A Call For Unity! Washington Caucus this Saturday is our last chance to slam Romney prior to Super-Tuesday!

Romney has received a boost last night after having won Arizona and his home-state Michigan and he appears to be heading into Super Tuesday which takes place next week with a renewed momentum.

There is though one more election prior to Super Tuesday - during which ten states vote. The state of Washington will be holding their caucuses this Saturday, March 3rd, and if Romney loses the state, his momentum won't have a chance to grow before being knocked off its feet.

Conservatives have been split from the start of the primary over who they desired as the GOP primary. Some supported Rick Perry, others supported Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or some other individual which chose not to run. Voting for any of the above except for Santorum or Newt might provide the voter with a momentary feeling of satisfaction. However, that satisfaction will be extremely fleeting if the candidate who is viewed by all as the most anti-conservative wins the voters home-state, and even more so if that victory consists of a small margin.

The only ones left in the race who can still overcome Romney during the primary itself, are Newt and Santorum. The majority of conservative voters are now split between the two with each of them taking turns in rising and falling only to rise once again. It is okay to disagree over which one of the two is better suited to take on Obama or for the role of the presidency and it is also perfectly fine to long for a candidate who is no longer/never had been in the race. 

However, we've got to be realistic about the current situation and take positive action in the areas it can have an effect. An overwhelming majority of conservatives agree to the necessity of taking down Romney and it is still possible to achieve this goal.

In addition to his ultra-liberal record, endless flip-flops, and outright lies, his nasty and vicious bullying simply has got no room in our party. All of us, and especially Rick Perry supporters, haven't forgotten Romney attacking and trashing Perry for speaking the truth about social security by calling it exactly that which it is; a Ponzi scheme. Neither have any of us forgotten, most of all of course if you supported Herman Cain, of the sudden mysterious women popping up one after another with harassment claims against the then-front runner Cain.

These are two quick examples from the start of the campaign which have become somewhat covered up in our memories due to the dozens of additional bully tactics the Romney team has engaged in against Newt and Santorum.

The most recent poll taken of the state in Washington was taken by PPP Polling during 2/16-2/19 - prior to the elections in Arizona and Michigan. The poll results had Santorum leading Romney with 11% with Santorum having received the support of 38% while Romney received 27% and Newt got 12% of those polled. Romney's numbers have likely improved somewhat since he's won two states this Tuesday and it's crucial to prevent him from winning this one last state before Super Tuesday.

If conservatives will put their differences aside for just this one day and State and unite behind Santorum so that the results of the Washington caucuses this Saturday are "a Romney Defeat," it will send an extremely powerful message to the GOP establishment. It will show them that we are serious in wanting our voice and message represented and that if they wish to force a liberal RINO upon us they will be forced to sabotage the conservative candidate by spending an average of 15 million dollars in every single one of the 50 states (39 to go)! Even after pouring all that money into negative attack ads and phony oppo research, they are far from guaranteed that they'll be able to secure enough delegates - and the nomination - for their candidate Romney, as we've seen in South Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota.

I therefore plead of all of you, fellow conservatives, to do all that is in within your power to ensure a Romney defeat this Saturday. Please contact all your friends, family, and acquaintances in the state of Washington using twitter, email, Facebook, and good old-fashioned phone calls and ask them to vote for Santorum in order to stop Romney's momentum prior to Super Tuesday. Tell them that conservatives across the entire nation have their eyes turned upon them and are counting on them to provide Romney with the shellacking that he deserves. The voters of Washington may be the ones who will ultimately be credited in the crushing of the establishment and the return of the party to the hands of the people.

United in one purpose we greatly outnumber the establishment. We can do it and we gotta do it. Vote for Santorum in Washington and send the GOP establishment and Romney team a powerful punch which they'll never forget! 



 

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.

From the Emboldening of a Serial Adulterer to the Bashing of Social Conservatives

In 2008 the conservative media, and with this I mean the conservative and not the mainstream or establishment media, has greatly emboldened and pedestaled Romney over McCain despite McCain having owned a more conservative record. They did have the justification, though, that Romney has years of executive experience under his belt, something McCain never had. However, four years later, after the power of the conservative media has diminished somewhat due to their own actions in ’08, the conservative media is once again doing what it seems to do best; destroy itself.

Instead of these conservatives proving themselves as the only ones who will stick to the truth no matter what, they choose to ignore all liberalisms which not only make up a large chunk of Newt’s record, but have been emboldened and become fact only because of Newt’s support and sly tongue. Where is their focus on his 2010 endorsements where he hadn’t endorsed a single conservative over a RINO during the primaries?

The conservative media, for whatever reason, despises Romney yet is okay with Newt despite the fact that Newt’s record is far more liberal than Romney’s AND Newt hailed from a conservative state so there was no reason to bend to the people’s will who elected him into office, unlike in Romney’s situation. They tout the words he currently spouts despite being aware that Newt never remains with his original positions, and he’s already flipped several times on the current campaign trail (which too gets ignored by these conservatives). I have made this comparison between Newt and Romney not because I support Romney since they are both at the lower end of my list, but in response to Erickson’s article from last week.

