What Conservatives have Won Big Time in New Hampshire

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.

Ron Paul's Hypocrisy about Liberty

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. 



 

Rick Santorum's Resume

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.

RICK SANTORUM
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.

***

RICK SANTORUM
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.



WORK EXPERIENCE

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.


EDUCATION

• High School: Carmel High School

• The Pennsylvania State University

• Maters of Business Administration

• University of Pittsburgh

• Dickinson School of Law


PERSONAL

• Married, Karen.

• Father of 7 children.

• Attorney.

• Roman Catholic.

• Author.



ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

• 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 Schultz

Note 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.

 

No longer will I believe the Myth spread in 2008 and which is being Repeated Now

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!



 

What Act has Obama Done Which Outshines his being the 4th best President in this Nation's History?

It is customary for every prestigious newspaper, magazine, and website to declare a person and event of the year.

Being that this is the first time time we've reached the end of the year period after opening this blog, naming our first “event of the year” carries extra importance.

After much careful contemplation and serious indecision we decided that since the year was filled with way too many award-deserving moments, we will present an original twist to the same-old tradition. In addition to an “event of the year”, which in itself took endless deliberate deliberation to the extent that the final results were available only on New Year's, we will present “the most significant moment of Obama's presidency.”

Some of your eyebrows surely shot up at that since he's still got over a year in the oval office until his first and hopefully last term is up. However, we can continue with the naming of the most momentous moment, since 2012 will consist of one extended campaign stump for the Obama team. Besides, we are confident enough that nothing his administration will accomplish nor any event that will occur will be large enough to overshadow our selection.

The event we chose has brought great benefit to the entire world, environment, and the United States of America. It unified conservatives and liberals alike as they watched the event unfold with awe.

No, it is not the capture and death of Osama Bin Laden, for that is not an Obama accomplishment. Osama's death was a military accomplishment despite the fact that Obama is constantly taking credit for the success of the mission. The only aspect of the riddance of Bin Laden that Obama can be credited for, is honoring the murderer with a Muslim ceremony prior to his body being dumped into the sea, although he tried to keep it a secret.

Similarly, Obama's bow to the king of Saudi Arabia and to other Muslim leaders have not made the mark since it oddly angered conservatives and offended the other world leaders who received a mere handshake.

The return of Churchill's bust was a close finalist, yet it too did not hold up to the rigorous standards since it surprisingly irked those sensitive British folks.

Obama's haughty “I won the election” to McCain during “bipartisan” talks almost won the award, but we've settled with a happening which was not too much humbler and that has also taught the American public and all of humanity an important life skill.

It was a typical Tuesday, June 16, 2009, Obama was in the midst of an interview with CNBC's John Harwood discussing some nonsense such as the economy when an unexpected intruder suddenly appeared. The uninvited guest had slipped past all security personnel and remained unnoticed until he had appeared within striking distance of Obama, president of the USA. Obama, noticing the intruder, paused mid-sentence, and in one lighting-quick motion Obama attacked and killed the enemy with his bare hands! He then nonchalantly turned back to the interview while the corpse lay on the White House carpet, only to pause once again to congratulate himself on a job well done.

The heroic act of President Obama and his swift deliverance of death to … the pesky fly … quickly spread across the world, causing rippled effects of shock and awe. Hundreds of thousands sat and replayed the scene, fortunately captured on camera, open-mouthed at the speediness and accuracy of his swat while exhaling with relief that the encounter with the loathsome creature hasn't cost the country trillions.

If you've watched this video anywhere less than 365 times, it's time to watch it again!

Oh, and for the event of the year? Why, that 's the creation of “Attack Watch” by the Obama Administration, where the first bipartisan president has made snitching on your enemies more fun than ever. He thus unified liberals against conservatives while receiving an effort-free money-free list of all who dare oppose “the One.”

Surely something so phenomenally stupendous deserves the Event of the Year Award, don't you agree?

After the Nikki Haley Endorsement, the Conservative Media has become Nasty

The conservative media's current behavior in response to Nikki Haley's endorsement is not too shocking, since many had revealed their self-serving nature at prior occasions, such as during the 2010 elections.

Sarah Palin endorsed John McCain in 2010 for the Arizona senatorial seat, and understandably so, since she was his former running mate. In addition, McCain is the individual who launched Palin onto the national stage. Her endorsement of McCain was seen by many as an act of gratitude and doing that which had always been considered basic human decency. Despite the debt of gratitude she owed McCain, there were quite a number of conservatives who criticized her endorsement and even questioned her conservatism because of it.

