Saturday, January 14, 2012

Lastest SC GOP Polling: Gingrich in Tie with Romney - Debate Schedule for SC

The latest Insider Advantage Poll has Newt Gingrich in a Statistical Tie with Mitt Romney. The poll, conducted on the 11th, shows Gingrich leading among Independents, and statistically tied with Romney for the Republican vote. The balance of the placements: Santorum and Paul tied, Huntsman and Perry one point apart in single digits, with 15.2% undecided. the complete marginals are available here in pdf from

There are three debates in SC: First Fox with Mike Hukabee's Forum tonight at 8PM, on the 16th of January 9 PM Fox News, and on January 19th, CNN at 8 PM.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Romney’s PAC Attacks Gingrich Again - Runs Same Inaccurate Ads from Iowa in SC/FL GOP/Mainstream Defends Romney – Handing the election to Obama -Oped

The Players: Romney, Paul and Gingrich - image: Houston Chronicle

Mitt Romney’s PAC is now running ads in Florida and South Carolina that are either the same ad or similar in scope to those run in Iowa (Time Magazine) The problem with the ad is that is it far from accurate, and this is ok with both the candidate Romney and those who remain silent in the media. Time after time, from the very beginning of the Romney’s machine’s attacks on Gingrich for being ahead in the polls, Gingrich ask Romney to denounce the ads run in his name, but to no avail – therefore, the gloves came off and a pro-Gingrich group began to run ads touting the former Govenor of Massachusetts’ record as a principle player in Bain Financial Group. It was not Capitalism that the group targeted in their 30 minute ad, rather Mitt Romney himself and the decisions he made to gut companies, sell their assets and make a profit for investors and those principles in the Bain firm, including Romney. Watching both ads is similar to taking a trip to the dentist to have a tooth pulled. However, one has to ask the question, regardless of the fact that Romney’s Camp came out gunning first, and despite the fact that their ads are targeted Gingrich to the point where he lost 20 points in the polls, and regardless of the fact that Mitt Romney merely smiled at Gingrich when he was asked to put a halt to the ads – why do those Romney supporters and the media continue to claim Romney as “innocent”, while Gingrich, who has done nothing more or less than Romney after the fact, is tarred as anti-Capitalist?

The most ridiculous assertions are those coming from the Romney surrogates that it is simply not OK to question Romney’s business decisions – no matter what the charge – this coming from newly elected Govenor of S.C., Nikki Haley, (on Sean Hannity on Fox last evening). Yet at the same time it is fine to make assertions that are false against the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

If Romney is not responsible for the ads run by his PAC, then Gingrich is not responsible for the ads run by his PAC - regardless of the levels of truth involved in either PAC’s advertisements.

There should be questions raised about the way in which Mr. Romney ran the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as well as the way in which Mr. Romney behaved during his tenure at Bain Capital. It is unfortunate that the media and those power brokers are able to target an opposition candidate with falsehoods (proven), while giving Romney a complete pass (sound familiar?). What makes Romney so different from President Obama? Obama has the Chicago Machine, true, he was merely a Community Organizer before running for the State Legislature and the Senate, holding terms that were not lengthy, and he was ideologically left, while presenting himself as ideologically moderate in his ads against Hillary Clinton and then John McCain. However, one has to ask which one of the candidates, Romney or the President appears to be more ethical, both in their choice of businesses as well as their commitment to their political ideology. When one examines, without rose colored glasses, both mens measures, then one has to wonder why the GOP and those pundits believe Romney to be the better of the two to run the country. When elected as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney ran on a variety of platforms contradicting him once in office, for the short period of time, before beginning his run for the Presidency in pre-2006. His record at Bain Capital can surely be explained in simple terms - you win some, you lose some, however, one has to ask – why a firm that basically liquidated the assets of a company to make a fast buck? That did not always happen, which is true, he has two examples that he constantly uses, the largest being “Staples”, but those jobs created at Staples are retail jobs, not manufacturing jobs – if one has to be honest, the President has created more jobs in manufacturing that Romney did at Bain in his career, regardless of whether one agrees with the Presidents ideology - or the manner in which the Government has changed to a European model under President Obama’s tenure.

Therefore, drawing a contrast between Romney and the President, regardless of how low the President’s approval ratings are at the moment, does not favor the favorite son of the GOP. It is that simple, and that is why the number of those showing up at the polls to vote in Republican primaries are mainly independents and democrats, rather than the core conservatives – their hearts are not in the race – they have no candidate they feel they can back, and this lays at the feet of the Romney campaign and his attacks on Gingrich. Gingrich has baggage, but the father and grandfather, also has gravitas, the ability to debate, and ideas that are the core of the American system of free enterprise and exceptionalism. There is a sharp contrast between the President and the former Speaker, while no such contrast exists for the Governor.

