the state. His victory didn't change too many opinions about his electability and Republicans were further encouraged to promote Obama over Hillary.
As we now all know, Obama not only won the primary, but also won the general election. He was underestimated and therefore shocked everyone when he over-performed.
It is now 2012 and we are experiencing a similar situation albeit within the opposing party of politics. Rick Santorum has been branded as unelectable and unable to win.
The Iowa caucuses though proved an entirely different story.
All the candidates had come in yesterday lower than they had polled. Everyone, that is, besides for Rick Santorum - who had surged to first place minus eight votes!
And what do we hear from the conservative pundits? The same electability nonsense! If they were wrong about Iowa - having predicted for months that Santorum will be history the morning after Iowa, why do they continue down the same failed path?
What must Santorum do for them to realize he has an equally great shot and possibly even better shot than some of the others? When will they decide to stop repeating his handful of negatives over and over again, and instead take a look at the many positives that he brings to the table? He has already surprised them and over-performed in Iowa.
Are these predictors so desperate to repeat their mistake from 2008?
Santorum may or may not win the Republican nomination, and he may or may not become the next president of the USA. What is necessary to happen, though, that prediction-lovers and electability arguers should realize that their claims aren’t worth anything?
We had here a guy who went from nowhere to the top! All the many excuses they are now using to explain the Santorum Surprise will pale in comparison to the explanations they’ll have to create come November 2012, and throughout the entire primary process, when the results don’t match their predictions.
As for electability, I can play that game too. Not to predict, since predictions aren't worth much, but to shed light on an overlooked point.
Mikeymike143 has written a great diary on Red State this morning where he pointed out that Florida Conservatives and Tea Partiers have focusus primar ily on two aspects in the past: national security and social issues. That’s right, they haven’t thrown traditional values under the bus despite some party leaders pretending that everyone has dumped them. These are precisely the two issues where no one is as strong and experienced as Santorum.
Yes, the economy will surely matter to many as well. Not to worry. Santorum, too has a great economic record and sound proposals for the future – especially when compared to Romney who is seen as the biggest contender in Florida.
My suggestion therefore to all predictors is to bite their tongues, swallow their words, and keep their hands off the keyboards for they may very likely be forced into an uncomfortable situation once again, come the Florida primaries.
I can't end this post without a thumbs up to Rick Santorum for a job well done! If nothing else, he has proven that hard work equals results, money isn't everything, and the experts don't know that much! The battle has just begun and may the best man win!
Oh, and here's the link to the terrific speech he gave last night!