Erickson bashed the Iowans and social conservatives living in Iowa as responsible for the Santorum rise, blasted Santorum as a non-conservative, and listed the handful of big-government bills he’s voted for. That original article has been followed by about a dozen additional anti-Santorum articles. What Erickson failed to note in each of these articles, is that Newt too supported each of those expansions plus many many more.

Newt Gingrich had voted for the creation of the Department of Education, has greatly expanded its size during his speakership, and continues to support its growth. Unlike Santorum, Newt supported individual mandates, co-sponsored environmentalist bills, supported Bush’s amnesty plan, and said he would’ve voted for TARP if he were in Congress. The list can go on and on with examples of Newt’s liberalism in contrast to Santorum’s conservatism.

In addition to Newt’s terrible record, he’s also a serial adulterer (!) yet Erickson can’t understand why someone would support Santorum over Newt?

The entire conservative movement has united to impeach Bill Clinton because of his immoral behavior and his cover-up lies. Hasn’t Newt behaved cheated on two separate wives? As for lies, his leaked divorce records have proven he’s an adept liar as well. How can a conservative support Newt? How will a conservative currently supporting Newt ever be able to stand up for his values down the road if they had defended a serial adulterer in the past?

My fellow conservatives, you can argue whether Santorum is or isn’t a conservative and to which degree, but when Erickson only quotes the few negatives mentioned in Club for Growth, while totally ignoring his above average conservative ratings he’s received from them, totally ignoring his conservative aspects, totally ignoring the reasonable explanations for many of his not-so-conservative votes, and most important of all – totally ignoring similar and worse action from Newt, this leads to some serious questions. Where is Erickson’s article lauding Santorum for his positive aspects such as his having stood up as a freshman Congressman and fought corruption amongst fellow Congressmen, in what was later dubbed as the Gang of Seven?

More importantly, if the conservative media can’t distinguish themselves from the mainstream and establishment media guys in sticking strictly to the truth, what will make them any more credible than the rest? Why will anyone except for their own small base pay any attention to them in 2016 if say, Newt wins the primary yet loses the elections? The only reason they support Newt is because of his supposed electability, despite all this electability talk having been proven wrong in so many past elections. I don’t know whether Newt can make it to the White House if he wins the primary since it is something no one knows two years in advance, although some pretend to. One things that is clear, however, is that in all of American history, serial adulterers haven’t received too many votes from women, which happen to make a considerable percentage of the swing voters.

Erickson’s and the others who cry foul play over Rick Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Specter in ’04, are absolutely wrong in their assessment since they ignored the complete picture. Which junior Senator from a state has failed to endorse the senior Senator if the senior was a member of his own party? Don’t forget that the Specter of ’04 hadn’t yet voted for Obama’s stimulus package, nor was imagined to switch parties in the future. On top of the junior/senior explanation, Santorum served as chairman of the Republican Conference in the Senate, and as such,was expected to support an incumbent senator’s reelection campaign.

When questioning one’s endorsement one must also remember to look at the broader picture. ’04 was prior to the Tea Party and a time when anti-Bush and Anti-Republican sentiments were pretty strong. A Toomey victory in purple Pennsylvania was quite questionable while a Specter victory was basically guaranteed. Specter’s victory gave the Republicans the 60th vote they needed in Senate to prevent Democratic filibuster. Specter’s vote thus enabled President Bush to appoint TWO CONSERVATIVE JUDGES TO THE SUPREME COURT; Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. No additional explanation necessary.

Besides, how about listing the conservatives Newt had endorsed over the establishment candidates during the primaries of 2010? When you find none, how about taking him to task for it?

Similarly, Santorum’s reeelection loss in ’06 is given greater credence than necessary. Those who focus on it, stress that he lost his own state yet fail to mention that Newt had been thrown head-first from his leadership position in the House by his fellow Republican colleagues! Santorum has won two state-wide elections in the purple-blue state of Pennsylvania before facing defeat. Newt served in a red state and has never won a state-wide election, period. One of Santorum’s victories occurred at the same time that Bush lost the state of Pennsylvania. Santorum is the only current Republican candidate who won reelection in a blue state-wide election. (Gary Johnson did too lol)

It’s a shame to watch Conservatives embracing a big-government guy like Newt who belongs behind Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and yes, even Romney. Only nuts like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are less conservative than him. Iowans will let us know tomorrow who they support, and just as no one would’ve predicted two months ago that Santorum has gotten a chance in winning Iowa, no one can definitely declare that an Iowan victory won’t be sufficient to continue and grow the Santorum surge onward to other states and throughout the entire election.

Instead of being pessimistic and attempting (uselessly) to prevent his surge, how about doing everything in your power to help the surge from changing directions? 