Yet, it is apparent that no one is listening, and the feeling that another John McCain is being shoved at the Conservatives, again, is pushing those individuals away from the polls. The question is has Romney damaged Gingrich to the extent that both men are unelectable? That remains to be seen – Romney is the status quo and Gingrich, not so much (even if he was a former Speaker, a position which, when one is honest, is of extreme import, requires a willingness to work across aisles in order to get things done, and involves compromise, something that is anathema to those who work for the money machines that are the GOP and DNC campaigns and organizations.
The aforementioned is how it appears, it appears as dirty politics, and politics as usual, and the player primarily responsible for this apathy and the tone of the camp gin is one Mitt Romney. One hears that Romney is the one who is best suited to take the White House from the President – where is the data to back that up? One or two polls perhaps, however, those same polls show Ron Paul in a similar position. The GOP is also dismissive of Paul to their own peril. His message and his website are, indeed one of isolationism, but those who would not have looked at Ron Paul in a lifetime are now taking a second and third look.
The strongest contrast between any mainstream Republican and the Democrats is one Ron Paul, and frankly, should Romney continue to attack Gingrich with falsehoods, while he must be aware that the Gingrich camp has just as much information on him during his tenure as Govenor of Massachusetts as the Obama campaign, and the mainstream media chastises Gingrich for drawing the contrast between himself and Romney, the last man standing may well be Ron Paul.

There is it – although Romney and his staff destroyed every smidgen of electronic communication available form his tenure as Governor, the hard copies were left behind and they were released by the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under the Freedom of Information Act. To those who were not watching, Gingrich was in Boston at approximately the same time this occurred – if fact, Gingrich has spent more time in the Bay State than Romney, something one might question since no GOP candidate campaigns in this wasteland. Therefore, it is more than possible that Gingrich and his camp are quite prepared to back up their assertions against Romney, just as much as Team Obama.

Writing as a moderate, and having lived in Massachusetts under Romney’s very short tenure as Governor (viewed by moderates and others in the Commonwealth as being used as a stepping stone to run for President, nothing more nothing less), it was evident, jobs were lost, the backs of the middle class were burdened with fees and taxes, and it was glaringly apparent he would not win reelection. Coming from Massachusetts one does not are what religion one might subscribe to, one does not care particularly which party one aligns themselves with either, one only cares about how one conducts themselves when governing or in the legislature, whether one agrees or disagrees with the Governor, Senator or President’s actions . One only need look at Scott Brown as a shining example, ask a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent about the upcoming race for reelection, and Brown is normally the choice, not Warren, and the reason is simple: Brown is doing, as Senator, exactly what he said he would do from the very beginning – his constituents would agree and sometimes disagree with his decisions, but that he would make them for the people of the state using his best judgment.

That’s honest.

That’s what the people want in a Mayor, in a Congressional Representative, a Senator and yes, the President, honesty – therefore, one has to ask the final question, and put this question to those who have not voted in a primary or general election. Which of the GOP candidates is the most honest? About their past, and about their records – is there enough contrast with the President? Will those moderates and especially those conservatives come out in droves (and it is known to happen), for a candidate that does not have a sharp contrast? Judging from the turnout to date, that answer is no. However, one may find that during the general election, should Romney be the GOP Nominee, the GOP had better hope they can promise the people a majority in both houses, otherwise, the gains made by the Tea Party will have been for naught. There simply is no positive contrast between the President and one Mitt Romney.

There is a contrast however, between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul and Mitt Romney (those are the most reasonable choices for those voting in the GOP primaries and caucuses, in this opinion - Santorum is a weaker candidate backing down quickly when challenged, and delivering a rather lackluster performance, even though the man appears to have good intent, and the same can be said for Huntsman, Governor Perry, who is a stalwart conservative appears to be more comfortable as Governor of Texas, perhaps a disservice to the Governor, but nonetheless, the impression.) Those who are not taking part, out of apathy, or out of disgust, one hopes will come to their senses and cast their primary and caucus votes according to the one or two or three men left standing, and then in the general, do the same. It is indeed a dark time for the Republic of the United States of American and there can be revisions, but it has to be with a candidate that one can implicitly trust to deliver the legislation necessary to right the ship – even if that candidate has baggage, or may be a outside the mainstream, as long as the message they have delivered in their roles as Congressman, Speaker and Governor has been consistent.

For one, all the pundits in the world, all the endorsements from supporters, regardless of candidate, mean nothing, what means something in the end game is the mettle of the man (woe there is no woman), who can stand on their record for good or for ill (politically), in all honesty. That candidate will gender goals. From this Massachusetts Concrvative Moderate is it my wish for the nation (having already warned about Massachusetts legislation and certain players form this state being exported to the other 49 for years)that New Gingrich has the backing of the voters to stop Romney in both South Carolina and in Florida. To those those individuals watching Romney's PAC's ads, understand they are what they are- rehashed form Iowa and above all - dishonest.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

The Romney Bain Story - a Must See Video

A Super Pac supporting Newt Gingrich has produced more than a few ads that have been very positive in nature. This was prior to Mitt Romney's ridiculous assault on Gingrich during the Iowa Caucuses and continued in NH and now in SC and FL, where the advertisements are, for the most part, personal attacks on Gingrich's record - and they are simply false.

After the onslaught Gingrich's friends, in a PAC decided enough was enough and started running,first positive then contrast ads - finally a full documentary that addresses the time Romney spent at Bain Capital. The PAC, winning our who produced the 30 minute documentary that every voter should watch - King of Bain. The video draws the distinction between capitalism and what is legal, but, speaking as a moderate, purely amoral. It is also personal, knowing and living in an area where jobs lost had a direct impact on those who are close - in all truth, this blogger had no idea it was Romney at Bain who caused so much heartache and destruction in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - being somewhat prejudiced against Romney for more reasons than having chosen other candidates, asking those affected and double checking was imperative. There is a low opinion of the man who personally oversaw the destruction of jobs, lives, families, the gutting of business, and the human capital thrown to the wayside, in the name of a concern that produced nothing but profit.