Nikki Haley's endorsement of Romney for 2012 can be seen and understood in a similar light. Tea Party candidate Nikki Haley was one of many candidates seeking the governorship of South Carolina in 2010. During her campaign, she came under a considerable number of false attacks. Nevertheless, she bravely fought the attacks and forged forward, and with the support and endorsement of Palin and Romney ultimately won the nomination.

I've written two articles against David Frum and rarely agree with him, though I'm beginning to think he might be right for once. Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity may be creating a negative image of and causing considerable damage to the conservative movement. Just to make it absolutely clear, Levin is my favorite talk-show hosts and I listen to him and Limbaugh daily. However, their behavior of the last several weeks has taken a negative turn.

Haley's endorsement of Romney for the 2012 presidential campaign is an obvious act of gratitude and thankfulness for his support in 2010, and conservatives shouldn't blast Haley for attempting to pay back Romney for his support during her difficult campaign. Why do some conservatives find it so difficult to comprehend that she owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude and that basic human decency demands one to remember one's benefactors?

When Haley fought to win the governorship in South Carolina in 2010 despite false and harmful allegations, Romney stood by her side and expressed her support while Newt endorsed one of the others. I no longer remember whether the individual Newt had endorsed was a RINO or not, although Newt's endorsements in 2010 consisted primarily of moderates. Either way, it doesn't make much of a difference. What does matter, is that he didn't stand with Nikki.

Why has my favorite talk-show host Levin bitingly bid her goodbye? Why doesn't he remember that not a single one of the other current presidential candidates have felt it necessary to defend her, the conservative, in 2010? Why was that not enough to say bye to Newt and the others forever? Why are conservatives so eager to throw their fellow conservatives under the bus because they disagree with one single act they've done?

Besides, it just so happens to be that Romney's flip flops are pretty much equal to Newt's “change of hearts” regarding each and every single issue. Their records on most major issues are strikingly similar, and both of their records are sprinkled with conservative acts. Romney actually carries less baggage than Newt, and I say this not as a Romney supporter for I've criticized his flip-flops on many occasions. My original choice for the presidency was Sarah Palin, and since she isn't running I am currently considering supporting Santorum with Perry coming in not too far behind.

What irks me more than anything else, is how countless conservatives bash Romney and in the same breath bash those who unfairly attack Newt. Since when is criticizing Romney's record part of the vetting process, yet doing the same to Newt unfair attacks? The disingenuous two-faced acts of these conservatives does not go unnoticed by many of their listeners and readers, and I'm afraid their hypocrisy will lead to the weakening of the conservative message and movement.

Not only does the truth no longer matter for them, but with the free pass they provide for Newt, conservatives will no longer be able to blast a politician for adultery, serial or single. Nor will conservatives be capable of lambasting a president for his big-government solutions if conservatives continue to promote Newt for the presidency. Unless we wish to appear as hypocritical and character-less as the left.

Now, with the waves of criticism directed towards Haley, one can no longer even expect from conservatives to act with basic decency such as returning a favor to a fellow human being.

What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?

The following article I've written , What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?, appears on the American Thinker:

In the 2010 primaries, Charlie Christ, then-Senator from Florida and a Republican In Name Only, faced several serious contenders for his seat. One of the most successful ads used against him by his staunchly conservative opponent, Marco Rubio, was an image of opportunist Charlie Christ hugging Obama at a rally where Charlie helped promote the stimulus package. Rubio's constant usage of the image, which reminded the Florida voters of Charlie's support for the stimulus, was a key factor in ousting Charlie from his Senate seat.

In the few short years since Obama has become president, he's caused unbelievable destruction for this country via the weakening of our global image, the wrecking of the economy, the heightened division between class and race, and other ruinous policies. Any politician who had supported Obama in reaching any of his goals deserves to have his opponents harp upon it and to be thrown out of office, as happened to Charlie Christ.

It is now barely two years after we got rid of Charlie Christ, and I'm left to wonder what has occurred to conservatives' demand for character. If an image of Charlie hugging Obama was so powerful two short years ago, why doesn't the image of one of our presidential candidates palling around with a different demagogue receive a similar outcry?