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!

DNC ad: Perry is #1 Minimum Wage Job Creator while Obama is #1 Unemployment Insurance Creator

A new DNC ad titled "Oops" blasts Perry and Romney for blasting Obama's calling Americans "Lazy"! It criticizes Perry for having been the #1 job creator of minimum wage jobs, while Obama has actually acknowledged that "we need to do more to bring jobs to America."

You see, Obama must be credited for having been the #1 unemployment insurance president, while Perry created measly jobs. For those of you unaware in the greatness of extending unemployment which is paid for by taxpayer money, Nancy Pelosi in all her greatness has said the following:

...Let me say about unemployment insurance, we talk about it as a safety net and the rest. This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job creator. And for that reason, for those two reasons, at least, it should be passed, and I am optimistic that it will.

Anyone still dare disagree with the DNC?

Mr. David Frum is All Mixed Up Over Who Left Whom

David Frum wrote two articles this week whose content were quite comical, so I decided to share the gist of it with you.

Ronald Reagan has often said in regard to his party change from Democrat to Republican that, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left me.” Ironically, David Frum who preaches to the Republicans that “The Era of Reagan is Over” and that it’s necessary to adapt to the times, has now turned to Reagan’s words and twisted them in order to defend…Romney.

Frum criticized those who blast Romney for his endless flip-flops with the excuse that “it’s not Romney who is the flip-flopper. It’s the conservative movement.” Frum continued his ridiculous defense of Romney, explaining that Romney’s positions had always been aligned with the Republican Party. However, since the party has undergone recent radical changes he had to do some shifting in order to keep up with the pace. The blame therefore lies with the party.

My immediate question upon reading Frum’s nonsense was why has Romney not done that which Reagan did? If the party has left Romney, why hasn’t he left the party and joined whichever Party is more in line with his original positions, be it the Green, Liberal, Democrat or other party? Mr. Frum, perhaps you can remind us when the Republican Party’s platform had been to run to the left of Ted Kennedy? And if Romney’s positions were so “mainstream” then why couldn’t he win a second term in David Frum’s mainstream Massachusetts?

In his other article, Frum officially discussed the various possible outcomes of the 2012 elections and their consequences. The underlying theme of course was to bash the Tea Party and Republican activists who he considers having lived the last three years “in a fantasy world in which fringe characters like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain somehow ’speak for the common sense of the common people.’“ Frum also threw in Perry, Bachmann and Trump in addition to Palin and Cain as having each served as the Tea Party’s messiah.

Rick Perry is the Governor of the largest conservative state for the last ten years. Does that make Texas, which boasts a considerable percent of America’s population and jobs, a fringe state?

Sarah Palin had been elected twice to the mayoral position in Wasilla and then as the Governor of the state of Alaska. Is 90% of Alaska, which approved of Palin and her successful policies, also fringe? That brands the two largest states of the country as loaded with fringe characters. Whoa! And what about John McCain who you so adore and chose Palin as his running mate, is he fringe too?

Herman Cain, in addition to having been honored with the fringe title, was predicted by Frum to run a train wreck of a presidency if he wins. Surprisingly, this disaster of a guy was credited with the positive financial turnaround of Burger King and Godfather’s Pizza, was the host of a popular talk-radio show, and served as the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City. It sure causes one wonder what he would’ve been able to accomplish if he hadn’t been so fringe.

David Frum’s treatment of Obama differs vastly than that of his “fellow” conservatives. Obama and his policies aren’t referred to as socialist or communist, but that of a mainstream Democrat guy. What has Obama touched that met with success? He touched health care and it is on the path to destruction. He touched our economy, and it plummeted far lower than before. Sadly, one can simply say; Obama touched America and has wrought destruction upon it. His interference in the Middle East or other foreign countries has only increased the violence against innocent and the promotion of Islamic extremists. However, when Obama’s healthcare reform bill passed, Frum blamed … Republicans for having refused to create a bi-partisan bill.

Being that you, Mr. Frum, consider yourself as a conservative, it seems as though you are the fringe character. Demanding the party to have a pro-choice candidate at the top of the ticket, or taking measures to curb in global warming is in direct opposition to the Republican Party and the Conservative movement. If the Republican Party has abandoned anyone, it was the conservative principles upon which it was originally founded. It has as of late forgotten that “Government is Not the Solution to the Problem, Government is the Problem” and had picked John McCain to represent them in 2008. Since McCain was your favorite guy in the 2008 campaign take a look at the results of his campaign and the extreme policies of the current administration.

Mitt Romney has a significant chance in winning the primary, only to then yes or not win the general election. A repeat of McCain’s performance is quite likely. There is only one thing that is absolutely definite regarding Mitt Romney. He hasn’t stopped flipping and flopping on every topic and policy brought to the table, possibly because in his entire political career he hasn’t had any definite positions. He simply gave the answers that the people he was speaking to wished to hear, and acted in the manner which was most beneficial for him in getting reelected. He definitely wasn’t conservative in the past, and his many flips won’t make into a conservative. A wolf in sheep’s clothes is still a wolf.

