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”

2012 GOP CNN Debate 11-22-11 – Debate Winner - Newt Gingrich - Bachmann Holds Own on National Security - Overview, Analysis – Full Video

Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, during the singing of the National Anthem CNN GOP Debate 11 22 11, image: The Hollywood Reporter



The 2012 GO National Security Debate was held last evening on CNN and co-sponsored by the the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. CNN made the broadcast available on the Armed Forces Network, CNN en Español, CNN International, CNN Radio and CNN.com. A full video appears below. It was without a doubt, along with the debates on the economy, one of the most important debates for the candidates to not only do well, but also to express their views on the protection of the nation, as well as how one would face the challenges that might arise now and in the future. Of all the candidates on that stage, the most qualified was apparent from the moment he took the first question, and that on individual is Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was steady, clear, precise, and above all, not over reactionary. He answered each question specifically and without rhetoric, which was perhaps, on points, the most measured responses from a candidate to date in this most interesting and qualified field. Surely in second place was Michele Bachmann, the Congressional Representative from the Minnesota 6th District and a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was also clear in her responses, it was the gravitas displayed by Gingrich that gave him the clear lead. In this arena it was clear that Gingrich and Bachmann, were the the two who hold the most credentialed experience in national security.

The balance of the candidates:

Dr. Ron Paul, Congressional Representative, Texas, was true to his pure Libertarian ideology, which, in this debate arena, placed him at a slight disadvantage, he performs the best in debates on economics, as does Herman Cain, Businessman and CEO, who was clearly out of his depth in this arena, Jon Huntsman, Governor of Utah, understands China, perhaps better than the other candidates but is limited in his approach in the debate arena, focusing on that nation, and repetitious in his responses. Rick Santorum, the Senator from Pennsylvania who is most enthusiastic, also looks to his past in each answer, which, normally begins with (paraphrasing) “I’ve already done such and such…” (Wrote a piece of legislation or was part of a committee, etc.). To his credit, he is one of two that answered the following question, not only in a response as asked, but clearly and with accuracy. The Question (again paraphrasing: refer to video) what national security issue was not addressed in tonight’s debate? Santorum, the first to answer, brought up the clear and present danger in South America – Santorum, should the Republican Candidate be successful in the 2012 campaign, be assigned to a position that is most suited to his expertise – it would be a shame to waste that type of talent. Herman Cain answered pointedly but did not expound, and Newt Gingrich gave a clear three point answer to the question, as with all questions, leaving no doubt as to this meaning or intentions.

Mitt Romney, who is seen by some as the front runner and eventual nominee, was simply not prepared for this forum. He was too busy campaigning against Obama in his answers rather than clearly stating his positions. In addition, he made a few mistakes as to the state of certain nations (specifically Indonesia – where the security of that nation is at risk, especially from radical Islamic forces, so much so that it is in turmoil – see strategypage.com article from the 12th of November, 2011.) That said, other than getting tongue tied during an answer (which, one would not want to see in a debate against Barack Obama even though the current President had done the same in the past, during the 2008 Democrat primary), Romney stayed on “campaign”. This is something one should notice about Romney that perhaps has not be brought to light, however, the man is a patriot, one has to look past the clips of campaign Romney, or economic Romney, to the opening of each debate where the national anthem is played. Romney gains points for his appearance and his singing along (silently or otherwise) with passion and pride, one might add, to the National Anthem. That penchant to sing (or lip sync) the National Anthem is one thing noticed and noted, he truly loves this country. That is not to say the other candidate do so no more or no less, but in last night’s debate, one is remind ended of former 2008 Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, who was caught on tape, singing along to the national anthem. It was a move than endeared her to those who value the nation and what it has to offer, and care less about a public display. Her critics were first to note her ability to sing, rather than praise her for her obvious patriotism. That said, Romney’s performance overall left him in the Perry category. Perry, also a patriot, was more out of his debate depth than Romney, and clearly not up for a national security debate.

This is one of two debates where it the answers are critical, the stance on the issues at hand should be measured, not reactionary and that clearly places on individual ahead: Newt Gingrich.

The tension: Where Newt gave the answer in a clear and specific manner, on illegal immigrants, and his heartfelt, and Catholic (Universal) view of compassion when it come to the family that has been in this nation for 25 years, has an extended family, and attends church, pays taxes, et. al. Gingrich proposes allowing them to stay in the United States and giving them a legal status (not citizenship), in addition, when one is in this nation illegally and joins the armed forces, that person should be allowed a path to citizenship. This is something that happens consistently with nationals from other nations who are here on visa’s, of any type. His answer was quickly seized upon by the other candidates as “amnesty”, yet, Gingrich held firm. It is without a doubt, a red meat question, when it comes to what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants living and working in our nation. It is without a doubt, the last “problem” any candidate has yet to give an answer to, and or if an answer has been given, has done anything about once installed in the Oval Office, and this is a failing of Presidents on both sides of the aisle, and goes back beyond Ronald Reagan. It was, as one of this blogs more right of center peers stated, a problem for Conservatives, and yet, what amazes this individual of Spanish decent, nothing is ever done, especially from those who spout the most vitriol against those here in our nation illegally. Therefore, the answer given last night by Gingrich, clear, fair and one which could be easily implemented would appeal to most moderates, those compassionate conservatives, and the Hispanic/Latino Community.

From a true left of center independent, watching this debate, Gingrich stood above the rest, in terms of intellect, and has now become “human”. Someone who is likable when need be and one who is tough as the occasion demands. The second choice – startling to this blogger was Bachmann. Startling because of the choices – in the conversation was the following that should give Gingrich the biggest boost. (Paraphrasing) With today’s economy and the state of the world, Gingrich is the best choice to lead the nation, I would not have thought so ten years ago, or ten months ago, but after seeing him in several debates, he is clearly the smartest in the room, and we need someone who is smart.
What might be most interesting about the two responses, one is an avowed Massachusetts Right Voting evangelical, the other, a New Yorker, who more often than not, votes along the alternative party line.

Two do not make a poll obviously, however, if the smartest man in the room, is the choice, even despite a disagreement on an answer on immigration which was immediately misquoted by candidates on stage, of two so diverse political voters, one has to ask, take away the party purists from the Democrats, and those left, are most likely leaning with Newt. Those on the right, are most likely forgiving Newt his past, and looking at him as the one to trounce the President in the debate arena, and in the polls (this is yet to occur, however as Romney has been given the most media attention as the “eventual nominee”, and polls are now just beginning to show Gingrich equal to or above Romney”, a first look by many will clearly move those numbers in Newts’ favor should his debate performance remain constant going into the Iowa primary.

The next debate will be held on December 10, 2011, co - sponsored by the Des Moines Register and the Iowa Republican Party and broadcast on ABC News at 9:00 PM eastern.

The Iowa Caucus is the first 2012 general election decision made, followed by New Hampshire, the first primary in the nation. Both will take place in early January, just six weeks or less from today.

CNN Debate Video