Read more:


       

Moira Crooks: Holding Out for a Hero – Why Character Still Matters

 Moira Crooks has posted a profound article at C4P focusing on the importance of character, the inevitable effects of a leader which lacks character, and the disinterest in character of an overwhelming amount of Americans despite the country having been founded by men of character who focused on character. Make sure to read the powerful example she brings towards the end from the not-so-distant past.

Whew! Wanna count how many times I've said character so far? :) As many times as it's been mentioned, it's obviously and sadly not stressed upon enough these days so let's say it once more; CHARACTER STILL MATTERS!

Where is a leader of good character when you need one? The fabric of American history is woven with political men and women of character. The honesty of George Washington who chopped down the cherry tree. Young Lincoln who walked miles to correct an insignificant error of accounting. Jane Addams, the founder of Hull House. Nathan Hale, who regretted he had but one life to give for his country. 

There once was a time when an individual’s character, principles and virtues were the first qualifications laid on the table when one was considered for political office. In the more than two centuries since the U.S. was founded, there has been a great shift in public attitudes toward the importance of character development. In 1790, the U.S.’ first President, George Washington, wrote to his nephew that “a good moral character is the first essential in a man.”

Lately we have been having a national debate over the issue of the private actions and personal character of public officials. Specifically we have been confronted with the issue of whether such a person ought only to be judged by his official performance in office, or also by his personal actions and his private lifestyle. In 2011, does character count?

On both sides of the aisle, Americans seem to hold a double-standard as to whether character indeed matters. Liberals, who professed to be appalled by the one accusation against Clarence Thomas, dismissed President Bill Clinton’s behavior as no big deal. Conservatives argued at the time, that character mattered. Liberals replied, in effect, that it didn’t. In 2008, Democrats argued that as long as you can get the job done… it really doesn’t matter what kind of character you have. In fact, a majority of Americans seemed to have felt that way and Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. 

Conservatives argued that character did indeed matter. We held up the tenet that “you can always recognize a man’s true character by the people he surrounds himself with” when discussing President Barack Obama’s past associations. Over the years, President Obama kept company with some disturbing characters. He connected himself with domestic terrorists like William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. He attended the church of an anti-American, racist minister, Jeremiah Wright for over 20 years. He is tied to corrupt people like Tony Rezko and corrupt organizations like ACORN. 

In our wiser moments, we have always understood that character, broadly defined, is important to possess for those in high public office, in part because it tells us whether our leaders warrant our trust, whether their word is dependable, and whether they are responsible. And one of the best indicators of character is the people with whom you associate. This is basic, elementary-school level common sense. Its something we are imparting to our nine-year-old son. As parents, we want him to hang around with the ‘right’ crowd instead of the ‘wrong’ crowd. We argue that the members of the latter crowd would be a bad influence on him, it would reflect poorly on him, and he might end up getting into trouble. What applies to my 9-year-old son should also apply to a presidential candidate.

Moira then took a quick skip through the current front-runners for the GOP presidential candidate, and lamented that none of the characters were men of character.

How do you separate the content of a man or woman’s character from their ability to lead? This question begs another, is the president just simply a worker bee in the hive of our nation? Is the role of the president to just be a mechanic of foreign policy and domestic concerns? 

Usually when we hire a tradesman to fix our house, we don’t care much about his personal morality. All that matters to us is that he can get the job done. Is that the way we view our president? Is he simply a mechanic, a contractor, a hired gun, of sorts? Or is he something more? Now, you might not care about the private ethics of your contractor, though you may. You might be careful about the kind of person you choose for those big jobs. Even contractors should be honest, one might argue, that dishonesty or immorality in one area of life might result in dishonesty and immorality in other areas of life. But one could argue that a contractor is valuable because he builds well and not because he lives well, that doing the task is the only thing that matters. 

Would you have the same attitude, though, about somebody who was to be a public spokesperson for you or your family, somebody that was going in your name? Would you care about the ethics of someone who was speaking to your children, or planning your future, laying the foundation for things that would deeply effect you personally?That’s different, it seems to me, because you’re not just talking about a contractor. You’re not just talking about somebody who will get a specific job done. You’re talking about a representative, an ambassador, someone who will represent you in a respectable way. You’re talking about someone who is planning your future. You’re talking about a role model, aren’t you? You are talking about a leader aren’t you?