The conservative movement’s platform is the same as it had always been. It hasn’t changed and won’t change its pro-life, pro-individual liberties, pro-small government, and constitution-adhering principles. Conservatism had always been the basis of the Republican Party, and a demand for it to return to its roots is only logical and understandable. Perhaps, Mr. David Frum, it is necessary for you to review the conservative ideology which has originally been represented by the Republican Party, and is still supposed to be one and the same. A demand from conservatives for the party to therefore return to its roots is only logical and understandable. A demand from a phony conservative like you to fundamentally transform the party is not.

As per the current GOP Field, it is possible for Rick Santorum to become the new Frontrunner?

This is neither an expression of support for Santorum nor a prediction as to who will win the nomination. It is simply an overview of the GOP presidential field in advance of the eighth debate which will take place tonight.

The GOP presidential scene has been a constant seesaw of action. Potential voters watched as Bachmann rose to the top only to lose her momentum after winning the Iowa Straw Poll because of Perry’s entrance onto the scene, her lack of executive experience, and her debate gaffes which she chose to repeat and stand by. Her appointment of Ed Rollins as campaign manager only caused her trouble, first causing many in the Palin camp to oppose her, and now having Rollins badmouth her and shrugging off all blame for her campaign’s failures while placing it squarely on her shoulders.

Perry too experienced the frontrunner experience immediately after the launch of his campaign, although it fizzled out just as quickly. His diminished status is largely due to his awful performance at the debates and also because of the big blotches on his record such as Gardasil, immigration, and crony capitalism.

Despite the downs the Perry and Bachmann campaigns have recently experienced no candidate should be ruled out, as the McCain campaign has taught us in 2008. Both Bachmann and Perry can still experience a comeback via a victory in one of the first states such as Iowa or South Carolina. Since there’s still over two months until the Iowa Caucus, there’s still ample time for the candidates to take turns in playing the frontrunner role.

Gingrich carries personal baggage and suffered a strong hit when he called Paul Ryan’s plan “right wing engineering.” However, with Perry and Bachmann performing so poorly in general and especially at the debates, Gingrich’s excellent performances have caused his earlier comments to be forgiven or forgotten by many. The last few weeks showed a continuous rise in Gingrich’s poll figures, and he has recently overtaken Perry for the spot in third seat. If Cain takes a hit, Gingrich may possibly be the one to benefit.

Romney is the only candidate who’s been amongst the frontrunners since the start of his campaign without losing his spot, thanks to the establishment’s complete backing. It’s important to note though that which Michael Barone pointed out; that Romney’s poll figures topped 25% in only three out of eighty polls taken this year, thanks to tea party conservatives’ staunch opposition against the flip flopper. However, his presidential demeanor, loads of money, and many endorsements continue to make him a serious player with strong chances of winning the nomination. As it appears right now, one will have to wait for the actual primaries in order to determine whether the establishment will once again have their way.

Paul’s foreign policy which is equal to or worse than Obama’s will keep him from winning the nomination especially in such turbulent times despite his economic talk.

This leads us to Herman Cain, the current frontrunner. Cain is a successful business executive who talks the talk in regard to conservatism. On the flip side, he has proven to be hasty in judging events and others such as at the Perry rock incident, and more importantly, has no record to prove he could walk the walk. True he was extremely successful in the private sector, but the private and public sector although interrelated are very different, and many former businessmen became terrible or corrupted politicians. Many are therefore wary of handing the presidency to someone who hasn’t yet held any political office where one is tested whether they are truly loyal to the ideals they spouted during the campaign or whether corruption and cronyism can affect or overtake them.

Now that Cain is in the spotlight, his ideas, proposals, and comments are being placed under careful scrutiny and thorough questioning. He will probably be grilled tonight over his joke/non-joke regarding an electrified fence at the border, and about the details surrounding his 999 plan. Time will tell whether he will be able to remain in the lead or share a similar fate as those before him.

This brings us to the final candidate in this discussion, Rick Santorum. Santorum is the only conservative who hasn’t had yet a turn in being frontrunner. Although Santorum is not an option for many conservatives because of his endorsements of moderates such as Spector in 2004 and a host of other RINO’s in 2010, His record is quite conservative. He doesn’t seem to have any serious baggage, though perhaps because it has never been dug up or brought to center-stage since he’s never been the frontrunner or anywhere close to such a position. Santorum is quite articulate and has had some good moments during the brief time-slots he was allotted at the debates such as when he took on Ron Paul for his comments on Iran’s nuclear programs and his entire approach to foreign policy.