The full video is available here at and worth watching - at least this will allow one to see a side of Romney that is, in a word from one who most recently viewed this video: "disgusting is an understatement".

Clips and previews of this PACS ads are shown below.


Stating the Fact on Offense

The Story of Mitt Romney - Trailer

Again, watch the entire video at

Latest SC Poll Shows Gingrich Tied with Romney – Romney Woes - Dishes it out, but Cannot Take the Heat -2008 revisited - Open Secrets & Endorsements

Mitt Romney - may fall back to earth after SC - image

A new Insider Advantage poll taken on Wednesday shows Newt Gingrich in a statistical tie with Mitt Romney, the establishment “favorite”, followed by Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, John Huntsman and Rick Perry. Romney is back in his 23% zone, where it is expected he should stay in the balance of the states should history repeat, and there is no indication that it will not. The only southern state, Virginia, where Romney may pull out a victory, has only two Republican’s on the ballot, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, given the large urban population and Romney’s finish behind Paul in 2008, the Virginia battle may be won by Dr. Paul – it is not out of the question given Paul’s strong finish in New Hampshire.

Romney continues to assail rivals with barbs and his Super PAC is running ads in South Carolina noting that Gingrich is not pro-life, which is flatly – false – it is Romney who was pro-choice, pro-life, pro-choice, and ensured that Massachusetts taxpayers footed the bill for abortions under the Commonwealth’s Universal Health Care system that Romney designed. It is on face value, typical of Romney’s campaign.

On Temperament: When visiting Romney’s site under endorsements is an article demeaning Newt Gingrich, one has to wonder why the angst over only Gingrich on the Romney campaign site. Apparently, broad shoulders do not extend the Mr. Romney – who, when confronted with compare and contrast ads from Gingrich, cannot take the heat, so he cries foul to the press.

Also several readers have suggested that endorsements from “those in the know”, Congressmen and the like, we recipients of large cash contributions from Romney’s PAC. For example, in the New Hampshire Primary, Kelly Ayotte endorsed Mitt Romney, she also received funds from Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC, (Open Open Secrets only tracks donations to Federal candidates, therefore, those endorsements by mayors, former public officials are most likely based on a moderate political ideology. If your U.S. Congressional Representative or Senator endorsed Mitt Romney - check it on Open Secrets dot org.

More On South Carolina and the Romney "myth" that he can do well in all 50 states:

From Springfield Mass, WHYN morning show, a chat with a sister station in South Carolina yesterday morning, underscored the fact that Romney, although almost popular in Iowa (taking 8 votes give or take over Santorum), then winning New Hampshire, means very little to those in South Carolina, even in the Urban Areas, where one would expect Romney to do well. One can pretty much be the house that Gingrich and Paul, and Possibly Santorum or Perry will finish above Romney in the Palmetto State.

The balance of the primary and caucus states: Regardless of Romney’s war chest, there is more than a better chance that he’ll command a lead in 8 to 9 other states, tying or exceeding his showing in 2008.

Should that occur watch Super Tuesday: Shock and Awe from Pundits in the media and the RNC who will be dealt a blow should either Paul or Gingrich (likely both) pull the balance of the states. It may take at least 24 hours for them to turn around and being to extol the virtues of another candidate, and the fact that Romney was expected to do well in certain states, but just could not break above 20 in the balance.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Romney Compares His Work at Bain to Obama's GM Bailout!

In a this 2012 general election there are certain comparisons that should not be made, not even in jest, especially by "establishment" GOP Candidate - Mitt Romney, and that is to compare himself to the President. Not only is Romney known as a progressive (who would lose the 60 plus vote in Massachsuetts in a heartbeat - that's another story), but he's gone on the record (CBS not Fox) as running Bain just like Obama ran the Auto Bailout. This is why it is sensible not to crown a frontrunner after only one mediocre win in the first caucus, and one fair win in one of the man's home state's.

Complete video and more from

Romney Wins New Hampshire, Paul Strong Second, Romney's PAC Heads South - Analysis and Commentary

Romney Takes 86,000 of 186,000 votes in New Hampshire Primary – Romney Super PAC Moves to FL – Ron Paul Strong Showing, Gingrich & Perry Move to Friendly Territory

Romney, Gingrich and Paul at a debate, the Debate will be the national Ad that makes or breaks the General Election Race - image: Huffington Post

The full New GOP Hampshire Primary Results are in at the New Hampshire Union Leader, placing first was Mitt Romney taking over one in two votes casts in the Granite State, where he has campaign since 2006. Romney was expected to win New Hampshire, along with Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman who had strong campaigns on the ground for extended periods of time. Ron Paul came in a decisive second with 48,000 plus votes, followed by Jon Huntsman at 35,000 (approximate) and Newt Gingrich 4th, besting Rick Santorum by fewer than 100 votes, Rick Perry, who had not set foot in the state, with the exception of the debates, came in 6th.