Evidence that character matters in a leadership role can also be found in the story of post World War I Germany. Germany, like Egypt after the ten plagues, was destroyed. She was disarmed and allowed only minimal armed forces. She was stripped of her colonies and her naval fleet given to the Allies. The illegal (under international law) blockade of her coasts that had caused thousands of civilian deaths during the war was continued for a period after the armistice adding thousands more casualties, mainly women and children. The armistice that had been based on Woodrow Wilson’s famous fourteen points was reneged on and a harsh, punitive peace was forced on Germany. She was saddled with a huge war debt and staggering, unpayable reparations to the Allies. As the loser, she was unjustly blamed for the war, and treated as a pariah among the nations. The nation was in chaos. Unemployment rose to massive proportions. Inflation was rampant. Men were paid twice a day and the wives picked up the morning’s pay at noon so they could rush to the stores and spend it before prices doubled again. The social fabric was coming apart, revolution was in the air, and the communists were poised to seize power. The government, any government that accepted and conformed to the Treaty of Versailles, was held in contempt by the people. What happened to change all this?

A strong leader took the helm in Germany. He repudiated the hated Treaty of Versailles. He rebuilt Germany’s armed forces. He strengthened the economy and restored the nation to full employment. He suppressed the communists and restored law and order. He restored the nation’s pride and made Germany again a respected power among the nations of Europe. He was able to restore to Germany some of the territory taken from her after the war where millions of German citizens had been living under foreign occupation. And he was able to do all this without involving the nation in war. As some historians have pointed out, if Hitler (yes, you guessed right) had died in August of 1939 before the invasion of Poland, and the outbreak of the Second World War, he would have gone down as one of the most effective rulers in Germany’s history.

However there is no happy ending to this story. Hitler and the Nazis went on to lead German to another disastrous defeat and to national dismemberment. This time they were justly looked upon as a pariah among the nations. Again, what happened? What happened is that the character issue surfaced again. In spite of standing for many things the German people justly desired, and besides accomplishing some amazing things on behalf of the nation, there were from the beginning serious warning signs about the true nature of Adolph Hitler.

He had already launched an aborted coup to seize control of the Bavarian government in Munich. From the prison cell where he wound up he had written a book, “Mein Kampf”, outlining his radical program for the German nation. He conducted a bloody, murderous purge of his more radical followers to make himself more acceptable to the nation in his bid for power. Once in power he speedily moved to subvert the ordinary forms of constitutional government and to seize totalitarian power for himself.

The German people however seemed prepared to overlook these “character flaws”. The nation was strong and prosperous. Employment was good. What reason was there to complain? So they looked the other way as he seized total control of the nation. They acquiesced as he established a ruthless secret police and began to crush his political opposition. They accepted the concentration camps for undesirables and the politicization of the justice system to serve the ends of the Nazi Party. Finally they looked the other way as he began to implement his radical racial theories by persecuting Jews and Gypsies etc.

In short the German people gave their answer to the issue that lies before the American people today. They decided that character doesn’t matter. They decided that all that mattered was performance in office. Hitler had delivered. The nation was better off than ever before. Long live Hitler! But neither Hitler nor the Third Reich had long to live. Ultimately Hitler’s character flaws brought the nation to ruin and destruction. Ultimately character mattered.

Character continues to matter today. People can argue that we should overlook character under the premise of “judge not lest you yourself be judged”. However, I believe good character and effective leadership are as inseparable as hydrogen and oxygen in water. The president we elect is not just as a drone, not just as a worker bee, not just as a mechanic, a contractor in domestic and foreign policy. He or she is an ambassador for us, a representative of the United States, a figurehead, a role model, for good or for ill. That’s why he or she should be an example not just administrative excellence–a qualified contractor–but of good character as well. For me, good character births good governing by a leader.

Peggy Noonan, speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan made the following observation, “In a president, character is everything. A president doesn’t have to be brilliant…He doesn’t have to be clever; you can hire clever. White Houses are always full of quick-witted people with ready advice on how to flip a senator or implement a strategy…But you can’t buy courage and decency; you can’t rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him.”

Make sure to read the entire article over here.


 

HIlarious New Perry Ad: pokes fun of those stuck on his Poor Debating Skills

In a short and brilliant ad, Perry pokes fun of his highly publicized brain-freeze! I found it hilarious and am sure you will too, whether he's your first or last choice as the GOP presidential nominee!

Enjoy!