So far, the process of the current primary has been; have someone shoot to the top, dissect him or her, and then throw them down to the dogs. Bachmann’s campaign is seriously derailed with Ed Rollins, her former campaign manager, badmouthing her as is typical in the political world (think Steve Schmidt.) Meanwhile, Perry’s numbers hit an unbelievable low with him polling at three percent in Florida and in the single digits in Iowa. Not surprisingly, a Perry Iowa Operative jumped ship and thrown his support behind Santorum. It therefore seems as though Santorum’s chance has arrived to take a stand in the limelight and have the focus turned to him. The right ad, campaign message, plan, reaction, or debate performance can all be the catalyst of a sudden Santorum surge. Similarly, a Cain collapse could result in voters looking around and taking a look at the candidate standing in the side. If a Santorum surge indeed occurs one would then watch to see whether he will remain standing, or fall like his predecessors.

Now we’ve got to let tonight’s debate take place and see how each candidate performs.

Two Tall Tales about Two Governors

Two governors, two records, two polar opposite treatments.

One has been characterized by the media and the establishment as a great conservative and successful Governor who has been credited for everything positive that occurred in his state, from new jobs to low tax rates, with nary a mention of any of his failures or flaws. Many conservative websites also chose to ignore the left-leaning actions the individual has taken and crowned him as “the conservative candidate who can win” without a care to his past record.

The other governor was constantly falsely depicted by both parties plus the media as lacking positive policy, while ignoring her impressive gubernatorial record and her state’s economic boom during her governorship because of impressive steps she’s taken.

Although the distortions of these two Governors may appear for many as the straight facts, that’s because of the loads of misinformation that have been spread about them have washed over the facts. It is known however, that one can’t fool the people all of the time. Indeed, the time of falsehood has begun to fade away while the truth has started to emerge.

At the debate this past Monday, Rick Perry was challenged over his leftist-leaning positions including the Texas DREAM Act which he supported and signed, his executive order for the Gardasil vaccinations, and his relationship with Merck which is the maker of Gardasil.

Although some conservative sites continued to ignore or twist the topics in defense of Perry’s actions, the facts have now become available to millions of conservatives and Americans who’ve either watched the debate or saw it the next day on any of the major news sites.

Perry supporters have defended Perry’s support of the Texas DREAM act which gave illegals subsidies for education by comparing Perry’s actions to Reagan who had provided amnesty to millions of illegals yet is still considered a conservative by all.

Isn’t there a consensus amongst conservatives that Reagan’s act of amnesty was a trial which has failed since the borders have remained open despite promises of the left that it will be sealed shut? Once it has already become clear and obvious to all conservatives the flaws of amnesty why would Perry want to try it once again especially in light of the fact that Perry opposes a wall along the border?

Perry has also been crowned as a successful job creator and economy builder although the deficit has doubled under his watch and jobs only increased with 1% while having increased 4% under Bush’s leadership.

During the debate, Perry boasted of his state’s economic success didn’t go unanswered. He was taken to task by a fellow Texan, Ron Paul who reminded him of the increased taxes Texans currently face while the Texas deficit has doubled. Perry’s attempt to employ the overused excuse, that the large volume of people moving into Texas is proof of his greatness, no longer did the trick. The others were quick to point out that his response was off mark since although Texas is a great state it’s despite that Rick Perry is its governor, not because of it.

The conservative state legislature overturned his Gardasil executive order despite his hysterical protests and name callings. Which other state legislature would stop their governor from mandating his will onto the people? Not too many.

Perry and his supporters defend his failed attempt to force upon the people via executive order Gardasil by holding an apology flag in one hand, while playing the compassionate card in the other.

His false statement of having received only five grand from Merck was disproven within 24 hours with the correct sum which amounts to $29,500. Not quite the same, Mr. Crony Capitalist.

Additionally, the facts that he chose to mandate the vaccine instead of leaving it as an open option for parents (as in Alaska) and that he took the route of executive order rather than a vote in the legislature should be extremely troubling to conservatives.

Mandates and executive orders, although totally legal, signal a desire for power. I’ve actually pointed this out in the past regarding Romney and his defense of health care mandates which he defended as constitutional because of the tenth amendment. If a Governor seeks to strip citizens of their freedom of choice with the only defense for their decision being the tenth amendment, it spells trouble. It is an admittance that the politician is power hungry, and is only limited because of the law of the land and/or state. Which conservative wants such an individual to take control of the country? Are we looking to further stretch the limits of government or minimize the presence of government in our daily lives?

As the Perry lies begin to crumble, so do the lies surrounding Governor Palin, though the emerging light is of a completely different nature. Despite the distortions the media has hurdled about Palin, the truth has begun to emerge with more and more individuals discovering the unbelievable achievements of Palin.

The media has replayed for the last three years the newspaper sound bite out of a six hour Couric interview of which only half an hour’s worth of bits and pieces were made public so that the average individual should walk away with a negative impression of Palin. With the same goal in mind, they pretended that Palin had said she could see Russia from her home despite the fact that not Palin, but Tina Fey, had said that foolish statement. Palin’s quitting the governorship has likewise been overused against her while totally ignoring not only the sensible explanations which forced her to take the step, but the incredible lengthy list of accomplishments she had achieved when still in office.