The big story was Ron Paul’s strong showing – although Paul was not physically present in the state for the same amount of time that Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney (by virtue of having one of his homes there), were, it was his massive organization that brought the strong second place finish to the Paul Campaign. CNN (who had the best comprehensive and unbiased coverage of this debate), offered several bells and whistles for political junkies, including a focus group from South Carolina that judged each candidates speech, allowing viewers to watch a “line” of approval or disapproval, separated by gender, as the candidates each gave their post primary results speech, along with demographics as to how well each candidate did among specific voter groups. Paul, who did not gender great enthusiasm, but respectable enthusiasm from the focus group, also attracts the highest percentage of independent voters, which would be a large plus in a general election. Romney’s speech was spot on, more meat than policy; however, he cannot garner the enthusiasm that projects any charisma whatsoever, coming off more as flat and more boring that Rick Santorum’s sweater vest. The Focus Groups dial moved erratically up and down as he was speaking. It was anticipated that Romney would win New Hampshire, he had placed second in 2008, against John McCain, and therefore, it was the 2nd, 3rd and 4th placements that were most interesting.

Jon Huntsman, while giving his speech, basically “flat-lined” with the focus group – garnering almost zero enthusiasm with those South Carolinians who were watching the post debate speakers, while the greatest enthusiasm came for Newt Gingrich, who spoke after Santorum (who also did not do well with the focus group) - Gingrich knows where his territory lay, and it was never in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Of note, in Romney’s speech he not only attacked the President (as he has all along) but also those rivals who he characterized as “desperate Republican’s”, specifically targeting Gingrich for running ads against Romney. To set the record straight from a Massachusetts point of view: (Read Romney’s Super PAC goes in for the Kill) Romney’s Super Pac is a large part of his campaign, and under the PAC a destroy Newt Gingrich approach was taken in Iowa and it worked. The ads were not overly factual however, very effective as Gingrich took a higher road, and responded only after the Caucus was over.

Once the group of candidates were headed to New Hampshire, the gloves came off, and Gingrich began to take a different tactic – as well as having a Super Pac of his own that began to target Romney – As Romney was the favorite in New Hampshire and with the beltway pundits, which now include, of all people, Rush Limbaugh, (A startling revelation to understand that Rush Limbaugh is not an independent right ring conservative, rather a cheerleader for the party dogma - thus giving Hilary Clinton points for being right in part- it was not a vast right wing conspiracy, it was just the GOP learning that the airwaves were very effective.) Gingrich hit a populist tone going into New Hampshire, critical of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, and how these types of leverage buyout groups work. This may “sound like a Democrat” to Romany fan, but it is a simple fact that in some instances, corporations raid other corporations for the money, and leave human capital in shambles. This is not an issue for Democrats alone, and one can bet the house that the Obama campaign will focus on Bain and the personal disasters the group caused – they merely need to pull out the old Ted Kennedy 1994 Senate Campaign ads, to do just that.

That is Romney’s baggage, that and his record on taxes, along with his record of no job creation in MA, and no one knows what was released when the Attorney General of Massachusetts, gave full access to Romney’s sealed gubernatorial papers. Romney tried hard to block that action but failed. One has to understand that Galvin would give that information gladly to the first Democrat operative that came calling. The problem with Romney in taking the fight to Obama is that he does have baggage, just like Gingrich, but his baggage spans from 1990 to 2008, while Gingrich’s record is up for review from the 1990’s. This battle will continue in South Carolina, where it should get interesting. The fact that some pundits are noting that Gingrich’s sole purpose in the camping is to stop Romney have been drinking the GOP Kool-Aid, Gingrich is in the campaign, like Santorum, Like Perry, like Paul and like Huntsman because it is clearly evident those candidates feel they were called to run. In the case of Romney, one wonders if he is there to serve his ego or the nation.

It is evident this blog is not a huge fan of Romney, but one must consider that this blog is generated from Massachusetts, and by a Conservative Moderate, who leans both right and left at times, depending upon the issue. As a resident under Romney, it was evident he balanced the budget on the backs of the taxpayers, instituted social programs that were anathema to anyone who has an ounce of Conservatism in them, and the only thing that one positive that one can remember is the fact that he refused to give state security to an Al Queda sympathizer who was speaking at Harvard.

Therefore, one understands, within the state, the extreme moderate that makes Romney the perfect John McCain. Does the GOP really want John McCain’s doppelganger to head the ticket? Possibly, they are more interested in taking back the senate that actually taking the White House and Romney fits that bill to a tee.

As the candidates head to South Carolina which is truly the gateway to the Presidency, on January 21st (or in 9 days from now) it will become apparent which of the candidates will remain standing through Super Tuesday. Romney, who placed 4th in the Carolina’s in 2008 with 15% of the vote, the big winners were Mike Huckabee and John McCain who placed 2nd and first respectively. The candidate the pulls out of South Carolina in the lead, has predicatively become the Party’s nominee, which is why those who finished in 2nd through 4th in the first two contests out of 50, are not overly concerned at this point. That may or may not change in 9 days, however, it is doubtful that certain candidates will be able to carry forward going into South Carolina, where they may lack organization in the Palmetto State, chief among them is Rick Santorum, who rose swiftly in Iowa, and expected a better showing in New Hampshire.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry will be the two to watch going into that particular state, given the fact that they have invested in the Carolinas, and have southern roots. The Paul campaign will most likely focus on more eastern/western states where they can, in all seriousness, do well enough to take this race to the Convention. It’s still anyone’s game, despite the drumbeat. With all due respect to Mitt Romney, who one can be sure is a very smart guy, and one who is patriotic, offers nothing concrete in a comparative way to the President, and, in addition, appears to take great umbrage at criticism, coupled with lackluster debates performances, he would be the weakest of the candidates, besides Jon Huntsman to put up against the President. In addition, a strong social conservative, might also be in the same boat. This leaves few valid choices, chief among them the former Speaker of the House.