No mention has been made of the sound economic policies she’d enforced despite opposition from both parties, including the slashing of earmarks, the establishment of a rainy day fund, and the reduction of future debt. The mainstream media and establishment have been chewing the unelectable meme for months while ignoring her previous victories when she won against all odds against a popular incumbent Governor and a popular former governor without the backing of her own Party, unlike Perry who initially ran in an open primary and needed the endorsement of Palin in 2010 in order to keep his seat. (As for the cries of many who question how Palin could have endorsed Perry if he’s such a crony capitalist who’s involved in shady dealings, when one has to choose between a complete RINO such as Kay Bailey Hutchison and a semi-RINO Rick Perry, then Perry is obviously the better choice of the two. If the presidential primary would be a choice between those two, the Palin would’ve endorsed Perry for president. However, that is not the case!)

With the spread of The Undefeated, Governor Palin’s Facebook notes, her books and recent speeches, many individuals have been stunned at the transformation of the Palin they’ve been told about and the truth about her knowledge, record, experience, and ideology.

Despite the media lies and attacks, the truth will prevail with even some in the media having as of late occasionally made the shocking discovery of the truth surrounding Palin. The liberal New York Times ran an article recently which raved Governor Palin for here anti-cronyism, anti-establishment anti-big corporations record. He expressed open surprise at her success in working with members of both parties which were ready to take on the corruption as well as her appeal to many independent voters. CNN‘s Don Lemon and James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph have also joined the ranks that’ve become aware of Palin’s outstanding record and her articulate and common-sense directive for the future.

Although the media and beltway crowd have written Governor Palin off as irrelevant for the last three and a half years, a CNN poll released prior to the fourth debate found that not-yet-candidate Palin came in third, almost tied with Romney. Rick Perry, who’s got the backing of the conservative media and the establishment, got a grand total of 30% of the party’s support, while Palin who hasn’t announced a presidential campaign and has been slammed by the media, the left, and the establishment, received 15% of the party’s support. Imagine what that figure will be like after her campaign is launched and millions more are exposed to the true record of Governor Palin.

The media will largely continue to spread their lies in order to promote their agenda, but the truth has begun and will continue to overcome in regard to both Palin and Perry. While Perry’s and his supporters’ bluff are being blown away with the truth about him splashed across many sites, the lies surrounding Palin are disintegrating into dust the truth shining out for all to see.

Cross posted from Conservatives4Palin .

Quin Hillyer: Perry Absolutely Just Sickened Me

I'm a strong supporter of the death penalty for ruthless murderers and other hardened criminals.

As a New Yorker, the ban against the death penalty especially angered me after the recent murder of an innocent 8 year old boy whose murderer is now trying the insanity claim of course.

Nevertheless, Perry's response at the debate last night was pretty disturbing.
 
Quin Hillyer penned my very feelings on the issue with such clarity at The American Spectator.

I'm sorry. You can say that you will follow the law and impose the death penalty. That's fine. But to say that you have never even struggled with the idea of taking those lives is morally depraved. Sick. Despicable. Inhuman. Disqualifying. Perry sounded absolutely proud of having signed the executions of 234 human beings. He sounded almost bloodthirsty. He didn't just say it once; he elaborated about how terrific it was to carry out the laws of Texas. This is not a morally serious human being -- or at least this answer did not make him sound like a morally serious person. A man of true faith would not necessarily agonize over the final decision not to commute a death sentence, but he would say a prayer, every single time, for guidance. He would approach his decision with humility.

I am offended. And I write this as somebody who agrees that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for heinous crimes. I'm no crusader against the death penalty. But these are human beings whose lives are being snuffed out. They too are children of God. Perry certainly didn't sound like he understands this.

Is Erickson’s Ego too big to fail?

Erickson wrote another post yesterday in a never ending stream of contradictory proofs and reasons why Governor Palin should not run, will not win, and has no support left, while attacking her for stringing her supporters and others along and that her supporters have criticized his negative columns.

The funniest part of his piece was this:

Sarah Palin has to take some responsibility for her supporters

His request is the epitome of hypocrisy and irony as Dan Riehl so aptly explained in a great post.

Pretty ironic for Erickson to hold Palin responsible for her fans, when he repeatedly claims to not even be responsible for what’s posted on a blog he edits. But then, I don’t expect consistency there.

Erickson then tweeted the following yesterday, linking to another front pagers ramblings, Leon H. Wolf whom I’ve already taken to task at length in the past, lamenting that Governor Palin refuses to bow to their threats to simply disappear.

@EWErickson Honestly, when you’ve lost the front page of RedState and you’re conservative, you’re doing something wrong. redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/20…

Strutting about with an over-inflated ego, it hadn’t dawned on Erickson that it’s Red State who’s “lost it” and been “doing something wrong” in their false pretense of neutrality.

For instance, since Perry is an incumbent, Erickson has suddenly discovered an interesting advantage for candidates. Namely, it’s beneficial to be an incumbent while running for higher office, since instead of just talking about past leadership and action, one can actually show leadership and action.

Erickson wrote the above in regard to Rick Perry’s heroic act of leadership when he cancelled his attendance at the Jim Demint Forum and instead headed back home due to the out-of-control wildfires raging in Texas.

I don’t disagree with a Governor’s duty to govern. But hey! I’d love to hear from Erickson his opinion whether he also considers it as advantageous for the Texan residents to have their barely reelected Governor who promised to serve a complete term campaigning across the country at a regular basis and remembering his constituents only at a time of crisis.

Perhaps this is why Erickson hasn’t forgiven Governor Palin for her resignation although it hasn’t affected him in the slightest bit. You see, it seems as though Erickson believes that a candidate’s future comes before the people’s good. Governor Palin should have rather remained Governor for the rest of her term despite the crippling effect it had on her state due to the political games of both parties who opposed her and the nonsensical lawsuits continuously dumped on her staffers, because it would’ve benefited her political career. Putting oneself before the people also explains why Perry was correct in running for reelection instead of not seeking another term at a time when a presidential run was pretty probable.

In 2008 two incumbents won the primaries, John McCain and Barack Obama. Erickson originally supported Fred Thompson in the primary who was a non-incumbent, although incumbents are supposedly at an advantage. Come to think of it, it’s pretty funny how Erickson had drafted Thompson to join the race and never proclaimed his window to have already closed or some similar nonsense. It’s also interesting how executive experience wasn’t that high up on his list in 2008, but I can understand how Obama changed that. Erickson’s support for Thompson is also sensible since Thompson was the most conservative candidate on the ballot, which is by the way the precise reason why I support a Palin presidential run. Palin is far more conservative than all the others and yes, that includes Perry.

Tuesday, Erickson took a cheap shot at Governor Palin while whining for a supposed contradiction.

On Saturday, Sarah Palin went to Iowa to lament crony capitalism in both parties. Her aides said she was taking shots at Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. We don’t know for sure whether or not she was because Sarah Palin herself did not confirm it. History is full of times Palin aides said something only to find Palin herself contradicting the aides.

Yesterday, Sarah Palin went to New Hampshire and said we shouldn’t be squabbling with each other on the same team.

For the record, Governor Palin’s aide simply said that she’d discuss Crony Capitalism and the “permanent political class” without taking any direct hits at Perry or the other candidates, which is what Governor Palin did in her speech in Indianola, Iowa. As for the squabbling part, she spoke in New Hampshire directly to Tea Party members and asked them to remain focused on their goals and not allow anything to cause the movement to splinter.

With his above supposed discrepancy Erickson thereby concurs that Perry is equivalent to Crony Capitalism and that it’s not necessary to actually mention Perry by the name to make the connection. As for the supposed contradiction between a plea for unity and an attack on Perry via an attack on cronyism, these two are no contradiction. What will it take to cause Erickson to admit the obvious; that Perry is not the Tea Party guy he pretends to be? That Perry is rather a member of the “big old boys” politics?

Tea Partiers demand small government, serious reform, and spending cuts. Which of the above has Perry ever done? None! What does the increased spending, subsidized education for illegals, and attempts to force his will upon the people via executive orders indicate? What does having the Bank of America telling Rick Perry not too worry say about Perry and shady dealings?

So which part of “unity amongst Tea Partiers” includes a Crony Capitalist and non-Tea Partier?

Erickson’s contempt and false betrayal of Palin supporters is another indication of where the site has gone wrong. Close to 100% of Palin supporters would vote for the Republican nominee even if it’s not Palin. However, at this point in the game they see no reason to support anyone but her since they are of the opinion that Palin will run and win.

Erickson also “reminded” his readers that the Republican focus is supposed to be on uniting against Obama in this race and not squabbling between one another. He chooses to forget; A- the negative attitude of Red State, and b- that primaries are meant to vet the Republican candidates so the candidate who voters consider best for the job can then run against Obama in the general election which is when everyone will unite against Obama.

The tweet at the start of this article linked to an article written by Leon H. Wolf, a front page writer. In yet another anti-Palin post, Wolf once again blamed Governor Palin for tying up her supporters. He then wrote that;

Whereas three months ago she would have been in an ideal position to be kingmaker in the Republican primary … she might well be in a position that the first person she calls to offer an endorsement will politely turn it down.

If, according to Wolf, her strongest and best moment was three months ago, why waste it to crown another rather than herself taking the plunge? Wolf obviously only wanted her to be a kingmaker and not an actual candidate! Keep in mind that this came from a guy who blames Governor Palin for having become turned off her.