It will be the individual that the voter’s trust in this election, more than any other factor, despite the polls and despite the pundits, that will win the day, as to who that individual may be – no-one knows at this point, with only two small contests, although titled as the “first”, past, it is far too early to crown a front-runner in terms of the entire election. Once the dust settles on Super Tuesday (March 6th), then the front-runner (or front-runners as the case may be) will be glaringly apparent.

Article of note from Politico: ”Newt Gingrich leaves New Hampshire on high note, despite primary loss”

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Fear 2012 - 2 in 1 Choose Obama Reelection – US News and World Report – Who Can’t Best Obama – The Import of the GOP Primaries

The primary process will decide who faces President Obama in 2012 Election: pictured Newt Gingrich and the President - image form

U.S. News and World Reportsare citing multiple polls that suggest 2 in one American’s fear Obama’s reelection more than any other event in 2012. Second in events is a rise in taxes, something that seems inevitable with a second Obama term. However, the poll that they cite is internet based, and one must be extremely cautious when approaching internet polling. It is the Gallup daily tracking poll that suggests reelection is unlikely at this time – other polling institutions, such as those that are campus based, or those that are politically ideological (see Rasmussen as leaning right and Public Policy Polling as leaning left), are sometimes suspected of leaning in favor of the GOP and/or the Democrat Party. In the end, it is the reality of the economy, foreign policy decisions and extremely unpopular legislation that is the crux of the matter - and those factors, regardless of the political party, will signal a change in administrations.

Therefore, the voting public has a decision to make, if not Obama - then which of the Republican field is best suited to lead the nation forward? The pollsters, pundits and Washington Establishment (which includes members of Congress, and the aforementioned) appear to be pushing Mitt Romney as the inevitable nominee, however, the truth of the matter is, at this point in time, any one of those candidates, from the lowest polling to Romney, are capable of winning the White House – it comes down to the voters choice, and the order of states in which voting takes place. Today there will be a vote in New Hampshire, and although Romney is the favorite there, and has been touted in the media as going into New Hampshire with a “win” in Iowa (it was a small amount of votes, but a win non-the-less, not a mandate), the main problem with Mitt Romney, or perhaps Mitt Romney’s main problem is that he does not resonate with the primary voters. The reasons vary, from the very superficial to those who feel his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts left a record behind of increased taxes and a loss of small business, and many broken promises to those who aided him in his campaign for Governor and then President in 2008. He also has a history of extreme changes in policy regarding not only social issues, which drive a percentage of the GOP, but in all policy – he is a moderate to the core – a point that one must carefully examine and challenge prior to casting a vote.

The moderates of the GOP are not unlike the DNC candidates, in both temperament and ideology – some may feel that is necessary for compromise, others find this to be untenable and most believe that the moderate wing of the GOP (the Snows, the McCain’s, the Romney’s) cannot differentiate themselves enough from the status quo and will therefore be ineffective in governing – it is that moderation that crosses the line between being principled and voting against one’s own political party at times in order to work for the American people, rather than doing what one feels will win an election or popularity with the media and or their peers. There are others who will stand steadfast in their beliefs regardless of their party affiliation, and will act independently – a good example is one Senator Scott Brown, who, prior to the election, and although a Republican, noted that he would not always vote with his party, but for what he felt was best for his constituents. He has done just that in his tenure in the Senate, and although facing reelection is favored to win – he is extremely popular in Massachusetts, even though he angers those on the left and the right for voting in the Commonwealth’s interest. That is the type of candidate that the nation is most likely to elect – and that mold does not fit either the President or Mitt Romney – those who will do or say anything to get elected, and then, when in office, to serve the public, appear to serve themselves, and their party.

Understandably, the choice is not always clear, and the notion that an extended and nasty primary with multiple candidates is not in the nation’s best interest, is hogwash. The primary seasons ends in June with the nominating Convention held in August, therefore to push a particular candidate as the eventual nominee, before the first vote was cast, is an insult to the public. This will be true regardless of which political party and philosophy one subscribes – the primary process, in its entirety, gives more time for the public to decide which candidate, from both sides will better serve the nation. It is a job that not many would want to take, and the motivation could not be financial reward , nor the fact that the President is viewed as the most powerful figure in the nation (or should be), a leader that is shapes Foreign policy and the economy, someone with the backbone and the knowledge going into the job, that they are most likely to be challenged and berated at every step – turned on by members of their own party, and the public – it accounts for the overnight aging one sees in each President, as they either enjoy peace time or war, a good economy or bad, it is an inevitable part of the “job” for which the American public hires a President. That is what is lacking – it is the humility, regardless of primary primping and hubris that some candidates may display, that the candidates shows when speaking of the office as one in which they are working for the American people, hired on a temporary basis in order to steer the ship.

As a nation, it is doubtful that choice has been made, and it becomes more evident that many candidates on the GOP side are doing their best to ensure that the most powerful (media, pundits and those in the Washington Establishment) allow a person to make up their own minds – which is most important in this election year. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, are all, to a man, pointing out Mitt Romney’s “faults” as a candidate – and that is not always seen as a positive – but it should be. The two or three or four candidates that go forward, beyond South Carolina and Florida, and stay in the race on Super Tuesday, will do a larger service than the American Public may know, and one of those will be the nominee. It may be Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Jon Huntsman, or Ron Paul or Rick Perry, it will be their showing in this (to borrow a thought from Speaker Gingrich) tortoise race to the finish, that will produce the nominee, and that nominee will be battle hardened and tested, not only by the negatives coming from their own peers, but by the race itself and the peoples in those primary and caucus states that will be voting for one over another.

The focus on money and the billions here and millions there that are necessary to run ads, and keep a campaign in the black to continue, is appropriate to an extent, and one should know that a individual may be polling last, and yet, when one wins or places in this large a field, money does come in from all sources, and that includes the PACS.

Therefore, one must choose their vote based not on the media, nor the polling, but on what that particular candidate offers in the way of similar beliefs, and how well that candidate is prepared to take on the roll of the President. There will be a healthy back and forth, and in the end, there will be those that drop out of the race, perhaps after today’s New Hampshire decision (which is unlikely), perhaps after the South Carolina primary (which is more likely), and those three or four that are still standing on Super Tuesday, will ensure that the public has a fair advantage in choosing the nominee. The notion that one candidate alone can win the White House is a fallacy, especially in this election cycle – it is the one that will be vetted after a protracted primary process that will be the best choice. Again, it may be Mitt Romney, it may not, it may be the Speaker Gingrich, and it may be Ron Paul (regardless of the fact that many pundits and the media as well as well as rank and file Republicans may naysay his chances due to his Libertarian leanings). It may be any one of those that are in New Hampshire today or heading this morning to South Carolina, or already there, campaigning.

It is the candidate that the people choose, not the media, nor the Beltway that will win the day – regardless of the polls, and regardless of the constant rush to nominate – the last candidate in the position of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, at this stage in 1979 was one Ronald Reagan – and he led the nation to years of prosperity and peace – therefore it behooves every one that is casting a vote – to choose with both head and heart. There will never be another Regan, but there may be a Gingrich or Santorum or Perry or Paul, or yes, Romney that will shape the course of history and drive the nation back to prosperity and peace, and in our lifetime. The choice is the public’s to make.

One last note on endorsements: Although the endorsements from the media, movies stars, peers and pundits appear to play a factor in the race, they most often boost a candidate’s moral, and on the flip side, loose votes, depending on how the public views the endorser, as well as the endorsee. It is the endorsement of the voter that counts – and that is best to be kept in mind.

Monday, January 09, 2012

Digging Deep for Dirt – Blog on Mitt Romney’s Arrest for Defying Park Ranger – Obama’s Campaign Seeks Fodder – CBS Blames “Social Media” then defends

Does this man look capable of defying a Park Ranger? Image:

Going negative appears to be the way the 2012 campaign will shape up and Bob Schieffer of CBS News appears to be rather upset. He correctly points out the in his article how attack ads run by campaigns in primary and caucus states can be seen in all states, via the internet and cable news outlets, yet, then blames social media as redefining attack ads. Apparently, the “mainstream media” is a bit put out by this lack of dignity in reporting every single ridiculous “flaw” a candidate may have – with one exception; the current occupant of the White House continues to appear to be “off-limits”. In his essay, he rails on the attack ads and the spread of information at such a rapid pace, especially the fact that these attack ads are available everywhere - then sums it all up with “That’s the way it is”. Understanding that some people never leave the rock from which they have neatly placed themselves, be it Manhattan or Hollywood or the Beltway, the rest of the nation consumes news from all sources, and compares and contrasts constantly. One can find instances where a blog insinuates, this is then picked up by a larger internet outlet, and the next thing one knows it is being touted by a major daily or network website as “fact”, with little checking apparently as to the truth of the matter. It is the need for “gotcha” headlines, competition for viewers that propagates the news cycle as well as any agenda that may be political in nature.

It is the drumbeat of the media that is now driving the GOP campaign and it is no secret that the “favored candidate (or the next McCain) is Mitt Romney. Romney, for all intents and purposes, may or may not be the best candidate for the job, but that does not prevent the Beltway and pundits from calling for a quick end to the primary, and pushing Romney’s 8 point possible in Iowa and his polling in double digits in NH as proof (without noting that Santorum may have won Iowa and that the poll (Suffolk University), has an undecided-may change mind rate equal to Romney’s lead) that Romney is the understood nominee – no need for anyone else to vote, or run – it is sensible in their minds to call it quits now – that way, the Romney Campaign can go after Obama.

When Romney and Ron Paul (the two most egregious in this respect) run attack ads on candidates they see as a threat to their campaigns, regardless of the accuracy of these ads, and the victim calls them out, the victim is put on notice as being “not tough enough to take the heat”. Should the victim of Ron Paul or Mitt Romney run an attack ad, or have a PAC do the same, then that person is not running a “positive campaign”- regardless of the fact that the ads are somewhat different in so much as they show valid records, rather than semi-truths. It is the media that perpetuates these ads. One would think the GOP would know better, given that is exactly what happened to McCain in 2008 – He was prime-time news 24/7 until he was the presumptive nominee, then one barely saw an article or headline – but one did see a great deal of the opposition candidate, now our current President on the morning, evening and late evening news, cable outlets, etc. Therefore, logic follows that a healthy and robust primary with multiple candidates putting forth solid ideas, would not only give the nation the time to decide the best candidate, but in addition, confound the opposition for a bit longer. In addition, if one were to be not quite front-runner enough, then it would further make opposition research difficult – it is ridiculous to think – in this day of 24/7 news, that there would be no time to campaign effectively between the nomination in August and the vote in November. It is also insane to believe that the money would not be there, campaigns run on shoestrings, especially with the social media (as pointed out by Mr. Schieffer) are increasingly effective, at a lower cost that television ads – and since ads run on the internet, are broadcast for free on Cable News Programs – as news – then this is good news, not bad news for the GOP.