Additionally, why make such a big deal of and waste so much time and effort lately to attempt to influence a non-candidate and her supporters if her supporters are insignificant and her endorsement worthless and unwanted? If they are merely attempting to lure the Palin supporters to the Perry camp, they sure are clueless in how one goes about at such a task. Attacking them and their candidate doesn’t seem to wise.

They are also clueless as to who her supporters are, which Jen Kuznicki put down in a terrific article which is worth your while to read in its entirety.

The people supporting Palin with such passion are people new to the whole scene. We don’t watch what we say, we don’t care about your feelings. We are concerned about the destruction of our nation, and a lot of us have just figured out how to work computers, to be honest. We are truck drivers, waitresses, cooks, grandmas, veterans, union workers, mechanics, seamstresses, electrical workers, plumbers, carpenters, small businessmen and businesswomen, and lots and lots and lots of us are women. Homeschoolers, ranchers, farmers, miners, all of us could be categorized by the beltway political class as “rednecks.”

What rednecks do best is talk straight. What redneck women do best is point out where you’ve gone wrong, and sometimes that just seems over the top, but they don’t give a rip. We get made fun of by the political class, and that just firms our resolve.

Finally, what part of “ by the end of September” is too difficult for these dimwits intellectuals to comprehend?



This article has been cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin

Rick Perry's Hypocrisy

In an obvious political stunt, Perry sent a letter to Janet Napolitano, Director of the Homeland Security, dated three days before his official campaign launch, demanding the federal government to refund Texas approximately 350 million dollars they’ve spent to keep illegals in prison with the explanation that the federal government hasn’t enforced their laws.

The hypocrisy of Rick Perry is clear to all who are aware of his Governing record. Until the past year when he was seriously considering a presidential run, he stood together with the left on the topic of illegal immigration. Perry does not support a wall spanning the entire Mexican border, and has said Arizona's tough-on-immigration law wouldn't be right for Texas.

If that’s not enough here’s more:

In a recent interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader,Governor Rick Perry reiterated his support for the Texas DREAM Act, a bill he signed in 2001. The bill signed by Governor Perry allows illegal aliens who have lived in Texas for three years to receive in-state tuition. Due to the Texas DREAM Act, qualifying illegal aliens attending the University of Texas, for example, pay $10,000 less in tuition costs, an amount that is thrown on the backs of taxpaying citizens in Texas.

In 1996, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas authored the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Rep. Smith’s bill clearly prohibits states from offering in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens, unless offered to all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants as well.

The Texas DREAM Act of 2001 that Governor Rick Perry signed and supports, is clearly in violation of Rep. Smith’s Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Although credit must be given for him for attempting to prohibit cities from adopting “sanctuary” rules, being slightly better than Obama is far from good enough.

Where are his letters to the Department of Homeland Security from five or ten years ago? Where is his outrage for the Texan taxpayer money he’d used to provide illegals with subsidized education? He obviously wasn’t thinking of a presidential run in 2001 when signing the Texas DREAM Act. Fighting the people’s fight in order to win an election does not qualify a candidate as a truthful servant of the people. Quite the contrary.

Perry's game of playing conservative immediately prior and during the campaign is not only in regard to illegal immigration. As I’ve written in the past, Perry has been governor for over decade yet only found it necessary this year to pass a budget smaller than the previous one. You can love Rick Perry to no end, but if you’re ready to support Perry despite his hypocrisy than you might as well support the Romney. As long as the field is still open and other candidates have the option of joining, a true conservative shouldn't support either of the two flip-floppers. Perry obviously thought he’d get away with the publicity stunt without anyone delving into his true positions and past records. However, the voters have awoken and candidates will have to prove they’ve walked the walk, not just talked the talk.

The Republican Party’s motto has always been cutting taxes and spending. Cutting taxes is indeed necessary for the economy to flourish. However, most Republicans including Perry have only focused on the tax cuts part while skipping over the equally or more important cuts in spending. Tax cuts alone is not an effective or sound economic policy. The deficit has increased with four trillion during Bush’s two terms despite his tax cuts, since wasteful spending was not curbed.

The Republican establishment crowd is currently seeking for more of the old; a candidate who is capable of shelling out trillions at a speed only somewhat lower than Obama’s as long as the candidate will pledge to cut taxes. This reasoning is faulty since it doesn’t solve the economic troubles nor do anything to reduce the deficit. Tax cuts alone are not enough to turn around the economy since it doesn’t include anything to halt the tracks of the upwards-climbing deficit. Although tax cuts might’ve boosted the economy somewhat and possibly delayed the credit rating downgrade, it wouldn’t avoid the downgrade.

Every one of the Republican presidential candidates would fight new taxes for they wouldn’t want to face the same fate as Bush 41. Would any of them be willing and able to implement real spending cuts? It’s time to update “Read my lips: No New Taxes” to include “Read my lips: No New Spending.”

Only one individual has a record of consistently cutting spending.