The GOP is in the driver’s seat on this one, lest anyone kid anyone else – not since Jimmy Carter, has an administration held such low approval, or repeated, verbatim, the very steps in economics and foreign policy that lost Carter reelection. As a matter of fact, it does not require Ronald Reagan, and it does to matter if one is a social and fiscal conservative, what matters is that one is not – Obama. This does not mean the campaign will be a walk in the park, however, applying a bit of strategy to the choice and length of time between choices will have a net positive effect for the GOP – (which may be why those more moderate Republicans who always want the media on their side, and the Media who is heavily vested in the opposition candidate, want this over with now – before South Carolina weighs in, before Florida and before Super Tuesday. If Mitt Romney is to be the nominee, then he must be able to carry the south and the Midwest, with enthusiasm in order to best Obama – that’s the question that’s lingering. The man needs an edge and he is described most often as “wooden” (heck he even uses a teleprompter).

Romney is given the pass as being squeaky clean, and no-where does one here the actual facts of his very short Governorship of Massachusetts. It is true that he balanced the budget, it is true that he worked across the aisle, it is also true, that he did both at the expense of those who have to actually work for a living through excess fees. Compare and contrasts ads using Romney’s record as Governor is all that is needed for any campaign – but courtesy of Red State comes the tale of Mitt Romney’s arrest back in 1981! Apparently according to the Boston Globe archives, in 1981 Romney took his family boating in Natick, MA. Apparently (from the truncated version of the archive), there must have been a license on the boat, but obscured, enough so that Romney was ordered out of the water or face a fine. He chose to face a fine, and put his boat in the water (something anyone of us might do under the circumstances) – the Park Ranger took umbrage, and promptly cuffed Romney and off he went to jail – for defying a Park Ranger’s orders.

Romney, who is often referred to as the “Ken doll” of Massachusetts Policies, can be seen as a real threat to then action for defying what amounts to an officer of the Park. Red State believes this will be seen as an elitist move by Romney, however, it really appears to be a Massachusetts move – one which could be repeated by anyone who felt that there was enough of a permit or license showing, and figured, what the heck I’ll just go for a ride anyway and pay the fine. This is the stuff that makes the Obama opposition research team salivate, especially since Romney’s Record as governor of Massachusetts is so similar in some instances to Obama’s there is little there. In fact, the same can be said of any candidate in the field. They are, all to a man, (no woman now) “squeaky clean” – without a whole lot of explaining to do.

Also, with the Boston Globe it is obvious that seal records mean little, in their pursuit of “news”.

There was one other incident that Red State pointed to as “elitist” – Apparently; Romney used rather colorful language when upset with a security guard at the Olympics. That has been translated into putting down someone who is there to protect and serve. Frankly, if one hasn’t used rather colorful language when involved with security personal, be it parking one’s car, or trying to get around a road hazard, then one if simply – full of it.
This makes Romney more human, he should be running his own attack ad against himself on this one – it would help not hurt.

In all seriousness, there are several candidates that are worthy, that all will, regardless of experience, receive “on the job training” simply because none has ever been President, a job, seriously, that one has to be slightly unhinged and very patriotic to want in the first place. This is especially true for a Republican who knows that they have to fix everything in short order, constantly bucking a media that will turn on them as if they were the anti-Christ as soon as elected (ok, before they are elected).

This blog makes no secret that Gingrich is the preferred candidate, history professor, former Speaker of the House, does not use a teleprompter, and has, contrary to the hype, imploded due to his own lack of control – he is at a steady pace, and was likely not to win in Iowa or New Hampshire to being with, put to place respectably which he has. It is South Carolina where the nominee has been predicted time and again, so, this blog will keep its powder dry and call it like it’s seen until that point. If there is another minuscule lead, that will not be considered a mandate (see Iowa), and it will be business as usual through Super Tuesday. At that juncture the field should narrow and one should see either one or three contenders going forward. They are all capable; they just need the funds to carry it off. Of course, the more human Romney appears, the more likely he’ll attract voters – outside of New Hampshire, Wyoming, the Congress, the Beltway, CBC, FOX ad nasuem.
Going into tomorrow’s New Hampshire primary, the results may, in the end (given the number of undecided as of yesterday) make placement in NH a moot point for Romney, or for that matter any of the “runners” up – NH is another state where everyone wins.

It will be the winner take all states come Super Tuesday and beyond that will allow for a clear nominee, unless of course, there are two, then the GOP would be assured of intense coverage of their Convention. If anyone knows this, and understand that history repeats that would be Newt Gingrich, the man most likely to take debate to a new level, which would, in the end, be the most effective weapon in his campaign chest, and what, to this mind, make him the most electable as well as the best choice, (given his record) to run the country.

Sunday, January 08, 2012

New Hampshire Debate Winner January 9 NBC Meet the Press – Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman – Romney not on Top Game – Ron Paul Compares to Romney

Rick Santorum NBC NH Debate Winner - photo Boston Globe: Read Article: "Rick Santorum known for outrunning expectations"

The NBC New Hampshire Debate which took place this morning had a bit more meat to it than last evenings date on ABC. There was a good back and forth between the candidates, and it was evident that Romney was the target – each of the candidates took aim and did, indeed make Romney appear as a Massachusetts Moderate. Questions poised to Romney from the moderators helped in their endeavors, and, as the replays of Meet The Press are being broadcast into Sunday Morning political junkies homes, it may help those 34% of New Hampshire undecided’s (Suffolk University Poll taken on January 6th which had Romney with a wide lead), change their minds about Mitt Romney, in a way they did in 2008 when McCain ran contrast ads on Romney’s record.

Clips from the Debate are available here at - however, as sound-bites only.

New Hampshire, which has gone from a Democrat to moderate Conservative to Tea Party State, will go to the polls on Tuesday and the order of the candidates as far as first, second, third and fourth will be decided will be decided that evening. With primary states, the results should be in fairly early Tuesday evening.

Romney is favored to win, and it is more than likely members of the Massachusetts GOP, especially the newly elected Chair Robert Maginn, a staunch Democrat supporter will do all he can to aid Romney a part time Commonwealth resident. The prior statement was made not in fact, but in the spirit of a Massachusetts native who is tired of the “Country Club, Moderate, Republican State Party” as well as illusion created that the former Governor, Mitt Romney, somehow had a positive effect on those of us who were left here behind when he abandoned the State early in his governorship, to run for President in 2008. We were left with higher “fees” (i.e. taxes), a health care program that was indeed the model for “Obamacare”, and fewer jobs.

If the media feels Newt Gingrich is angry over statements made by Mitt Romney, then perhaps there should be a poll of Massachusetts residents who lived in the state during Romney’s tenure, including former members of the State GOP.

It will, when all is said and done, come down to South Carolina, and the top tier in that State will determine the balance of the entire campaign. It will matter who comes out of New Hampshire with a bump, as those candidates will be in a better position to raise funds going into the Southern primaries of S.C. and Florida, prior to Super Tuesday.

The debate did not have a particular clear winner, other than the fact that Santorum had the most time, as well as Huntsman, to answer Romney yet again; both Gingrich and Perry were credible and straightforward in their answers. Santorum is now the leading Conservative in the race based on his performance in the last two debates, it remains to be seen if that will translate into the same type of results come Tuesday.

ABC New Hampshire Debate Winner January 8 – Santorum and Huntsman, Romney Robotic, Gingrich – Perry shut out of Debate forum.

Santorum and Romney NH Debate 1 8 12 - image MSNBC

The ABC New Hampshire Debate which took place last evening and is being touted as a win for Romney by the media, is being viewed somewhat differently from those watching the debate and wondering why the Media is now “in the tank” for Romney (perhaps it’s his use of a teleprompter – see Iowa post-caucus speech, where he did not use his teleprompter as he wanted to “speak from the heart”), perhaps it’s the fact that Obama’s team is more prepared for Romney than any other candidate, or perhaps, just perhaps, they see an Obama defeat, and want the most progressive, moderate to win the nomination. However, the manner in which the placement of the candidates and the focus on certain candidates was done, it left one with the impression that Rick Santorum and John Huntsman were of most import (and this may have been done to polling placement as well, however – it did not help Mitt Romney or particularly hurt him nationally) – Ron Paul’s attacks on Santorum left no doubt that Santorum is now the front-runner, and although he has, from the beginning left Romney alone, it may be due to the fact that Paul perceived himself as the Anti-Romney.
It was, in truth, boring.

Those who consider themselves political junkies were looking for a fight and/or a contrast between the much hyped Gingrich-Romney feud, yet, Gingrich took few shots at Romney, most likely by design and most likely because he was not offered a chance. Rick Perry’s performance was standard Perry – he was sensible up until his comments on the Iraq War, stumbled a bit in some speech, but at this point in the game, know that all will be won or lost in SC. The next debate in less than one hour, on NBC’s “meet the press”, one may find it is not on one’s local listings as a debate. It will be interesting to see how this debate is formatted, (seating wise it may be expected to remain the same).

Therefore, the ABC debate winner was clearly Santorum, for his clear concise remarks, and his rebuttals and defense of attacks by Ron Paul. Second was Romney, by virtue of the length of time he took up during the debate, and his constant smile, - noted by some as “somewhat creepy, but it looks like he knows what he’s talking about, even though what he is saying makes little sense”. Thank God for DVR’s, as what this blogger found about Mitt Romney, is that not unlike McCain, he is the national sleeping pill, in this opinion, and having watched perhaps too many debates, his tone is steady, he never wavers, and he has the look of someone who is in Control, yet in a monochrome manner, which can be soothing – so much so that no one can possibly pay attention, and falls into a near coma as a result. It was the same tactic, and look, that was also evident in the DNC debates of 2008 – whereby Obama would look like he was talking and yet, Clinton has excitement on her side.
Here is the warning, it is the candidate that is inspiring and that will get out the vote, from both Conservatives and moderates and yes Democrats, not the monochrome, made for TV candidate, that will win the day in this election – when one has no contrast with one’s opponent as far as the general public perceives, then there is the old adage: better the devil we know, than the devil we don’t.

Judging from the responses, Santorum clearly won, and Romney is the guy that is most like Obama – this was not this bloggers first impression. The first impression was that Romney had won, based on steady answers, length of time, and the shut out of the most formidable debater (New Gingrich), however, after listening to others that were not as heavily vested, and reviewing the tapes, indeed, it is Santorum who was clearly the winner in this debate.

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address